[whywhywouldyou]

What, exactly, are you talking about? The OP is referencing the fact that the wife got _everything_ in the divorce. I'd be curious to understand why "facilitat[ing] his success in some way over the better part of a decade" entitles her to everything he ever made.

[kamaal]

Your parent comment argument is a flawed argument, of course.

By definition everything that ever happens, happens from cause-effect conditions. So if you end up winning, everything that happened that led to it, in some way is responsible. But that's splitting hairs.

I have seen these situations even in other relationships. There are these cousins, or uncles who would have dropped you to an interview, or lent you some money to get there. You work hard and are fairly successful a few years later. Now they think they are responsible for the whole thing, and you owe a great deal of things to them.

If you are not relatively old(and 30s goes as young as adults can), you should be responsible for yourself, your finances and your decisions. Pension guarantees, and handing over whole life's work and savings because they other person wanted out feels not only excessive, but also devoid of any logical sense.

[corethree]

Exactly. Especially in modern times. Women have equal rights now... which is hugely deserved.... but they don't have equal responsibility? That later part no longer makes sense.

[raffraffraff]

Is "everything" the family home?

In a divorce it's much more about the kids than it is about the wife. The kids get stability in a divorce. Where possible kids live in their home with their primary carer, don't have to move to a new school etc.

Why is the wife the primary carer? It starts because the husband can't get pregnant or breastfeed. It's supplemented by the likelihood that he's already the highest earner, which generally meant that he slept on so he could work the next day, while she is more likely to lose sleep nursing a crying baby.

Biology is a reality. Reality is literally sexist, and women get the rough deal in almost every way. I wouldn't want that at any price. People think they can opt out of biology these days, but that's a luxury belief that comes crashing down when sex and reproduction comes up.

I can't imagine risking getting pregnant because of sex. I can't imagine having to be pregnant for 9 months for every kid, impacting my health. I honestly don't even want to imagine the painful, stressful and risky job of giving birth. I can't imagine lactating, and therefore being the one who can instantly feed a crying baby at night. And eventually losing out on a career because I'm tied to the home for 8 years straight to raise 3 kids.

Having said that, this norm, which has obvious and sensible roots in human history, is abused. And it is somewhat dated in some countries today where there equal parental leave for mother's and fathers, breast feeding stations at work, creches etc. But how many women, even in first world countries have those luxuries? And is childbearing and rearing not still extremely sexist by definition? Yes! Unless you're rich enough to pay a surrogate. But then it's still "some woman" taking on the physical discomfort and risk, albeit for money.

So, prime example: Heather Mills getting millions out of Paul McCartney was totally unfair because she didn't take a career break and lose out because she was raising their kids while he made his money.

[corethree]

>Why is the wife the primary carer?

Totally agreed biology IS a factor here. The problem is biology doesn't come with a label and sometimes it's not clearly designed for a singular concept.

There's no Label on exactly which parent is supposed to be the better care taker and maybe there's not supposed to be a clear answer here. But there is this:

https://archive.ph/Zv9rp

[kennethh]

Divorce is about people not wanting to live and share their life together, it is a union where both parties should benefit (why else go into such an agreement). In many cases after a divorce the man does not get to see his children due to the women getting more money the less the man take care of the children. This is really bad for the children, research show that children do a lot worse the less they have contact with both parents. In the modern western society (Europe/USA) the men get the worst deal and this show in almost every respect (93% men in prisons, double the amount of drug users, single custody (80/20). Women also live longer, die less often of work relegated injuries. In general women gets taken care of by society to a greater extent than men.

[steve_adams_86]

In my nearly 40 years I’ve never seen a case where a woman got everything and actually got everything. It’s rhetoric. Sometimes men get unfair custody arrangements which leads to difficult support arrangements, but this is still not taking everything.

[barry-cotter]

It’s probably an exaggeration. He wasn’t literally living on the street. Also, his wife was still taking care of two children.

[corethree]

She got the house. Usually for American families that's the majority of their wealth. A huge majority. A split would mean selling the house. But that didn't happen.