[Simeon_Strangelight]

Actually I am pretty sure that the numbers stated in the article are mainly middle and upper middle class case - maybe a few upper class ones. They mention that those women step back from divorces, get lesser payments, but some opt instead for lump sums. The people who are both worse off after divorce - which is the majority - they are not affected by the change.

[PharaohRa]

I have no sympathy for women who use divorce as a get rich scheme. They deserve to suffer (and to validate why White Sharia is needed)!

[Leonard D Neubache]

(05-12-2018 04:17 PM)Matsufubu Wrote:  

(05-12-2018 11:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

If the sheep want to get up in arms about it then I'll tag along. If they want to bend over and take it in the ass, well that's their option too.

The sex life of an Australian, right there.

Just don't marry them Leonard, they'll take you for all you've got.

Sick burn, brah.



No hard feelings.

[Saweeep]

(05-12-2018 10:00 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  

Another thing not mentioned is that British secular men are opting for islamic marriage and Sharia courts because these largely sidestep the judicial system.

This is just not true.

Come on, man, don't just make things up.

[Saweeep]

The real reason is that less people are getting married, particularly at a young age and especially amongst the lower classes.

Simple as that.

[[email protected]]

(05-14-2018 08:21 PM)Saweeep Wrote:  

(05-12-2018 10:00 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  

Another thing not mentioned is that British secular men are opting for islamic marriage and Sharia courts because these largely sidestep the judicial system.

This is just not true.

Come on, man, don't just make things up.

You can say that the evidence I'm providing is terrible to non-existent but don't say I made it up:

Quote:

Islam : Aside from the higher birthrates of Muslims living in the same Western cities that 'feminists' reside in, an Achilles heel of leftists in general and misandrists in particular is their unwillingess to confront other cultures that actually do place restrictions on women. In Britain, Islamic courts are now in operation, deciding cases through Sharia principles. British divorce laws are even more misandric than US divorce laws, and so many British men, in desperation, are turning to Sharia courts in order to avoid the ruin that British law would inflict on them. The Islamic courts are more than happy to accomodate these men, and 'feminists' dare not protest too loudly. By driving British men to Sharia courts, misandry is beautifully self-defeating. The irony is that the group that was our enemy in the crisis of the prior decade are now de-facto allies in the crisis of this decade. I do not say this simply because I am a Muslim myself.

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/t...ubble.html

[AceP]

God bless the MGTOW movement and MRAs. Maybe they had something to do with it.

Corporations need to work their employees less so they have more time to make love not stress. It's even more retarded in Japan where companies try to control when a female employee is allowed to get pregnant.

[RatInTheWoods]

Best way not to get divorced rape, is to make her contribute 80% of the assets in the relationship (that's going to be her family court payout)

So don't work those 12 hour shifts in a mining camp, don't sacrifice your youth, health and sanity in a soul crushing job to buy everything for her.

Wish someone told me this when I was a young lad.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-15-2018 01:06 PM)[email protected] Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 08:21 PM)Saweeep Wrote:  

(05-12-2018 10:00 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  

Another thing not mentioned is that British secular men are opting for islamic marriage and Sharia courts because these largely sidestep the judicial system.

This is just not true.

Come on, man, don't just make things up.

You can say that the evidence I'm providing is terrible to non-existent but don't say I made it up:

Quote:

Islam : Aside from the higher birthrates of Muslims living in the same Western cities that 'feminists' reside in, an Achilles heel of leftists in general and misandrists in particular is their unwillingess to confront other cultures that actually do place restrictions on women. In Britain, Islamic courts are now in operation, deciding cases through Sharia principles. British divorce laws are even more misandric than US divorce laws, and so many British men, in desperation, are turning to Sharia courts in order to avoid the ruin that British law would inflict on them. The Islamic courts are more than happy to accomodate these men, and 'feminists' dare not protest too loudly. By driving British men to Sharia courts, misandry is beautifully self-defeating. The irony is that the group that was our enemy in the crisis of the prior decade are now de-facto allies in the crisis of this decade. I do not say this simply because I am a Muslim myself.

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/t...ubble.html

Of course Muslim men use sharia courts and Islamic marriages circumventing Western legal ones. I would do so too as a Muslim, but I doubt that this is the reason for the drop. When they say "British men", they mean Pakistanis and Bangladeshis with a British passport. Plus - if you add 300.000 Muslims per year via immigration, then the marriages will be mostly Islamic ones avoiding the British legal system anyway.

[CynicalContrarian]

Perhaps the switch in divorce sentiment is merely to get the Brits prepared for a Sharia type system...?

[Saweeep]

(05-15-2018 01:06 PM)[email protected] Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 08:21 PM)Saweeep Wrote:  

(05-12-2018 10:00 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  

Another thing not mentioned is that British secular men are opting for islamic marriage and Sharia courts because these largely sidestep the judicial system.

This is just not true.

Come on, man, don't just make things up.

You can say that the evidence I'm providing is terrible to non-existent but don't say I made it up:

Quote:

Islam : Aside from the higher birthrates of Muslims living in the same Western cities that 'feminists' reside in, an Achilles heel of leftists in general and misandrists in particular is their unwillingess to confront other cultures that actually do place restrictions on women. In Britain, Islamic courts are now in operation, deciding cases through Sharia principles. British divorce laws are even more misandric than US divorce laws, and so many British men, in desperation, are turning to Sharia courts in order to avoid the ruin that British law would inflict on them. The Islamic courts are more than happy to accomodate these men, and 'feminists' dare not protest too loudly. By driving British men to Sharia courts, misandry is beautifully self-defeating. The irony is that the group that was our enemy in the crisis of the prior decade are now de-facto allies in the crisis of this decade. I do not say this simply because I am a Muslim myself.

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/t...ubble.html

It's so ridiculous you may have well as.

As far as I'm concerned, it's your duty to at leat attempt to verify what you write before you get to hide behind the "I didn't say it, I just quoted someone else" defence.

Your use of the word secular in your original post is nowhere to be found in that "source" either.

Sure, we have some pretty well documented issues here and plenty that aren't but I reckon someone other than singularity2050.com would have known about this...

[CatRocketLauncher]

(05-12-2018 04:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

...

...

love how TFM picked up on this, OH YOU want to make it work NOW?

[Poker]

This article basically summarises how many feminists and their ilk view divorce. That because they apparently lose so much money and are unable to build up a pension pot due to child rearing, men should have to legally declare their pension pot and have it seized and have a large amount of it given to the woman in the case of divorce.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09...e-uk-says/

Quote:

Women going through a divorce should be given the right to see the size of their husband's pension pot, Age UK has argued.

According to the charity thousands of divorced women are being left worse off in retirement because they are not made aware of their legal entitlement to their husband’s private pension as part of the divorce process.

At present for divorcing couples who settle their finances out of court there is no automatic right to know their spouse’s pension value or requirement that pensions must be split as part of the settlement.

According to research by Scottish Widows seven out of ten couples do not discuss their pensions at all prior to divorce, meaning many women may miss out on substantial sums without realising.

To stop them being short changed Age UK is calling for the Government to change the law so private pensions must be considered as part of the divorce process and, wherever possible, divided fairly between spouses.

According to official data from the Office for National Statistics men approaching retirement aged 55-64 have median pension wealth of £125,000, around three times as much as women of the same age, who have median pension wealth of £42,300.

As many as one in three women currently aged between 55-70 years have experienced divorce. Age UK’s charity director, Caroline Abrahams, said: “It is extraordinary and frankly unacceptable that so many women are potentially missing out on significant sums of money when they divorce, sometimes without even realising they have lost future income which probably should have been theirs.

"The Government must act quickly to make consideration of private pension wealth a proper part of the divorce process.

“If we are serious about gender equality in our society it’s high time this changed. It is crucial that women are helped to build up a decent private pension, get the right information and advice at the right time, and as a matter of law and practice have fair and equal access to the private pension wealth they have built up with their husbands if they are divorced or bereaved later in life.”

The report raised concerns about older women's pension prospects. It pointed out that unlike in the past under the old state pension system, women retiring on the new state pension (from April 2016) do not have provisions to claim based on their spouse or civil partner’s contributions.

This could cause particular difficulties for women approaching state pension age who have not built up their own full contribution record, and had expected to be able to claim on their husband’s record in the event of bereavement, it said.

It also warned the Government's pension freedoms could leave women worse off than men because they are likely to live longer but have a smaller pension to use, meaning they would have to be even more careful to make their money last until they die.

I'm sure that the median pension wealth of men and women has nothing to do with the line of work that average man and woman undertakes and the average salary that goes with it. I bet it's all down to sexism!

It's somewhat concerning that there are people who believe that they have the right to income that they have not had one iota of responsibility for earning.

[Trumpian]

In a way, I'm glad that most of my millennial peers are broke, debt-laden, or can't be bothered to work.

Millennial women will be in for a rude awakening when they try to repeat the divorce rape of their mothers and grandmothers.

[Bluey]

Poker that's already the case In Australia. Mate lost a good chunk of his retirement money when his girlfriend left him. Child involved false allegations of abuse etc. etc.
He reckons is worth it to get clear of her, but it's a huge setback for him.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I've mentioned the following concept on several other threads, but I'll put it here too:

Workplace Alimony is the trend of the future. Women no longer marry, so to get a big payday they find ways to sue their employers. These include all sorts of disability claims, some of which are mental.

I've seen this happening among women I know. And I think #metoo is part of this -- a way for women to sue employers if they don't have a disability claim they can fake.

A word about disability: I could go into any psychiatrist's office and complain of crippling anxiety and sleepless nights and get a host of prescriptions and (eventually) a note to get off work. Then I could claim the workplace made me mentally ill. This isn't hard to do.

Pride keeps (most) men from doing this. But women were supported throughout history by men, so in doing this to the workplace it's not like they feel any shame. They're still being supported by men.

None of this is not common knowledge now, since everyone is caught up in torch-wielding hysteria. But it WILL be recognized as the wave of the future. "Workplace Alimony." You read it here first.

[[email protected]]

(09-14-2018 07:31 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

I've mentioned the following concept on several other threads, but I'll put it here too:

Workplace Alimony is the trend of the future. Women no longer marry, so to get a big payday they find ways to sue their employers. These include all sorts of disability claims, some of which are mental.

I've seen this happening among women I know. And I think #metoo is part of this -- a way for women to sue employers if they don't have a disability claim they can fake.

A word about disability: I could go into any psychiatrist's office and complain of crippling anxiety and sleepless nights and get a host of prescriptions and (eventually) a note to get off work. Then I could claim the workplace made me mentally ill. This isn't hard to do.

Pride keeps (most) men from doing this. But women were supported throughout history by men, so in doing this to the workplace it's not like they feel any shame. They're still being supported by men.

None of this is not common knowledge now, since everyone is caught up in torch-wielding hysteria. But it WILL be recognized as the wave of the future. "Workplace Alimony." You read it here first.

I talked to a doctor working in insurance and what you are saying mirrors what he says exactly. It's hard to get compensated for physical injuries which can be argued but mental illness like depression is more of a guarantee you will be payed out since it is much harder to disprove. He told me about a school teacher that got PTSD from teaching brats and now gets a life time pay out from insurance. There is huge incentive among professional women to do this.

Women are an extreme liability for the workplace. The only reason I think anyone hires them to begin with is because most are content being in low-skill and low-paid jobs with virtually no room move up. They are just smart enough to do the work but not smart enough to think about doing anything else which makes them an ideal wage earning drone.

[N°6]

Despite my red pilling which I sometimes want to paint black to paraphrase the Rolling Stones, I’m shocked at the charitiy Age UK recommending that men be stripped of their pension savings.

A work colleague who is married to diabetic told me that his wife has a lower life expectancy than him and for this reason, she doesn’t save a pension. God forbid that a surviving husband of a lifelong marriage should ever financially benefit from his wife’s pension.

A big red flag is if a woman ever refers to a man as a ‘partner’. A partner of a firm is someone who puts all his assets into the business. But marriage is when the hypergamous junior partner has more benefits and less risk than the senior beta partner.

[DarkTriad]

Quote:

To stop them being short changed Age UK is calling for the Government to change the law so private pensions must be considered as part of the divorce process and, wherever possible, divided fairly between spouses.

If they were being distributed fairly, the pension would be given 100% to the one that earned it. They're just doublespeaking "equally" into fairly.[/quote]

[Benjamin88]

Somewhat related I saw stats on suicide rate of widows.But it is in dutch https://www.lentis.nl/wp-content/uploads...rzicht.pdf ( weduwstaat means widow) suicide rate married men 9,6 /100000 a year and widow 47,6 increase of about 5 times. Women married 4,8 and widow 11,7 increase about 2,5. What does this mean ?

[Dalaran1991]

I wouldn't fear the workplace alimony thing, if anything I hope it happens soon because that way "progressive" companies will very quickly see how their ideology make them go bankrupt. If that becomes a thing people will simply stop hiring women. Despite what they try to claim, companies run for profit and there's no profit to be made when you getting sued for several alimony cases.

There was a thread here already on how the "me too" is scaring start ups from hiring women.

[CleanSlate]

(09-17-2018 03:55 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

I wouldn't fear the workplace alimony thing, if anything I hope it happens soon because that way "progressive" companies will very quickly see how their ideology make them go bankrupt. If that becomes a thing people will simply stop hiring women. Despite what they try to claim, companies run for profit and there's no profit to be made when you getting sued for several alimony cases.

There was a thread here already on how the "me too" is scaring start ups from hiring women.

Like #metoo, implementing workplace alimony would be overplaying their hand. I've had blue pill friends turn red pill (to my own gleeful delight) precisely because of the #metoo movement.

I'd love to see a company DARE to implement workplace alimony and see how that works out for them in 12 months. The whole thing will fall apart and we can meme it to our heart's content.

[Paracelsus]

It'll be very interesting to see what happens when companies - or more specifically, their insurers - start calculating the difference between potential payouts for discrimination cases on hiring versus payouts for the combined parental leave + sexual harassment lawsuit + "my workplace made me depressed" lawsuits.

You would almost think it's a no-brainer: payouts for discrimination cases usually don't result in the discriminated person actually coming into the workplace, and while it also causes reputational damage maybe, our Dory-length memory span guarantees any discrimination payout will be forgotten by the time the next punter comes along ... and the company will be able to tweak its systems so it doesn't get sued like that again. Parental leave basically means you have to maintain two people in one job, sexual harassment claims can go massive, and depression lawsuits hang around like barnacles on a ship bottom.

What is the greater risk:
A 50% chance you'd have to pay $50,000 now, or a near-100% chance that you'll have to pay one or more of parental leave/sexual harassment/depression payouts at some future date down the line?

[Pride male]

I read somewhere, Roman women had to wait ten months before remarrying. Smart.

[jeffreyjerpp]

(09-17-2018 10:04 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

It'll be very interesting to see what happens when companies - or more specifically, their insurers - start calculating the difference between potential payouts for discrimination cases on hiring versus payouts for the combined parental leave + sexual harassment lawsuit + "my workplace made me depressed" lawsuits.

Federal and state governments in the USA are up to their eyeballs in debt. At some point in the next five years, the money WILL run out, and they will no longer be able to finance themselves on debt.

Why is this important? Private businesses don't actually care about gender equality, they just pay lip service to trick female customers and clients into trusting them. Government agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actually enforces "equality", and can punish businesses for not taking dumb financial risks by hiring female employees.

Once government agencies are forced to drastically shrink, there will be no one and nothing left to stop businesses from operating in the most ruthlessly efficient way possible. How might that play out?

"My male colleagues aren't making me feel welcome!"
No one cares.
"Chad touched my butt!"
No one cares, EEOC budget is nonexistent and no investigation is conducted.
"I'm being discriminated against and will sue GloboCorp!!"
Promptly fired by HR analysts who now exist solely to prune risky employees.

In other words, women have zero idea how good they have things now, but they might find out, and soon.