Are you trying to suggest that men are not allowed to ask for divorce? Or that children don't care about aging parents? Or that women die sooner then men at 50 and male husbands care about dying women?
Generally divorce produces a disproportionate benefit (relative to other parties) to women, even when initiated with cause by the husband.
> Or that children don't care about aging parents?
Children become adults and end up with lives of their own (more so than husbands), and if the statistics are to be trusted, generally women who live alone (primarily in the legal sense) past their 50s die faster and suffer more.
> Or that women die sooner then men at 50 and male husbands care about dying women?
I don't know how you extracted that, but I meant that women generally become less appreciated (by strangers) by and past their 50s (and that's charitably, often its 40s), and have more trouble finding and maintaining companionship (and romance, if it's on their minds). For men the curve is basically the opposite, they're unwanted (except professionally) when they're young, and gain social/financial/sexual capital into their 40s.
My point is that accounting somewhat for this imbalance (where women's appeal is front-loaded, and men's comes later) is an explicit purpose of the institution of marriage.
P.S. before anyone gets in a tizzy and starts listing exceptions, note (if it's not already obvious) that I am speaking in generalities here.
http://www.marripedia.org/effects.of.divorce.on.financial.st...
Says among other things: Almost half of American families experience poverty following a divorce,1) and 75 percent of all women who apply for welfare benefits do so because of a disrupted marriage or a disrupted relationship in which they live with a male outside of marriage. ... This study found that single divorced women's median family income dropped 45 percent, while the median income of remarried or cohabiting women was 14 percent lower than before their divorce.
Or this one: http://www.nber.org/digest/jul02/w8786.html
... family income of children whose parents divorce and remain divorced for at least six years falls by 40 to 45 percent. Food consumption is also reduced by 17 percent.
That being said, the number that says household income decreases 45% seems pretty hopeful. That means that these women end up (in aggregate) making 55% of the income of (potentially) a two-income household. If you're willing to adjust your housing arrangement after a change like that, you'll generally get by just fine†.
As for the food consumption figure (which seems difficult to make numeric, to me [is it normalized by dollars? by calories? by weight?]), I'm sure that was once an important outcome, generally in the U.S. a reduction in overall food consumption of less than one fifth is no disaster†. A reduction in consumption makes sense after a reduction in household income.
Added:
> or a disrupted relationship in which they live with a male outside of marriage
This would seem to mess with the numbers a bit, since generally non-marriage relationship splits (which should be as or more common than divorces, in general†) don't end in a court-mediated property division†, and when they do, it doesn't work out the way that divorce proceedings do†.
† no data to back this up, mostly baseless conjecture.
It certainly is a great option for more typically-straight women than typically-straight men, as female sexuality is generally considered/observed to be more malleable; but it ain't for everyone.
More power to 'em indeed.
> if the statistics are to be trusted, generally women who live alone (primarily in the legal sense) past their 50s die faster and suffer more.
This is completely irrelevant. Men who live alone also die faster and suffer more.
> My point is that accounting somewhat for this imbalance (where women's appeal is front-loaded, and men's comes later) is an explicit purpose of the institution of marriage.
The post you was responding to was about marriage 1868. Whatever imbalance is there now in completely different society is not relevant to that.
Not simultaneously, men paying for a divorce are at an obvious disadvantage, and I was saying that men in their 40s are better off, not men in their 50s (though that's generally true [at least fiscally, at the cost of health and potential] as well).
> This is completely irrelevant. Men who live alone also die faster and suffer more.
Middle aged unattached men (who have not sabotaged themselves) have an easier time not being alone, generally (even if a significant number choose not to take the initiative).
> The post you was responding to was about marriage 1868
I am responding to a contemporary continuance of this belief, I don't think I can comment well at all on the historic balance of benefits and drawbacks for the parties of a marriage in 1868. If this is the main bone being picked, I'm sorry for causing confusion.
That is completely different statement then "men paying for a divorce are at an obvious disadvantage".
> Middle aged unattached men have an easier time not being alone, generally.
Are they really? People on this site tend to argue the opposite - that men tend to be unhappier after divorce and that men are more likely to be lonely. Male loneliness was treated here as serious problem. And they seemed to have some stats to support it and seemed to be motivated primary by wish to help men (or themselves) while you seem to base it on theories.
No one benefits from divorce unless abuse is involved. Even then, the only benefit is being removed from a dangerous situation.