to wonder if the "Women take you for all you can get" thing is taking a deeper hold than ever?

[PyongyangKipperbang]

Two threads on MN in the last 24 hours about men out and out lying about bonuses or income. I have noticed a marked increase in this in recent months.

OK so there have always been men who will do this. Sadly financial abuse, selfishness and "whats mine is mine, whats yours is ours" has always happened but I cant help thinking that in recent years it has got worse. More men refusing to give the mother of their kids any sort of financial protection with marriage, shared home ownership or finances, etc yet slagging off a woman if she then in turn does the same.

My main hobby is playing poker, which is male dominated and there is one guy who I had quite a big row with when he said that his partner (refused to get married so he wouldnt "get taken to the cleaners") wouldnt share her significant inheritance with him and bought her own property with it because he wouldnt put her on the deeds of the home they live in (and that she has contributed to). Wouldnt see the double standard at all. He said that women have always done this so he was protecting himself, I said that its only because he wont give her anything that she has had to use her money to secure her future.

Has the "Andrew Tate" effect gone far further than is immediately obvious?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Another one of those who thinks women are gold diggers.

These types do not in fact tend to have gold. It’s why they cling to the patriarchy; they receive no respect or admiration in themselves, as they are losers. So they demand respect and admiration simply for being male.

Achieve something with your life and you will have earned the respect and admiration you desperately crave.

We are indeed increasingly lacking the value of real human connection,

Many women are being told that careers are the key to happiness & that children are a burden, rather than being told about the joy & meaning there is in having a family.

In regards to capitalism, most people are not entrepreneurial capitalists, but are just trying to cope financially

Cost of living is putting pressure on people, causing them to focus much more on money as it brings day to day stress

Those that are doing OK financially understandably still want to still do better to enjoy a comfortable life in retirement

Your grandparents lived in an era where marrying their high school sweetheart was a social norm

Grandads were expected to work hard & support their wives financially

Grandmas were expected to take pride in home + family & support their husbands domestically

Many women in Grandma's era also worked, but it was not a social expectation for women to act like men, to be the primary earner & focus on making her own money the way women are expected to support themselves financially now

Society was once structured so that the average family could get by on one income & men + women had different, complementary roles so that they could win at life as a team

The foundation of such long partnerships was built on mutual respect & trust

If men were traditionally the primary income earners & women now expect to compete with men

Then it stands to reason that as a society we will both become increasingly competitive, more focused on finances & obsessed with protecting our own independent wealth

"Nearly all men were being left financially destitute by divorce"

Spousal maintenance is rarely a thing in your average divorce and the evidence shows that in the long term women are much worse off after divorce, especially if they have children and have taken time out of full time employment to raise children. Financial settlements are not made to fleece the man and enrich the woman but to make sure that children are adequately provided for and a women is compensated for the detrimental effects that child rearing has on her earning capacity amd pension. It's a shame that so many men seem to think they are being punished by being required to provide for their children.

"England is he divorce capital of the world"

Perhaps for incredibly rich people but your average Spanish citizen, for example, isn't seeking a divorce in British courts.

I have limited experience, but what you say here matches it. One of my relatives had a divorce, husband left her with a young child, he earned more although she was also on a decent salary. I went with her to the legal parts and heard for myself that assets are 50/50 for the time they were married. This was over 20 years ago, and doesn't support the whole 'taking to the cleaners' narrative.

Personally, I had more assets than my wife, and at various times have had a higher salary. I could not in any good conscience get married and essentially say 'I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you, but would you sign this piece of paper about a few quid?'

I know those prenuptial agreements aren't really valid in the UK, but it always struck me as starting off on the wrong foot. What's mine is hers, willingly.

As for partner A being disrespectful to partner B who is also the parent of shared children, I've seen this with both sexes and it boils my piss. We are supposed to live in a civilised society.

Yeah
I am more than happy to pay my own way (and I really don't need someone to buy coffee for me). But experience shows the kind of man who won't even offer/who insists on going 50/50 for something small like that is likely to have a weird attitude going forward (either just very petty or someone who is weirdly resentful towards women). It shouldn't matter at all but in reality it does.
For larger items/later date it is normal to have a polite fight about it. "I'll get this", "no I insist" etc - whilst a bloke who just folds their arms and looks smug is bad news.

And I wish I had known that when younger. It doesn't mean women are demanding all expenses paid five course meals with champagne.

He's a shit poker player if he couldn't work out that his girlfriend had the better hand.

But also the attitufe of:

"Woman are naturally homemakers. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, it is just as noble and important as going out to work. If ONLY women hadn't been conned into wanting careers/not valuing their role of homemakers"
turns into
"Waaaah, the wife wants 50% of the man's assets despite the fact that he did all the work and she stayed home"

And no, going back to a world where the woman just stayed home will not magically lead to "women's work" being just as respected (it never was in reality). That makes as much sense as the theory that just defunding the police will naturally bring down crime. Its magical thinking.

What about when they have children?

What country are you referring to?

Alimony is a US thing. Doesn't exist in the UK.

Your contempt for women is evident throughout your post.

How dare women initiate divorce. Poor men, they really should plan to protect themselves from women who aren't prepared to put up with a bad marriage.

You contradict yourself in your last paragraph. You say women get half of man's assets even if the marriage is short (they don't) and then use the example of Paul McCartney to prove it's even worse for very rich men. Paul McCartney had a net worth of hundreds of millions (about 750 iirc) and Heather Mills got 20 million. Now I don't have a degree in maths but that is not even close to 50%. She also didn't "simply exist as a wife", they had a child together.

“Nowadays, a woman can marry someone rich, get divorced five minutes later and get half.”

No they can’t! Did you read that on Reddit? 😂

If these men don’t want to give assets to the mother of their children upon divorce why don’t they marry women with equal earning power who don’t become SAHMs?

From what I see, more men are doing this or at least intending to do so.

I agree with you but I think it's sad that the emphasis on the individual seems to be engrained in society now. If it's dog eat dog, even when it comes to your spouse then there isn't really a concept of partnership or cooperation at all. It is simply more efficient and easier to work together towards shared goals and it is really difficult to do this effectively whilst still guaranteeing your individual financial position. This is why marriage can be helpful as it's a legal recognition that resources and finances have been pooled and it is a great springboard to roll with the changes that life brings. Children, ill health, aging parents... All of these can be prioritised at different times with the knowledge that you have the security of someone else having your back.

I fear we will all be sadder and poorer as a society of individuals. People will be reluctant to take on any dependents so they won't have much longed for children or be able to care for the old and vulnerable in society because it is too financially risky to do this. We can optimise finances as a team and maximise strengths and weaknesses. Everyone will plod along doing everything exactly equally just in case it all goes wrong .

The men that are talked about on MN are not the type of men at all that I know in real life. All the men I know are good decent hard working family men who love their wife and kids. I mean I know anything can be going on in the background with regards to cheating etc, but that's not what this post is about. I dont know anyone who refused to marry, or is a dickhead over finances etc.

I've never, ever seen a post suggesting this.

Only ever LTB.

Times have changed and in the courts increasingly, settlements that are favourable to women from high earning men, are indeed geared towards children. It depends on the individual situation.

By saying women choose not to climb the corporate ladder you blithely ignore years of misogynistic business practice and the glass ceiling. Thankfully things are improving but to assume both sexes have an equal playing field in 2024 is nonsense.

You also ignore the fact that women are still doing far more child care and domestic work in the home than men, even when both parties work the same hours, in every earning situation. Work in the home is necessary and under valued precisely because it is viewed as women’s work. As is the mental load of running a home and managing children’s activities.

You old romantic you! I feel very old reading that as yes, marriage is precisely about relinquishing control over your assets, as it is about uniting your lives, if a couple doesn't want to do that don't get married, it is not the commitment for them!

You can't scream for equality and then bemoan someone not paying for a first date. It's that simple. Lines are blurred, and until people see the light, we're stuck with this them versus us narrative.

All of this.

It's not unreasonable for women to enjoy a man spending £10 on a couple of coffees or whatever. It's 10!!! Or £20 or £30 or whatever. That's not breaking anyone's bank, or you shouldn't be dating. A man being willing to treat a woman does show a certain level of care.

One guy I went out for a drink with insisted on going for dinner as he hadn't eaten (the plan was only for drinks). At the end of the evening he'd "forgotten his wallet". There was no mention of him even paying me back half, yet he wanted to go for another date! I was so turned off by that behaviour.

Women are the ones having babies, and in a lot of households take on most of the domestic load. Women can't also be expected to bring 50% to the finances as well, so of course women should be looking for signs that a man is prepared to look after her, at least to some extent.

I say all that as a high earner, so it's not like I'm expecting anything I can't provide for myself, but a lot of women aren't in that position.

Everyone, especially men, need to realise that once children enter the equation the goalposts change in terms of financial and physical effect and in the long run.

A family is the definition of a team yet so many think and do continue as they did before they were childless and then wonder why they're on the receiving end of a divorce.

A lack of generosity of spirit at the dating stage should be a warning bell. It works both ways though.

And this is a perfect example of the lack of basic understanding of what equality actually means.

The reason women need more protection than men to even attempt to move towards equality is that we live in a patriarchal world where women are in constant danger (I know people do not like to accept this but it's true). Add to that the fact that women who have children then need even more protection as it impacts their health, their earning potential etc etc., plus the fact that there is still a significant sex pay gap, lack of adequate healthcare for women's health and so on, women need more financial protection than men.

So if a woman then enters a relationship with a man who has significantly fewer assets than she does, she absolutely should protect it at all costs, because let's face it, statistically speaking, the person who is most likely to abuse (including financial abuse) and kill her is her partner. Those are the facts.

DH and I are early - mid 40s, when we met, mid twenties, I was visiting a friend and I lived 3 hours away. DH saw me out with said friend, he was with friends and asked me if I wanted a Mojito, he bought it, he asked! We all (his friends and mine) went back to his house share for more drinks, he persuaded me to stay for another day at my friends so that we could go out for dinner the next night, he bought the dinner and insisted on that, he then persuaded me to stay another day and another, he took me out for dinner every night! He had a good income but not very wealthy or anything. The rest is history, he has always been really generous though, his brother is younger, late 30s and is the same. We have both had inheritance, him slightly more than me but I sacrificed my career for a bit to care for our DC as he was still taking exams to qualify as an Architect, so working in the day, studying at night and the weekend. We saw this as all for each other, for our DC, it is a unit.

As clear as the fog outside my bedroom window! If a woman buys first she is showing she is not the kind of woman men moan about, or are men not entitled to have an opinion?

I'm going to say no, it's not clearer why does the man have to buy the first drink?

What I see is women doing everything to keep the family together if things aren't going well in their relationship.
They often put up with a lot but usually won't put up with a betrayal where the husband has an affair.
The men are often the ones responsible for the breakdown of the marriage and the women initiate the separation or divorce because it has become literally unbearable for them.
It's actually quite easy for men to 'not be taken to the cleaners'. Be a responsible and considerate husband and father and keep sex within the marriage.