So Much for The 'Golddigger' Myth

Here's a link to divorce myths:


http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/MythsDivorce.pdf
Check out #6

It turns out that the average woman's standard of living plummets by 27% after divorce.

So much for accusing women of being mercenary users, heartlessly marrying men so they can dump them and live large on alimony.

5 Having a child together will help a couple to improve their marital satisfaction and prevent a divorce.
Many studies have shown that the most stressful time in a marriage is after the first child is born. Couples who have a child together have a slightly decreased risk of divorce compared to couples without children, but the decreased risk is far less than it used to be when parents with marital problems were more likely to stay together “for the sake of the children.”5

Need I say more?

The Rutgers website is wrong, but this is one myth that refuses to die. Feminist researcher Lenore Weitzman claimed in her 1985 book The Divorce Revolution that after divorce women's standard of living declined while men's standard of living increased. Her figures were debunked then and were further debunked when the data were peer-reviewed in 1996. Weitzman has since admitted errors in her analysis. The problem is that state and national child support guidelines were changed to hammer men because of this faulty analysis, and many men simply cannot pay the inflated amounts many family courts now demand.

Her "research" is on par with the claim that men beat women the most on Super Bowl Sunday—debunked after researchers checked with police departments and hospitals nationwide. It turned out the source of that sound bite had simply made it up because it sounded right, or some such blather. Other completely made-up statistics still cited are the claims of 3 million homeless Americans and 1 million children disappearing (abducted) every year. Certain advocates simply fabricated these figures. If either of the latter were true, especially the idea that 1 of every 300 Americans simply vanished to abducters, we would have been under martial law years ago.

My suspicion is that the "golddigger" problem probably is overblown. But there are sincere instances of injustice against men out there in divorce and family courts. And then there is the recent online article saying that some women look at their first marriage from day one as a "starter marriage" to leave after a few years and "cash out", so she can find somebody "better". Of course, that first husband who gets to pay and pay after the split is not told this till he gets the divorce papers...

Many women's standard of living do tank out in the event of divorce. A husband dying will also impoverish a woman. Unfortunately, there are a few out there who do get over on the system while many have to fight to get the ex-husband to pay the minimum of child support. I've always wondered why some women get to stick it to the guy for no other reason than they were bored in the marriage while another who needed to get out of a horrible situation or was left by the man got the shaft.

Very true, Am. I know from my own divorce that your standard of living does change. My ex and I earned close to the same amount and we both had nothing when we first married, we did a 50/50 split with all the assets, and I declined alimony (even though we were married 13 years, I think it's a crock of shit), his standard of living changed also. You no longer have the 2nd income that you once used for fancy trips, extra savings, a more expensive car, have to buy new clothes less often, etc. You have to reduce spending in all areas in order to survive.

I cannot imagine people who suddenly become a single parent. That would suck. In my case, the divorce was a relief. I wonder how it feels for people with kids? From what I've noticed about divorced couples with kids, the kids are now nothing more than an inconvenience.

mccartney and mills, they are sayign she will get £55 million of his £845 million, sometimes women do look on men as wallets, without a care for them.

sometimes men are deadbeats for not paying for any children. but in a lot of cases the only real winners are the lawyers.. its in their best interests to have it drag out for years.. they get paid..

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Paul McCartney is an idiot IMO. How could he not have arranged a pre-nup with that kind of money and marrying someone so much younger than himself? No, I don't think Mills should get his money. But I don't feel too sorry for the holy Beatles god.

but the law in the UK doesnt count a pre nup, there is NO legal basis for one, the laws dont allow for one, so in the UK, if you have one the courts can ignore it (like they can do for some pre nups in america its upto the courts to decide what is fair or not).

so even with one there is no guarentee it will work

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

I was not aware of that, Merc. Still, he definitely should have known better regardless of marriage laws in the UK. Why not pay some escorts if you are lonely, Paul? Then you can relax without all the baby mama drama.

heres some info for you, saying pre nups are not always the answer.. not everywhere and not all the time

http://uk.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/133_dating_advice.html/posts/909466/10

Also, in the US states tend to consider most prenups invalid after 10 years of marriage, apparently with the presumption that a woman married that long intended to stay married and not simply turn around and divorce right after marriage. Also, contesting prenups during divorce is common in the US, and often judges do overturn them, even in cases of brief marriages. Anecdotal evidence on one forum I frequent says that marriages with a prenup seldom last more than a few years, so it's almost as if the prenup does poison the relationship. In sum: prenups are no panacea.


http://www.ncfamilylaw.com/download/prenup48.html

Don't count on escaping alimony payments. In New York and a few other states (including North Carolina), a spouse-to-be can waive the right to alimony. But Eleanor Alter (Patricia Duff's lawyer) points out that, if the judge thinks the deal's unfair, he or she can order you to pay anyway, no matter what the agreement might say. And in North Carolina there's a further restriction: if the terms of a "pre-nupt" eliminate spousal support and this causes one party to the agreement to be eligible for public assistance, the judge can --notwithstanding the terms of the agreement -- require the wealthier party to provide support

http://www.bauerfamilylaw.com/prenuptialagreement.html

In a few states, such as Maine, the agreement will automatically lapse after the birth of a child, unless the parties renew the agreement. In other states, a certain number of years of marriage will cause a prenuptial agreement to lapse. In states that have adopted the UPAA (Uniform Prenuptial Agreement Act), no sunset provision is provided by statute, but one could be privately contracted for.

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Thanks for posting, Merc.
I realize that prenups don't always work as the initiator intended and prenups differ depending on state laws, length of marriage, children vs. no children.
But if one doesn't get married, then one wouldn't need to worry, particularly if no children are involved. I understand that common law marriage does not exist in the UK.