>If they get a divorce they have nothing.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Someone want to tell him?

This community showing all its colors in this thread

It's crazy how anti-feminist HN is. "But whatabout womans???" is all over this thread.

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.

The best part is it started with my reply simply stating the current legal facts it got downvoted into oblivion

[flagged]

It's funny because feminists are usually the ones screeching "but about womyn??" :)

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.

Anti-feminist != "never supportive of women and equality"

[flagged]

> If they get a divorce they have nothing.

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.

They don’t get half, the get half of the martial gains at best, if a prenup exists it could be completely different.

There is a reason why so many women face poverty when they retire.

The system isn’t flawed, it’s skewed on purpose historically.

> The system isn’t flawed, it’s skewed on purpose historically.

Ah yes, it's a conspiracy.

I mean... Yes. Not in the in the dark sense, but in the "working as designed, and you weren't around to be asked input from" sense. Jefferson was really big on sunset dates on these sorts of things specifically so each generation could weigh in on the old and change things over time instead of living in an ossified mausoleum of the collective institutional detritus of the dead.

»You don’t need a formal conspiracy when interests converge«

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.

Sure, it is well known that in a divorce women just walk away with nothing /s

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?

It’s about pension and social security.

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.

> Why do you feel the need to change the subject?

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).