zlacker

>>gmays+(OP)
I think a lot of men are starting to do the cost benefit analysis of marriage.

If everything goes well you can buy a lovely house in the suburbs, raise 2.5 kids, grow old together with your wife and live happily ever after.

If it goes wrong she takes your kids and half your assets immediately, followed by several years of child support and possibly alimony.

>>_2z1p+5g
I don't actually totally disagree with this in part, but the emphasis is ridiculous. After all this time, despite a few decades of feminism, on the whole it's still women and children that have the most to lose out of a bad marriage, not men.

Shitty marriage settlements for men exist, but it is is in large part a re-balancing of an inequity that existed for time immemorial before that: a woman marries some guy, gets pregnant, and she and her kids become dependant on him and some combination of the following happens: a) leaves her, with kid, destitute b) abuses her c) abuses kid d) makes her miserable. It happened for probably millennia. It still happens. Men always held the power in marriage relationships by violence and/or by cultural convention and or by economic power.

I think the status quo sucks but you can see how family law got to where it is. I think it's going to take a couple generations for this to get sorted out.