Do men have more to lose in marriage than women?

I think so. Divorce was illegal for a long time it was feminists who lobbied for it. Divorce is set up for women imo.





I see more and more women proposing to men and less and less men proposing. Also I see a lot of anti-marriage websites and blogs out there for men.Do men have more to lose in marriage than women?
Both can gain a lot if they are married. I believe many failed marriages result from not grasping relationship expectations prior to marriage. The relationship dynamic usually changes over time as each spouse goes through their life cycle.





Both can lose equally. But the focus should be placed on what they could gain.Do men have more to lose in marriage than women?
It was not ';feminists'; who lobbied for divorce. Henry VIII divorced his first wife, Katharine of Aragon, in the 1530s (a date that, I think you'll find, predates feminism by a few years).





How exactly is ';divorce set up for women';? Nowadays, most women work, most households are dual income, and both partners have as much to lose financially by divorce. Alimony is exceptionally rare, and only granted when one partner has sacrificed her (or his) career to raise the couple's children.





What you fail to mention is that people of both genders are choosing not to get married. If you don't want to get married, don't. This whinge is getting old.
One word: alimony. Based on an archaic notion that women are incapable of supporting themselves without a man in the house, that leaves the ex-husband supporting a woman who's life he has no involvement in indefinitely. Men also often have a lot less rights when it comes to contact with children from the relationship.





So, the 1950's patriarchy mixed with extremo-feminism, and yeah, I'd say there was a lot to lose.
Roger,


Divorce was never illegal; I must confess myself not knowing about other countries other than the arab countries and the states. Many will argue the point and say women and men are forced to stay married in an Arab country; I beg to differ; being that my Syrian neice obtained a divorce herself; yes, over in Jeddah; she was completely unhappy with him. Now in the states, ever since Colonial days people and that includes us women have been allowed to divorce.


On the whole a lot of men don't want to bother getting married is because they don't want to be taken to the cleaners. Being a woman I don't blame them.


Marriage is suppose to be a bond, a unit of two people pledging their lives together; these days its, too, commercial.
I am firm believer that a marriage will make or break in the first 6 months.





When you first get married, you have to keep your friends and have some free time to yourself, at least one day a weekend or one night a week with your friends, and away from your spouse. Keep your friends through your marriage and get away once in a while. The couples who do this, usually stay together longer, because they don't tire of each other quicker.





No man, in this day and age, should enter into any marriage without having a bank account hidden, and not signing a prenuptial. Men work harder at keeping a marriage together than women do.
Yes. The problem stems from the fact that the government has taken it upon itself to define marriage. All the problems related to marriage are due to this.





So with divorce settlements, a man and woman cannot draw up a contract which determines what will happen in the event of a split. The government won't recognise it - a MUTUALLY agreed upon contract. Amazing. As always, we seem allergic to allowing people to make their own decisions.





Let's take an example. Say the man has $5m and the woman has very little. They can agree on what is fair. The woman might get 20% of the assets for ten years of marriage and no children. 10% for five years. If there are children involved, she might get 40% for ten years. If the man does not fulfil one of the terms of the contract (say he is unfaithful), the woman gets more e.g. 50% regardless of duration. If the woman considers it unfair she doesn't sign. If the man considers it unfair he doesn't sign.





What is wrong with this? Nothing, it's just good sense. Enforceable contracts and the protection of private property are the cornerstones of liberal capitalism. The state refusing to recognise contracts and deciding the outcomes of marriage is tyranny.





An interesting point: if the government ceased to define marriage, this would change male-female relations considerably. Women would not give up sex so easily and men would behave better. Relationships would improve. We look back dismissively of traditional arrangements, but annoying conformity and lack of freedom aside, the old social institutions and conventions serve a purpose. Marriage makes men responsible and provides security to women. The health of society depends on it.
Here in the USA, the men have more to lose. The woman gets 50/50 of everything you have and MORE if you have children. If you are broke, they garnish your wages from work. They don't care if you work at McDonald's earning minimum wage, they still take what they can. So basically you'll go from broke to homeless.





Rich men will go from rich to 'saving money'. The worst part about it is that the woman can be having relationship, living or having sex with her new boyfriend, while the ex-husband is paying child support and continues leaching off the money.





Here the woman is always the victim and the man is the abuser regardless of what happens. This is one of the many ways feminism has destroyed American society!
Yes, Feminists f*cked up marriage!





With the ';Sexual Revolution';, feminists told women ';You can have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want';!!...so, women started sleeping around, so there is no incentive for men to get married!





Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?!





Now we have all these desperate women and Cosmo articles about ';How To Get Your Man To Marry You';...no wonder more and more women are ';accidentally'; falling pregnant to trap/guilt a man into marrying them...because there is just no legit reason for men to get married anymore! We can get sex from all the sl*ts out there!!
Are you kidding me? What do guys do in a marriage? The same things they did when they were single. Work. What do women do? Have children, choose between her job and her child or struggle with both, take care of the cooking and cleaning and laundry for multiple people, there's some unspoken rule that once you're married going out with your girlfriends to clubs and bars in unnacceptable, etc...The only thing that would be a downside for men is that they can't hook up with random girls anymore. Well, some of them do that anyway.
Men have everything to lose, while women have everything to gain.
If you marry a FEMINIST, you're sure loose, not only more, but also, you're f*cked. Period. End of the Story.
Do not confuse marriage with divorce. Both parties can gain so much in a GOOD marriage. Otherwise it can be a living hell for both.
I think anyone who has a major relationship break up loses far more than they let the outside world see. Financially speaking, whoever is earning more money has more to lose.
Yes because women can get sex pretty much anytime they want without much effort while it is harder for a man to get instantly layed unless he is a Brad Pitt look alike which most men arn't
If they've happened to marry a feminist then they have everything to loose.
Only if the men do not protect themselves when it comes to marrying someone in the first place if they have lots of assets.
I personally would not marry, as I do not like the law interfering with my relationship.
Obviously, and less to gain.
yes their backbone