Right, completely unpaid, which is why most women are homeless and starving on the street.
Means total dependence on their husbands. If they get a divorce they have nothing.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Someone want to tell him?
Mind, this is coming from people who were never supportive of women and equality, and now are making snark comments about this equality which they never ever cared for. What.
I don't see a contradiction with not supporting "women equality", but putting those who support it in front of their contradictions. I don't expect my opponents to live by my principles, but I expect them to follow theirs.
In a divorce, they typically get half of all assets, child support and alimony. Like I said, it's a terrible system, but you're also terribly misinformed.
There is a reason why so many women face poverty when they retire.
The system isn’t flawed, it’s skewed on purpose historically.
Ah yes, it's a conspiracy.
There is a reason why Elisabeth Selbert, Helene Weber, Frieda Nadig, and Helene Wessel had to fight in the Parliamentary Council of 1948–49 to add the phrase “Men and women have equal rights” to the constitution despite initial resistance.
It took another decade before women could have bank account or a job with their husbands' permission.
It took until 1997 before martial rape was a officially a crime.
And even now where we have an alleged case of fake porn and identity theft by the husband of famous woman, is the first reaction of the CDU deflection: We can’t discuss violence against women with considering the image of women in Islam.
What a bunch of nonsense. These are distinct problems that can easily handled separately.
But it’s always the same pattern, the scapegoats are either poor, jobless or migrants but don’t ever touch the real problems.
A quick google search shows you that the average is 50/50 when it comes to the division of the assets.
Why do you feel the need to lie about something so easy to verify?
Most people don’t have that many assets to live from when they (have to) retire.
Why do you feel the need to change the subject?
Try googling Pension entitlements women vs men.
Says the person who came here to derail the entire conversation.
You turned a men's issue into a dozen different women's issues (some real, some not).
I happen to believe it is pointless to "fight" the former, while governments/societies who put in place the latter are just hypocrites.
But hey, don't let facts and logic stop you in your crusade :)