Consequences of divorce for women and men

Post Reply New Topic

I'm replying here to something that was said in another thread because the O.P. of that thread complained that it was being hijacked.

Where on Earth did you get the idea that divorce has no consequences for women??? Please see the following:

- The 6 Nasty Financial Surprises For Divorcing Women by Laurie Itkin, Forbes, Jul 15, 2018
- Consequences of Divorce for Women by Amy Guertin, Our Everyday Life
- Social Effects of Divorce by Carolyn Scheidies, Our Everyday Life
- How Not to get Screwed a in Divorce (advice for women) by Natasha Burton, Her Money, June 14, 2018
- Men become richer after divorce by Amelia Hill, The Guardian (U.K.), Sat 24 Jan 2009
- Women, men, and the economic consequences of divorce: Evidence from Canadian longitudinal data by Ross Finnie, Canadian Review of Sociology, May 1993
- What Divorce Does to Women's Heart Health, by Alice Park, TIME, April 14, 2015

It's true that some (by no means all) divorcing women receive alimony, but usually that serves only to even out the economic impact of the divorce between the two ex-spouses.

It's true that women initiate the majority of divorces. That's probably because a bad marriage is usually (though not always, of course) harder on women than on men, for a variety of reasons including, among others: (1) Domestic violence is more likely to be perpetrated by men on women than vice versa (although vice versa does exist). (2) Many women have been socialized to be relatively passive, making it harder to voice and resolve whatever issues they might have. (3) Many men have a habit of failing to take women's complaints seriously enough.

Divorce can be an awful mess for both women and men -- and even worse for their children, if any.

But I think the lesson to be drawn -- for both women and men -- is NOT that one shouldn't marry at all, but that marriage is something to be approached slowly and cautiously. Too many people believe in "love at first sight" or otherwise get married way too quickly, to people whom they don't yet know very well at all.

It would also help a lot if people in general were taught conflict resolution skills.

EDIT: I would add that the possibility of having to pay a large amount of alimony, in the event of divorce, is a good reason for a man NOT to desire "traditional gender roles" in marriage, except perhaps during brief periods when the children are small. If the wife has her own income, she won't need and won't be entitled to much if any alimony.

Ummmm...I get that you are presenting an opposing viewpoint and I respect that. I don’t doubt that there are negatives for women.

But with ONLY ONE exception, I’ve never seen men get the upper hand in divorce. I’m a former paralegal. I’ve worked on divorce cases. My wife did it longer than I did. We KNOW. The system is set up to favor women. I won’t get into the philosophical part right now.

The EXCEPTION is this: the law itself cannot favor men or women. The system favors mothers by way of precedent and judge’s rulings. The law itself applies equally. In this ONE case, the husband was a deputy sherrif who hired a PI to follow his wife. He caught her red-handed while they were separated during divorce proceedings, and brought evidence to court. She kinda forgot to tell her lawyer about her bf. Her lawyer was incompetent, anyway, but it wouldn’t have mattered if he was the best lawyer in town. He ended up with full custody of her children.

Yes, and even bigger reason why women should not desire traditional gender roles is:

More reasons for me not to get married, Baby!

Well ... the single most common cause of divorce IS marriage, y'know...

Half of marriages end in divorce, so I'm told. But look on the bright side: if that's true, that means half of marriages end in death.

Until they develop miraculous anti-aging technology, then 100% of marriages will end in divorce. Hooray for science.

It won't happen. But a third option? A select few would be forever-marriages. I like it.

Anti-aging may stop aging, but aging alone doesn't account for all diseases, freak accidents, etc. You really want anti-death technology. But if you can't cure HIV, cancer, heart disease, COPD, or diabetes, as a few examples, then you condemn those who can't die to an eternity of tumors, illness, gasping for breath, and otherwise a chronic state of pain and falling to pieces. I don't look at death as the enemy. I look at it as mercy for having to exist within a broken world. Death is the only certainty of peace in one's existence.

I'm not in a hurry to go...but when my time's up, I'll greet Death like an old friend. I'll probably annoy the crap out of death. I'll probably thank him for letting Paul McCartney live so long. And my mom, too. And I'll probably ask what Elvis was like. And maybe what really happened to Jimmy Hoffa. And what really happened on the grassy knoll.

Woah. That went way more philosophical than I was expecting. You should make a PPR thread on that.