Religious Cults/Money and Gender

Post Reply New Topic

I watched a TV program last night about people who get trapped in religious cults and one particular story caught my attention.

A man and woman (husband and wife) joined a cult and signed over their whole estate (property, life savings, the works). A bit further down the track, the woman leaves and the man stays. The woman takes the cult to court to recover the money they gave away and the man testifies against her and also gathers additional witnesses/evidence for the defence. The court rules in favour of the woman and the man files for divorce and gives his share of the money to the cult. The man later leaves the cult and goes to court to recover his money. The case is dismissed.

There is something about this that smacks of gender inequality. I can't help thinking that if it had been the other way round the man would still have been stiffed and the woman would have got her money back even though she was pro-active in the case for the cult.

I suppose you could argue that the man ceased to be a victim and became party to the abuse when he opposed the woman in court, but I'm not convinced that the situation would be viewed the same way if the woman had been the one to stay behind.

What do you guys think?

We would have to see a case of the same thing happening in reverse to make that call. Their situations were different at the time they made their claims against the cult, so it would be very difficult to demonstrate a bias on the grounds of gender.

I think it's more of a case of " Hey, dummy, you got what you deserved". I would call this a good call from the Bench.

I don't care for religions or cults, but i don't think either should have gotten anything back. A gift is a gift. They legally signed it all over.

This kind of proves my point. It's easier for a woman to play the manipulation card than it is for a man. If the man had gone straight to court, the general feeling would have been "What an idiot. Shouldn't have given his money away in the first place" but the woman can say that she wasn't in her right mind because of the abuse and the judge will take her seriously.

I think both the man and the woman should have got their money back.

i would have to know more about the case to agree or disagree with a gender bias. If one person can prove they were threatened and coerced into signing the paperwork,then that's different then someone freely drinking the cool aid of their own free will.

i would also have to see a host of similar cases and how they were resolved to know whether it was a single bad ruling or if there is truly a gender bias in the way the courts look at it.

But, it certainly is possible.