[bobo888]

I don't think that marriage in USA is biased against anyone. But the divorce is HEAVILY biased agains men. For example, more than 70% of divorces are initiated by women, while they also get the custody of the children 90% of the time.

When it comes for child support, it's even worse. If in a family the husband begins to get a lower salary due to the state of the economy, then everybody should/will spend less. But if a divorced father gets a lower salary, "the child's standard of living must not change". Did you earn $200,000 per year pre-divorce, and now you barely can find work for $50,000? Too bad for you, you'll have to get an extra job to be able to pay the same amount of child support. If you fail to pay, you get to jail, but the support payments accumulate, so when you get out you'll be in even more debt, which will land you back in jail, and so on. And of course, this whole time, you will be considered a "deadbeat dad".

BTW, I was shocked to find out that, in some states, men* have to pay lifetime alimony. With all due respect, guys who get married on these terms are insane.

[burgerbrain]

Marriage itself can be quite biased against males in the states. I have a friend who's wife successfully divorced him because she was not being "sexually satisfied". If a male tried to do the same, people would scream "domestic rape". Expectations of each sex, viewed through the lense of the courts, are very uneven.

And of course after the divorce the situation only becomes more dire.

[sliverstorm]

If only that was the worst of cases. My mind is continually blown by the cases in which husband catches wife cheating, husband sues for divorce, wife gets custody, half of assets and alimony.

[whyenot]

please cite your sources

[sliverstorm]

This is one of those things teetering on the edge of "public knowledge". I have never met a single person who believes women receive the short end of the stick in divorce. In fact the only complaint from the women's end of things I've ever heard is '50% of his income is not enough'.

It is of course anecdotal, but as best I can tell, it is anecdotal evidence that is shared by every person in America- aka, 'public knowledge'.

[pyre]

I won't base too much too heavily on it. The idea that blacks were sub-human was once "public knowledge" because everyone had an anecdote about a black person doing something stupid.

It should be stated that:

* 'Common sense' is not necessarily common.

* 'Public knowledge' doesn't always match up to reality and can often be influenced by social biases (i.e. you may only remember the cases of a man getting the shaft in a divorce, but easily forget the ones where he makes out like a bandit).

[sliverstorm]

http://web.archive.org/web/20070627182454/http://www.grant-t...

^60% of divorce settlements favorable to women, 40% even, 10% favorable to men. UK, 2004.

http://www.attorneys.com/legal_center/articles/child_custody...

^10-15% of men have sole custody of children

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700651883978623.html

^3.6% of alimony recipients are male, 2006

I am not a fountain of sources, so I hope this will do for now.

A fun story illustrating how weird things are getting: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-or...

[yardie]

1. I agree that most divorce proceedings do favor women.

2. As a friend of an attorney who tells me that most of his male clients never seek custody and don't even petition for visitation rights until the CS payments start coming due this is completely inline with our society. I'm sorry, but once the divorce is finished most guys just want to move on with their life, the family they had becomes an encumberment. Most would prefer to be free to start over than continue being reminded of a failed relationship. That's just the way it is.

3. The primary purpose of the act of having sex is reproduction. The courts have already decided that every time you have sex you implicitly agree that a baby might result. It doesn't matter if it's oral, anal, or vaginal if someone gets pregnant out of it you can't back out you've already given consent. Even before reading the article I already knew the outcome, skimming to the bottom confirmed 30-40 years of court cases on the same matter.

[pyre]

Point #3 is not entirely true. The article seemed to imply that the law was all about advocating for the child, instead of pandering to a disagreement between the biological parents at the (possible) expense of the child.

This implies that I may not even need to have sex to be forced into child support payments. For example, what if someone sneaks into my bedroom at night (or maybe we're sharing a hotel room while travelling) and is able to make off with some semen while I sleep? By the legal argument that we must advocate for the child, I would be forced into child support. Sure, I could attempt to seek some sort of relief from the mother for what she did, but that would be completely separate from whether or not I am legally obligated to pay child support for the next 18 years.

Maybe all men should be forced to wear locks on their genitalia lest some crazy woman somewhere decide that they want to force the man to create a child?