MEDIA CONTACT INFORMATION
For media inquiries or to request a LegalZoom press kit, please contact:
Johanna Namir
LegalZoom.com, Inc
323-962-8600 x2310
press@legalzoom.com
LEGALZOOM NEWSLETTER
Sign up for our monthly newsletter, always packed full of helpful tips and informative articles.
Article Center
Men v. Women: Who does better in a divorce?
-
Aug 2005
While the walk down the aisle ends in marital bliss for many couples, for an equal number the end of the aisle is a place far, far away from happily ever after. People who divorce often do so in eager anticipation of reclaiming their lost independence, forgotten autonomy and an identity lost during the course of the marriage.
Upon divorce, a couple's marital property, property acquired by the two during the course of their marriage, is divided up according to the applicable state law. Parties may divide and settle their property 50/50 or in some other arrangement depending upon the given laws. The hope is that the parties are treated fairly.
But even in a situation where all the assets are divided 50/50, divorced women may find that a seemingly fair settlement is still far from equitable. Women are typically awarded custody of the children. Because our predominant social values suggest that children are best situated with their mothers, women often do the lion's share of child rearing in divorced families, even in shared custody cases.
Any parent who has ever fought a custody battle knows that child care responsibilities are a privilege, not a burden. Unfortunately, most divorce settlements fail to account for the damaged future earning potential of a woman with child care responsibilities. Since mothers usually take some time away from their careers, and since women still earn slightly less than men, it is fair to say that most women, even prior to divorce, have lower earning power than their male spouses.
The problem of lower earning power is exacerbated by child care responsibilities. They reduce a woman's available work hours, thereby making it more difficult for her to increase her income through promotions, client cultivation and so forth. This marked reduced earning capacity is not factored into a divorce, since settlements focus on dividing marital property.
Ultimately, the overall economic quality of a man's life, based on earnings and amount spent on living expenses, increases after his divorce. He continues to earn more but bears fewer family expenses. The overall economic quality of a woman's life, post-divorce, decreases.
Of course, both parents are expected and legally required to contribute to the cost of raising their children, but the law still does not provide a mechanism to compensate a woman for the earning potential she has lost based on her decisions to marry and have children. Women often opt for careers that they feel will be more conducive to motherhood, working lower paying jobs because of the fewer hours they require.
A difficulty in reforming marital property laws to compensate these women lies in the fact that many women, even in today's modern world, make career decisions based almost entirely on their family plans. Thus, a college professor who might have become a successful businesswoman had her family plans been different, has no way to show a court her lost earning potential. Her decision to take a lower paying job cannot be weighed by the court, since there is no real evidence of material economic damage.
The objective of a divorce court is to give each party what he or she fairly deserves based on their earnings during marriage. It is next to impossible to factor the broad social pressures that shape women's career decisions into a given divorce settlement.
Legal scholars must either find a way to assess the lost earning power of the female spouse, or women as a collective must find a way to have their families and make honest career decisions too. The Medieval Period may be long gone from our history, but there are still some remnants of the dark age of divorce law at work in our courts today.
Most Viewed in Divorce
Comments
Submitted by on Sep 26, 2010 - 8:14AM
The matter of who does better in a divorce is situational. I've read a lot of books on divorce and did a lot of research online on advice for divorce. I found a website called www.dadsdivorce.com. There was a ton of useful information on there from legal advice to divorce forums where you can talk to other people in your situation. I found it very helpful.
Submitted by on Jan 24, 2011 - 7:59AM
I feel you are assuming that the man doesn't sacrifice his career progress in any way to have a family. In many cases fathers will not take promotions if it involves cutting into their family life. Should they be compensated for this? I think in many cases, this is a collective decision made by the family. If you make the argument for possible career expectations for one parent I think it should be appied for both.
Submitted by on Feb 18, 2011 - 11:26AM
So did the father hold a gun to his wife's head and force her to have children? Would it have been better for those children to be foisted off to daycare as infants so mom could get back to her career? How often do we see new mothers who work up to the due date (Hooray for them!), drom the baby, stay home for a month or so, then get right back to work, leaving baby with a care provider. The only thing "medieval" in this article is the suggestion that modern yuppie mothers sacrifice their career for children.
Submitted by on Jun 8, 2011 - 4:38PM
Someone is angry!!! Get over yourself and do the right thing for your kids and the woman you once "loved"!!!
Submitted by on Nov 29, 2011 - 1:16PM
Sickening.....sacrfice their careers? You are hardly speaking for the majority. How about the bums who stay at home for no good reason and sacrifice family economic stability. Then it costs the poor man a fortune to get rid of them and half of what they have accumulated? Seriously????? What planet are you on? Is there any more discriminated group in America than a male in divorce court? Your tone makes me and millions of other men in America SICK.
Submitted by on Jan 2, 2012 - 11:23PM
This is plain funny, somehow the woman is always the victim. My sugguestion is a set rate across the board on the amount "mothly" that it cost to raise a child. This would mean no matter if the man flips burgers or plays a profesional sport she get a set amount. Because one child shouldn't lost a man 10,000 a month, and another 200. Or if that doesn't work for you; how about the county that you live makes the woman account for every penny that she receives from child support. And if it is found out that the funds were use improperly she would be held responsible in court. First time fine, second time money taking out of she taxes, no matter if the amount that improperly used was less then her return for that year, thrid time jail time. This would change the 'whole foundation" of our country.
Just my thoughts.
Submitted by on Apr 14, 2012 - 4:12AM
You've not given any data - just hypothesised. Thousands of men are thrown in jail for not paying alimony, the vast majority of them are because they CAN'T pay it and a lot of those men's debts rise with interest. Men's suicide rate increases more from divorce than women's. http://family.jrank.org/pages/1659/Suicide-Marital-Status-Family.html (can't find a source for the alimony prisoners at the moment but should update when i do)
Submitted by on May 17, 2012 - 1:56AM
First wife = quitter, victim, liar, and cheater. 5 years later, second wife = success minded (and the finances to back it), responsible, smart, and much more the person whom I should have married in the first place. Oh yeah, first wife...child support is fine, although it ends when the kids are 18 (just two more years)...what, then, are you going to live on? Oh, darn, you'll either keep siphoning off your parents, or you'll have to go get a job or career starting at age 45. Or not. I don't care. It was my fault for choosing to marry the first wife and my blessing for realigning my thoughts and understanding myself and choosing my second wife.
Submitted by on Jun 23, 2012 - 1:11PM
If after 5 years you can't speak of the mother of your children with respect, you might consider you have your own emotional problem. This is perhaps the reason for the marriage breakdown? Cheating is terrible, but it almost never happens in a vacuum. Best for your 2nd marriage, but once the shiny wears off, I predict she too will leave your entitled-sounding self once you turn your nasty attitude on her. Particularly since she sounds like she really need not tolerate it. At the end of things, water finds its own level.
Submitted by on Aug 4, 2012 - 11:48PM
This article clearly supposes Rosie the homemaker actually doing what it takes to make the home. Sadly this article pretends to delve into the topic with fairness, ostensibly asks who fares better in divorce but then goes into only hardships women face, while ignoring fatherhood as important at all, thereafter disregarding parenting done by fathers, then baldly stating women should be compensated for their sacrifices. The only sacrifice my ex made was bearing one child. Thereafter, she made it her solemn duty to watch TV day in and day out on the couch, contributing by racking up credit card debt and cheating on me. Please, men get crushed with burdens from their wives, debt, paying his attorney fee AND hers, child support, alimony, and private school tuition. She shirked every time there was an opportunity to work, instead working her excuses til they meant nothing any more. What do you have against men?
Submitted by on Aug 27, 2012 - 12:17PM
Your comment is full of fallacies. It is delusional and hypocritical for a person to speak with respect about somebody who's done terrible things to him/her, regardless of what somebody's position may be. It is reasonable to be angry with that type of person no matter how much time may have elapsed considering awful damage and pain that person inflicted that can never be undone. Such reaction one has towards the party who's done the harm is not at all related to entitlement, nasty attitude or an emotional problem but is a justifiable reaction. People like you just want to blame everything else on the innocent party with exact same logic rapists blame their victims.
Submitted by on Sep 14, 2012 - 3:52PM
Men are going to stop getting married. Women will pressure the government to allow women the right to take money from men for just being in a relationship. The government will happily oblige to gain more power over the people. Prostitution will become safer than having a girlfriend, if it isn't already. Birth rates will collapse. The family unit will disappear. Western society and freedom will disappear. The police state will control all aspects of family life because men and women couldn't sort it out themselves. Men, stop giving in to women.
Submitted by on Feb 12, 2013 - 10:38PM
I live in an affluent community and as soon as the pretty women get to about 45 they start looking because they know it is a tough road for an older looking woman. They also get half of your stuff. My ex cheated, left with her rich boss and I had the fight of my life on my hands. She wanted millions more than she had already got. Thank God for private eyes with cameras. My son will never marry. I feel sorry for the next generation of woman who will not get men to do what I did. (Giving the milk away for free is not helping them either) Woman, you, the judges and your attorneys did this to the next generation. Fine work.
Please note that we can’t answer legal questions in the article comments. If you have a specific legal question, click here to connect with an attorney.