can you really protect your assets being a male?
- Thread starter TMNT
- Start date
No actual abuse? The father manipulated the child into recounting fictitious stories of being sexually abused by her step-father. I’d say this most definitely counts as psychological abuse. In one interview, whilst recounting the make-believe story of her step-father molesting her, she began to talk about being sexually abused by her father. From what I read, it was never established whether or not the allegations against her father were true or whether she had been coached by her mother. Given the toxic relationship between the parents and the lack of criminal conviction, we’ll assume the father is innocent and that the allegation was just another sad chapter in this child’s story.
This isn’t a men’s issue, this is a children’s issue. I’m not sure if the judge made the right decision, but I’m also not sure if there was a right decision to be made. The rights of the parents are moot in this case. In a situation of psychological abuse, only the best interests of the child should be considered. Stuff men’s rights or feminism. Was the decision in the best interests of the child? I don’t know. It’s open to interpretation but I think it’s far more nuanced than ‘the Family Court hates men’.
Studies have shown (ugh, I hate typing ‘studies have shown’) that separation/divorce has the same impact on a child as the death of a parent. Obviously the messier and more nasty the break-up, the worse it is for the child. In a case like the above, gosh…
I agree with you that there are men’s issues which need to be addressed. These should be addressed independently of women’s issues. The problem with these threads is that they just turn into a mindless gender war full of stereotypes and put downs so both sides start getting a bit defensive.
I think we also need to separate real issues from fluff issues. Losing 50k in a divorce? I’m sorry, but that’s a fluff issue and the OP lost many people right there. The thread title alone is antagonistic. I understand that the OP is concerned about protecting his finances in the future, but going on to describe all women as useless freeloaders probably wasn’t the most tactful of moves.
I’m also not sure if women can ever be not-evil in these threads. If she’s career focused then she’s a ball-breaker who lacks femininity and isn’t dedicated to her family. If she’s a stay at home mum then she’s a freeloader who contributes nothing to the marriage and has fun all day while her husband slogs away as the provider. Likewise, men probably feel equally confused by their expected role.
You catch more flies with honey. When feminists attack men, a lot of people are put off. It’s the same with men’s rights activism. I’m not saying *you* attack women, but these threads usually descend into that. Conversely, they also turn into attacking men. It would be nice if we could discuss men’s rights in a congenial environment. I sincerely do believe there are genuine issues men face and if they were discussed in a more reasoned fashion, I’d read with interest and refrain from snide remarks as would many others.
I did read your 'cheerful misogyny' link. I wasn't entirely enamoured. I'm not a feminist but I am a civil libertarian. So long as people aren't harming others, it's no-one's business how they behave. If a man wants to hire a woman for a non-secretarial role, he should be able to do so without being classed a gender traitor. If women want to lose their 'femininity', let them.
I found it odd that the rest of the blog is dedicated to the author's casual sexual conquests. The author believes that women's primary purpose is getting married ('limit women to particular tightly-fenced roles until they get married off and leave the workforce') so presumably advocates for more traditional gender roles?
Traditionally the women's purity was expected to be maintained. Advocating casual sex advocates promiscuous women and single motherhood which flies in the very face of the traditional family. The only alternative is that women are expected to be sexy debauched secretaries until they retire to a life of marriage? What happens to all the single mothers and their children?
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong?
Hi Geoff, it's obvious that both parents were emotionally manipulating the child. Now, let me make it absolutely clear - I do not, under any circumstances, condone the actions of the father in any way whatsoever.
In the end, the mother is rewarded for her manipulative behaviour (which is all too common in cases like this), while the father gets kicked in the face. Clearly, neither the mother nor father can be fairly called 'fit parents' and it is the girl who is going to end up damaged in this, but again I have to reiterate, the outcome proves that the law is heavily skewed in favour of women.
How about this scenario.
Older defacto couple (30 years together). Each have children from previous relationship. Each has appointed one child their enduring attorney. Wife is hospitalised because of illness and dementia. Relationship still intact, but they are separated, ie living separately, because one is in hospital. House in man's name and is the only major asset.
What do you think happened?
Older defacto couple (30 years together). Each have children from previous relationship. Each has appointed one child their enduring attorney. Wife is hospitalised because of illness and dementia. Relationship still intact, but they are separated, ie living separately, because one is in hospital. House in man's name and is the only major asset.
What do you think happened?
No PB,
The daughter of the wife at her attorney made an application under the Family Law Act for a property settlement for the mother. Because the couple were 'separated' the wording of the act allowed an application for property settlement to be made - even though the relationship hadn't ended. The husband still went to see the wife in hospital frequently.
If the mum had died before the husband the children of the mother would not have been entitled to make a claim on the property.
Guess what happened next?
(and who said the Family Law Act was fair?)
The daughter of the wife at her attorney made an application under the Family Law Act for a property settlement for the mother. Because the couple were 'separated' the wording of the act allowed an application for property settlement to be made - even though the relationship hadn't ended. The husband still went to see the wife in hospital frequently.
If the mum had died before the husband the children of the mother would not have been entitled to make a claim on the property.
Guess what happened next?
(and who said the Family Law Act was fair?)
Hi Fifth, you are correct. Thinking about this last night, I thought 'what situation would be best for the child? No access to dad, no access to mum, access to both, foster care? Tricky situation. That little girl is destined for a life of emotional turmoil. Frankly, the best situation would have been that she wasn't born at all, than to have been born to those two.
I never stated 'the Family Court hates men'. I said, the Family Court is heavily skewed in favour of women. Our current Federal Labor Govt. has reinforced this by repealing the Shared Parenting legislation enacted by the Howard Government to ensure that fathers have access to their children.
I don't know what his views are pertaining to single mothers and whatnot, I haven't read the rest of his blog (that article was linked to in another blog I read).
What I can tell you is that I personally advocate for traditional gender roles. Women excel at raising children and men excel at protecting and providing for their families, they've been doing it for millions of years. Then in the 70's, 3rd Wave Feminism comes along and turns everything on it's head and poisons the water supply.
Divorce rates skyrocket and we now have two generations (soon to become three) full of entitlement princesses who think they 'can have it all'. We have huge numbers of children being raised by strangers in baby day-zoos, because mummy wants to play 'career woman'. Children aren't an accessory, they are actual real, live human beings who need their mothers, especially in infancy.
So I bet I've raised the ire of more than a handful of people by now... Well, let me ask you this, if I am 'sexist' why is it, that when ForbesWoman surveyed working women, 84% of them preferred to be stay at home mums. You can't deny millions of years of biological instinct. Forbes try to spin it by pathetically attempting to make it into something that women have no choice but to work, which is of course nonsense. In fact, they put all the blame on men: Forbes notes that "more than one in three resent their partner for not earning enough to make that dream a reality." Naturally, the choices women make are all men's fault, as usual!
We need to advocate for women to do what they do best - be caring, nurturing, loving mothers to their children in the home. Let dad go out and do what needs to be done to maintain food, clothing and shelter for his wife and kids. When you put these two elements together, it becomes an indestructible force, able to raise confident, loving, well adjusted little people. Not perfect and doesn't work like that in every situation, but look at where we are today: Slutwalks, escalating single motherhood, 60% of first marriages ending in divorce, an ever increasing number of men wisely outright rejecting marriage, thanks to the plethora of horror stories out there in internet-land, female solipsism gone wild, with women putting their wants first, everyone else be damned, including their own children, etc.
Phew! I think I'll end it there Fifth, I have things I need to get done today
.
Last edited:
The cat appealed and was awarded everything? Including custody of two children the man had to a much younger mistress.
No Ed.
The man was ordered to pay the wife something like $580,000. To do this he would have needed to sell his home worth something like $800,000. He was in his 70s and this is where he had lived for 30 plus years.
It was appealed twice and the man eventually won. But the wife had died in the before the appeals.
The man was ordered to pay the wife something like $580,000. To do this he would have needed to sell his home worth something like $800,000. He was in his 70s and this is where he had lived for 30 plus years.
It was appealed twice and the man eventually won. But the wife had died in the before the appeals.
How is this a bad thing? Is it better for children to be in a family where their parents are unhappy (or in even worse cases, where there could be abuse, addiction, etc) or where the parents are divorced? If you think that children don't notice the former than you're very wrong. I grew up in a pretty traditional house and for the whole time my mother did not work outside of the home. While my parents are still married, seeing some of the things I did growing up made me absolutely sure that unless I was physically incapicitated, there would be no way that I would willingly make myself so dependent on someone else for my happiness or livelihood. I would think many women feel the same way. The good old days were really not as great as your imagination may lead you to believe.
They don't need their parents that much. Children (and their parents) also need time to socialise with people their own age and to develop independently. Obviously not newborns but 3 or 4 year old kids certaintly don't need to be pandered to in the manner you describe.
You can't deny thousands of years of social conditioning either. Women are constantly made to feel guilty about their choices and this is no exception. Women will give that response because to say otherwise will lead to them being viewed as heartless, materialistic b****s.
We need to advocate for women to do what they want and not feel guilty about it - not to be instruments for inflating your ego or to satisfy some control freak fantasy you may have.
Feel free to reject marriage and non-traditional gender roles if you so wish but you'll likely end up as one of those old men who start every sentence with "back in my day" while the present world passes them by.
What's the moral of the story? Get a dog, rather than a cat?
Good.
Someone living defacto should have no claim on anything unless it is in their own name.
They are nothing more than roommates.
It is evidence against my argument that the Family Law Act is fair. And it shows how the system can be taken advantage of in a way other than was intended.
Stanford v Stanford - [2012] HCA 52
Here is an abstract written by something else
Abstract
The High Court of Australia has unanimously allowed
an appeal from two decisions of the Full Court of the Family Court
(FamCAFC) in relation to the property settlement of a husband and wife
who lived together for 37 years until the wife was admitted into full
time residential care. The wife died after the appeal to the FamCAFC was
heard but before judgment was delivered. The High Court held that
notwithstanding the fact that the FamCAFC had the power to make property
settlement orders even though the parties' separation was involuntary,
the bare fact of separation did not demonstrate that the husband and
wife had any reason to alter their property interests. The Court also
found that the wife, through her personal legal representative, failed
to show that it would have been just and equitable to make a property
settlement order had the wife not died.
I fundamentally disagree with this.
I have lived with my partner for 4 years now. We share bills etc etc. We will be buying a house soon, together. She earns less than me right now as I am a few years ahead of her career wise, but soon she will have similar earning power to me.
Neither of us wants to get married as we view it as an archaic institution, and we have the choice of whether to join it or now. Currently we don't. But why should our relationship have any lesser value placed upon it, simply because you have a piece of paper and we don't?
Secondly, where does that leave gay couples? They can only really be classed as a defacto couple until gay marriage laws are passed. Are their relationships worthless as well? Are they only room mates too?
im sure everyone will agree, that some cases are pretty unobvious as to what is morally and ethically fair , note the keywords,
if hubby and wife, bring in nothing and buy a few IPS during their marraige, then a 50/50 split is more then fair, in fact, it should be exactly 50/50, you get what you put in, or fairly split what both have gained
its when the one who has done more of the planning for the future, eg having assets before the realtionship, is hurt badly
I dont care what people say, if one party male or female brings in a a few IPs before meeting, upon separation, the other party should have absolute ZERO claim to it, they contribute absolutely nothing! and if they want to argue that they helped fix up/paint the property, then they should have been paid a salary to do it like you would any tradie
if the women were getting screwed in some way left right or centre, id be vigurously defending them to
just like salaries of men vs women, if they are doing the same job, then they should be getting paid the same, and they should be doing the CEOs and senior positions if they are qualified and appropriate, why not!
This is a great post.
As a mother of a daughter and 3 sons, I'm concerned. I don't want my sons to have everything ripped away from them, along with their children (if they ever have any). I want laws to be fair and 50/50 unless circumstances prove otherwise.
The OP was first asking about how to protect himself in the future from a partner taking his material possessions. (Children are a different matter.)That is a fair concern.
Laws need to be changed. Defacto relationships should be considered nothing more than they are...roommates. If you don't want to contribute monetarily to the realtionship, that is a decision you both make. If you decide to bring children into the mix, and you want to stay home, the other parent should provide you 1/2 the fair market payment of childcare. Your keeping of the house can be your support.(housekeeping)
Should the relationship breakdown, you better have saved some money for your own support.The child custody is a separate concern.
Any spouse willing to take the inheritance of the other is a dispicable human being.It should never be considered.
Women can't have it all.
Both of my brothers have been the primary carer for their sons. One as a single dad, and the other was a primarily stay at home dad (self employed)
Married couples should each have 50% of whatever was obtained during the marriage, except for any inheritance. Inheritances should always remain the property of the beneficiary.
Children should spend 50/50 with each parent, whenever possible. If the mother needs to go on welfare to care for the children, find another way. The government doesn't need to care for your children.
Maybe the mother needs to have visitation instead, so she can work to support herself.There are plenty of solutions for this, to make it fair for both parents.
Since I'm being asked straight up..I am not going to give a PC answer, but my real answer.
I wish Canada didn't allow gay marriages. IMO is another erosion of the family.
If you don't want to get married, that is your choice.
ATM you are able to have all the benefits of marriage.
Defacto relationships should not be given any benefits, IMO.
Why buy the cow..or pig (from a woman's point of view) when the milk and sausage are free?
You said it was a great post, yet Mr Fab would have a fundamental disagreement with your brothers being the primary carer for his kids.
If you want the defacto relationship to have the same legal standing as a marriage..get married.
Otherwise outlaw all marriages. They aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Similar threads
