Chixe

This came up in a discussion Mike and I were having about Hulk Hogan's wife filing for a divorce with him. Just happens to coincide when the family is going to get sued from here to kingdom come for most of what they got.

Get half of everything, get child support, get the kids... the system is biased against men and we're "always to blame" for when a relationship goes bad. Oh and if a little girl is crying and her coach comes over and gives her hug, the guy could probably end up in jail with the right jury against him. Sucks to be guys.

And what is the deal with prenups? If a man asks for it he doesn't have faith in the relationship, but if the woman goes for it then it's a smart move? What?

That's supposed to be a joint thing - the divorce isn't real. By splitting their assets it would be difficult for the family to be sued individually for their son's accident.

In my experience it was the reverse (which is why I can't stop laughing). That's why prenups are a beautiful thing - no you can't have my stuff thank you very much.

@Scrivs - everyone should get a prenup. It's the smart thing to do (and of course revisit it every once in a while).

@Mike - it sucks to be guys not paying all that child support they owe....

If women would stop seducing us there wouldn't be a need for child support.

@Tyme - Or how about when the kid's not yours but you gotta pay child support anyway...

And that's what I'm saying though, you say everyone should get a prenup, but try being a man and bringing that up. It's a bad thing.

If men had some self-control and remember condoms are wonderful tools....

Hahaha, I'm WINNING this one!

Oh see it's on US to use protection. Everything falls on our laps. How nice.

Let me add that we might as well add garbage bags over our whole bodies so we don't feel any skin. Wonderful tools indeed.

im in ur generalisationz, propagatin' them.

Yes because you're the one being seduced - suit up!

Hey, I'm not going to argue the no feeling thing. Sucks to be a guy...

You aren't going to argue yet you call them wonderful tools? Typical woman. Playing both sides as long as she wins.

I think it's interesting that so far only Rich has been brave enough to broach this topic (other than the Rulers, who do pretty much whatever they want)...

In answer to the original question, I think women usually get "half" because they're less likely to work outside of the home during a marriage. Stereotypically, and--whether you like it or not--still today, women stay home to raise the kids while men work. Thus, because they're half of the partnership they're usually entitled to half the stuff. They're staying home, keeping house, raising kids all allows the man (again, in traditional partnerships) to focus more on working and making money. This, in turn, is seen as her contribution to the total earning potential of their partnership and to entitle her to "half."

All of this can seem incredibly convoluted if you wander too deeply into specific cases, but I'd say that's the basic rationale.

@Scrivs - well, there is another solution for men but it requires surgery and doesn't protect against STDs...and it might hurt. :)

@David - women also "usually" have custody of the kids as well.

I do not believe in automatic 1/2 though for anyone and I do not see a prenup as a lack of trust anymore than insurance. If someone truly loves you they won't want to be cheated but they wouldn't mind the person they love protecting their assets. At least I wouldn't...I'd prefer they did actually.

They're staying home, keeping house, raising kids all allows the man (again, in traditional partnerships) to focus more on working and making money.

Where are all the stay at home dads?!

@Tyme
Absolutely. That's a crucial point.

@JPhill
They exist, but its hard to deny that the vast majority of stay-at-home parents in this country today are still women. It would be incredibly interesting to see a divorce that featured a stay-at-home father. I would hope the division of assets would still work the same way--with the father getting half even though he didn't exactly earn it--but I'm not completely certain.

Where are all the stay at home dads?!

I would assume that if all was/is fair with the judicial system (I know that that's a huge assumption to be made) that in the case of a stay at home dad and a mom who worked and brought home the income getting a divorce, the stay at home dad would find himself the one taking half of everything.

@david - I know someone who went through this. He stayed at home, cleaned, cooked, etc. because his wife made more...a lot more. While going through the divorce his pride took a major hit because he was confronted with being the "man" but not the wage earner. He received half along with joint custody of their children.

He remarried but his pride stopped him from being in the same situation. They have a young child and that child is in day care.

I think I recall the 'getting half' was from the time where a lot of women didn't work so they brought up the kids and gave up having 'careers' (you can of course argue bringing up a kid is a career in itself).

Hell even though I don't have a kid, I'm a stay-at-home dad to our dog while the wife goes and works at a regular 9-5 job. Bucking the trend since 2005!

Now see I can't say much about this because I'm not divorced, nor am I married. Then again alot of asian based relationships are more towards sticking through the relationship no matter that rather than getting a divorce to save face for the family. So knowing someone who's gone through that in my case is rare.

I have talked about a prenup with Mel in the case where we get married though. I feel uncomfortable with it because I still see it as a trust thing. She doesn't because she'd moved to a point where she sees it as insurance.

It's still stereotypical anyway and is part of the gender bias that governs the legal system and society's perception. Given my lack of experience in this matter, what I can do is still be myself. If I feel more comfortable being the domestic at home partner, then let me be that. If things go wrong, I'll argue against whatever prejudices I'm tossed at.

I'm sure I won't be the only one that will stand up against something like this if it comes to that.

I don't know the history of enough divorced people to even say if this is true. I imagine if you have to have the children and stay home for them you deserve half of what was obtained after the marriages and compensation for a career lost.

I have read some articles lately which indicate woman with high powered careers who have a husband staying at home caring for the children often find themselves with ambiguous feeling towards the husband several years later. I can certainly understand that.

Pre-nups make perfect sense. If you are going to get married, which to me is a business arrangement anyway, you need to have a clear picture of who owns what and how it will be divided in case of divorce.

I have read some articles lately which indicate woman with high powered careers who have a husband staying at home caring for the children often find themselves with ambiguous feeling towards the husband several years later. I can certainly understand that.

I don't get why you can understand that? Because the husband stays at home and the woman is the bread winner that gives her a right to stop caring for the husband because she is in the "power" position?

I really don't think anyone should get married if they can't trust the spouse not to try and take half their things if it doesn't work out.

I mean, that seems really really obvious to me.

On the same note, a person of either gender demanding something as theirs to support themselves when they haven't earned it is just ridiculous. I can understand disputes over items they bought together, if both incomes contributed to them. That's usually not the case in the kinds of divorces you see where a woman (or man) is taking half. I also agree with child support. Your kid, you support them, married or not.

Seems to me the majority of squabbles over property are instigated by lawyers to pay their bills, or by those just seeking to abuse laws put in place to protect people--but what else is new, right?

Hmm. I never received the November issue of my Get Half Of Everything newsletter. I will have to contact Conde Nast publications about that.

I know this thread isn't about prenups but since it was mentioned I'll say that I don't really believe in them. Admittedly I am a bit naive but when I get married I think I'll be the "all chips in" type and not take the insurance because I will require the same of him regardless of our incomes. It's entirely possible that I'll make more than he so the same thing goes either way, no double standards. That's also to say that he might be the stay-at-home dad and he'll get half of what I got. So to answer your question Scrivs I'll forgo the "smart move" and prove to be completely stupid, or something. It's the risk I'm willing to take because if I don't believe in divorce then I have to put my actions behind that. (I do know people who eventually end up getting divorced have said the same thing. That's my problem.)

As for getting half of everything in general, like mentioned above I do believe that raising kids and staying home to do so is in itself a career. That makes this thread kind of linked to the issue of unequal pay for women. It's because women will leave the workplace to start families and when they return they have to start from scratch, or at least a lower salary than if they had done their time in the work force instead of raising kids. They don't acquire the skills to move up the ladder and there is higher turnover in changing industries in general with women because of their absence and return. (Of course there are other undeserved, inequity issues like glass ceiling and discrimination but I only mentioned the circumstances surrounding an understandable pay inequity.)

Unfortunately, you will have Mrs. Hogan who will take advantage of the getting half of everything clause because she happens to have a husband who himself is worth a lot of money. Didn't she stay home and raise the kids, though? I don't know if you can really prevent that sort of thing from happening--that is to say IF she definitely doesn't deserve the half for doing her "housework"--without breaching upon the rights of those whom the law was designed to protect unless you put some sort of judicial clause on that but that would be even more inefficient than the laws we have in place now. Who's to say who "better deserves" half of everything more than the next husband or wife?

So in short I believe in getting half of everything if it benefits the wife or the husband. In California the statute is, you have to be married a minimum of 10 years for that to happen. Tom Cruise divorced Nicole Kidman (I believe) a couple days before their 10 year anniversary. Interesting. So there's the other side of the Hogan story.

(Which is weird too because if you think about it she is probably worth more than he is, now. w00t.)

Hmmm, stopping a spouse from getting half isn't the only reason for a prenup. The reason why I want one is to protect assets I have prior to the marriage.

But let's look at another example. Before we got married, my ex and I lived together for over a year, he was ambitious and held a job, wanted his own company, etc. His mother died, which was the catalyst to him changing religions to one that preached hate, he wouldn't work and hasn't seen his kids since they were babies. Under those circumstances would I want him to automatically get half or get support because I was the wage earner? No, who would?

There is no way to predict that kind of situation happening.

That is why prenups are a good idea. Hopefully you'll never have to use it but if you need it, it is there.

California and a handful of other states are community property states -- when a couple divorces, they divide all assets they acquired while they were married evenly (those are called "community property" -- Tyme, that doesn't include things you inherit, which are called "separate property"); they also split up all debts the same way. It's not about who works outside the home, who works inside the home, who played a lot of golf while the other spouse cleaned the toilet, who fooled around, who was faithful, who went on a zillion business trips to bad cities, who had a mani/pedi once a week and never put out. All those considerations -- all the finger pointing and the blaming -- made it even harder and more tawdry and vicious to get divorced than it currently is, which is why most states have "no fault" divorce and try to find a way to split up assets evenly and without making judges hear all the sad, tawdry stories about marriages that should really stay private or at least on Oprah. The reality of joint ownership and the half/half divorce split is not a big secret in community property states, certainly not for anybody who buys a house and sees that deed that says you own this thing jointly.

As for Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, their marriage was subject to a prenuptial agreement and there, with the exception of being able to bilk your kids out of child support, you can contract around the community property laws, as long as both of you are represented by someone who tells you that maybe, maybe that's not a brilliant idea -- or maybe in some cases, it's just fine.

I think divorce is awful for everyone, men and women -- it's very hard to do it well, especially when you have children. Which is why being super careful choosing a mate, and wearing protection while you're considering it, is one of the smartest things you can do.

I didn't have a prenup with Simon. To be honest, it hadn't even entered my mind to have one. We did though get together at a time when we both hadn't got our own possessions in the form of house or money - we were younger and have got everything we have now through working together. Whilst I'm my own case, I truly do believe that where we are (the word is we not I), we have got together and half and half fits for us. Now, I don't claim it does for everyone and can be called naive in this statement.

The only thing that gets me really about prenups is just like marriage I don't think I could be with someone I felt it was necessary to have one with. Maybe this is because I didn't own a house, was just starting out in life and I knew Simon for a long time before even going out with him and then even longer before our marriage. Heck, you'd have asked me before this marriage about prenups and I'd have stopped you at the marriage word as I was admittedly against marriage.

Our situation is one where we both know I currently earn more - yet, Simon invested time in helping me go to college, Simon took the house reigns when I was working 18+hrs a day trying to build up my business and even now he may not earn as much but he certainly makes up for it in contributions to the house. Yes, you can't always know what you are letting yourself in for and yes you could say I was lucky. Everything that comes into the house is a 50/50 split and the same even goes for my business which he is a partner in legally even though he is only starting to work in the industry and learning. We've had a joint bank account from the start and before marriage had access to each other's bank accounts - we've worked the 'what's mine is your's way' from the start.

I guess it really comes down to what time you get married in some ways and your financial situation. If one earns more than the other from the start and owns property and other assets, whilst the other doesn't - maybe that is a case for a pernup. I can't really comment not having been in that situation. Perhaps, if it was now I was getting married and not when it was then I may feel differently.

@bloglily: I don't live in a community property state but it definitely came up why he wasn't working and why he wasn't being responsible for his kids. I didn't bring it up, the judges did with the divorce and the determination for custody of the kids (two different courts).

Here, a divorce is based on grounds. A dissolution is no-fault. An annulment is when the marriage was invalid. That is the definitions I am going by. For a no-fault it's not a surprise, everything has been worked out between the two parties.

A divorce normally has "finger-pointing" but it might not be purposeful. In my case we agreed we didn't want to remain married but due to our situation our dissolution turned into a divorce (legally). I didn't have a prenup but going through that taught me that the laws don't always match what the individuals want - so that extra layer of protection for both parties can be important.

A prenup can say whatever the two parties want. It can say everything is divided evenly but for some reason people think prenup = bad.

I guess until you've watch the laws turn something simple into something you never thought "could" happen it's surreal to you because you haven't experienced it.

Tyme, That's so interesting -- I practice law in California (obviously!), where the community property/no fault route evolved in part as a reaction to the difficulty -- both emotional and judicial -- of dividing up assets based on the parties' behavior during marriage. But a spouse who isn't working, especially one who could be working, often is tagged with something called "imputed income" when it comes to figuring out what they should pay in child support. Say you're a woman who for decades has been making a bundle as a securities trader and and then suddenly -- just when you decide to leave your husband for a young cute woman you met two weeks ago -- you quit your trading job and get a part time job selling Avon. Well, when it comes to figuring out child support, you get stuck paying based on your trader income, not your avon lady income. Sounds like that might be what happened with your ex (except the securities trader/avon lady thing -- it sounds like he was way, way further out there in life choices.)

Oh, and I completely agree with you on the prenuptial agreement thing. They are not a bad idea at all. And you know who usually gets them? People who're marrying for a second time, and learned something about the way divorce works that they really didn't like. I think anybody who gets married for the first time should probably figure out how things get split up on divorce and make sure that's okay with them before they say "I do."

In my opinion, in this day and age of divorce and blended families, one has to protect their assets that they have before marriage, and a prenup is the perfect way to do it.

Even though CA law states that what was yours before marriage (all personal property...house, assets), is yours when you divorce, I would still think that a prenup would be necessary if you had children from a previous marriage, and you were marrying someone with children of their own. If you have no intention of adding your new spouse to the deed of your house, or of having them be the beneficiary of your assets, it would seem the sensible thing to do for the sake of your own children, in case of divorce or in case something happened to you, to be sure that property/assets owned before marriage become the property of your own children, if that is who you want your assests to go to.

Many women make more money than men do, now, and they aren't taking all the money, but are earning all the money. Along with that, they want as secure a future for their own children as possible.

@Scrivs
"I don't get why you can understand that? Because the husband stays at home and the woman is the bread winner that gives her a right to stop caring for the husband because she is in the "power" position"

I'm not sure why the fact I feel a certain way really matters. It is just the way I feel. I'm sure there are others who don't feel this way( it's an opinion ), but I can see getting sick of a man who stays home and takes care of children just as I can see a man getting sick of a women who does the same. Caring for someone is based on who they are, who they are in a large part is what they do, what they contribute to the world. Maybe in my eyes staying home and taking care of children is not that great a contribution.

Maybe that opinion will change some day, who knows.

Cooper, The great thing about the sheer number of men and women in the world available to partner with is that you can choose someone whose work is admirable to you and reject those whose work you don't respect. The tricky thing, though, is that this kind of thing DOES change, particularly if you decide to have children. Before we had children my husband and I had an epic conversation about how we were going to divide up the work/childcare duties -- and we decided that we'd be happiest if both of us parented equally and both of us worked for money equally. I've never, ever regretted that decision. We earn roughly equal amounts of money and we both spend roughly equal amounts of time with our children. Others organize it differently not because they're bad or weird or misguided but because people need and want and admire different things. I love that about human beings.

Oh, and Lorri, another thing to do to make sure your children don't come out badly after a remarriage is is to make sure your estate plan is clear about who inherits your stuff when you die. A long way away, obviously, but it doesn't hurt to plan.

and we decided that we'd be happiest if both of us parented equally and both of us worked for money equally. I've never, ever regretted that decision.

If I were to ever have children, at least from the rock I'm standing on now, it would have to be in an agreement of a similar nature to the one you have. I don't see myself feeling comfortable with it any other way. I have no problem with what others do, but to me a house husband type mate would be a disastrous arrangement.

Everyone has the freedom to choose their arrangement. What I was pointing out was that a lot of women who are in arrangements in which their husbands are the house husbands are having second thoughts, and I can completely understand that. I would hope woman would seriously consider the effect of this upon their relationship down the road before heading in that direction.

Yes, Lily, that is so true, so many people don't want to think that far ahead, as far as estate planning goes. It is extremely important, and if one is creating a prenup, that could also be a part of their package, to ensure their children receive assets you want to leave them. One never knows what will happen and when they will die. In my own family, my father died unexpectedly at the age of 45, and I am cognizant of that fact, and have taken necessary estate planning steps.

You never hear about the men leaving with half when the divorce papers come, it's always about the women getting the money and all that other stuff. What's up with this?

Um, seems to me that leaves the men with half as well, from a marriage that (we assume) both contributed equally to (whether by wage earning or raising children, or both), so what's the issue?

Obviously there are cases where there wasn't equal contribution in a marriage, but the above first thought I had when I read the Note is based on the fact that I'm in a "traditional" marriage, where he makes all the money, and I'm home with our kids (I make a little, but it's a pretty insignificant amount in comparison). I'm not sure there's a reason I shouldn't get "half" were we to divorce.

If a person is retired from the military, their spouse is entitled to 25-50% of their future retirement pay if they divorce, by law. I think the theory there is that military service causes a lot of moving about, and the spouse never really has a chance to hold a career and progress. Moving every 2-3 years makes that difficult.

@bloglily: Yes, it was a similar situation. I believe the people who want prenups have been married before or knows someone who went through an unpleasant situation. They learned from their experience. :)