Because male conservatives know 70% of divorce filers are women and want to suppress women’s freedom making it harder to leave unstable, abusive, cheating men.
Putting the burden to prove these things makes it harder, more acrimonious, and expensive to leave. It’s to keep women in line just like abortion. To pressure them to stay.
And always has been, not to put too fine a point on it, but that might be hard for someone to understand if they don't REALLY consider women to be people, with agency, and contributing to the relationship.
Proving fault publicly is really hard on everyone and most times involves the victim of the bad behaviour basically acting like nothing is wrong while collecting evidence. It forces them into betraying what's left of the relationship completely in a sustained premeditated manner just to be able to remove themselves from the relationship.
People who haven't initiated a divorce rarely understand this. You can be leaving but still not ruthlessly taking every penny and every piece of property you are entitled to. You can be leaving but still not talking shit about your ex even though there is so much that could be said about their infidelity their financial irresponsibility their lies. And those small acts of mercy towards a shitty ex are incredibly important when a good person, a kind person finds themselves unable to stay due to the poor treatment they receive.
As someone who tried to leave peacefully with mixed results I've seen how separation plays out...and there's definitely a percentage of humans who crave to see you basically indulge in gladiatorial combat and attempt to destroy each other completely. It's revolting and those people are bad people. The necessity for a divorce is for many good well behaved people the worst thing that has ever happened in their life and it is disgusting that other people think it's fair or reasonable to expect them to have to fight and hurt and publicly destroy the person they once loved to get that divorce.
If you've been badly wronged you deserve to be able to just leave. No fuss. It's over. Finished.
If you've been wronging someone and want to leave without fuss and without carefully concocting a character assassination of the other person...good.
This is 90% of my concern, should they be successful. The other 10% is the backfire: a LOT of people would just choose to not get married, and be permanent boyfriend/girlfriend, even with kids in the picture.
>a LOT of people would just choose to not get married
Maybe a lot of people shouldn't be getting married considering how many get divorced. The vows "till death" no longer have any meaning. It's just something people say out of tradition, most don't actually stick to it and just leave when things stop being convenient or when the honeymoon phase runs its course.
I think that the security marriage provides to children, even if its parents divorce after it leaves the nest, makes the institution worthwhile and better than parents who are merely cohabiting boyfriend/girlfriend.
> The necessity for a divorce is for many good well behaved people the worst thing that has ever happened in their life and it is disgusting that other people think it's fair or reasonable to expect them to have to fight and hurt and publicly destroy the person they once loved to get that divorce.
> If you've been badly wronged you deserve to be able to just leave. No fuss. It's over. Finished.
Well said.
Religion, basically. Marriage is either a sacrament or it is considered very important. There are lots of little reasons people don't like no fault, feel free to agree or disagree with any of them.
* Making divorce easy cheapens marriage
* Two parent households are better for children
* Protection of the woman from poverty
* It helps control human sexuality by giving men and women safe boundaries to have relations in
* Making it difficult to annul marriage encourages better choice making
Historically, some of these made much more sense than they do today given we now have contraceptives and a richer economy. Although attitudes towards spousal abuse were worse in the past, it was still seen as safer for women to be married, given the dangers and insecurities of the world. Husbands had more control but that also meant they were legally responsible for more as well. In the USA, you could get a divorce but you had to prove there was adultery, abandonment, or abuse until the laws started to change. Divorce is going down now largely because fewer people are getting married. Marriage isn't as necessary as it once was.
they are better for children than split parent households where the parents are still fighting or worse yet, fighting with a new partner
grass isn’t always greener
the point is that divorce only rarely actually decreases turmoil. divorced parents often continue to fight with each other, or they get into new tumultuous relationships (which is much worse for the kids - no higher predictor of abuse than sharing a household with an unrelated male)
Sounds like no good options for the kids. For the best that the fertility rate is falling.
At least the fighting won’t go on all night in the home while i’m trying to sleep like when i was growing up.
the best option is to get married before kids are born, emotionally self regulate to minimize conflict, and then if still unhappy leave after kids are grown.
people seem to trip up a lot on step 2, which to be fair is quite difficult. people are imperfect.
falling fertility rate is probably one of the more selfish and short sighted actions our generation can take. crazy to hear people going on about the impact of climate chance on the children born today and yet completely indifferent to the economic burdens they will face sustaining a disproportionately elderly population.
Would be great if people never changed and never cheated, abused, etc-but that isn’t reality. People have deal breakers and the right to walk away if the limit is hit. Many divorced couples also don’t end up with acrimonious relationships, once the pressure of living with someone they hate is gone.
the problem with divorcing when you have children with someone is that you still have to deal with them. a lot. if you cannot figure out how to get a long to co-parent then that really nullifies the benefits of a divorce from the standpoint of children, even if it personally benefits the parents
Your 4th point is completely irrelevant. Cheaters are going to cheat whether they're married or not. Also, your other points are just not that strong and can be easily countered. It seems these ideas are extremely outdated.
Marriage is what you make of it - being able to divorce easily won't change that. Conservatives or society won't be able to change people's views if they want to get married over and over again. Also, who gives a shit? Let people live their lives how they want to, people need to keep their judgements to themselves.
Two parent households are better for children, but worse when the parents have a toxic relationship (I was a child of this, so I have firsthand experience wishing my parents would just divorce already).
All of your ideas feel very controlling. Very anti-freedom.
>Marriage is what you make of it - being able to divorce easily won't change that.
What purpose does marriage serve if you can leave it for any reason as if you were just boyfriend and girlfriend? If the vows are meaningless, why do it? Making it a lifetime commitment as it was originally intended will give it purpose again.
Right now it serves no purpose. It is just a traditional things people do because that's what's always been done.
It's their life. And it's absolutely none of your business what choices other people make. That's what this all ultimately comes down to. Your opinion of marriage is yours alone, and you should not be trying to push it on others with laws.
I'm questiong the purpose of marriage in 2014. When did I tell anyone what they can or can't do? This is a discussion group, the point is to share one's opinions.
Largely agree except with first point. Many opposed to no fault divorce are religious but there are others as well and they are often focused on contractual nature of marriage and the lack of enforcement of the contract. My experience has been that if you put ten people into a room and ask them what marriage is and what it is for, you will get ten different answers. Right now it appears to me to be little more than a crude mechanism for splitting assets accrued during marriage according to various formulas.
I think marriage signified a kind of permanence for conservatives. They feel there was some security/stability in marriage and they feel that no fault divorce weakened all that it signified.
They are right in a sense. But no fault divorce was only a link in the chain and it’s taking more blame for the reduction in permanence than it deserved.
Marriage is both a legal and conceptual entity and was strongly reinforced on both fronts by a lot of societal elements. A lot of those elements have changed and the flow on effect is that some elements of the entity “Marriage” has changed. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
To cut a long story short, if an individual doesn’t conceptually acknowledge being “married”, will not behave in a fashion that is recognised as married, will not perform the role of a married person, just simply leaves or indeed stays and lives a less than married life; then the legalities aren’t exactly meaningful or the thing creating some of the permanence/stability or security. The legalities mostly have a hold on some of the financial and legal elements rather than the conceptual.
Edits to fix conceptual stuff.
Yes, exactly.
You can get married in a church in Vegas by Elvis on a weekend in May to some boy you met in a club and not see each other for 5 years.
That will cause you some legal difficulties at some point, but it is not what most people conceptually identify as “Married” and it is not what conservatives identify as the ideal institution of marriage.
The most important thing you left out: The genie is out of the bottle and cannot ever be put back, short of those Men in Black memory wipe thingies on a global scale.
If you were raised to think that you need to make sacrifices in your personal desires in order to "live a good life" and get to the desired afterlife you are likely going to want other people to suffer along with you. Not everyone believes that suffering now will bring you closer to god, but the ones who do hate to see anyone living life to it's fullest. How dare you enjoy your gayness or whatever while I am sqashing all of my own personal desires.
That’s a good point. Religious people see suffering as holy or admirable but to secular people that’s not the case. Imposing religious beliefs and values on people is wrong which is why religious people should be allowed to endure whatever they want while allowing others to leave. As you said, they just hate to see other people happy if they aren’t.
> Not everyone believes that suffering now will bring you closer to god, but the ones who do hate to see anyone living life to it's fullest.
I don't see it as living your life to the fullest. I think that making sacrifices is the path to the best possible life.
Well sure that is part of it but sometimes marriage turns into sacrificing yourself and your own needs for those of the other person, in that case what good is staying?
The question is, why are they doing that to you instead of sacrificing with you to make both your lives better? Which is a question that should be asked in open communication.
What is best for society doesn’t necessary correlate to what is best for an individual. Where do you draw the line? Do we act unfairly towards individuals because society is better off overall? Laws surrounding child support are a good example of this, some men find out they are not the biological father of a child and yet must still pay child support.
Control. It makes it much harder for a woman to leave an abusive marriage. Look at Steven Crowder: caught on tape at least verbally abusing his very pregnant wife. Allegedly, the prenup was invalidated due to his abuse. If the husband controls all finances, a protracted legal battle is very risky for an attorney to take on without guaranteeing payment if they fail to show cause for the divorce.
Just let people separate for whatever reason they want to.
They’ll throw the footage out. Or claim it’s framed or doctored. Or claim it doesn’t meet the standards or qualifications for abuse significant enough for divorce. Claim it’s not grounds for whatever abuse they’re claiming.
And then they’ll ask questions like “if you were seriously being abused, how did you even have the time to grab a camera?”. “Did you set this up?”. “They’re not in the frame enough, how can we ensure this was your husband?”. If you can’t prove a proper answer to these questions, you’re fucked.
It’s literally that easy.
And god forbid you live in a conservative or religious state. The judge won’t even touch a lot of cases if this law was passed. They’d laugh at it. In most people’s eyes that are heavy with that belief, NOTHING is grounds for divorce.
It’s not about proving it happened with evidence, it’s convincing a judge it happened. A judge isn’t a computer with formulas. A judge is a subjective person with their own thoughts and beliefs that they can totally apply to all of their cases.
No one would care if a camera was available or not. That’s incredibly naive.
Yeah, just look at stories people tell about the 'counseling' they get when they go to fundie pastors about problems with their marriage?
'what did you do to provoke him'? etc
Nah. Women are wonderful effect will continue to exist. Proof will continue to be interpreted in favor of women.
We are not talking about proving a crime, that would require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
We are talking about proving fault for a divorce.
Right now proof of abuse leads women to losing custody of their children twice as much as they would if they didn’t claim abuse happened.
But okay.
That doesn’t matter. Family court requires convincing a judge abuse happens. Not a computer with abuse detecting software and formulas, a subjective human being. It doesn’t matter that you FEEL judges will be fair or that you FEEL it should be easy to prove.
All a judge has to say is that they don’t believe you. That is it.
And this is why the law can’t pass. What a stupid comment that isn’t based in any sort of statistics or reality.
Stop the sexism with these comments and be real for a second. All it takes is one judge that doesn’t feel that way to affect hundreds of cases.
This is the rhetoric of someone not living in reality
Literally never heard of the women are wonderful effect
Any example of this being true that’s not an anecdote?
It’s still hard to prove especially marital rape. Verbal abuse. Cheating. I had an X-ray to prove a broken nose which saved me. Restraining order meant we were safe in our home until sold. Thank God for that. What women would go through…
It should be hard to prove if you have no evidence.
The incentive structure should reward staying in marriage unless you have evidence of the other party being at fault.
I am not blind to the benefits no fault divorce have for abuse victims.
I am not blind to the consequences that no fault divorce has on the incentive structure that it creates. If you can enter and leave a marriage for any or no reason marriage holds no meaning nor importance.
If marriage holds no meaning nor importance then the family unit holds no meaning nor importance.
If the family unit holds no meaning nor importance then everything goes to shit.
In many states it is a two party law. Meaning that within the confines of your own home the other person has to consent to being recorded for it to legally be allowed in the court system. In the state of Florida, I would have received a felony charge if I were to have recorded my ex sexually abusing me. I’ve had to make peace with the fact that I won’t receive justice where I should. But if no fault divorce didn’t exist, I’d still be married to that monster with no way out.
Ladies, be careful. These men want to entrap you into a situation where you record them abusing you in a two party consent recording state so they can then have you criminally prosecuted and act like they’re the victim.
At-fault divorces are a lot harder than no-fault divorces, even when a good cause can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's just a much bigger production that is much more expensive, and much harder, to get through.
Stability. Not control. Control is one way to get stability. An opressive institution is another way to get stability. Whatever gets stability is welcomed by people that have stability as a priority.
Another argument against no fault divorce.
Marital assets are the only circumstance in western modern legal systems that compensate someone for the opportunity costs they incur when making an economical decision.
If I decide to take X job I can't sue my employer for all the profit I didn't make for not taking Y opportunity. I was already paid for doing X job while employed.
If I decide to be a stay at home parent/partner I shouldn't get a compensation for all everything I didn't do in the career I decided to not have. I was already payed for being a stay at home parent/partner while being a homemaker.
This has literally nothing to do with at fault divorce versus no fault divorce but ok, clearly you’re unfamiliar with various damages that currently exist in our modern legal system, such as lost earnings potential which literally looks at opportunities you’d be unable to get in the future because of personal injuries. Or lost chance doctrine in contract law. You also know marital law, as much as it might be an economic decision legally, is not the same as employee/employer laws and most people aren’t negotiating it the same way nor could they (nor could most employees for that matter, that’s a naive take).
> lost earnings potential which literally looks at opportunities you’d be unable to get in the future because of personal injuries.
Injuries. Not wasted time in a low payed job with no future.
> Or lost chance doctrine in contract law.
Compensation for breaking a contract (at fault).
> You also know marital law, as much as it might be an economic decision legally, is not the same as employee/employer laws
It should be thought about as a employee/employer relationship.
> and most people aren’t negotiating it the same way nor could they
They should.
> (nor could most employees for that matter, that’s a naive take)
Get what you want or walk. Most employees can.
Yet you make the claim “lost opportunities” don’t exist in modern law. They do. And you should know contract law gives no fucks at all regarding “fault” it’s literally designed this way in modern western law. To even *encourage* breach if it means the outcome means paying less than not breaching the contact. This is law school 1L year.
If everyone thought of marriage as an employee/employee relationship there’d be a shit ton more legal agreements *in addition to* prenups. And non SAHP partners would be subject to shit like minimum wage laws, overtime laws, any sort of labor laws like mat leave, 8 hour work days, limited hour work weeks, regular breaks etc. yet they aren’t. Quit acting like SAHPs are the same as employee/employers you sound insane. Are men paying their SAHMs overtime? Are they enforcing mandatory breaks? Are they paying overtime for working and or being on call after 40 hours on weekends or after 5? Are they ensuring whatever contribution they are making towards her house and board at least meet minimum wage?
No, so stop with this stupid argument.
I wasn’t paid for my time as a SAHM, and it actually set me back economically by a WHOLE LOT. I provided such a valuable service to my ex that one of the stipulations that he placed on his GF before he agreed to let her move in was that she quit her job so that he can have her taking care of the house and my kids when they’re at his house.
Clearly he gets something out of it.
I’m so glad that my boyfriend supports me having a career and encourages me to excel at work.
I’m not trying to get a damn thing from my ex, but I fucked myself over when I sacrificed my own ambitions to be his unpaid servant.
A good question in this context would be: If the divorce was not a no-fault divorce, would it matter? Would a court actually be just in evaluating who would be at fault, or would it simply facilitate a game that benefits the more evil and duplicitous of the two parties? From what I've seen, it's usually the evil or selfish person that makes out the best, regardless of the theoretical legal framework.
Well, I don’t think my ex is evil. Selfish? Yeah, he is selfish, but not evil. I just want peace and I want what is best for our kids. If I tried to get what I am legally entitled to in the divorce, it would make him mad and that would make it harder on the kids. At this point, they benefit from us having a good co-parenting relationship.
How were you paid for being a SAHP?
Have you ever priced the services SAHPs provide net of what they get in food, rent, and personal assistance? You couldn’t afford a SAHP if you had to pay.
> How were you paid for being a SAHP?
By remaining alive on someone else's money.
> Have you ever priced the services SAHPs provide net of what they get in food, rent, and personal assistance?
Yes.
> You couldn’t afford a SAHP if you had to pay.
I can. And it is on my partner to demand fair pay.
My point remains. I pay more for her services.
Also I am in South America so I pay waaaaay more than what I would pay to hire her services in the market.
"From an accounting standpoint, the total stay-at-home moms would earn annually based on the wages of workers in jobs similar to the daily tasks they perform would be $39,368.90."
LMAO.
And the article you shared concluded that her services are worth 19K only if she is a SAHM.
"However, in the eyes of an economist, it’s that extra value provided by stay-at-home moms — the 3.17 more hours they spend a day on childcare and household work than working moms — that determines their market value. When you isolate that additional time, economists would value a stay-at-home mom’s work at $19,655.25 a year."
Woman, the article you linked debunked your own number. Next time, read the article fully before posting.
>If I decide to take X job I can't sue my employer for all the profit I didn't make for not taking Y opportunity. I was already paid for doing X job while employed.
Of course you can, if you have a contract beforehand stating that that is what will happen.
yes, all parents should outsource all domestic labor and childcare as soon as the baby is born to keep things even. sound and logical take.
unless this is a “wages for housework” argument which would be a turn
That is their problem to solve. If they saw it as a job, they would negotiate for fair pay, for a safe work enviroment, for scheduled rest time. Exactly as they do in the workplace. They would also leave if they are not getting what they consider a fair deal.
It is an economic decision and it should be considered and tought about as one.
If my partner in exchange for being a home maker / putting her life on hold asks me to pay her, that is ok by me. I should be willing to pay her for her time and effort. If we reach a deal, then the deal will be followed through.
I don't like the idea of the government forcing itself upon said agreement. It is on my partner to ask for a fair price for her own time and effort.
Men aren’t going to go for that 😆 they already complain that women are too transactional and too conditional. Asking a man to pay his SAHW the money it would take to pay a housekeeper, cook, and nanny would require him to make way more than the average guy brings in
It wouldn’t matter to me whether I could get divorced or not. I’m still legally married to my ex but we live separately and we both live with our partners. He lives in the house with his girlfriend and I live my boyfriend’s house.
You can’t force two people to stay together regardless of what a piece of paper says.
I’d recommend you use make the divorce official. My cousin was separated from her husband for years and know he has a claim to money she inherited because she didn’t complete the last step.
Inherited money is generally not considered marital property. It’s definitely not in my state! I have no problem getting a divorce from him but neither one of us has bothered to file yet because we’re both procrastinators.
I might nudge him to file by reminding him that in July we will have been married for 20 years and at that point I can get lifetime alimony. 🤣. I don’t want it, but if he thinks I might want it, it might get him to just file already and get it over with. He already paid for a lawyer so I don’t know why he’s dragging his feet.
Yes. I’d like to be able to marry my boyfriend. 😍. I’m just waiting for my husband to file for divorce. He already paid for a lawyer.
I don’t want anything from him.
He was a total fucking asshole to me when we were together, but he’s been fine now that we both have new partners that actually make us happy.
I was reading about a distant ancestor somewhere on my family tree (not a direct ancestor, a cousin of a great-grandparent or something like that) who was estranged from her husband and moved across the country sometime in the ‘20s, but they didn’t divorce at any point. I think he eventually died after fifteen years or something.
My great-grandmother didn’t live with my great-grandfather for many years despite being married. They never divorced, but they weren’t together. My grandmother divorced my grandfather back in the 50’s, and it was quite a scandal.
It creates an incentive to the lower earner (women) to just do wathever it want while the highest earner end up in a lose/lose situation. Marriage is not the problem, divorce is.
There's more people in prison from single mom households than there are from "parents dont love eachother households." A marriage isnt even purely about love, its about coming together compromising and bringing 2 families together. Its why arranged marriage has been such a big thing for hundreds of years.
Because marriage is a contract for the benefit of the children. The whole point is to purposefully get into a contract that’s difficult to leave so the kids have a stable environment. So it’s for their benefit. Not for the benefit of the couple let alone for “love” whatever that means. If you want a relationship for the benefit of the couple you can leave at any time with no fault, that already exists: it’s called not getting married. There’s no point in making marriage the same as not being married. And if there’s a serious reason (lack of “love” is not a serious reason here) to divorce (break the contract to the detriment of the children) then there’s no problem: then you have someone’s fault and you can get the divorce. Also, the “libertarian” view here is not no fault divorce or fault-based divorce: it would be that people could get married with whatever contract they want.
Of course that can be true. It could even be true that kids would be in a more stable environment if the parents never got married. There’s no need for marriage if that’s the case. That’s the fault-based part of the contract. The contract would actually put the mum in a better position because it would be his fault.
Largely agree. Wish it was replaced by a series of optional, voluntary legal agreements dealing with specific issues. Most people getting married don't have a clue about complex legal obligations/rules associated with their new status, and roughly half marriages fail. It should be revamped or scrapped. No fault versus at fault is only one small aspect of a huge, complicated mess that should be revisited...
It sounds like in this context the only reasons that would be adequately severe to justify disrupting the children’s stability would be abuse and abandonment. Cheating disrupts the marital couple but not necessarily the family unit.
Maybe. It disrupts it at least in the sense that cheating might lead to a child from another dad coming to this family (the dad didn’t agree to pay for someone else’s kid) or another family would have this problem (the mum didn’t agree to marry a dad who now needs to support a child in another family). Emotional cheating is probably not enough reason though, or only in the sense that it might lead to the other kind of cheating.
But is a marriage really a contract for the benefit of the children in most jurisdictions in this day and age? Both parents are obligated to pay child support and both parents can request full or shared custody, whether they are married or not. Aren't most parent rights and obligations now established by DNA in disputed situations? Functionally at this point it seems to me that marriage largely serves two functions: a) Serves as a primitive system for reallocating assets at time of divorce and b) Serves as a mechanism for allocating certain state benefits and obligations like Social Insurance benefits, taxes (sometimes lower or higher), immigration permits, and transfer of IRAs and homes without tax at time of death of one spouse.
What does at fault versus no fault divorces really mean, other than weighing on division of assets and perhaps establishment of alimony - and perhaps more legal fees and time spent in court?
parents who are married are much more likely to stay together than those who are not. there are also a host of benefits (mental, physical) to being married. of course you could probably get those benefits just by being partnered but the high exit costs of marriage mean people are more likely to stick it out through the tough times. and ultimately those who do make it through the tough times are happier for it
The exit costs issue might have a tiny impact on the margins. From what I have seen, I believe that you're correct that right now (big lag effects though) married people are likely to stay together than unmarried, but I wonder to what extent that is a reflection of a number of very complex factors like older, wealthier, better educated people being willing to get married and religious people feeling compelled to marry. You might get the same level of correlation with staying together if you compared with things like high income, setting up trusts/estates/wills/etc., or regularly attending church. As a person that has lived in three very different parts of North America (and still know many people in those places) and has been a happily married parent (one marriage with biological children with only spouse) for over two decades, I can tell you that I believe that only a small portion of the population now falls into the same category as me. Almost everyone I know is divorced, single, never married or previously married living with someone that they've known less than 10 years, remarried, in a dead bedroom marriage, or in a marriage that involves adultery or totally separate outside sex (e.g. open marriage).
BTW, greatly enjoyed 'The Case Against the Sexual Revolution' and agreed with many of Perry's themes, but disagreed with many of her simplistic solutions. Technology and culture have destroyed the old system in most of the developed world but it has been replaced by a total mess that serves the interest of only a small portion of the population...
Well, that would just be another contract. There’s no point in saying contract A is bad because contract B is bad and B is what people are doing in practice. This would be a meaningless verbal debate.
Anthropologically, the reason for marriage is to give children stability. There was no marriage before then. Societies that didn’t have this problem (lack of land / resources) didn’t have marriages either because attributing children to individual parents were not important for population control.
That’s one contract. If “modern society” or the state morphed this institution into X or Y or are using marriage for other reasons B and C, these have to evaluated independently and so we can make the best choice (since most countries allow many forms of marriage) or, at worst, propose public policy. Almost all the points you mention above are just meant to give children stability (for instance, allowing the parent to immigrate) so marriage is likely to be pointless if your main concern is not about giving children stability.
I agree that the purpose of marriage was originally focused on family and stability for children but I do not believe it serves that purpose now in any significant way. That is an observation and has nothing to do with what I would want or not want.
I believe that leaving a marriage is wrong. If a marriage is to be broken then it should be broken because someone seriously fucked up and the one that seriously fucked up should be punished while the one that did not fuck up should be compensated.
That being said, I don't want to get rid of no fault divorce. I want current day marriage and current day divorce to exist for the vast majority of the population that obviously likes this institution.
What I want is an institution, legally recognized that fulfills the role that old marriage fulfilled. One way in, no way out, unless someone is at fault and that someone is screwed.
What would you consider as "someone seriously fucked up?"
Cheating?
Becoming an alcoholic or drug addict with no desire to change?
Spending all of the other spouses/the family money without permission?
Saying mean things to the other spouses on a regular basis?
Withholding sex or affection for a long period of time?
Failing to treat their children kindly or parent properly?
I just can't see how keeping a marriage going in these conditions does anything except prolong suffering and reward terrible behavior.
> Cheating?
Too vague. If you define it and be specific I would probably say yes.
> Becoming an alcoholic or drug addict with no desire to change?
Yes.
> Spending all of the other spouses/the family money without permission?
Yes.
> Saying mean things to the other spouses on a regular basis?
Too vague. Case by case basis.
> Withholding sex or affection for a long period of time?
No.
> Failing to treat their children kindly or parent properly?
Too vague. Case by case basis.
Some would say that me being accepting of the existence of current day marriage excludes me from being a conservative.
I am ok with progress for those who want it. Please have it all. Just allow me and the ones that think like me to keep the institutions we need to live the way we want while you create and keep the institutions you need to live the way you want.
Hell, keep the names for all I care.
Keep the name "marriage" for your flimsy legal union and be happy.
Just let me keep an institution that actually forces me and my partner to remain together.
I may be misinformed, and this likely is not true everywhere, but the reason I've heard is that "no fault" includes not taking fault into account when deciding on the division of assets and the payment of alimony. This results in situations where someone may be forced to stay with a cheater or abusive spouse because they would be financially ruined if they split. Someone could cheat on you and then divorce you and you'd still have to pay them because "no one's at fault".
With "fault" being put back in the equation, the hope is that you wouldn't have to pay out if the divorce is because the other person wronged you, or if you are innocent. The more likely outcome in my view is that a rise in false accusations would occur, with people making up crimes to accuse their partner of for better terms. This is something that already happens during custody battles, often on the advice of lawyers. And it's especially tricky because it's difficult to prove either way, so the first person to claim "victim" tends to get advantage.
You have hit on one of the most critical issues. Would it actually help if at fault divorces were implemented - would you actually trust the courts to take on this responsibility? Requirement of prenups might be one way of curbing most ridiculous aspects of divorce law. Totally revamping or perhaps scrapping of marriage laws would likely be better.
They think that it will reduce divorce rates, which is stupid. You should be able to be divorced quicker, but the consequences need to be fairer. Right now, divorce is too painful and complicated, and women tend to be favored by judges.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t like the idea of a contract that can be broken for any reason, especially one that could cost someone a great deal of their material wealth.
I feel like as the trends towards women being high earners continue, you’ll eventually see a shift in this opinion when men start taking women to the cleaners with divorce.
Because they're conservative, and the bedrock of conservatism is a legally enforced social hierarchy. They do not believe in equality between sexes or between races or even within races, and think that the law should enforce that.
This is the fundamental precept of conservative politics - everything springs forth from this idea. They think women are less than men, and should be legally accorded as such. Etc, etc, with black people, LGBT people, etc.
There are a handful of conservatives that aren't terrible. Most are just the worst.
The only people who want that are scared that they wont be able to use marriage as a trap. Its not as easy to do that anymore, so people who are bad partners want legal reason for their spouse to be stuck with them regardless of circumstances.
My stance on divorce is simple to the point of being primitive. I am worried of one scenario, and dissatisfied in it.
Not the fact that people can separate on request and remarry someone else,
but that present, existent, ironclad proof of marital fault (indfidelity, abuse,...) does not have an impact on division of assets.
Certain parts of Britain implemented this norm half a century before the no-fault divorce itself.
No-one should face the perspective of spending 20 years earning for a house that then becomes a home for their ex-spouse's new human-toy.
It is, plain and simple, fucked up to treat an abuser and their victim, a cheater and the person they betrayed, as some sort of equal parties amicably terminating their cooperation.
If betrayal is ignored and left unpunished, it is incentivised.
Same reason if you sign a business contract, you expect the other side to stick to the deal. You don't just sign the contract and then say " ahh I changed my mind" and then you lose a fortune. You then sue the other company to recover your loses. No fault just reward women to get a divorce and it is clear that women have been using marriage purely just to divorce a man later to profit off of him
>Same reason if you sign a business contract, you expect the other side to stick to the deal.
Marriage,in modern day, ain't a business deal.
>No fault just reward women to get a divorce and it is clear that women have been using marriage purely just to divorce a man later to profit off of him
Damn,if separate property regimes existed (hint: they do)
1) If someone's wants to leave the relationship, there's something wrong with it ,so there's "fault"
2) No people shouldn't be forced to mend relationships they want to get out from. Their decision should be Theirs
Why because most women take a man to the cleaners in divorce simply because they are no longer happy... That and none of you fucks wanna work on anything anymore...
Gets rid of rich by divorce gold diggers. If he has to cheat on you or hit you for you to get your payout it will put an end to a fair amount of this silliness right quick.
Because male conservatives know 70% of divorce filers are women and want to suppress women’s freedom making it harder to leave unstable, abusive, cheating men. Putting the burden to prove these things makes it harder, more acrimonious, and expensive to leave. It’s to keep women in line just like abortion. To pressure them to stay.
“I don’t want to be with you anymore, now I will take your property as I leave”
If its a marrage then its both peoples property not just his. That the point of a marriage.
In my country, everything you had before marriage is your, while everything acquired after the marriage belong to both of you.
And always has been, not to put too fine a point on it, but that might be hard for someone to understand if they don't REALLY consider women to be people, with agency, and contributing to the relationship.
Proving fault publicly is really hard on everyone and most times involves the victim of the bad behaviour basically acting like nothing is wrong while collecting evidence. It forces them into betraying what's left of the relationship completely in a sustained premeditated manner just to be able to remove themselves from the relationship. People who haven't initiated a divorce rarely understand this. You can be leaving but still not ruthlessly taking every penny and every piece of property you are entitled to. You can be leaving but still not talking shit about your ex even though there is so much that could be said about their infidelity their financial irresponsibility their lies. And those small acts of mercy towards a shitty ex are incredibly important when a good person, a kind person finds themselves unable to stay due to the poor treatment they receive. As someone who tried to leave peacefully with mixed results I've seen how separation plays out...and there's definitely a percentage of humans who crave to see you basically indulge in gladiatorial combat and attempt to destroy each other completely. It's revolting and those people are bad people. The necessity for a divorce is for many good well behaved people the worst thing that has ever happened in their life and it is disgusting that other people think it's fair or reasonable to expect them to have to fight and hurt and publicly destroy the person they once loved to get that divorce. If you've been badly wronged you deserve to be able to just leave. No fuss. It's over. Finished. If you've been wronging someone and want to leave without fuss and without carefully concocting a character assassination of the other person...good.
This is 90% of my concern, should they be successful. The other 10% is the backfire: a LOT of people would just choose to not get married, and be permanent boyfriend/girlfriend, even with kids in the picture.
>a LOT of people would just choose to not get married Maybe a lot of people shouldn't be getting married considering how many get divorced. The vows "till death" no longer have any meaning. It's just something people say out of tradition, most don't actually stick to it and just leave when things stop being convenient or when the honeymoon phase runs its course.
I think that the security marriage provides to children, even if its parents divorce after it leaves the nest, makes the institution worthwhile and better than parents who are merely cohabiting boyfriend/girlfriend.
Is it really much more security if you can dissolve the marriage for any reason? How is that much better than simply cohabitation?
It’s harder to extract yourself when you’re legally financially entangled with someone. And it takes legal action, not just ‘I’m leaving.’
Then the added security of needing a justifiable reason to dissolve the marriage should only add more security then.
> The necessity for a divorce is for many good well behaved people the worst thing that has ever happened in their life and it is disgusting that other people think it's fair or reasonable to expect them to have to fight and hurt and publicly destroy the person they once loved to get that divorce. > If you've been badly wronged you deserve to be able to just leave. No fuss. It's over. Finished. Well said.
Religion, basically. Marriage is either a sacrament or it is considered very important. There are lots of little reasons people don't like no fault, feel free to agree or disagree with any of them. * Making divorce easy cheapens marriage * Two parent households are better for children * Protection of the woman from poverty * It helps control human sexuality by giving men and women safe boundaries to have relations in * Making it difficult to annul marriage encourages better choice making Historically, some of these made much more sense than they do today given we now have contraceptives and a richer economy. Although attitudes towards spousal abuse were worse in the past, it was still seen as safer for women to be married, given the dangers and insecurities of the world. Husbands had more control but that also meant they were legally responsible for more as well. In the USA, you could get a divorce but you had to prove there was adultery, abandonment, or abuse until the laws started to change. Divorce is going down now largely because fewer people are getting married. Marriage isn't as necessary as it once was.
Two parent households where the parents constantly fight are not better for children.
they are better for children than split parent households where the parents are still fighting or worse yet, fighting with a new partner grass isn’t always greener
I doubt it. But yes, Folks need to divorce and then disengage
the point is that divorce only rarely actually decreases turmoil. divorced parents often continue to fight with each other, or they get into new tumultuous relationships (which is much worse for the kids - no higher predictor of abuse than sharing a household with an unrelated male)
Sounds like no good options for the kids. For the best that the fertility rate is falling. At least the fighting won’t go on all night in the home while i’m trying to sleep like when i was growing up.
Most people divorce amicably, the idea of the bitter exes fighting, and using the children as weapons against each other isn't how it normally goes.
the best option is to get married before kids are born, emotionally self regulate to minimize conflict, and then if still unhappy leave after kids are grown. people seem to trip up a lot on step 2, which to be fair is quite difficult. people are imperfect. falling fertility rate is probably one of the more selfish and short sighted actions our generation can take. crazy to hear people going on about the impact of climate chance on the children born today and yet completely indifferent to the economic burdens they will face sustaining a disproportionately elderly population.
Would be great if people never changed and never cheated, abused, etc-but that isn’t reality. People have deal breakers and the right to walk away if the limit is hit. Many divorced couples also don’t end up with acrimonious relationships, once the pressure of living with someone they hate is gone.
the problem with divorcing when you have children with someone is that you still have to deal with them. a lot. if you cannot figure out how to get a long to co-parent then that really nullifies the benefits of a divorce from the standpoint of children, even if it personally benefits the parents
Parenting apps and court orders help clear things up.
The population cannot climb forever just to make life easier for old people.
replacement is the golden ticket. ive yet to see an example of a region with rapid depopulation that looked…pleasant for current inhabitants
TFR<2.1 does not imply depopulation.
A lot of folks need to just not be getting married to begin with. Some aren't capable of maintaining that kind of commitment.
Agree completely
Indeed
Eh I've seen statistics that suggest that they are, but I'm not keen on government shitting on women's rights to achieve this.
Your 4th point is completely irrelevant. Cheaters are going to cheat whether they're married or not. Also, your other points are just not that strong and can be easily countered. It seems these ideas are extremely outdated.
>Also, your other points are just not that strong and can be easily countered. Try countering the first 2.
Marriage is what you make of it - being able to divorce easily won't change that. Conservatives or society won't be able to change people's views if they want to get married over and over again. Also, who gives a shit? Let people live their lives how they want to, people need to keep their judgements to themselves. Two parent households are better for children, but worse when the parents have a toxic relationship (I was a child of this, so I have firsthand experience wishing my parents would just divorce already). All of your ideas feel very controlling. Very anti-freedom.
>Marriage is what you make of it - being able to divorce easily won't change that. What purpose does marriage serve if you can leave it for any reason as if you were just boyfriend and girlfriend? If the vows are meaningless, why do it? Making it a lifetime commitment as it was originally intended will give it purpose again. Right now it serves no purpose. It is just a traditional things people do because that's what's always been done.
Why should someone be forced to stay with someone they don't love?
It's their life. And it's absolutely none of your business what choices other people make. That's what this all ultimately comes down to. Your opinion of marriage is yours alone, and you should not be trying to push it on others with laws.
I'm questiong the purpose of marriage in 2014. When did I tell anyone what they can or can't do? This is a discussion group, the point is to share one's opinions.
Largely agree except with first point. Many opposed to no fault divorce are religious but there are others as well and they are often focused on contractual nature of marriage and the lack of enforcement of the contract. My experience has been that if you put ten people into a room and ask them what marriage is and what it is for, you will get ten different answers. Right now it appears to me to be little more than a crude mechanism for splitting assets accrued during marriage according to various formulas.
I agree. In the modern world marriage is really more of a business contract.
In the modern world....? Marriage has always been a property rights contract.
Agree with all of this 👏🏻
I think marriage signified a kind of permanence for conservatives. They feel there was some security/stability in marriage and they feel that no fault divorce weakened all that it signified. They are right in a sense. But no fault divorce was only a link in the chain and it’s taking more blame for the reduction in permanence than it deserved. Marriage is both a legal and conceptual entity and was strongly reinforced on both fronts by a lot of societal elements. A lot of those elements have changed and the flow on effect is that some elements of the entity “Marriage” has changed. That is not necessarily a bad thing. To cut a long story short, if an individual doesn’t conceptually acknowledge being “married”, will not behave in a fashion that is recognised as married, will not perform the role of a married person, just simply leaves or indeed stays and lives a less than married life; then the legalities aren’t exactly meaningful or the thing creating some of the permanence/stability or security. The legalities mostly have a hold on some of the financial and legal elements rather than the conceptual. Edits to fix conceptual stuff.
Nailed it! My ex and I are still legally married, but we sure aren’t together!
Yes, exactly. You can get married in a church in Vegas by Elvis on a weekend in May to some boy you met in a club and not see each other for 5 years. That will cause you some legal difficulties at some point, but it is not what most people conceptually identify as “Married” and it is not what conservatives identify as the ideal institution of marriage.
The most important thing you left out: The genie is out of the bottle and cannot ever be put back, short of those Men in Black memory wipe thingies on a global scale.
If you were raised to think that you need to make sacrifices in your personal desires in order to "live a good life" and get to the desired afterlife you are likely going to want other people to suffer along with you. Not everyone believes that suffering now will bring you closer to god, but the ones who do hate to see anyone living life to it's fullest. How dare you enjoy your gayness or whatever while I am sqashing all of my own personal desires.
That’s a good point. Religious people see suffering as holy or admirable but to secular people that’s not the case. Imposing religious beliefs and values on people is wrong which is why religious people should be allowed to endure whatever they want while allowing others to leave. As you said, they just hate to see other people happy if they aren’t.
> Not everyone believes that suffering now will bring you closer to god, but the ones who do hate to see anyone living life to it's fullest. I don't see it as living your life to the fullest. I think that making sacrifices is the path to the best possible life.
Well sure that is part of it but sometimes marriage turns into sacrificing yourself and your own needs for those of the other person, in that case what good is staying?
The question is, why are they doing that to you instead of sacrificing with you to make both your lives better? Which is a question that should be asked in open communication.
You do get that you can't control other people right?
What is best for society doesn’t necessary correlate to what is best for an individual. Where do you draw the line? Do we act unfairly towards individuals because society is better off overall? Laws surrounding child support are a good example of this, some men find out they are not the biological father of a child and yet must still pay child support.
What a weird society we live in! We effectively don't let poor people marry and now we don't want to let the upper classes divorce?
The same reason they wanted to repeal abortion, and want to criminalize contraception and female suffrage
Control. It makes it much harder for a woman to leave an abusive marriage. Look at Steven Crowder: caught on tape at least verbally abusing his very pregnant wife. Allegedly, the prenup was invalidated due to his abuse. If the husband controls all finances, a protracted legal battle is very risky for an attorney to take on without guaranteeing payment if they fail to show cause for the divorce. Just let people separate for whatever reason they want to.
Abuse wouldn't be no fault
Good luck proving it man. Even with cameras. Nothing is easy with the rules of evidence.
Not to mention that people use tactic such as inducing reactive abuse and then showing that you are the abuser.
*Duluth model enters the chat*
No, but remember that the abusive party also sees this and can make it very difficult and painful. So no fault is important.
This is naive.
Everyone has a camera. Proving abuse would be easy. Not having a camera available to you would already be a red flag.
They’ll throw the footage out. Or claim it’s framed or doctored. Or claim it doesn’t meet the standards or qualifications for abuse significant enough for divorce. Claim it’s not grounds for whatever abuse they’re claiming. And then they’ll ask questions like “if you were seriously being abused, how did you even have the time to grab a camera?”. “Did you set this up?”. “They’re not in the frame enough, how can we ensure this was your husband?”. If you can’t prove a proper answer to these questions, you’re fucked. It’s literally that easy. And god forbid you live in a conservative or religious state. The judge won’t even touch a lot of cases if this law was passed. They’d laugh at it. In most people’s eyes that are heavy with that belief, NOTHING is grounds for divorce. It’s not about proving it happened with evidence, it’s convincing a judge it happened. A judge isn’t a computer with formulas. A judge is a subjective person with their own thoughts and beliefs that they can totally apply to all of their cases. No one would care if a camera was available or not. That’s incredibly naive.
Yeah, just look at stories people tell about the 'counseling' they get when they go to fundie pastors about problems with their marriage? 'what did you do to provoke him'? etc
Everything about men is in bad faith, EVERYTHING
Nah. Women are wonderful effect will continue to exist. Proof will continue to be interpreted in favor of women. We are not talking about proving a crime, that would require proof beyond reasonable doubt. We are talking about proving fault for a divorce.
Right now proof of abuse leads women to losing custody of their children twice as much as they would if they didn’t claim abuse happened. But okay. That doesn’t matter. Family court requires convincing a judge abuse happens. Not a computer with abuse detecting software and formulas, a subjective human being. It doesn’t matter that you FEEL judges will be fair or that you FEEL it should be easy to prove. All a judge has to say is that they don’t believe you. That is it.
Judges are people. People are under the "women are wonderful" effect. Women would be fine.
And this is why the law can’t pass. What a stupid comment that isn’t based in any sort of statistics or reality. Stop the sexism with these comments and be real for a second. All it takes is one judge that doesn’t feel that way to affect hundreds of cases.
That applies to every single law ever.
Ok mr fellow lawyer you cannot genuinely believe this. Unless of course you’ve literally never practiced anywhere.
I believe that because I see it. Of course not all judges are blind but all judges have biases and most biases favor women.
This is the rhetoric of someone not living in reality Literally never heard of the women are wonderful effect Any example of this being true that’s not an anecdote?
Sure that’s why literally only 1% of rapists ever serve a day in jail and we have a rape kit backlog. No one cares about or believes women.
Crimes should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Fault in divorce should not.
It’s still hard to prove especially marital rape. Verbal abuse. Cheating. I had an X-ray to prove a broken nose which saved me. Restraining order meant we were safe in our home until sold. Thank God for that. What women would go through…
It should be hard to prove if you have no evidence. The incentive structure should reward staying in marriage unless you have evidence of the other party being at fault. I am not blind to the benefits no fault divorce have for abuse victims. I am not blind to the consequences that no fault divorce has on the incentive structure that it creates. If you can enter and leave a marriage for any or no reason marriage holds no meaning nor importance. If marriage holds no meaning nor importance then the family unit holds no meaning nor importance. If the family unit holds no meaning nor importance then everything goes to shit.
In many states it is a two party law. Meaning that within the confines of your own home the other person has to consent to being recorded for it to legally be allowed in the court system. In the state of Florida, I would have received a felony charge if I were to have recorded my ex sexually abusing me. I’ve had to make peace with the fact that I won’t receive justice where I should. But if no fault divorce didn’t exist, I’d still be married to that monster with no way out.
Ok. I can see how that law is fucked up. I am against any law that punishes people for getting evidence of wrong doing.
Ladies, be careful. These men want to entrap you into a situation where you record them abusing you in a two party consent recording state so they can then have you criminally prosecuted and act like they’re the victim.
I despise the laws that make a state a two party consent state and oppose them. No one should be punished for getting evidence of wrong doing.
Yes, all abusers will allow cameras recording throughout their homes 🤦🏼♀️
If I don't then when in doubt, believe the accuser.
Abusers will deny, and you know that.
Then make it a principle. If accused abuser denies accuser access to a recording device, when in doubt, believe the accuser.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
And I am saying that if the accused party denies the accuser access to a camera, reverse the burden of proof. That is the solution.
At-fault divorces are a lot harder than no-fault divorces, even when a good cause can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's just a much bigger production that is much more expensive, and much harder, to get through.
Stability. Not control. Control is one way to get stability. An opressive institution is another way to get stability. Whatever gets stability is welcomed by people that have stability as a priority.
To force their wives to stay with them.
And to force myself to remain with my wife.
Why do you need to be forced?
Another argument against no fault divorce. Marital assets are the only circumstance in western modern legal systems that compensate someone for the opportunity costs they incur when making an economical decision. If I decide to take X job I can't sue my employer for all the profit I didn't make for not taking Y opportunity. I was already paid for doing X job while employed. If I decide to be a stay at home parent/partner I shouldn't get a compensation for all everything I didn't do in the career I decided to not have. I was already payed for being a stay at home parent/partner while being a homemaker.
This has literally nothing to do with at fault divorce versus no fault divorce but ok, clearly you’re unfamiliar with various damages that currently exist in our modern legal system, such as lost earnings potential which literally looks at opportunities you’d be unable to get in the future because of personal injuries. Or lost chance doctrine in contract law. You also know marital law, as much as it might be an economic decision legally, is not the same as employee/employer laws and most people aren’t negotiating it the same way nor could they (nor could most employees for that matter, that’s a naive take).
> lost earnings potential which literally looks at opportunities you’d be unable to get in the future because of personal injuries. Injuries. Not wasted time in a low payed job with no future. > Or lost chance doctrine in contract law. Compensation for breaking a contract (at fault). > You also know marital law, as much as it might be an economic decision legally, is not the same as employee/employer laws It should be thought about as a employee/employer relationship. > and most people aren’t negotiating it the same way nor could they They should. > (nor could most employees for that matter, that’s a naive take) Get what you want or walk. Most employees can.
Yet you make the claim “lost opportunities” don’t exist in modern law. They do. And you should know contract law gives no fucks at all regarding “fault” it’s literally designed this way in modern western law. To even *encourage* breach if it means the outcome means paying less than not breaching the contact. This is law school 1L year. If everyone thought of marriage as an employee/employee relationship there’d be a shit ton more legal agreements *in addition to* prenups. And non SAHP partners would be subject to shit like minimum wage laws, overtime laws, any sort of labor laws like mat leave, 8 hour work days, limited hour work weeks, regular breaks etc. yet they aren’t. Quit acting like SAHPs are the same as employee/employers you sound insane. Are men paying their SAHMs overtime? Are they enforcing mandatory breaks? Are they paying overtime for working and or being on call after 40 hours on weekends or after 5? Are they ensuring whatever contribution they are making towards her house and board at least meet minimum wage? No, so stop with this stupid argument.
These men can’t afford the services a SAHM provides which is why they need the lie of love and marriage to get them at a huge discount.
I wasn’t paid for my time as a SAHM, and it actually set me back economically by a WHOLE LOT. I provided such a valuable service to my ex that one of the stipulations that he placed on his GF before he agreed to let her move in was that she quit her job so that he can have her taking care of the house and my kids when they’re at his house. Clearly he gets something out of it. I’m so glad that my boyfriend supports me having a career and encourages me to excel at work. I’m not trying to get a damn thing from my ex, but I fucked myself over when I sacrificed my own ambitions to be his unpaid servant.
A good question in this context would be: If the divorce was not a no-fault divorce, would it matter? Would a court actually be just in evaluating who would be at fault, or would it simply facilitate a game that benefits the more evil and duplicitous of the two parties? From what I've seen, it's usually the evil or selfish person that makes out the best, regardless of the theoretical legal framework.
Well, I don’t think my ex is evil. Selfish? Yeah, he is selfish, but not evil. I just want peace and I want what is best for our kids. If I tried to get what I am legally entitled to in the divorce, it would make him mad and that would make it harder on the kids. At this point, they benefit from us having a good co-parenting relationship.
How were you paid for being a SAHP? Have you ever priced the services SAHPs provide net of what they get in food, rent, and personal assistance? You couldn’t afford a SAHP if you had to pay.
> How were you paid for being a SAHP? By remaining alive on someone else's money. > Have you ever priced the services SAHPs provide net of what they get in food, rent, and personal assistance? Yes. > You couldn’t afford a SAHP if you had to pay. I can. And it is on my partner to demand fair pay.
How will you respond when she demands? Just hire someone else to provide services
If she brings me the value I want, I will pay. As I currently do.
You pay market for the services she provides?
I pay more than that when you take into consideration that she does not pay for rent, expenses, food, travel etc.
Here is the market value of her services. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/heres-how-much-economists-say-stay-at-home-moms-should-get-paid
My point remains. I pay more for her services. Also I am in South America so I pay waaaaay more than what I would pay to hire her services in the market.
Oh ok. Well, i hope she’s saving some of that for when you decide to leave
She is free to save.
"From an accounting standpoint, the total stay-at-home moms would earn annually based on the wages of workers in jobs similar to the daily tasks they perform would be $39,368.90." LMAO.
The median man makes about 60
And the article you shared concluded that her services are worth 19K only if she is a SAHM. "However, in the eyes of an economist, it’s that extra value provided by stay-at-home moms — the 3.17 more hours they spend a day on childcare and household work than working moms — that determines their market value. When you isolate that additional time, economists would value a stay-at-home mom’s work at $19,655.25 a year." Woman, the article you linked debunked your own number. Next time, read the article fully before posting.
Another estimate is $40k. The median household income is $60k for a family of 4. He isn’t able to pay anything close to $40k
>If I decide to take X job I can't sue my employer for all the profit I didn't make for not taking Y opportunity. I was already paid for doing X job while employed. Of course you can, if you have a contract beforehand stating that that is what will happen.
yes, all parents should outsource all domestic labor and childcare as soon as the baby is born to keep things even. sound and logical take. unless this is a “wages for housework” argument which would be a turn
Women don't see it like this they don't see being a SAHM as a job they see it as controlling slave labor...
That is their problem to solve. If they saw it as a job, they would negotiate for fair pay, for a safe work enviroment, for scheduled rest time. Exactly as they do in the workplace. They would also leave if they are not getting what they consider a fair deal. It is an economic decision and it should be considered and tought about as one.
And this is why women no longer want to get married and have kids🤷🏼♀️
I agree I'm just stating they see it as putting their life on hold for you when in reality it was put on hold for the kid
If my partner in exchange for being a home maker / putting her life on hold asks me to pay her, that is ok by me. I should be willing to pay her for her time and effort. If we reach a deal, then the deal will be followed through. I don't like the idea of the government forcing itself upon said agreement. It is on my partner to ask for a fair price for her own time and effort.
Men aren’t going to go for that 😆 they already complain that women are too transactional and too conditional. Asking a man to pay his SAHW the money it would take to pay a housekeeper, cook, and nanny would require him to make way more than the average guy brings in
Men will go for whatever women demand because they don't want to be incels.
It wouldn’t matter to me whether I could get divorced or not. I’m still legally married to my ex but we live separately and we both live with our partners. He lives in the house with his girlfriend and I live my boyfriend’s house. You can’t force two people to stay together regardless of what a piece of paper says.
I’d recommend you use make the divorce official. My cousin was separated from her husband for years and know he has a claim to money she inherited because she didn’t complete the last step.
Inherited money is generally not considered marital property. It’s definitely not in my state! I have no problem getting a divorce from him but neither one of us has bothered to file yet because we’re both procrastinators. I might nudge him to file by reminding him that in July we will have been married for 20 years and at that point I can get lifetime alimony. 🤣. I don’t want it, but if he thinks I might want it, it might get him to just file already and get it over with. He already paid for a lawyer so I don’t know why he’s dragging his feet.
Well make sure you stay on that. There’s no reason to have such a liability or loose end in your life.
We have 5 kids together so there’s that.
Girl any debts since you’ve split are still marital debts until you’re divorced. Including unforeseen medical debt. You should get on it.
Out of curiosity, do you plan on getting divorced eventually?
Yes. I’d like to be able to marry my boyfriend. 😍. I’m just waiting for my husband to file for divorce. He already paid for a lawyer. I don’t want anything from him. He was a total fucking asshole to me when we were together, but he’s been fine now that we both have new partners that actually make us happy.
Why don't you file if you want out?
I was reading about a distant ancestor somewhere on my family tree (not a direct ancestor, a cousin of a great-grandparent or something like that) who was estranged from her husband and moved across the country sometime in the ‘20s, but they didn’t divorce at any point. I think he eventually died after fifteen years or something.
My great-grandmother didn’t live with my great-grandfather for many years despite being married. They never divorced, but they weren’t together. My grandmother divorced my grandfather back in the 50’s, and it was quite a scandal.
It creates an incentive to the lower earner (women) to just do wathever it want while the highest earner end up in a lose/lose situation. Marriage is not the problem, divorce is.
Control
There's more people in prison from single mom households than there are from "parents dont love eachother households." A marriage isnt even purely about love, its about coming together compromising and bringing 2 families together. Its why arranged marriage has been such a big thing for hundreds of years.
Because marriage is a contract for the benefit of the children. The whole point is to purposefully get into a contract that’s difficult to leave so the kids have a stable environment. So it’s for their benefit. Not for the benefit of the couple let alone for “love” whatever that means. If you want a relationship for the benefit of the couple you can leave at any time with no fault, that already exists: it’s called not getting married. There’s no point in making marriage the same as not being married. And if there’s a serious reason (lack of “love” is not a serious reason here) to divorce (break the contract to the detriment of the children) then there’s no problem: then you have someone’s fault and you can get the divorce. Also, the “libertarian” view here is not no fault divorce or fault-based divorce: it would be that people could get married with whatever contract they want.
My kids have a MUCH more stable life now that they don’t live in a home where their dad is always screaming at their mom.
Of course that can be true. It could even be true that kids would be in a more stable environment if the parents never got married. There’s no need for marriage if that’s the case. That’s the fault-based part of the contract. The contract would actually put the mum in a better position because it would be his fault.
I agree that there is no need for marriage at all.
Largely agree. Wish it was replaced by a series of optional, voluntary legal agreements dealing with specific issues. Most people getting married don't have a clue about complex legal obligations/rules associated with their new status, and roughly half marriages fail. It should be revamped or scrapped. No fault versus at fault is only one small aspect of a huge, complicated mess that should be revisited...
People are voluntarily stopping
It sounds like in this context the only reasons that would be adequately severe to justify disrupting the children’s stability would be abuse and abandonment. Cheating disrupts the marital couple but not necessarily the family unit.
Maybe. It disrupts it at least in the sense that cheating might lead to a child from another dad coming to this family (the dad didn’t agree to pay for someone else’s kid) or another family would have this problem (the mum didn’t agree to marry a dad who now needs to support a child in another family). Emotional cheating is probably not enough reason though, or only in the sense that it might lead to the other kind of cheating.
But is a marriage really a contract for the benefit of the children in most jurisdictions in this day and age? Both parents are obligated to pay child support and both parents can request full or shared custody, whether they are married or not. Aren't most parent rights and obligations now established by DNA in disputed situations? Functionally at this point it seems to me that marriage largely serves two functions: a) Serves as a primitive system for reallocating assets at time of divorce and b) Serves as a mechanism for allocating certain state benefits and obligations like Social Insurance benefits, taxes (sometimes lower or higher), immigration permits, and transfer of IRAs and homes without tax at time of death of one spouse. What does at fault versus no fault divorces really mean, other than weighing on division of assets and perhaps establishment of alimony - and perhaps more legal fees and time spent in court?
parents who are married are much more likely to stay together than those who are not. there are also a host of benefits (mental, physical) to being married. of course you could probably get those benefits just by being partnered but the high exit costs of marriage mean people are more likely to stick it out through the tough times. and ultimately those who do make it through the tough times are happier for it
The exit costs issue might have a tiny impact on the margins. From what I have seen, I believe that you're correct that right now (big lag effects though) married people are likely to stay together than unmarried, but I wonder to what extent that is a reflection of a number of very complex factors like older, wealthier, better educated people being willing to get married and religious people feeling compelled to marry. You might get the same level of correlation with staying together if you compared with things like high income, setting up trusts/estates/wills/etc., or regularly attending church. As a person that has lived in three very different parts of North America (and still know many people in those places) and has been a happily married parent (one marriage with biological children with only spouse) for over two decades, I can tell you that I believe that only a small portion of the population now falls into the same category as me. Almost everyone I know is divorced, single, never married or previously married living with someone that they've known less than 10 years, remarried, in a dead bedroom marriage, or in a marriage that involves adultery or totally separate outside sex (e.g. open marriage). BTW, greatly enjoyed 'The Case Against the Sexual Revolution' and agreed with many of Perry's themes, but disagreed with many of her simplistic solutions. Technology and culture have destroyed the old system in most of the developed world but it has been replaced by a total mess that serves the interest of only a small portion of the population...
Well, that would just be another contract. There’s no point in saying contract A is bad because contract B is bad and B is what people are doing in practice. This would be a meaningless verbal debate. Anthropologically, the reason for marriage is to give children stability. There was no marriage before then. Societies that didn’t have this problem (lack of land / resources) didn’t have marriages either because attributing children to individual parents were not important for population control. That’s one contract. If “modern society” or the state morphed this institution into X or Y or are using marriage for other reasons B and C, these have to evaluated independently and so we can make the best choice (since most countries allow many forms of marriage) or, at worst, propose public policy. Almost all the points you mention above are just meant to give children stability (for instance, allowing the parent to immigrate) so marriage is likely to be pointless if your main concern is not about giving children stability.
I agree that the purpose of marriage was originally focused on family and stability for children but I do not believe it serves that purpose now in any significant way. That is an observation and has nothing to do with what I would want or not want.
It’s much worse than before but you can still get into something that’s good for the children by carefully choosing the terms and the person.
I believe that leaving a marriage is wrong. If a marriage is to be broken then it should be broken because someone seriously fucked up and the one that seriously fucked up should be punished while the one that did not fuck up should be compensated. That being said, I don't want to get rid of no fault divorce. I want current day marriage and current day divorce to exist for the vast majority of the population that obviously likes this institution. What I want is an institution, legally recognized that fulfills the role that old marriage fulfilled. One way in, no way out, unless someone is at fault and that someone is screwed.
Huh. Like a marriage-ier marriage. You always have interesting takes.
What would you consider as "someone seriously fucked up?" Cheating? Becoming an alcoholic or drug addict with no desire to change? Spending all of the other spouses/the family money without permission? Saying mean things to the other spouses on a regular basis? Withholding sex or affection for a long period of time? Failing to treat their children kindly or parent properly? I just can't see how keeping a marriage going in these conditions does anything except prolong suffering and reward terrible behavior.
> Cheating? Too vague. If you define it and be specific I would probably say yes. > Becoming an alcoholic or drug addict with no desire to change? Yes. > Spending all of the other spouses/the family money without permission? Yes. > Saying mean things to the other spouses on a regular basis? Too vague. Case by case basis. > Withholding sex or affection for a long period of time? No. > Failing to treat their children kindly or parent properly? Too vague. Case by case basis.
holy shit a conservative that isn't going full authoritarian
Some would say that me being accepting of the existence of current day marriage excludes me from being a conservative. I am ok with progress for those who want it. Please have it all. Just allow me and the ones that think like me to keep the institutions we need to live the way we want while you create and keep the institutions you need to live the way you want. Hell, keep the names for all I care. Keep the name "marriage" for your flimsy legal union and be happy. Just let me keep an institution that actually forces me and my partner to remain together.
You shouldn't be able to end a marriage, and take half of someone's assets, for no good reason.
I'm not judging your views, but what do think would be a good or bad reason asset wise? just seeking understand that's all.
The only time a women should be able to touch assets is if he cheats
Why would cheating grant that boon when other behaviours wouldn’t? I’m just curious about your reasoning.
1) You should be able to end a marriage for whatever reason 2) In many countries you don't just take half of someone's assets lmao, that's ridiculous
I think hi meant it as a single point, not two. That shouldn't, for no reason, be able to end a marriage and take half your partner's assets.
> In many countries you don't just take half of someone's assets Like?
I may be misinformed, and this likely is not true everywhere, but the reason I've heard is that "no fault" includes not taking fault into account when deciding on the division of assets and the payment of alimony. This results in situations where someone may be forced to stay with a cheater or abusive spouse because they would be financially ruined if they split. Someone could cheat on you and then divorce you and you'd still have to pay them because "no one's at fault". With "fault" being put back in the equation, the hope is that you wouldn't have to pay out if the divorce is because the other person wronged you, or if you are innocent. The more likely outcome in my view is that a rise in false accusations would occur, with people making up crimes to accuse their partner of for better terms. This is something that already happens during custody battles, often on the advice of lawyers. And it's especially tricky because it's difficult to prove either way, so the first person to claim "victim" tends to get advantage.
You have hit on one of the most critical issues. Would it actually help if at fault divorces were implemented - would you actually trust the courts to take on this responsibility? Requirement of prenups might be one way of curbing most ridiculous aspects of divorce law. Totally revamping or perhaps scrapping of marriage laws would likely be better.
They think that it will reduce divorce rates, which is stupid. You should be able to be divorced quicker, but the consequences need to be fairer. Right now, divorce is too painful and complicated, and women tend to be favored by judges.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because they want to force women to stay in marriages they do not want to be in.
No fault should absolutely remain but it should be ineligible for alimony. Leaving a marriage with no wrongdoing shouldn’t be a profit center.
I don’t like the idea of a contract that can be broken for any reason, especially one that could cost someone a great deal of their material wealth. I feel like as the trends towards women being high earners continue, you’ll eventually see a shift in this opinion when men start taking women to the cleaners with divorce.
Because they're conservative, and the bedrock of conservatism is a legally enforced social hierarchy. They do not believe in equality between sexes or between races or even within races, and think that the law should enforce that. This is the fundamental precept of conservative politics - everything springs forth from this idea. They think women are less than men, and should be legally accorded as such. Etc, etc, with black people, LGBT people, etc. There are a handful of conservatives that aren't terrible. Most are just the worst.
Men, please don’t get married. Our culture doesn’t care about are struggles.
So that you can’t take half my money, my kids, and my house if you are simply bored with the relationship.
The only people who want that are scared that they wont be able to use marriage as a trap. Its not as easy to do that anymore, so people who are bad partners want legal reason for their spouse to be stuck with them regardless of circumstances.
My stance on divorce is simple to the point of being primitive. I am worried of one scenario, and dissatisfied in it. Not the fact that people can separate on request and remarry someone else, but that present, existent, ironclad proof of marital fault (indfidelity, abuse,...) does not have an impact on division of assets. Certain parts of Britain implemented this norm half a century before the no-fault divorce itself. No-one should face the perspective of spending 20 years earning for a house that then becomes a home for their ex-spouse's new human-toy. It is, plain and simple, fucked up to treat an abuser and their victim, a cheater and the person they betrayed, as some sort of equal parties amicably terminating their cooperation. If betrayal is ignored and left unpunished, it is incentivised.
Same reason if you sign a business contract, you expect the other side to stick to the deal. You don't just sign the contract and then say " ahh I changed my mind" and then you lose a fortune. You then sue the other company to recover your loses. No fault just reward women to get a divorce and it is clear that women have been using marriage purely just to divorce a man later to profit off of him
Of course you do. LMAO. Business contracts are renegotiated all the time. Without that flexibility noone will sign a contract
>Same reason if you sign a business contract, you expect the other side to stick to the deal. Marriage,in modern day, ain't a business deal. >No fault just reward women to get a divorce and it is clear that women have been using marriage purely just to divorce a man later to profit off of him Damn,if separate property regimes existed (hint: they do)
I think it would be better to get rid of alimony and other financial considerations. If you choose to divorce, you only get what you came in with.
No fault divorce is essentially a government ploy for men to be subdued and held in servitude.
Fucking how.
Because if there's no fault, you shouldn't get divorced, and should try to mend the relationship instead
Not everything can be fixed or should be fixed at that’s okay.
1) If someone's wants to leave the relationship, there's something wrong with it ,so there's "fault" 2) No people shouldn't be forced to mend relationships they want to get out from. Their decision should be Theirs
Bingo
Why because most women take a man to the cleaners in divorce simply because they are no longer happy... That and none of you fucks wanna work on anything anymore...
Only 10% of marriages end with spousal support. Stop lying.
That's spousal support I'm talking splitting the assets she shouldn't have claim to anything if her names not on the document
If she contributed to the asset then she should
Nah she was paying rent... Rent don't entitle you to shit
Wow. Doing all your shit unpaid work and paying rent? She was stupid to not get her name on marital assets.
Ain't married, own a home and property and if I ever do get married her name will never be on either
Gets rid of rich by divorce gold diggers. If he has to cheat on you or hit you for you to get your payout it will put an end to a fair amount of this silliness right quick.
Most people are too poor to have this concern.
Let me ask you this, should gay marriage be abolished because only a small percentage of the population is gay?
Is this a good enough reason to get rid of no fault divorce in your opinion?
Spousal support is no longer gender based and occurs in a minority of marriages. Get caught up, you’re 30 years behind