Thursday, 27 October 2011

Reforming the economic system: Marriage and economic reform

Reforming the economic structure of society: Marriage and economic reforms

At present the way economics are organised in the West gives way too much power to females and disadvantages men. For instance, a man can bring in all the money into the home, buy a house, pay the mortgage and all the household bills, and yet, on a whim, she can turn him out of his home, take most of what he’s earned, ban him from seeing his kids and yet demand a fortune from him in child support. His contributions to the marriage or the partnership count for nothing in the eyes of the feminist legal system. Only her own selfish desires seem to matter to the law.

There are various possible ways of reforming the present situation. Gender equality advocates would suggest that things should be based on a proportionate assessment so that whatever the man brought into the marriage/relationship has to be weighed in the balance and that if the woman has contributed little or nothing she should get little or nothing back.

Masculists argue that the whole basis of marriage needs reforming so that at the moment a girl becomes a wife or partner she forfeits all rights to her own independent financial status and all claims upon her husband or partner’s assets. Even if she is the main breadwinner or if she brought a lot of assets into the marriage/relationship the mere fact that she now belongs to a man means a total transfer of all her rights to him. He becomes solely entitled to ownership, control and use of all her money and other assets. In the event of a divorce he would get all of those things and she would get nothing. He’d keep the home, get sole custody of the children and she’d have to pay him child support and alimony even though he’d keep 100% of any of the assets she’d brought to the marriage/relationship. She could be the main or even the only breadwinner, They also argue that all marriages should be arranged so that girls don’t get to choose their future husband and frivolous and unsuitable liaisons aren’t allowed to happen.

I think there’s a lot to be said on both sides of the fence to be honest. Obviously the present situation where the girl can more or less do what she likes and take her man to the cleaners just because she happens to be feeling that way has got to stop.  On the other hand, if she has brought most or even all the assets into the marriage, is it fair that she should lose the lot? Or is that as unfair as the present system?

I guess a lot depends on how we want society to be restructured. Yes, we need to smash the feminist and matriarchal power structure which oppresses everyone, men and women, but is it right to put in its place something that’s maybe just as oppressive? Do we want to turn us girls into slaves or do we want them to be useful contributors to society in their own right?

If we go down the road of a full-blown slave-type society, then I guess the whole question of money or assets or whatever becomes a non-issue. Females wouldn’t HAVE any money or property to begin with;’ they’d BE property so there wouldn’t be any question of how to dispose of their assets.

On the other hand, I prefer a world in which slavery is one of the many punishments open for girls who don’t know their place and break the rules. It’s more fun IMO if a girl has the chance to make something of herself but she’s constantly walking on eggshells!

So how do I think we should resolve the situation? In terms of marriage, I guess the fair thing is to weigh up the relative contributions of both partners to the relationship and home and so on and award any assets on a proportionate basis.

If a woman hasn't contributed financially to the marriage, helped buy the home or paid her way then it seems only fair that the man should get all or at least the lion's share of any money, property or other assets.

On the other hand, if she HAS contributed financially, helped buy the home or whatever then of course her contributions ought IMO to be taken into account when it comes to a financial settlement.

What about if she's working? Should her earnings be hers to keep, paid into a separate account over which only she has control?

Or should they be paid into a joint account to which both partners have access?

Or should they be paid into her husband or partner's account and only he has access to and control over it?

IMO, if she's married or has a partner, the very act of committment involves giving up any rights to independent control over her earnings or assets. The fairest way of handling money and property and so on is for there to be a joint account where both partners have access to the funds within it but the man would have a veto over any frivolous spending plans that the woman had. She wouldn't be able to stop him from drawing out her money or resources although IMO there should be a civil agreement drawn up laying down exactly what wouldn't be acceptable behaviour on his part. 

I do agree that in the event of a divorce or relationship break up that the man should get the home , sole custody of the children and that she should pay him alimony and child support. I also agree that marriages ought to be arranged by the men rather than leaving it up to the girl to make some irrational decision as to who or even if she has a husband/partner/boyfriend.

On the other hand I also believe that the other assets from the marriage should be split proportionately to take account of the relative contributions of each partner to the relationship.

In my next post I'll look at other economic reforms that I think need to be made in our society to increase fairness and restore the proper balance between the sexes.