Feminist Relational Contract Theory - A New Model for Legalized Plunder

Comments on:



===============================================



Feminist Relational Contract Theory: A New Model for Family Property Agreements

by

SHARON THOMPSON



https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jols.12132



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328817349_Feminist_Relational_Contract_Theory_A_New_Model_for_Family_Property_Agreements



===============================================



As long as a "feminist relational contract" were just one of the choices that could be freely chosen by both parties, I would have no objection to it.  But, the purpose of a "feminist relational contract" is not to provide  choice for women, but rather to preclude choice for men and force a "feminist relational contract" for all marriages.



The paper raises the question "why an individual would knowingly sign a bad agreement?"  This discussion (and other discussions in the paper) seem to be written almost entirely from the standpoint of bad agreements that women sign.  But, for decades men have signed onto unwritten default marriage agreements without understanding the legal implications that the default contract could mean different things at different times and in different places to different judges.  The default contract had men "buying a pig in a poke."  The paper does not seem at all concerned that in many cases the default is outrageously unfair to men nor that the men were not required to have legal advice before signing such contracts.

So far, no self-identified feminist lawyer seems one bit concerned that men sign default marriage contracts with essentially no understanding of the negative legal implications for the men.  Instead of any concern about men signing unwritten and unspecified contracts that men don't understand,  the lawyers are concerned about women signing written prenuptial contracts with specified terms (after legal advice) that women do understand.  In the interest of transparency, equality and fairness, all (default or prenup) marriage contracts should be written and both men and women should be required to have legal advice before signing.

To some extent, this lack of concern about men not having legal advice seems to be shared by the general society. I suggested to one millennial woman (not a lawyer) that both men and women should have separate legal advice about any marriage contract, prenuptial or default contract.  The woman seemed not to like the idea because "it was hard enough to get a man to marry without having an attorney explain to the man all possible negative consequences of the default marriage contract."  Of course, women should have all possible negative consequences of a prenup explained by an attorney ...

Prenuptial contracts give women and men choice about specifying contract terms.  Giving men choice is a problem for many feminist lawyers.  In fact, a prenup based on "Feminist Relational Contract Theory" tends to make the contract so subjective and so open to later interpretation as to render the contract terms unpredictable and almost worthless from the standpoint of understanding the marriage contract.  In fact, this problem is basically similar to problems associated with default contract.  So "Feminist Relational Contract Theory" is essentially just another way to take away male agency and prevent men from having predictable, understandable, and objective contracts. "Feminist Relational Contract Theory" uses the immense power of the government to ensure that any marriage contract is a bad bargain for successful men.


Normally men require prenups with women that otherwise would be financially dangerous to the men. This usually means that:

1. The man is more financially successful in wealth, earning power, or both than the woman.
2. The man perceives that the default marriage contract is so outrageously unfair that he resorts to the time, trouble, and expense involved with a prenup.
3. The default marriage contract basically compensates a woman more for "marrying well" than for anything she contributed. Does anybody doubt that a woman who marries a billionaire and makes no sacrifices for the marriage and does absolutely nothing will be "entitled" to much more in divorce than a woman that sacrifices much time and energy for the family, but who does not marry a rich man?  For successful men, the default contract is simply legalized plunder.

In discussing bargaining power, one usually assumes that there is a bargain involved in which each of the parties gets something they value. The definition of a bargain is

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bargain

"an agreement between parties settling what each gives or receives in a transaction between them or what course of action or policy each pursues in respect to the other"


A woman marrying a much more financially successful man has essentially no legally enforceable marital obligations and no financial obligations upon divorce.  The man often has huge financial obligations to supply the woman her "entitlements."  So, it is obvious that she is getting entitlements, but what is he getting? She has essentially  no legal obligations. She is not obligated to have children, sex, or even give him companionship.  He is given nothing by the marriage transaction.

Now the paper comments:

...  Applying this view of agency to nuptial agreements such as prenups means that if a party is disadvantaged by the terms of an agreement but does not cancel the wedding, they have not necessarily acquiesced to those terms. Cancelling the wedding or leaving the marriage is not the only alternative to a bad agreement – another option is for the parties to negotiate an agreement that is mutually beneficial.

Part of this makes sense, the rest is absolute nonsense.  If she doesn't like the terms of the prenup she can offer terms that she thinks are fair and see if he agrees. If he doesn't agree, then there is a fundamental disagreement about fairness and a marriage between people with fundamentally different ideas of fairness makes no sense and should not happen.  If he signs a prenup with her terms, he has then acquiesced to her terms and is bound by them. If she signs an agreement, and gets married she has also acquiesced to the terms in the agreement, either the original or her terms.

If her terms are  a "feminist relational contract," and he signs off on those terms fine.  But if he does not sign onto terms of a "feminist relational contract," then it would be tyrannical, not to mention unfair,  to force "feminist relational contract" terms at a later date.  Very few financially successful men would sign a "feminist relational contract" if there were other marriage contracts available. Presumably, this is the reason that non-"feminist relational contracts" must be precluded.

The paper mentions "agency" many times.  It seems awfully important to preserve female agency. What seems to be overlooked is that "feminist relational contract theory" intentionally and maliciously deprives men of agency by not allowing men to negotiate objective prenuptial contracts that are enforceable.

One thing in common with both default entitlement schemes and  "feminist relational contract theory" is trying to use government power to obtain a better agreement than could be negotiated.  Prenuptial contracts are often despised by women and their lawyers precisely because it is almost always impossible to negotiate more than the default entitlements.  What does it say about fairness to men that the default entitlement men must provide is always more than the woman could obtain by negotiation?  So prenups allow men to negotiate terms and "feminist relational contract theory" tries to defeat the whole purpose of the negotiation by making the terms unenforceable. With the government's heavy thumb on the scale, women are then still able to get better terms than they could otherwise possibly negotiate.  This is just another iteration in the never ending struggle of the marriage entitlement ideology.


See:

The Defense of Default Marriage Entitlements and Epicycles

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2017/10/marriage-entitlements-and-epicyles.html

Marriage Entitlement Ideology - No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/marriage--no-good-deed-goes-unpunished.html

Beggar Psychology and Family Law Psychology 

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/beggar-psychology-and-family-law.html

The arguments about unequal bargaining power seem simply contrived to justify legally plundering successful men.  No woman has to sign a prenuptial agreement.  If she is truly concerned about unequal bargaining power,  she can solve this problem in at least two ways:

• 1. She can only date and marry men that do not have more bargaining power than she has.  In fact, there are more such men looking for marriage than there are women willing to marry them.

From (Why men are having problems getting married)


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-men-are-having-problems-getting-married/

If it’s universally acknowledged that a single man with a good fortune needs a wife, the American economy may be now illustrating the inverse of that corollary: Poor men with dwindling job prospects are going to lack marriage prospects. 

On the high male income/wealth side there is an excess of women desiring marriage and on the low male income/wealth side there is a deficit of women desiring marriage. Reducing the entitlements would reduce the number of women desiring to marry financially successful men and thereby tend to equalize the bargaining power associated with the desire to get married. As an added benefit, it might also help the marriage prospects on the low male income/wealth side.

• 2. She can pursue the same career paths that successful men have pursued.  For example, instead of pursuing education in low paying specialties (e.g. underwater basket weaving?),  she can pursue education in the science, technology, engineering, or mathematics fields.  She will then be much more desirable to men, both because her income provides more to the family during marriage and because her high income makes her a safer choice for him if she divorces him.

In fact, marriage statistics seem to indicate that well-educated and high earning women are more likely to marry than other women.

From my personal experience, it is not clear that feminists care more about avoiding "bargaining power inequalities" or simply plundering men.  Protecting women from "bargaining power inequalities" by only considering marriage to women with similar bargaining power,  is not always appreciated and sometimes elicits absolute ire from some women. The fact that I avoided legal plunder was the thing that really seemed to matter to some women,  not bargaining power.  For example, see:

My Chinese Wife and Marriage Entitlement Ideologues

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/05/my-chinese-wife-and-marriage.html

Does "Affirmative Consent" Contribute to Systemic Racism?

I have a number of concerns about "affirmative consent" rules on college campuses.  The effect, indeed the purpose,  of these rules is to remove the presumption of innocence and to remove the requirement for objective evidence.

1. There is no presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is upon the man to demonstrate that a woman's claim is false.
2.  There is apparently no evidence that "affirmative consent" actually works:     https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2020/01/rape-culture-and-affirmative-consent.html
3. Because no evidence, other than a woman's assertion is required, the panel making the "expulsion from college" decision must decide whether the woman's story is more credible than the man's story. If the man is black, will that make a difference to the panel?  With no evidence required, what role does underlying racism (even if unintentional) play in these expulsion decisions?

I don't know the answer to point 3, but  not requiring evidence seems to open up Pandora's Box for possible systemic racism.  What are the statistics?  For instance:

1. Are black men more likely to be accused of not obtaining "affirmative consent" than other men? 
2. Among accused men, are black men more likely to be expelled  than other men?

Also, consider that some women are trained to be against rationality and objectivity:


https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ILR/pdf/vol32p1247.pdf

" ... Therefore, it should not be surprising that “law” incorporates and reflects male gender traits. Some of these traits are identified as the preference  for rationality over other ways of knowing (e.g., intuition); for objectivity over subjectivity...  "

When people of good will are asked to make judgments, the careful consideration of evidence can  act as a restraint against their biases, whether conscious or not. When objective evidence is  not required and the presumption of innocence is removed, can justice possibly prevail?  Judgment  by intuition and subjective feelings?

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/11/female.irrationality.html