He's referring to the fact that men lose a significant portion (usually half, sometimes more) of their financial assets during divorce. Protection in this case refers to signing certain agreements before or during marriage.
No, in fact it's becoming less common as time goes on.
In the US by 2008, maternal sole-custody had declined to 42% of custodial arrangements (from 80% in 1986), while equal shared custody rose to 27% (from 5%).
That is still a huge risk though. I mean fair enough if the guy is abusive but if she simply runs of and finds somebody else that is not something I want to risk my children over.
And I have seen too many people at work struggling with ugly divorces.
Complete BS. I've known many men who have sole or primary custody of their children including my sister in law's former husband. I also grew up with some kids who lived with the dads most of the time. This meme has to end because it isn't true. Sure, maybe most of the time the woman gets it but always is a complete lie.
You missed the point entirely. The contention is society's automatic assumption that it's better to give custody of children to the mother, as opposed to the father. That's why women end up with the kids the vast majority of the time, and the only time they don't is when there's seriously wrong with them (e.g. abusive, mentally ill, etc.).
> The contention is society's automatic assumption that it's better to give custody of children to the mother, as opposed to the father. That's why women end up with the kids the vast majority of the time
Or, the vast majority of the time, men use custody of the children as a bargaining chip to secure a better financial settlement, which is why they mostly don't end up with custody.
In contested divorces, there may be a presumption operating that the person who acted as the primary caregiver is most suitable custodial parent, and traditional gender roles means that that will often be the mother.
But that's not a gender-based assumption, that's a gender-neutral assumption applied to facts that happen to be influenced by traditional gender roles.
Now, if men who were the primary caregiver during marriage were generally losing custody in contested custody proceedings, that would be a different story.
I do wonder sometimes if men give up primary custody on purpose because they are afraid society won't think they are manly enough or something like that? I mean, pure hypothesis on my part.
>The contention is society's automatic assumption that it's better to give custody of children to the mother, as opposed to the father.
1) That's 100% incorrect
2) That isn't even what was said.
>women end up with the kids the vast majority of the time, and the only time they don't is when there's seriously wrong with them (e.g. abusive, mentally ill, etc.).
Once again, completely and totally incorrect. The "vast majority" of people that I personally know about don't have the woman ending up with the kids. I know of one guy whose ex-wife took off halfway across the country and left him with the kids.
I also know (and hate) someone who is male and did the same - took off halfway across the country and left his ex (girlfriend) with the kid.
I would say that women can tend to be unfair with the kids. Insisting "I'm going to get my way" and the father just giving it to her rather than fight in court over it.
Assets in a marriage belong to the legal union of two people, so it's not surprising that everyone loses roughly half of what they co-owned. Is there a law somewhere which is preferential for one gender over another in divorce? The separation of assets depends on a lot of factors, but gender is not one of them, afaik.
That's assuming both sides brought an equal amount of equity to the union in the first place. However, if the man brings more to the union (which I suppose is typically the case, based on this fear existing in the first place), he stands to lose more when it dissolves.
The obvious solution is to separate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place, though I'm sure that's much easier said than done (and a bit of an oversimplification of most situations).
separate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place
The convincing argument I've heard against that is that it gives someone leverage to keep their partner in a relationship against their will, once they are used to a certain standard of living they can't have on their own. If someone with significant assets marries someone living paycheck to paycheck, for example.
If you don't want to merge your equity with someone, either don't marry them or sign a prenup. I don't think people with significant net worth go into marriages without understanding what they're doing.
Also, the original logic that any of this will have anything to do with a man's willingness to work seems really quite over-stretched.
