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?

Living up to your username I see.

Fucking pathetic.

I see your point. But if they are (married) SAHMs they get to have children and live in a house - without having to work outside the home. So it has advantages as well if they want a family. And if things go belly up they will get half the house, and maintenance for at least a while?

I often see quite logical posts here that a women who earns well and more than a partner should not marry him. If she does then there is a risk that if the marriage fails at some point her assets will be at risk. It works the same for a man as well. This position is quite logical but to my ears quite cold. Challenging though isn't it? Marriage should involve pooling everything and being mutually supportive. There is a bit of me though that does think what happens if it fails?

Ad hominem attacks are really low. Doesn’t shed light on anything, just makes you look rude.

Yes I do. But only amongst MRA as the latest misogynist propaganda, and middling intellect low assets types of men who think their £100 a month child support buys their ex a life of luxury. There's no way that men with enough savvy to hold down high earning positions in industry and commerce are somehow prey to women taking 'everything they've got'. If they aren't capable of protecting their own affairs they wouldn't last 5 minutes in their jobs. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that women advised by MN to 'get her ducks in a row' are all 'taking them to the cleaners' despite their experience and ability to pay for financial and legal advice?

Surely the fund needs to be secret only in a relationship which is abusive? Everyone else just needs savings, which should be distributed between the partners, not just in one name. I have savings, they aren't secret! So does my husband. We have long term plans for them but is shit happens, either of us can deal with it. Divorce, death, something not covered by insurance.
When we were young poor newly weds we had no savings, but both names were on the mortgage for the cheap house we bought in a crap part of a rough town.

Yes, I've read the book and my Dad is interestingly always referencing that book. My parents weren't typical in that respect though, they had gone to Uganda together in the 70s but my Mum returned on her own, actually on an American Cargo plane as Idi Amen had come to power and he didn't like Westerners. My Dad decided to stay. Despite being married at 21 they didn't have DC until late 20s due to the lifestyle my Dad wanted in particular. My Grandad said this to him as he was 30 and he wanted him to understand that he needed to step up and support my Mum, not carry on gallivanting around the world. He did have a job in Malaysia at this point but not very practical if you have a newborn back home in Britain.

The types of men that cry the loudest about women being "gold diggers" are the one that don't have a scrap of gold to dig. Not a penny.

There's a lot of talk about "women taking men to the cleaners" in divorce courts and the reality doesn't seem to match that. If they mean that a woman gets half, well, that's the contract that they signed when they got married unless they had a prenuptial agreement in place stating otherwise.

The talk often comes from men who also preach about how women should be barefoot in the kitchen raising the children and baking the bread. Yet, they will balk at the idea that they ought to be providing those women with financial security to make it safer for her to make that choice.

Equally, the same men (typically red pill types) push the narrative that it's a man's instinct to cheat. Men shouldn't help out in the home. Men shouldn't be active parents. That is a woman's domain. Behaviours that lead to the destruction of relationships and marriages the world over.

So, when they push the narrative that women ought to be at home, financially dependent on a man and the narrative that a man, beyond his financial contribution, should contribute nothing to the household bar betrayal and the risk of STDs, it tells me they want to keep women vulnerable. They want a woman financially dependent on a man so that when he treats her like crap, she can't leave.

It's also BS that women leave men financially destitute in divorces. Statistically, it's more likely for women who get a divorce to end up in poverty than it is for the man.

What's a red pill man

Sorry have googled, yes, I see now.

Think Andrew Tate.

It's a subsection of men who believe that they've taken "the red pill" and now see the "truth."

Often filled with incel men.

To be fair English divorce law is unusually favourable to the lower earner by world standards so much so that there’s an industry in the wives of rich foreigners trying to get their divorce in England.

Dividing assets 50/50 or with a higher percentage to the financially weaker party regardless of initial contribution isn’t the only possible model for marriage / divorce and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to opt out of that as long as you’re honest with your partner about it and don’t string them along promising marriage in future.

And I say this as a beneficiary of the current law. I wouldn’t want to fully share my wealth and finances with someone again.

That said the divorce system used to be more generous to women than it is now because women tended to take custody of the children whilst coparenting is now much more common. More women also have careers which can support them. So it’s rare now that a man loses all or most of “his” assets on divorce.

Giving up work or reducing hours or scaling back your career can be seen as a sacrifice which the other spouse should compensate you for. But it might also be a choice albeit one made within constraints and a particular cultural and maybe biological context.

I’m quite a high earner but I could make much more if I was willing to give up time with my children. I wouldn’t actually have wanted my ex to use half my maternity leave etc. even if he had wanted to. I do think there needs to be some ownership of those decisions and their financial impact absent coercion or abuse - earning capacity isn’t generally completely out of our control.

Men can be stuck in the role of breadwinner and lose time with their children as a result just as much as women might feel compelled to sacrifice their career due to being the lower earner.

But as you point out with divorce settlements being more balanced now, plus paternity leave being a real option, men aren't forced to be the breadwinner so why don't they take the options and not feel hard done by.

My Mum actually got ex-wife maintenance (don't know the official lingo) and was still worse of prospects wise as my Dad had a great career at that point. In all honesty he didn't think he was hard done by, so why in 2024 do some men feel they are when they can quite legitimately choose to be SAHD?

I wouldn't worry what men like that think. Just avoid. The birthrate is dropping year on year. Women are earning their own money and having fewer children. This is a good thing, for the Women, the children, the decent men.
Those other men can go kick rocks

Excellent point. The men who think this are those no one wants to date. Which is a viscious circle as their unattractiveness as partners makes them hold these views, and their views make them even less attractive. Which is unfortunate for them, but not a priority for women's concern. If they take themselves out of the dating pool, who will care? Or even notice...?

I agree with that too. However, in that situation where you have a pathetic father and mother and the baby has to be raised by one of them, it would be the mother every day of the week for me.

Why all the talk about what men say and want? It’s as if women have no agency at all.

But those same women kick off at the mere suggestion of 50/50 custody. You cannot have it every which way!

I personally think the most common sense approach would be for each party to declare their assets at the time of marriage and those then remain their own. Anything acquired within the marriage 50/50. That way people can choose to ring-fence or pool as they like. .

But women are told never to have children without being married and also told never to marry if they own more than their partner.

If I believed the father was actually spending quality time with his kids I would appreciate 50/50. We have all seen men hiring nannies/roping in friends and family while he carries on his normal day working. That is not the point of shared custody. Men are simply not prepared to have the conversations in the office about having to leave at 3:30 for pickup and take the wage drop and curbed career prospects women have to.

OK.

I know myself. I know that I'm a 50/50 person. I'm fair and pay my way. I don't expect anyone to subsidise me. I can't speak for other women of course.

But I don't know this man. He's a stranger. I don't need OTT generosity but someone on my level with 50/50 ish give and take attitude. I don't want stingy, and I don't want to be under constant suspicion that I'm a gold digger after his money. I also don't want a completely transactional relationship where its calculated to the penny who has paid for what and who owes who.

I'm happy to buy his coffee/drink. But I won't have any indication of the kind of man he is if I do it from the off. We could have a fabulous date but it would be a waste of my time if I had missed my easy opportunity to have these values surface themselves in the first few minutes.

The ONLY way I can start to get a semblance of if we have the same values is giving him the space to say either "ill get these" or "let's go halves yeah?"

Its not even conclusive, but its the start of subtle signs. If its halves for my one drink and his, its a straight no. If he says I'll get these it doesn't prove he's not tight, because I don't know enough about him.

But I'll have weeded out the stingiest ones with weird suspicions about me when they don't even know me, just by letting them get the first cheap drink.

For a PP I would never order champagne or an expensive cocktail. This is a test of his values, not a free lunch (or drink, as it were).

Hope that's clearer.

Its always really about men being angry at and envious of other men, or striving to impress other men. Andrew Tate and his ilk are simply shrewd enough to tap into the psyche of insecure men, and make money out of this. & those type of men are the failures who've played around too long in life or, not achieved due to idleness/procrastination/poor life decisions. Then wham! suddenly 20 years have passed and they're scared and angry. Tate and his ilk spot them a mile off.

These men believe they're perfectly entitled to a woman who is beautiful, glamorous, successful and with her own money (so they dont have to spend on her). & they're angry that these types of women don't tend to choose them.They just will never say it outright.

If they were truly interested in the unassuming woman who sits there saying 'oh I dont want/need much from a man its enough to just be with him' then they'd choose exactly that type of woman. They don't - because they are not interested at all. They want 'Miss Glam And Successful.' & that is exactly why they're angrily tapping away online calling women golddiggers and worse. Angry at not getting the trophy woman and having control of her life and self-esteem, & the lifestyle they feel they deserve, yet didn't put the work in for.

These men vs women divisive arguments however are creeping in everywhere🙄 and women should not be falling for it. I truly hope MN doesnt become another Andrew Tate incel disciple mess of men vs women circular arguments. I used to see those posts in my FB newsfeed - instantly hitting the block button = I simply dont see them at all.

He had the actual planning officer round?! What on earth did he think he was doing? And how was he going to present this to you?

Yes, you can say that us a fair division of labour, he works out of the home to bring an income, she stays at home and makes good use of the income provided for the benefit if the whole family but , she won’t get half of the house if she is not married and will only get maintenance if the ex husband is loaded and can comfortably afford it.

What I resent is seeing SAHMs who do absolutely everything at home and devote their lives to their familiesjust to feel that their contribution is worthless just because it is not measured in £££. Some feeling they are short changing the husband because they are not contributing to the mortgage when they are a proper nanny 24/7 without breaks and a PA, cleaner, cook and even sex worker to the husband… full time. All those services would cost the man more than he is earning but they don’t see that.

There is a lot of blaming boys for how women are mistreated but we also need to teach girls with our own example not to ruin their husbands: Lots of men are very independent and able to do as much housework before children but then get used to do less and less once the woman starts “specialising” in home and children care during maternity leave.

Our girls learn from what they see at home so if we are dropping everything to attend to the needs of our husbands, how do we expect them not to think they should do the same?

My ex husband was wonderful when it came to domestic partnership, we were equals, he was not “helping” in the house, he did as much as I did, he could sort his clothes, clean the house, cook the meals for the week without me having to remind him what to get from the supermarket. He could think by himself. But by the time DS was two, he couldn’t even pair socks or ensure he was not wearing two ties to work. I firmly believe he became so useless because I got better at sorting stuff for him, so he just got comfortable and enjoyed the ride: I had became his mum.

Had I not seen the same at home, mum always caring for every one of my dad’s needs, I would have not ended up doing the same, making a manchild out of a perfectly reasonable man.