Ladies Night Derail From ERA Thread

[laughing dog]

Why? The two formed an economic partnership, presumably with a mutually equitable and mutually agreeable division of labor. It seems that assets accumulated during the marriage should be divided equally, representative of the mutually beneficial relationship.

If the man is no longer benefiting from whatever the ex-wife was doing in the marriage, why should the ex-wife continue to benefit from her ex-husband's money?

That is based on the biased and ignorant assumption that the marriage did not contribute in any way, shape or form on the husband's current benefits.

Current divorce laws incentivize women to marry rich husbands and then leave them.

If that were so, you'd be able to present positive evidence to support your claim. At least anecdotally, current divorce laws do not seem to disincentive rich husbands from leaving their wives.

 

[Derec]

That is based on the biased and ignorant assumption that the marriage did not contribute in any way, shape or form on the husband's current benefits.

Let's say the ex-wife cooked and cleaned. If they divorce, he no longer has access to that.
And let's say the man was the sole breadwinner. Why should the wife continue to benefit from his money when he is no longer benefiting from her cooking and cleaning?
Ex-wives should have to get a job and not use the government to force their ex-husbands to support them. That turns men into lifelong serfs of their greedy (and often cheating as well!) ex-wives.
Right now a woman has every incentive to leave her husband, take his money, force him to support her, and fuck the pool boy.

If that were so, you'd be able to present positive evidence to support your claim. At least anecdotally, current divorce laws do not seem to disincentive rich husbands from leaving their wives.

The evidence you need are divorce laws themselves, esp. when they give the ex-wife half the ex-husband's assets, plus alimony which is life-long is some states.
There was a case in New York where a rich man got divorced. A feminist judge awarded ungodly sums of money to the greedy, cheating ex-wife even though they had an actual pre-nup according to which she was not supposed to get it. So a man cannot even be protected with a prenup from getting ripped off in divorce.
Or look at Jeff Bezos' greedy ex. She will become a billionaire but it wasn't her who started Amazon.

 

[laughing dog]

Let's say the ex-wife cooked and cleaned. If they divorce, he no longer has access to that.
And let's say the man was the sole breadwinner. Why should the wife continue to benefit from his money when he is no longer benefiting from her cooking and cleaning?..

Again, if the household arrangement contributed to the breadwinner's ability to earn and to be productive, then why shouldn't that stay at home spouse continue to receive a benefit? For example, if keeping the breadwinner fed, clean, and reasonably happy improved the breadwinner's earning capacity, then why shouldn't the stay at home spouse continue to receive some benefit if the breadwinner still is. Similarly, if the household arrangement enabled the assets of the household to increase, why shouldn't the stay at home spouse receive some portion of those assets?

The evidence you need are divorce laws themselves...

That is only evidence of your ability to make biased projections, not of actual outcomes. What evidence do you have that Ms. Bezos is greedy? Do you have a link to what she is demanding in a divorce settlement?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why?

Because their contributions the partnership were very uneven.

How do you know that?

Because Mrs. $1B didn't contribute substantially more to the marriage than Mrs $10M.

 

[laughing dog]

How do you know that?

Because Mrs. $1B didn't contribute substantially more to the marriage than Mrs $10M.

You keep assuming that household arrangement itself does not affect the earnings of the higher earner. Why is that?

 

[Jarhyn]

How do you know that?

Because Mrs. $1B didn't contribute substantially more to the marriage than Mrs $10M.

Seriously? Have you not ever been married? Have you not even ever really been in love? If you had, I would expect you to understand how ridiculous that sounds.

Also, do you really think any human being can meaningfully contribute a real 1b worth in value to anyone? Seriously? Nobody does that much real work. No idea, no leadership, no one person ever really creates that much. At best they leech off of many other people who create real value, like a parasite, while providing just enough of whatever they do to make it seem like a good deal.

 

[Toni]

How do you know that?

Because Mrs. $1B didn't contribute substantially more to the marriage than Mrs $10M.

Again, how do you know that? It seems to me that you are basing a lot of assumptions on outmoded stereotypes. How do you know that Mrs. B didn’t contribute 50% or more of the creative/intellectual work that is responsible for the substantial marital assets? How do you know that Mr. B. Isn’t an emotionally stunted asshole with daddy issues who is only able to function and bring his/their ideas to fruition because of her substantial contributions?

I truly feel sorry for your wife.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you know that?

Because Mrs. $1B didn't contribute substantially more to the marriage than Mrs $10M.

You keep assuming that household arrangement itself does not affect the earnings of the higher earner. Why is that?

That's not what I'm saying. Having a supportive partner certainly can help. I'm saying there's a limit to that help, though. The difference between $10M and $1B is not due to one's spouse.

 

[Jarhyn]

You keep assuming that household arrangement itself does not affect the earnings of the higher earner. Why is that?

That's not what I'm saying. Having a supportive partner certainly can help. I'm saying there's a limit to that help, though. The difference between $10M and $1B is not due to one's spouse.

It's not due to the real actions or qualities of the "earner", either, though. It is due to largely to chance and circumstances of birth, and oftentimes, purely to unethical action. The difference between 5m and 500m ismt really substantial in the face of the fact that *both of them still have millions of dollars*.

 

[Toni]

You keep assuming that household arrangement itself does not affect the earnings of the higher earner. Why is that?

That's not what I'm saying. Having a supportive partner certainly can help. I'm saying there's a limit to that help, though. The difference between $10M and $1B is not due to one's spouse.

How do you know?

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[laughing dog]

You keep assuming that household arrangement itself does not affect the earnings of the higher earner. Why is that?

That's not what I'm saying. Having a supportive partner certainly can help. I'm saying there's a limit to that help, though. The difference between $10M and $1B is not due to one's spouse.

First, that is an unsubstantiated claim of fact. Second, as long as some of the difference is attributable, that means your proposal shafts the stay at home spouse.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You keep assuming that household arrangement itself does not affect the earnings of the higher earner. Why is that?

That's not what I'm saying. Having a supportive partner certainly can help. I'm saying there's a limit to that help, though. The difference between $10M and $1B is not due to one's spouse.

So what? They're still in a partnership.

If you buy a company's stock at $10 and then when you try to sell it at $100, you're told "Sorry, but while the initial capital infusion from the IPO did certainly help us out, it was mainly the actions of the management team after that which drove the company's growth, so we'll give you $20 per share and distribute the rest as bonuses to our executives", would you think that's a fairer system of investing? If you had a friend who paid $10 for a stock and, but that had only risen to $20 because that company's management team wasn't as good as the one you invested in, would that influence your opinion of the first situation since the two of you gave the exact same contributions to the two companies and therefore it's unjust for you to receive more money from your investment?

Similarly, when you marry someone, you make an investment in that relationship. If that investment turns out to be more lucrative than other investments then ... you made a good investment.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

View attachment 19794

Depends on the lady.

There are some I wouldn't really want to see topless.