Why do women get the better deal in court?

Divorces, child custody, you name it, women have got the upper hand. Why is this prejudiced trend so prominent in the court system?

It's not as if the father/husband has less of a right. Could anyone explain why males are so downtrodden by this insane surge of feminism?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it's all because in the past women had basically no rights. women were not even considered to be people. so they are now being given the upperhand. for example, if a man and a woman were eqaully qualified for a job, the woman (by law) would be hired. in today's society those who have been subjected to mistreatment in the past will be given an advantage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is because sometimes men are to blame for the problems in a marriage . When this occurs then the men must pay the price of their mistakes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That doesn't really answer SouthStar's question of why women win more often. I'm pretty sure that men and women are equally likely to cheat, abuse the children, or be responsible for whatever other 'bad behavior' cause a divorce.

 

They were always considered people, and did have rights. Society and traditions change.

Are you saying that this women in the past was turned down? What does your use of "mistreatment" mean?

 

Well in divorces the mother is seen as a more influential and pertienent force in the kid's life. The court finds the mother's natural maternal abilities to be more beneficial for the childern, basically bringing a man's role down to provide for the family (Alimony payments) and the mother to take care of the family (raising the kids through almost full custody). Also because men do tend to have higher infidelity numbers then women....that kinda works against their favor.

 

Men are usually the ones with the jobs and the women are homemakers without jobs. The courts will help the women more for they are not employed and will not find work easily trying to take care of youngsters at home while getting a education to seek work.

 

I agree that now, women are given more rights than men in certain situations because now society wants women to "get even". If a woman says that her husband hit her, everyone believes her if he did or not. I think that women can get away very easily with those types of lies in court. Today, people feel sorry for the women. "Oh, poor <insert name of woman>, she has had such a hard time, let's give her what she wants". In divorce court, women seem to need an extra push, bu the man is a man, so he can take care fo himself. So, women are generally seen as inferior, so they will win more in divorce court to help them out. It's like warped affirmative action. I think that women and men should be treated equally in divorce court, but it's almost impossible with modern society's views.

Women generally are known to make better parents. If she claims that the father didn't take care of her children, then she will win.

A good example is my uncle and my aunt. They divorced over money issues. My uncle would work 14 hour shifts at the hospital (he was a nurse) and bring back a reasonable income to support his family and his two kids. His wife would spend more than they could afford on frivilous things. They tried to work it out, but it failed. They got divorced. My aunt won the children in court, as usual. Then she claimed that my uncle had abused the kids. Even though the kids said he did nothing (he is a good guy and our family knows he loves his kids and wouldn't hurt them), his wife got a court order for him to only see his kids one hour a week under tight supervision. My uncle wasn't happy with this, he tried to reverse it and prove that he wasn't a danger to his kids. It didn't work, it was his work vs her word and she won. Then my aunt started telling their kids that mu uncle was their uncle, not their dad. Then mu uncle left to the United states and sent my aunt a letter saying "If I can't see my kids and they can't know that I'm their father, then don't expect me to pay for them". Dow, he's a deadbeat father, living in the USA because of the feminist court system. Is this fair? no, it isn't. THe court must be changed to accomodate both men and women.

 

The most appaling thing about these cases is that the men lose the house and everything they worked for their entire lives, in addition to having to pay monstrous sums of money to the woman. What do they think? If the man doesn't even own the home, why should he bring home the bacon?

 

Southstar can you give us some statistical data to chew on while we ponder your question? This is kinda abstract if you don't sit around your home and dwell on it. Quantify it please. Why are you, Southstar pondering this this week?

 

I was wondering a show on FX, 'Rescue Me', and the guy (a fireman) had basically lost his house and his kids to his wife and had to move out on his own (while the wife got a rich boyfriend) and it got me wondering why this is such a trend in society.. so much for equality eh?


I can't find any stats right now, but will post them when I do.

 

The homestead goes to the parent with the kids as I understand it. Why he does not have custody we don't know. In divorce in states that are common equity (common debt) states the house is considered an asset and when stuff is divded out the one whom gets the house doesn't get too much else. In some common equity divorces ( am i choosing right word common equity--meaning you marry partners assets and debts) the house is liquidated and the proceeds divided out. It is on a case-per-case basis which is why it is hard when there is no aggragate to work with. I understand that most states today are no-fault divorce states meaning blame is not assigned in the dividing of assets and still further assets gained prior to the marriage are not considered in the dividing of said assets.

I don't know a lot about divorce but I do know that if the fireman lost the house in the deal that he

a) probably gain other assets to bridge the difference including autos
b) his income was probably a factor in relation to hers
c) Her having the children was a factor

In divorce there are two options that a splitting couple can take

1) mediation
2) divorce lawyers

If the divorce is messy and two lawyers are battling out for the best interest of their respective clients I don't see how one side (unless the client has not done homework and the lawyer is poor negociater) can dominate the other side.

A mediator is only used in "friendly" divorces or when either or both sides are fincially strained and the mediator has no vested interest in either party as he is paid for his mediating service and not in the benefit of either party.

The only dangerous situation (that I have personally seen) is when a mediator is used and one side aquires legal council while the other does not. If one side gets a lawyer the other side (assuming commen assets via the marriage) would be foolish to not follow suit.

ok waiten for your stats

 

Let's not talk about situations on TV whether it's "reality" TV or not. Afterall TV is NOT real.

Here's a statistic for you to chew on - women get paid 79 cents to the dollar that men earn. Here's another - post-divorce the woman's standard of living generally goes down while the man's goes up.

As far as custody goes, have you ever thought that perhaps custody of the children is not a reward but a burden? The primary caregiver is the primary breadwinner and will almost always spend more money than the child support paying parent.

 

I feel so sorry for your uncle and his children. At the same time, I am so disgusted of what your aunt did. What kind of a court is it that only takes her word more seriously than what the children say about their father?

She was so bad that he hates her to the point of abandoning his children. This appears to me that it was all her faults but her ex-husband and the children have to pay for it.

 

that is why it is wise nowadays not to marry at all, but just to live together
love should keep people together, not some archaic institution and potential sanctions

 

A common law marriage is just as legally binding as a civil marriage in many states. If you were to break up after 5 years (the length of the co-habitation before it becomes a common law marriage varies from state to state) it's treated like a normal divorce. Property, assets and children are divided up just the same as if you were married.

 

it is not so in Latvia and that is good

 

ILikeSalt. In Britain the same thing would have happened except, the mother can then claim upkeep of the children, a substancial amount of the father's income to support the kids as well, I cant remmeber the exact figures but roughly 30% upkeep.

A most excellent law system we have. You dont even need to be married now to be open to compensation of this sort, just living together will suffice.

I wish I were a lawyer.

 

As odd as it seems to say, the appearance that women get a better deal in court is a result of our misogynistic culture. After saddling women with the burdens of family and chastising her because the father is a deadbeat, after repeating like a mantra that a woman's place is in the home with the children, the courts tend to favor motherhood over fatherhood. After all, it is her duty, according to prejudice. So, naturally, women are viewed by the courts to be the choice caretaker. Unless, of course, the woman is a lesbian, in which case a child is better served in the custody of an accused molester and convicted murderer.

 

On the 79 cents to a dollar is that in general or per industry /job where did you get that figure?

A lot of woman's standards of living going down for three reasons:

1) they did not build credit prior to their marriage and even less after
2) they did not pursue a career tract
3) They married for money and let the man support them.

Their divorce puts them financially in part, where they would be if they didn't meet the man and partly below par because of the childeren. The children variable (since they already have them) they cannot control the other ones they can.

The co-dependant culture that many woman subscibe to, (cause it is a choice made by the woman not forced on them and long before the marriage), is an example of woman being their own worst enemy.

I think it is paramount for woman (or men on the rare occasion when the situation is reversed) to maintain a sense of self and independance as well as a sense of a married sense of couple....Not just in the event of a break but also for their own spirtual identity. I don't want to get too far off the subject and I realize that if a woman has a mulitude of children her career tract will be retarded for a signifigant amount of time but I think it is paramount that a woman in her preparation for married life should consider strongly working on her independant life and I further think that any husband that retards, discourages, impedes or stops this effort is asserting a very negative influence on her.

I also want to say that to be fair, men many times, push for a co-dependant female creating the reality that a woman being subservant makes her more marketable to the opposite sex. I wouldn't know how to even start to change a perception that is so predominant in the US but I do recognize it as a problem rather than an acceptable lifestyle.

Personally I would rather have an equal partner whom helps me grow as I help her as opposed to a subservant partner whom acts in accordance to my direction and automatically bends to my will.