Women initiates the Divorce first

[Mysterio]

What your view on women initiating Divorce first?  Why are the numbers skewed toward women filing for divorce fist.?  What do you think it means overall?  Why are men not initiating first?

[NuevoYorko]

Men tend to be better equipped to numb ourselves to misery than women are.  We'll just sit in our chair, drink beer and watch sports, or some combination of avoidant behaviors, when our marriages are not working.   Meanwhile, our wives are actively leading unhappy lives.  Thus, they seek divorce.

[Wiseman2]

When women get tired of talking to a wall or the back of your head, they'll start talking to a lawyer. By the time she's in the attorney's office, she's done.

[Wiseman2]

You're not going through a divorce, are you?

There's plenty of divorce lawyers happy to lend a sympathic ear and hold her hand through the process.

[FMW]

I was married for 23 years, my husband cheated repeatedly so obviously he wasn't thrilled with me as his wife.  However, he wanted to stay married.  He was very upset when I chose to divorce.  He lost the security and stability that marriage had brought, and after several years of my seeming to turn a blind eye to his cheating, he apparently took it that I was ok with it and resented the fact that I upended his world.  I maintained a nice place for him to come home,  made sure all the bills were paid, maintained social and family ties and generally kept life running smoothly regardless of what he did or didn't do.Yes, he lost money in the divorce - my income.  He got a big chunk of my retirement savings and I paid off several joint credit cards that contained only HIS debts because at that point he was spending every penny he made on other women and was broke. 

I think many men in generally would rather stay with the status quo and see divorce as too disruptive, even if they aren't particularly thrilled with the marriage.  They choose just to do their own thing while not legally changing anything.

Women, especially as we get older, often have no patience left for putting up with being unhappy when it's clear things aren't going to change.  Women make as much, if not more, than their husbands and don't have to stick around and be miserable just to survive anymore.  In my experience and with the people I know, women are usually less resistant to enduring temporary turmoil in order to get eventual freedom from the unhappiness.      

Just my experience and thoughts.

[amerikajin]

I think Nuevo Yorko pretty much nailed it: men are more comfortable living in a low-functioning marriage than women are.

As numerous writers and experts of pointed out over the years, women do a lot of emotional labor in relationships. They're biologically and culturally driven to be much more attuned to what is happening at the emotional level than men are. Men have no idea what's going on a lot of the time.

[GeorgiaPeach1]

Even unhappy men still want someone around to do the childcare, laundry, dishes, vacuuming, cooking, errands and appointments, etc...

[emprosnet7]

In my case, my wife initiated the divorce. Months before she did, I wanted to do it as I couldn't stand it any more.  When the quarantine came, there was a fight and what happened was that her mother was not welcome in the house. After the quarantine she had to decide between her mother and me and she chose her mother. I am glad it happened that way because she can not say that I abandoned her and the kids and in the unlikely case she regrets her decision in the future. 

[rjc149]

Women are more emotional than men, usually need more consistent emotional nurturing from their partners, and are hence more subject to changes in feelings, disposition, and perspective when that nourishment is inconsistent or insufficient. Which tends to happen in the mid-to-latter stages of a marriage, when most divorces occur. 

Women are always being presented with offers regardless of whether they're in the dating market -- even average-looking women. The nature of human sexuality often requires women to have little more than a vagina to attract male interest. If she's being presented with significantly better alternatives, again and again, it causes her to doubt her decisions. 

Women are typically the legal and financial beneficiaries of divorce settlements. 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by rjc149

[amerikajin]

21 minutes ago, GeorgiaPeach1 said:

Even unhappy men still want someone around to do the childcare, laundry, dishes, vacuuming, cooking, errands and appointments, etc...

That assumes that women are designated to do these things, which increasingly they are not these days. This can create new types of tensions, of course, as many older guys probably grew up in households in which guys were the breadwinners, only to be living in a time where women have their own opportunities and resent being shackled by the constraints of marital 'norms.'

[amerikajin]

3 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

Women are more emotional than men, usually need more consistent emotional nurturing from their partners, and are hence more subject to changes in feelings, disposition, and perspective when that nourishment is inconsistent or insufficient. Which tends to happen in the mid-to-latter stages of a marriage. 

Women are always being presented with offers regardless of whether they're in the dating market -- even average-looking women. The nature of human sexuality often requires women to have little more than a vagina to attract male interest. If she's being presented with significantly better alternatives, again and again, it causes her to doubt her decisions. 

Women are typically the legal and financial beneficiaries of divorce settlements. 

 

Women are 'beneficiaries' because, historically, they've been stay-at-home moms and courts have recognized that this has hurt their career prospects. Increasingly, however, as women gain more economic parity, this has shifted somewhat. The law doesn't say that men shall pay women alimony; it typically requires that the higher-earning spouse pay enough money for the lower-earning spouse to live a somewhat similar lifestyle so that they don't go from, say, a Lakeshore Drive condo with a view to South Side Chicago with kids in tow. But that could be the man or the woman.

[amerikajin]

2 hours ago, FMW said:

I was married for 23 years, my husband cheated repeatedly so obviously he wasn't thrilled with me as his wife.  However, he wanted to stay married.  He was very upset when I chose to divorce.  He lost the security and stability that marriage had brought, and after several years of my seeming to turn a blind eye to his cheating, he apparently took it that I was ok with it and resented the fact that I upended his world.  I maintained a nice place for him to come home,  made sure all the bills were paid, maintained social and family ties and generally kept life running smoothly regardless of what he did or didn't do.Yes, he lost money in the divorce - my income.  He got a big chunk of my retirement savings and I paid off several joint credit cards that contained only HIS debts because at that point he was spending every penny he made on other women and was broke. 

I think many men in generally would rather stay with the status quo and see divorce as too disruptive, even if they aren't particularly thrilled with the marriage.  They choose just to do their own thing while not legally changing anything.

Women, especially as we get older, often have no patience left for putting up with being unhappy when it's clear things aren't going to change.  Women make as much, if not more, than their husbands and don't have to stick around and be miserable just to survive anymore.  In my experience and with the people I know, women are usually less resistant to enduring temporary turmoil in order to get eventual freedom from the unhappiness.      

Just my experience and thoughts.

Kudos to you for standing up for yourself. You don't deserve that, and it's good that you took control of that situation.

[NuevoYorko]

9 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

 

Women are always being presented with offers regardless of whether they're in the dating market -- even average-looking women. The nature of human sexuality often requires women to have little more than a vagina to attract male interest. If she's being presented with significantly better alternatives, again and again, it causes her to doubt her decisions. 

Women are typically the legal and financial beneficiaries of divorce settlements. 

 

Did you really have to go here?  Surely you can do better.

[rjc149]

7 minutes ago, amerikajin said:

Women are 'beneficiaries' because, historically, they've been stay-at-home moms and courts have recognized that this has hurt their career prospects. Increasingly, however, as women gain more economic parity, this has shifted somewhat. The law doesn't say that men shall pay women alimony; it typically requires that the higher-earning spouse pay enough money for the lower-earning spouse to live a somewhat similar lifestyle so that they don't go from, say, a Lakeshore Drive condo with a view to South Side Chicago with kids in tow. But that could be the man or the woman.

Typically, men earn more than women, so that would fit the narrative that women benefit financially from divorces more than men do, generally speaking. 

[mark clemson]

On the vagina thing - my personal view is if that vagina isn't surrounded by a reasonably attractive wrapper, it's chances aren't all that good, actually. Plenty of permanently single women out there. Wrapper dysfunction is a real issue...

[amerikajin]

5 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

Typically, men earn more than women, so that would fit the narrative that women benefit financially from divorces more than men do, generally speaking. 

That may be true, but the law itself is gender-neutral. If your wife earns more than you do, she's probably not getting alimony. She might get child support from you, but in the eyes of the law, it's not her money, and it's support you should be providing anyway - for your children.

[rjc149]

4 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

Did you really have to go here?  Surely you can do better.

Lol where did you want me to go?

[rjc149]

3 minutes ago, amerikajin said:

That may be true, but the law itself is gender-neutral. If your wife earns more than you do, she's probably not getting alimony. She might get child support from you, but in the eyes of the law, it's not her money, and it's support you should be providing anyway - for your children.

Depend on the state (I'm in the US), and the majority of married couples have an income gap in the husband's favor. So the majority of divorces, where a financial settlement was reached, was in the woman's benefit. It's de facto, not de jure, but it still is. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by rjc149

[amerikajin]

1 minute ago, rjc149 said:

Depend on the state (I'm in the US), and the majority of married couples have an income gap in the husband's favor. So the majority of divorces, where a financial settlement was reached, was in the woman's benefit. 

There are two types of states: community property states, and those that are not. Almost all states have some form of equitable separation of assets guidelines in divorce. But again, it's gender-neutral. You can complain about the husband earning more money and I'll grab the world's smallest violin and play it for a bit, but the law just makes sure that one spouse doesn't suddenly get shocked economically by the consequences of divorce, which is fair, even if it's not perfect. It can go both ways. One of the consequences of women's equality and modern marriage is that women can now feel what it's like to fork over a good chunk of their hard-earned savings even if the husband's a total bum.

[rjc149]

1 minute ago, amerikajin said:

There are two types of states: community property states, and those that are not. Almost all states have some form of equitable separation of assets guidelines in divorce. But again, it's gender-neutral. You can complain about the husband earning more money and I'll grab the world's smallest violin and play it for a bit, but the law just makes sure that one spouse doesn't suddenly get shocked economically by the consequences of divorce, which is fair, even if it's not perfect. It can go both ways. One of the consequences of women's equality and modern marriage is that women can now feel what it's like to fork over a good chunk of their hard-earned savings even if the husband's a total bum.

The historic gender income disparity, combined with the intention of divorce laws to prevent undue economic hardship for the lesser-earning spouse (usually the woman), results in a system that offers de facto financial preference for the woman in divorce. It's more common, historically, for women to exploit this than for men to exploit it. So, it's not that the law's purpose is to enforce a gender bias -- it's that divorce law can be more readily exploited by women. 

In other words, for every deadbeat male bum living off his rich wife's alimony, there's probably 100 cases the other way around. 

It would be hard for me to believe that this has absolutely no correlation with women initiating 70% of divorces in societies where these laws exist. 

[NuevoYorko]

28 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

Lol where did you want me to go?

I think it's sufficient to say that, no, the fact that most women have a vagina is not a significant factor in why women initiate divorces more than men.  Neither is what you consider women's predisposition to do anything for money.  Most divorces are initiated because the marriages are not working for either or both of the parties involved.  

[rjc149]

21 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

Most divorces are initiated because the marriages are not working for either or both of the parties involved.  

The 70% statistic would  indicate that it tends to work less for women than for men. I am theorizing that one of the reasons, among many, that explains this lopsided statistic is that women may be more prone to buyer's remorse by nature of human mating dynamics. And you're right, it may not be a significant factor overall. In my personal experience and observation, however, it's certainly a factor in the early divorces I've seen. 

I'm curious as to what your actual opinion on the matter is. I don't think it's our ability to drink lots of beer that allows us to better resign ourselves to miserable marriages -- but it could be that women are more prone to marital dissatisfaction and can more easily move on to other mating options, hence their more pro-active approach to divorce.

Edited August 25, 2020 by rjc149

[amerikajin]

6 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

The 70% statistic would  indicate that it tends to work less for women than for men. I am theorizing that one of the reasons, among many, that explains this lopsided statistic is that women may be more prone to buyer's remorse by nature of human mating dynamics. And you're right, it may not be a significant factor overall. In my personal experience and observation, however, it's certainly a factor in the early divorces I've seen. 

I'm curious as to what your actual opinion on the matter is. I don't think it's our ability to drink lots of beer that allows us to better resign ourselves to miserable marriages -- but it could be that women can more easily move on to other mating options, hence their more pro-active approach to divorce.

There's all kinds of literature out there on Google if you're really interested, but some of the factors are:

* Women tend to invest more emotionally in relationships then men do.

* A related problem is that women begin to feel less fulfilled over time for this reason. So they get frustrated.

* Men, being emotionally more aloof, think the relationships is 'fine' as evidenced by the lack of arguments. Meanwhile, the woman's frustration is bubbling up.

* Women begin to confront men, who then begin to think that their wives are "changing."

* Men don't know how to respond because they don't deal with emotions as well, so they become defensive and begin to shut down, which makes women even more frustrated.

* Women and men enter a marriage death spiral in which minor arguments turn into brutal personal attacks or just cold distance.

* It's this point where divorce is on the mind of the woman, but the man probably resists because his ego is more tied to his being married than a woman's. His being a husband and father is part of his identity. Women, by contrast, care less about identity and more about marital satisfaction and equality.

Here's where we get to your point:

* In the past, women had no economic power. Divorce would have meant certain poverty and shame. By contrast, thanks to their ability to earn a paycheck and the removal of the social stigma attached to divorce, women have more freedom to divorce than they used to, but it's not merely because they want to live off the man's alimony check. But you're correct in saying that some men fear losing money in a divorce settlement and worry about losing contact with children. I would probably agree that courts do favor women when it comes to child custody.

Still, as you can see, there's a lot that factors into a divorce beyond just financial loss.

[DKT3]

Simple answer,  women have less to fear.

 

[rjc149]

1 minute ago, amerikajin said:

* Women tend to invest more emotionally in relationships then men do.

* A related problem is that women begin to feel less fulfilled over time for this reason. So they get frustrated.

This is primarily what I said. Women are more emotional, have higher emotional needs, and when those needs are inevitably under-serviced during the rut of a marriage, are more prone to marital dissatisfaction. 

The secondary point is that human sexuality offers women the ability to more easily and quickly make a lateral transition into another relationship -- which may have been a factor per se contributing to her marital dissatisfaction. 

The financial implication of divorce was actually my tertiary point, which I fleshed out when it was addressed by other posters. Financial setback is less of a divorce deterrent for women, and financial gain may even be an incentive in some cases.