Maybe women ought to ask themselves : "What would my life be like if he were gone?" Not divorced, but dead. Look around you, he's not coming home today or any other day. Can I handle the kids, the house, the bills? That's a better question to ask. Every woman on the planet can envision a bigger house ( with housekeeping service, of course) It's like asking the husband can he envision sleeping with a hotter wife.
@@Neoteny-j4z Mostly, many of us are handling it all without him. "Married single mom," is a thing for a reason. But for most of us, envisioning something else is still a challenge. Ending a marriage is not Plan A. Most also don't actually wish him dead but it would certainly simplify the divorce.
Try to work it out. You might find with hard work & forgiveness both of you can find each others respect friendship even love again. Maybe its different but God heals broken hearts & homes, especially if you have children dont give up too easily. Just sayin
@@lucianmoon58 I think a lot of young men are not fully informed about the commitments and the potential consequences of marriage. Only few persons are dealing with contracts and an important thing in a contract is the terms related to cancellation. This is where I think men are being tricked and not properly warned.
It is like Dr. Jekell and Mr. Hyde. When he is at work or away from, he is nicer and more of the man that met. Now, when he is home, he consistently finds things that i do or do not do to be mad and lash out verbally or acts aggressively towards things in our home. He also is very dismissive and treats me like im irrelevant.
@@caitlin116894 I've had that exact thought myself. The dichotomy of "it makes sense for you not to work" and "you didn't earn anything, you're worthless" - and about a million other things too.
A thought experiment for you and your divorce minded GFs. Let say your son's gf want to get married and your son is on the fence. She doesn't want a religious marriage, justice of the peace is fine, but your son is still undecided. GF comes to you and asks that you reassure your son that marriage will be good for him bc of xyz. Tell me, what will you tell him? What is xyz?
@@Neoteny-j4z If my son is an adult, I'd want him to make decisions for himself. If hes not decided, what on earth would I be doing if I tried to convince him? I love that in this scenario his girlfriend feels like she can come to me, but some decisions are better left to the couple involved and the decision to marry is certainly one of those.
Hey there , I hope you're doing well! Your Video is very interesting, I like your content! But your channel is not well-optimised, Video "SEO" score is very low. That's why your channel rank is very low in Subscribers and video views. If you fix the "SEO" area in your Video, you get huge audiences.
Not after you pay for childcare for 2 or 3 children. Plus, the expenses of working. There is not enough left of $40,000 to make all the stress worth it. A woman does have to have more trust in her husband to be fair.
@@iamjustsaying4787 it's true that the circumstances of many families mean that then it isn't "worth" it for both spouses to work - it's just that it's a vulnerable position to be in.
What an awful name for a channel! It goes both ways. The less the woman earns, and the harder the man worked to make money the more the man has to pay her in court settlements. Because he worked hard to support them she gets to keep the kids. How is any of this fair? It isn't, but at least the distribution of monetary assets is the way it is for good reason. Having the wife work to earn an income isn't functional, it means many things. It means she will be too tired for her children and husband, it means there is less money and positions for men to make an income to be able to sustain a family, to be able to make a wife have the privilege to stay at home. This also makes women more resentful towards their husbands for making her have to work, and less attracted to the majority of suitors, as women appear to rank men in relation to themselves in term of status and income rather than have an objective standard. There is more cheating with a mixed work environment, when men and women starter working together the term having an "affair" was coined. It means that children go neglected, and susceptible to dangers and especially outside influence. This is not natural. Children should be with their mothers, mothers should be with their children. Kids can also be with family or friends, trusted people who has their best interests at heart, but not spend their days with activists or government hires(teachers.) It comes down to biology. Women are vulnerable while pregnant and rearing children. And weaker to begin with. So they must rely on men for their resources and safety. It's a one way street with resources flowing her way, not the other way. These and many more reasons, I bet. And so things were arranged the way they were. And now they are not. It is at is today, because a certain rich family that shall not be named decided that it was a good idea to entice women to work for two reasons. First so that the government would be able to tax twice as many workers, secondly to be able to indoctrinate the children through schooling and academia. They used feminism for their own purposes, and popularized it. Their objective was to make more money, and to induce a political revolution, and they figured that because they were rich they were wise enough to decide what politics should rule the west for us! What it all comes down to is human preoccupation with money. Man invented money. Man understands money better than Man understands nature. Man suffers. The children of Man suffers. The children of Man turn away from marriage. Civilization crashes. Man dies. Thinking the way you do, that _"two incomes is better than one"_ is incredibly short-sighted. And thinking that you get a worse settlement in court by not working, when proportionally you actually get more is also a fallacy. Then you cannot say it's unfair. Women who wish to succeed in marriage had better 1)stay virgins until the wedding night, and 2)don't work more than you can handle while simultaneously raising children. Studying or working extra or having a small side business is probably fine. Because things are as they are today you may have to work some for an extra income or rely on your parents to afford having a family, but it should never be your goal to have double incomes or a "career." Unless there is something you're truly passionate about, of course.
That is rare! Most the time the woman takes everything she can get tot eh point that he has to move back with him parents because he can't afford rent after paying child support and alimony while she gets to go away on vacation. This happens all the time to good men that were abused and cheated on by women.
I know what she's referring to as I signed on the dotted line when I divorced and didn't use an attorney because I had no financial means...it affected our 3 children. However, thankfully, we survived and thrived. I understand that many men are often financially stripped, and that is not correct either, but wonen need to open their eyes and be informed.
@@estrellapereira3108 the only clarification I would make here is that if men feel "stripped," that's a problem with them - what is divided is what was earned during the marriage. No court is giving women things they don't have a legal entitlement to receive! I'm so glad to hear though that it all worked out for you and that you and your kids are thriving now! That's the most important thing!
When women initiate divorce they've already planned it for months in not years. The truth is that is is on outlier case, the vast majority of the time men are wrecked financially while the women are awarded almost automatically the house, child custody, alimony and child support; all while making as much or more than men. This is a prime example of the "damsel in distress" victim role that women play in court and biased family court and divorce judges swallow hook line and sinker. Welcome to the man's side of the divorce experience.
YOu hear that MEN. Educate yourself and protect all your assets. Women are not to be trusted once you head into this territory. Never belive a woman's story in a marriage. NEVER. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EybSSH7Jiec.html
" No one is accepting less than they're entitled to and I think that probably true". That ought to be a full stop statement. Look, I understand that a wife may not be as agressive as her husband , but the courts understand this as well and are tilted accordingly. My friend is paying $43,000 per yr for 22yrs to his ex wife for spousal support alone. (at least it will be down to that after the youngest son is of age) We men think we're providing a privileged life of being able to stay at home and focus on raising two sons, but women and divorce courts seem to think its an oppressed, caged, existence deserving of 22 yrs of reparations.
@@Neoteny374 it's not reparations. It's recognition that her earning potential is not the same, especially after being a stay at home mom. It's an effort to be equitable, too - why should he go on living at the standard of living that was achieved with her help and support while she lives at or below the poverty line? Whatever was earned was earned together. He couldn't have earned what he earned without her participation and support. If he's paying that much, he's a very high wage earner - good for them! Sounds like their partnership was a good one, at least economically, while it lasted.
@@douglasharbert3340 the difference is that you're a little confused. You're categorizing things that are marital as yours - because in divorce we're not dividing things that are truly separate property. You just think you have a greater entitlement to it - for literally no reason other than your internalized misogyny. Women are waiving things that should be theirs - though hopefully in far fewer numbers after they see my content! I'm small today but suspect I'll grow. We'll see!
@@douglasharbert3340 oh gosh I don't need to say that to the judge! All she needs is the dates of marriage and dates of contribution to the assets in question.
@@YourGirlfriendNeedsaDivorce But that is your reasoning behind it. Just listen to yourself. You assume that men have "internalized misogyny". That's like accusing someone of being "inherently racist". Looks like someone needs to check her bias...😉
@@YourGirlfriendNeedsaDivorce Just noticed that you also assume the judge is going to be female, or maybe that's what you're going for in order to stack the deck. Sounds about feminist...😉
It doesn’t matter here either. I was repeatedly raped by my ex and he came back and got half custody. Ladies if you are thinking of getting pregnant, go to a sperm bank. Better to raise kids alone.
Yes, it's insanity. However, it seems to be a global problem. This happens here in Germany unfortunately a lot as well and I even know some mothers in other European countries who make similar experiences in family courts.
@@YourGirlfriendNeedsaDivorce I don't know how the situation in the UK is. Here it is a deeply rooted systemic problem. For example misogynistic fathers' rights groups have a strong political influence and they have also funded and organised trainings for Youth Welfare officers as well as for Guardians at litem. This is why Parental Alienation Syndrome and Equal shared parenting are so popular in German family courts.
I live in Canada & it's even worse here. The police don't care about domestic abuse & Children's Aid (Canadian version of CPS) will tell you it never happened EVEN WHEN the preschool age child is standing in front of them with a black eye. The Family Court judges say "the law is irrelevant" when you finally get to court. It's maddening!
@@kimtalbot4373 it's awful! I don't understand it! There's a new study out of the UK on judges turning a blind eye to these things. It's all down to power and control.
@YourGirlfriendNeedsaDivorce I agree!There was 1 judge out of about 15 who was actually good but I was only in his courtroom a few times over the 10 years I was dragged thru Family Court.
@@smallfaucet I don't recall intentionally deleting anything, even some pretty nasty things. But yeah, I'm relatively new here and some things get more comments and engagement than others. You can see in my other videos - it's not like I delete the mean things. They're all there!
It's the same everywhere sadly. I cant even begin to tell you the hell i went through to only win a supervised visitation, and a restraining order that said he wasn't allowed to swear at me 😂😂 this is after he tried to kill me and my 2 year old while i was 8 months pregnant. Once after a particularly bad attack leading to the police picking him up and taking him in, they let him go 3 hours later and gave him the house keys without warning me, i was asleep on the couch with my daughter in my arms when i woke up with him standing over me.. They always say we can't do anything unless he does something... I never understood this... how much more did he need to do? The abuse was unreal and the threat to my children's lives was 100% real! Yet women and children will always be silenced. It finally stopped after my now hubby who raised my kiddos as his own stood up and told him he would beat the snot out of him if he blinks in my direction, my oldest just turned 22 and ive been fear free for 16 years. I admire people like you who fight for all the voices that gets silenced every single day .. Thank you!
...the wording implies the father owes the mother child support (since you stated "...it's the bare minimum he can do" 0:37 .... Is this bcuz 1) most cases show fathers who owe mothers, 2) in most cases the father has a better paying job than mothers, 3) you were told this by your own lawyer in your own personal case against your child's father? 🤔 just curious.
@@NM-oi8mw I'm not divorced; I'm a family lawyer. But, yes, it is usually the dads paying support for a couple of reasons but it usually boils down to being the higher wage earner and/or having less parenting time. A number of things go into the overall support calculation and it can vary a little by state.
@@Neoteny374 it's not criminal. It's civil. It's not a question of conviction - it's a question, in a custody case, of best interests of the child. DV cases - cases involving coercive control, cases involving trauma or CAMS - often don't have the kind of evidence you'd need to convict in a criminal sense. It doesn't mean that there isn't any evidence or that conclusions can't reasonably be drawn. Also - many of these children are forced into situations where they suffer further abuse or are murdered.
Ya I think that is pretty obvious. Nobody is going to just give that much money away during a divorce. There can be exceptions, say perhaps the husband has substantial 401k's, they may negotiate to keep the 401k's in exchange for the house equity. The important point is that all marital assets will be split 50/50 but that doesn't mean every single asset, just that the totals are equal. So if you are getting the house "free and clear" it would certainly be in exchange for other assets.
@@Nonplused oh, no - women definitely do. They are often willing to buy their freedom at whatever cost, especially if there's a big discrepancy in income and she worries she can't withstand the litigation or is the victim of abuse.
@@YourGirlfriendNeedsaDivorce You are saying "some" women walk away from marital assets? I suppose some men do too. If the assets are not substantial it is often not worth fighting over them due to litigation costs. Also, equity in the home (or anywhere else) acquired before the marriage is often not subject to being split as "marital equity", so in a hypothetical example where one spouse owned a house outright before the marriage, and then a short time later the marriage failed, the other spouse is going to have a hard time arguing for half the house. Typically they will get half of any change in the house's value that accrued during the marriage (which can in theory also be negative). But if there are substantial marital assets and either spouse is walking away, they need a better lawyer. For me, the measure of "substantial" would be whether the assets in question are worth more than the legal bills and the grief associated with settling it at court. For example, it's silly to fight over home furnishings, which typically aren't worth very many hours of a lawyer's time. A house with no equity subject to marital asset splitting would be the same. Often times the question that is more pertinent is who is going to get stuck with the debt. The question of debt is also very complicated. For example, it is common for one or both spouses to bring in substantial student loan debt to the marriage, and it is typically the woman with more primarily due to age differences and the fact that women attend college in higher numbers than men (these days). So does the other party get half the student debt? It depends entirely on when it was acquired. During the marriage; yes, prior to the marriage; no.
@@Nonplused The state has rules about what qualifies as marital or separate property. But yes - some women do not have the resources to fight over assets to which they'd otherwise be entitled. In other cases, they don't want to risk his anger or retribution. I can't just strong arm my clients into litigation that they can't afford - whether monetarily or emotionally. I give advice, but the choices are theirs to make.
@@YourGirlfriendNeedsaDivorce Yes well that's fair. Some things aren't worth fighting over. But I bet you never had a client walk away from a million dollar settlement.
@@Nonplused I try to encourage them never to walk away from anything - that's actually what I'm trying to do here. Often they don't know the full extent of what they're walking away from - and I don't, either, if she opts not to do formal discovery and doesn't have access to that information herself. It's complicated. It does create a cycle of vulnerability, though, especially if he's the kind of man who is willing to walk away and leave her destitute. There are good men out there, of course, but mostly the women in these situations are not married to them.
Only a box would get 4-5 years before they had to refinance, a man would never get that opportunity. Men should get all the equity, they probably worked their rear ends off to built that equity with little input from the box.
Many people get married because they don't want to be on their own so they take anyone that comes along. That's why the separation/divorce rates are so high. Basically "You'll Do!"
I would very much like to hear from the men who have been divorced and how much they had taken from them, and what they were left with. What is 'alarming' is the way men get treated in divorce in the USA.
@@DVul stay clear? Of ... what? I'm already married, so not entertaining advances from random misogynists on the internet. I also only represent women, so it's not like professionally there's any risk either. Don't want to watch my videos? Scroll on.
Tell the driver to go where the ticket said you would be. If he says "oh I'm sorry I got lost, I'll rerail right away,, can you please help me?", it's one thing. If what he says instead is "well I changed ny mind, this is where we're going now, screw you and your ticket", that's the time to get off.
@@GildedZ i envision this part as more of an interior monologue - am I where I wanted to be or not? - but there's no question that in a real marriage, in real life, there are many such conversations.
Wow, so many triggered people in the comments.....people who probably didnt address their own wrongdoings in the downfall of a a marriage to boot....shes just giving advice to people who care about what hapoens in a divorce...ideally, this doesnt happen, but people arent very accountable or mature or have good family values....so thats why it comes to this....
@@Channelinterrupted thanks for the support! I get a lot of hate on this channel in particular - which I get - but its hard to get behind either forcing people to stay in unhappy or unhealthy marriages or denying them access to what was earned during it. Marriage is a partnership of two people supporting each other.
I was a young boy once. My father came to me, talked to me, said he couldn't stay in the family home anymore. He said he had problems with my mother, and a functional marriage couldn't be possible anymore. From the getgo I hated him just for that, because I was a product of a loving union, so I believed they had the duty to work on it. But they didn't. As he was going, I told him point blank that he needed to support the home as if he hadn't left. He made me a promise that he would. That nothing would change, except that he wouldn't be there every day anymore. I told him that if he didn't, knowing my mother, she would assert her spousal rights by every legal avenue she could - which of course, she did. He brushed it off, saying none of that would happen, that he would continue on delivering as normal. That was a blatant lie. A lie that he reaped no benefit in saying, for my mother DID sue him to oblivion in divorce court, just like I had warned him it would happen. Honest to god, he would have had an easier life if he honored his word.
@@GildedZ I'm so sorry that you experienced that. You must have been very world wise to realize the implications so young, too - that must have been hard on your heart. I hope you - and your mom - are doing well now.
@@YourGirlfriendNeedsaDivorce It's been years since. I found a way to cope. It was not until last year that my country finally passed legislation to crack down on deadbeat parents, by putting them in a registry that would not allow them to get new driver licenses or get out of the country - until they paid up. Pressure from the public finally made it happen.
What you’re addressing doesn’t have to do with divorce. What you’re actually advising women on is how to gain full custody of the children in order to receive the highest amount of child support. None of these issues will prevent a man from having to pay alimony, that is determined by weather or not she worked throughout the relationship or not.
@@YourGirlfriendNeedsaDivorce Again, another childish response. Mike Hunt isn't my "user name", it is my name, or rather Michael Hunt, but yes, my friends and family call me Mike, and Michael Hunt is my birth name. I understand being teased about this in high school, but not from a grown adult. If you really are a lawyer, I am sorry for any client who employs your services.
@@mikehunt5637 I assumed you chose it to be funny. I'm sorry - that's unfortunate, but I had no way of knowing. It's a common joke name. In any case, I stand by my initial response - if your wife is leaving you, you have the opportunity to be a better spouse too. It's hard for me to understand why so many men are determined to trap women in marriages that aren't working but are unwilling to do the work to improve the marriage. The women who I see are doing the work - have done the work for years - and are tired of being alone in their marriages.
