Comment by parennoob | Hacker News Reader

Comment by parennoob | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> You'll notice that the child custody/support and alimony system are grotesquely biased against men

This is probably the exact reason why so many of my male American friends in the tech industry seem unhappy and depressed in their marriages. I'm guessing they want to leave, but don't want to get sued by their lower-earning spouse for half of everything they have earned so far.

There really should be a "Do this, not that" guide for people entering marriage in the US to protect their wealth from possible divorce theft by spouses who have "become accustomed to" a certain lifestyle and want to try and coast on your money for as long as possible. (In fact, if people here have gone through such experiences, I would love to hear their suggestions).

Chris Rock puts it crudely but truly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAmeW8bq08k

This is when women have a similar experience (notice the resulting sympathy from the audience): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xCXuvdAywg

That perspective sounds a bit male. Women do give up most of their career perspectives up when deciding to raise children. And part of that even applies to women who don't ever want children, just because employers assume they COULD get pregnant at some point.

At least some bias in favor of mothers should be "fair". And keep in mind, it should not be male singles who decide what is and isn't fair in divorce law...

According to Wikipedia, for high income earners, the divorce rate after 10 years is 23%... Or about 1 in 4. If I understand correctly, the idea is that the separation should be equitable (which makes sense as you were building a life together). However, this varies if there are kids involved.

I fully support this if it works both ways, ie. Regardless of gender.

You are either surrounded by friends with low income (who divorce at 44%), or You are suffering confirmation bias.

None of my friends have divorced - but that's luck more than anything else.

> I fully support this if it works both ways, ie. Regardless of gender.

This will not be equitable both ways, since women elect to marry men who make more than them more often than the reverse. This NPR program (http://www.npr.org/2015/02/08/384695833/what-happens-when-wi...) says that the percentage of wives who earn more than husbands is ~38%, which I guess is an encouraging trend though.

> You are either surrounded by friends with low income (who divorce at 44%)

I specifically said that they stay in their marriages, (albeit unhappy), which is exactly the point. Low income marriages are easier to dissolve, it's harder when you have half a million in the bank.

> since women elect to marry men who make more than them more often than the reverse

That's mostly a function of income disparity, not of personal choice.

A majority of the income disparity is due to choice of field to work in - a personal choice. Primary education pays less than software development. The first is staffed primarily by women, the second men.

There are no laws or practices in place that make these choices mandatory, and men who enter education face as many cultural hurdles as women who enter tech - for the same reasons: their gender.

That said, even within an industry there is still a disparity, between 3-10%. This still needs to be fixed.

Should individuals be punished for income disparity that is a larger function of society?

Imagine this in the context of a business relationship. You put $200k into the business every year, your (female) partner puts in $60k. If for some reason after 10 years the business goes south, will the fairest way to distribute the resulting assets and liabilities be in a 50:50 ratio because there is an income disparity in the broader society?

[Admittedly my analogy is imperfect, but hopefully there's a point in there.]

What you are in effect saying is that when 'only' 1 in 4 men get robbed in divorce court, have their children stolen, have their human rights trampled upon ... it's OK.

Thanks for telling us.

Why marry at all? I mean, seriously, what is the advantage?

In England: There's no such thing as "common law wife" or "common law husband", so marriage gives the spouse important legal rights that are trickier to get if the couple remain unmarried.

> here really should be a "Do this, not that" guide ...

There should be, but this would only be doctoring the symptoms. The real solution is to abolish the ridiculous, sexist/misandric alimony laws. In the past there was some good point to them, but they have all been made obsolete by technological development (contraception, pregnancy loosing its medical dangers, societal changes). The only acceptable (default) rule is no alimony, and 50/50 shared custody of children.

In order for such a long-overdue legal change to happen, men must use their vote. The majority of women will be against such a change since the current legal arrangement benefits them so disproportionally, so men will face stiff opposition.

Perhaps Bill Burr was more succinct? Gold digging whores are wife beaters to men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gaYyNk7QA

Could you indicate somewhere that it is comedy (although there are some good points about stereotyping buried in the crudities)?

Otherwise this looks like you're angrily using crude and offensive language.

It's social critique under the guise of comedy. Get used to it. The more the society moves towards authoritarianism, the more subjects will be limited to this form of benign public discourse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com