In america...

[SHUVT]

What does seem to be a little unfair in some cases are the laws involving custody of any children. These are heavily biased toward the woman based on nothing but her possession of a vagina,

I think that may be over-simplifying the process (I know you're speaking to bAWa).

There are also considerations regarding bonding, who has spent more time with the children, who the children want to be with, who wants to have the children, will the man give up work to be with them, who knows the childrens's needs best, through experience, who has the more nurturing spirit, who can cook, clean and iron.

I think it's a bit more complex than possession, or otherwise, of a vagina.

In some states it is almost impossible for the husband to get custody of the children unless they can prove the soon to be X a crackwhore sellign herself on the corner and leaving the kids at home with no food while she does it. MEn in the US have a huge disadvantage in the family courts. Men are usually the ones walking away from divorces with the biggest losses. They lose at least 50% of the estate and the children. What they do get is vaginamony payments to the X, child support payments to the X and the comfort of knowing the X will get a chunk of thier retirement after they bust thier ass for another 15-20 years to get it.

In most states the general rule for just child support is 20% of you net income (Before taxes and deductions) 1 child. 25% for 2 and 30%for 3 and so on. So using that as a base for what a perosn could end up paying after a divorce...

Annual Income = $100,000 USD
Children = 2
Annual Child Support Paid = $25,000 to the X and she does not have to prove what she is doing with this money. hmmmmm

This does not take into account for the requirement to carry medical insurance for the children, vaginamoney, costs of all travel for children to come visit, or the debts that this person would take on after the divorce.

It makes me sick.

[JPaul]

I think that may be over-simplifying the process (I know you're speaking to bAWa).

There are also considerations regarding bonding, who has spent more time with the children, who the children want to be with, who wants to have the children, will the man give up work to be with them, who knows the childrens's needs best, through experience, who has the more nurturing spirit, who can cook, clean and iron.

I think it's a bit more complex than possession, or otherwise, of a vagina.

All the things you mention (cooking, cleaning, ironing, nurturing spirit etc.) are dependent upon having a vagina, Shirley.

Fair point, never thought that one thro'.

But weight, does having said vagina ensure the other things. I think not, just look at you.

So, it's not simply a matter of having a vagina. However it is impossible to achieve the other requirements sans one.

I think that's better.

[JPaul]

I think that may be over-simplifying the process (I know you're speaking to bAWa).

There are also considerations regarding bonding, who has spent more time with the children, who the children want to be with, who wants to have the children, will the man give up work to be with them, who knows the childrens's needs best, through experience, who has the more nurturing spirit, who can cook, clean and iron.

I think it's a bit more complex than possession, or otherwise, of a vagina.

In some states it is almost impossible for the husband to get custody of the children unless they can prove the soon to be X a crackwhore sellign herself on the corner and leaving the kids at home with no food while she does it. MEn in the US have a huge disadvantage in the family courts. Men are usually the ones walking away from divorces with the biggest losses. They lose at least 50% of the estate and the children. What they do get is vaginamony payments to the X, child support payments to the X and the comfort of knowing the X will get a chunk of thier retirement after they bust thier ass for another 15-20 years to get it.

In most states the general rule for just child support is 20% of you net income (Before taxes and deductions) 1 child. 25% for 2 and 30%for 3 and so on. So using that as a base for what a perosn could end up paying after a divorce...

Annual Income = $100,000 USD
Children = 2
Annual Child Support Paid = $25,000 to the X and she does not have to prove what she is doing with this money. hmmmmm

This does not take into account for the requirement to carry medical insurance for the children, vaginamoney, costs of all travel for children to come visit, or the debts that this person would take on after the divorce.

It makes me sick.

I can't rip the pish out of that because of the Kurt Vonnegut clause. However that won't last forever.

[Gripper]

Lets all become Muslims,that way the bitches get nowt,just a slap if they're lucky.

[SHUVT]

Lets all become Muslims,that way the bitches get nowt,just a slap if they're lucky.

lol

[weenden]

yes they get it all if you work they take it right out of your pay leaving you a tiny portion
x#*x@

[Roxxy]

if yes then no wonder why people don't get married that often there, they prefer to "live together" instead.

Even if u live together they can still take u to the cleaners

[Busyman™]

does a divorced lady gets everything from the husband ?
i was watching this movie and what i came across is when a lady gets divorced she can take husband's home, car, pension and almost leave him with nothing, ist correct? thats a big price for knocking some one.
if yes then no wonder why people don't get married that often there, they prefer to "live together" instead.

The men get hosed only due to circumstance.

1. Women give birth to children so child custody is in their favor. Men in most cases have to prove the mother unfit to gain full custody and "flip the script" for the child support. There are cases of joint custody where each parent has the child(ren) an equal (or about equal) amount of time during the year. A have a friend that has the children 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off and no child support changes hands for either parent.

2. Alimony has nothing to do with gender. It has do with couples that are unevenly yoked. A housewife of 25 years married to a CEO of a Fortune 100 company gets divorced so it looks like the guy gets hosed. Again this is circumstance. I have seen the reverse happen. The woman made much more than the man (they both still had nice paying jobs). She paid most of bills yet to keep the house she had to pay half it's worth to him and give up some of pension.

All of this perceived unfairness is due to a male dominated society. I think the unfairness comes in with child support. In many cases you are supporting the mother and she doesn't have to work but that has nothing to do with marriage. I say this regarding rich folk.

I remember basketball player Juwan Howard having to pay $10,000 a moth in child support to an unwed mother. What child needs that much money per month? That's $120,000 a year!! That's more than my base salary and I'm doing fine!!

The mother doesn't have to work ffs. The unfairness of the amount in child support is another story though.

[MediaSlayer]

I can't rip the pish out of that because of the Kurt Vonnegut clause. However that won't last forever.

talk about getting your news right when it happens!

[Barbarossa]

Indeed