Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The key paragraph, in my opinion:

"One response to marital infidelity is divorce. But divorce can be costly, especially for women. Aside from the social stigma that falls more heavily on women, family property and finances in China tend to be registered in the husband's name. A divorced woman can find herself homeless, adding to the pressure of taking measures to save the marriage."




"70% of women think that men should only get married after buying their own housing properties" according to a 2011 survey. The survey also shows "that about 80% of the single women interviewed think that it's reasonable for men to only consider a relationship if they receive a monthly income of above 4,000 yuan" (http://www.womenofchina.cn/html/womenofchina/report/136873-1...)

Reducing that number to 0 percent and getting people to want income responsibility and property shared between man and wife in a 50/50 way would help towards making divorce outcomes equal.


It seems that marriages in capitalist societies are inherently unstable. If rights are equal, then women are incentivised to divorce to "cash in" the value of their husband. If the rights are unequal, then men are incentivised to divorce to "trade up" to a more attractive wife.

It's only agrarian societies that manage to make husband and wife dependent enough on each other that divorce is a bad option for everybody.


> If rights are equal, then women are incentivised to divorce to "cash in" the value of their husband.

This only applies if earning potential between women and men is wildly disparate. When women can and do earn as much as men, the "cashing in" factor largely goes away.



I think this is a problem if the actual net worth is significantly different between partners, not earning potential.


Sure, but the same logic applies. If your main concern is someone taking your money in a divorce, marry someone who has similar net worth.


For most people, earning potential is 99% of lifetime net worth. The vagaries of the aristoracy aren't that interesting.


This is where lawyers help! By soaking up all the marital funds in a divorce, lawyers remove the profit incentive of leaving a partner.


That's a pretty dark take on the situation, but knowing a few people who have gone through divorce, pretty accurate.

Didn't stop them in the end though.


it's interesting that in the west, divorce usually means the women gets half the networth of the man, in which case, it's the man who normally don't want to divorce.


I actually think this biases mate selection (not necessarily in a good way) toward people of similar or slightly greater/lesser income


Unless the wife has higher income in which case the husband benefits. Or maybe they even earn similar incomes...


Yeah. I'm not sure what decade these people are living in. If you're worried about marriage because you think your wife is going to divorce you and take half your money, you could choose a spouse with her own source of good income.


That limits your choices quite a bit. For example there are a large number of attractive women with terrible incomes and/or no savings, for which "scoring a successful man" may be a "valid" mating strategy


If you select someone as your mate who is mostly interested in you for your money, then you should expect that they will take a big chunk of your money if you divorce. I don't mean this in a "you deserve it" kind of way, but in a "this is the relationship you agreed to" way.

If your mate is with you for your money and you are with them for their youth and looks, then assuming you stay with them long enough that after a divorce much of their youth and good looks are gone, why shouldn't they get some of your money? You got their most valuable assets.


You're assuming that only gold diggers will take half your money when they divorce you.

But that's not true. Under United States laws, all women will take half your money when they divorce you. Doesn't matter that they're gold diggers or not.

And also, most women marries up (marry a guy who makes more than her), not down.


I'm not assuming anything. If you are worried about your spouse taking "your money", then don't marry someone who isn't bringing in a similar amount of money. It's not complex.

This whining about women taking "your money" in a divorce is absurd. Get a prenup or marry someone with as much or more money. If you marry someone with less money (i.e. someone "marrying up") then you are knowingly "marrying down". Don't whine about fairness. This isn't a problem with the courts being "unfair" so much as a problem with people being petty.


> Get a prenup

Always a pleasant conversation to start... ;)

> or marry someone with as much or more money.

This strategy works around an artificial limitation imposed by the law which limits your dating pool quite a bit, and overly penalizes the successful. Of 20-odd women I've dated, exactly one made more money than me.

> This whining about women taking "your money" in a divorce is absurd

In medicine, when we evaluate treatments, we base it on statistical efficacy. In law, when we evaluate guilt, we base it on evidence. When determining safe traffic laws (such as requiring seatbelts, we look at accident statistics. But for some reason, in marriage, a high failure rate is always "someone else's problem with commitment". (Along the same lines, I suppose fatality rates from accidents where seat belts weren't used are "someone else's problem with driving"!) No one stops to think "ok so maybe marriage itself may be the problem that needs some tweaking", and evaluates marriage changes/expectations based on empirical efficacy (lasting marriages). In the meantime, women profit off the pains of sorry men in failed relationships. Why is that?


I agree.

She doesn't have to be a gold digger to take half your money because the laws still applies regardless of her gold-digging status.

The proper way to handle this is to marry some who makes the same or more than you.


Or just accept that in a divorce, things will be split more or less equally in the absence of a prenup.

I make more than my wife. If we got divorced, her getting half the assets would not be the biggest problem.


It's up to each person to decide what they find acceptable and act accordingly.


Right. So as has been true forever and a day, men can either think with their head or with their penis.


You mean, use their head for their wallet or their penis.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: