7 ms·

In 2019, it all looks terribly misogynistic. No losing your house, no alimony... maybe they were on to something. Let wives also be able to sell their husbands

In 2019, it all looks terribly misogynistic. No losing your house, no alimony... maybe they were on to something. Let wives also be able to sell their husbands and bring it back!

Broken_Hippo 8y ago
If you own a house before marriage, perhaps a prenup would be prudent. Otherwise, it wasn't really your house, it was the family home. Not everywhere has alimony either. If the money-making wife leaves the husband who has raised kids, he's just out of luck.
- fiblye 8y ago
  >If you own a house before marriage, perhaps a prenup would be prudent. If you're worried about losing a significant sum of your assets as a result of marriage, the only solution is to not get married. Prenuptials are generally considered to be worthless and any decent lawyer will find a way to get them thrown out. According to point 5 here [1], a case could easily be made that the plaintiff wasn't prepared for having to find a house after divorce, their quality of life is significantly worse than the standard they've come to adapt to after marriage, etc. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/04/02/five-reasons-your-prenup-might-be-invalid/#2c52d7d719a5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/04/02/five-rea...
  - BadassFractal 8y ago
    As anecdata, I remember getting the same legal advice as well years ago: prenups get thrown out by the judge all the time, so you might as well not bother having one.
  - logicchains 8y ago
    Or marry someone trustworthy, and make an informal agreement about how to split assets upon divorce. And if you don't trust them to keep that agreement, should you really be marrying them?
    - gear54rus 8y ago
      Will you vet them for a decade before committing for a few decades? if not, how would you know the agreement will be honored after longer time than you know them? Can you be sure of that with anyone?
      - logicchains 8y ago
        I suppose it depends on how much confidence you have in your ability to assess somebody's character.
    - black-tea 8y ago
      It's not about trust. People change.
      - logicchains 8y ago
        People's feelings change, but how much integrity somebody has (whether they keep their word) is a part of their character, and people's character changes less frequently.
        black-tea 8y ago
        No, no. People change. Trust me. Every single man who got divorced was sure he found the one. Every single one.
        close04 8y ago
        Especially when there’s even a financial incentive to getting out of a relationship you no longer enjoy. Everybody has a price, and seeing your marriage failing and a financial bonus to getting out of it changes opinions and convictions pretty fast. This is especially true in countries that openly favour one of the spouses. For exaple ones where the legal framework doesn’t consider the contribution each spose had to the marriage, and one of them will invariably receive financial aid.
        8y ago
  - aaaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
    >the only solution is to not get married You will pay whether you’re married or not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
- badpun 8y ago
  > If you own a house before marriage, perhaps a prenup would be prudent. Otherwise, it wasn't really your house, it was the family home. I don't know how it works in the US, but here in Poland, all your assets from before marriage remain exclusively yours after you marry. They're not subject to split in the case of a divorce.
  - seszett 8y ago
    It's the same in France, I works have thought it was pretty much universal (well, in the West at least).
    - garmaine 8y ago
      Not in places like California, where many HN commentators are. Everything by default becomes common ownership unless you explicitly take steps to establish otherwise, with only a few exceptions (e.g. certain retirement accounts). It’s a state level thing though, so there isn’t one story for the whole US.
    - cesarb 8y ago
      In Brazil there are three modes you can choose: the full one in which all assets are common, the partial one in which the assets from before marriage are separate but the assets from after marriage are common, and the separate one in which the assets are kept separate. A quick web search tells me that the default was full for marriages until 1977, and since then the default is partial (https://lucenatorres.jusbrasil.com.br/artigos/450042665/os-diversos-regimes-de-bens-no-brasil https://lucenatorres.jusbrasil.com.br/artigos/450042665/os-d...).
- black-tea 8y ago
  If you own anything before getting married, don't get married. In fact you should probably just not get married at all. Can't believe that men think it's a sensible thing to do. I see immediate downvotes. No logical arguments to refute the claim, of course. If I were to say that taking a payday loan is a bad idea that would be OK, I guess. But you can't talk about marriage.
x220 8y ago
It really is a sign of our times that any situation not completely favoring women above all else is called misogynistic.

In 2019, it all looks terribly misogynistic. No losing your house, no alimony... maybe they were on to something. Let wives also be able to sell their husbands and bring it back!

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

If you own a house before marriage, perhaps a prenup would be prudent. Otherwise, it wasn't really your house, it was the family home. Not everywhere has alimony either. If the money-making wife leaves the husband who has raised kids, he's just out of luck.

fiblye 8y ago
>If you own a house before marriage, perhaps a prenup would be prudent. If you're worried about losing a significant sum of your assets as a result of marriage, the only solution is to not get married. Prenuptials are generally considered to be worthless and any decent lawyer will find a way to get them thrown out. According to point 5 here [1], a case could easily be made that the plaintiff wasn't prepared for having to find a house after divorce, their quality of life is significantly worse than the standard they've come to adapt to after marriage, etc. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/04/02/five-reasons-your-prenup-might-be-invalid/#2c52d7d719a5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/04/02/five-rea...
- BadassFractal 8y ago
  As anecdata, I remember getting the same legal advice as well years ago: prenups get thrown out by the judge all the time, so you might as well not bother having one.
- logicchains 8y ago
  Or marry someone trustworthy, and make an informal agreement about how to split assets upon divorce. And if you don't trust them to keep that agreement, should you really be marrying them?
  - gear54rus 8y ago
    Will you vet them for a decade before committing for a few decades? if not, how would you know the agreement will be honored after longer time than you know them? Can you be sure of that with anyone?
    - logicchains 8y ago
      I suppose it depends on how much confidence you have in your ability to assess somebody's character.
  - black-tea 8y ago
    It's not about trust. People change.
    - logicchains 8y ago
      People's feelings change, but how much integrity somebody has (whether they keep their word) is a part of their character, and people's character changes less frequently.
      - black-tea 8y ago
        No, no. People change. Trust me. Every single man who got divorced was sure he found the one. Every single one.
        close04 8y ago
        Especially when there’s even a financial incentive to getting out of a relationship you no longer enjoy. Everybody has a price, and seeing your marriage failing and a financial bonus to getting out of it changes opinions and convictions pretty fast. This is especially true in countries that openly favour one of the spouses. For exaple ones where the legal framework doesn’t consider the contribution each spose had to the marriage, and one of them will invariably receive financial aid.
        8y ago
- aaaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
  >the only solution is to not get married You will pay whether you’re married or not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
badpun 8y ago
> If you own a house before marriage, perhaps a prenup would be prudent. Otherwise, it wasn't really your house, it was the family home. I don't know how it works in the US, but here in Poland, all your assets from before marriage remain exclusively yours after you marry. They're not subject to split in the case of a divorce.
- seszett 8y ago
  It's the same in France, I works have thought it was pretty much universal (well, in the West at least).
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Not in places like California, where many HN commentators are. Everything by default becomes common ownership unless you explicitly take steps to establish otherwise, with only a few exceptions (e.g. certain retirement accounts). It’s a state level thing though, so there isn’t one story for the whole US.
  - cesarb 8y ago
    In Brazil there are three modes you can choose: the full one in which all assets are common, the partial one in which the assets from before marriage are separate but the assets from after marriage are common, and the separate one in which the assets are kept separate. A quick web search tells me that the default was full for marriages until 1977, and since then the default is partial (https://lucenatorres.jusbrasil.com.br/artigos/450042665/os-diversos-regimes-de-bens-no-brasil https://lucenatorres.jusbrasil.com.br/artigos/450042665/os-d...).
black-tea 8y ago
If you own anything before getting married, don't get married. In fact you should probably just not get married at all. Can't believe that men think it's a sensible thing to do. I see immediate downvotes. No logical arguments to refute the claim, of course. If I were to say that taking a payday loan is a bad idea that would be OK, I guess. But you can't talk about marriage.

x220 8y ago

It really is a sign of our times that any situation not completely favoring women above all else is called misogynistic.