Disingenuous Assertions of Fairness

 Passing laws to suppress minority voters by preferentially targeting the manner by which they vote,  and then asserting that the laws are "fair" because the voting laws apply equally to all voters, is outrageous.

But, this is essentially the same justification that has been given for some family laws and workplace laws. The laws were written with the intent, and in fact the result, of favoring, on average,  women over men. These laws have been defended as "fair" because they are gender neutral. (Perhaps there are better defenses of these laws favoring women, but the one usually given to me is this "gender neutral" defense.)

Asserting "fairness" is disingenuous when the laws are designed with the intent of producing a result that favors one group over another.

A Solution to Feminist Divorce Concerns about Prenuptial Contracts with Successful Men

A Solution to Feminist Divorce Concerns about Prenuptial Contracts with Successful Men

(Note: This concern would also apply to men that had a more substantial financial position due to inheritance or other circumstances.)

Feminist lawyers, among others, worry about post-divorce status of women that marry men with a more substantial financial position and therefore require a prenuptial contract before getting married.

For financially successful men, one of the huge troubles is that family law typically treats these men, and these men alone,  as wealthy insurance resources against all manner of "changed circumstances" and "unforeseen circumstances."  This is despite the fact that the government has far more power and resources than the men to provide this insurance.  Essentially, the government is abdicating its financial responsibility and simply dumping the responsibility on men because it has the power to do so.  In the absence of marriage, it is worth noting that the government has some responsibility to deal with "changed circumstances" and "unforeseen circumstances."  Of course, when payments come out of the government's pocket,  these payments are usually far less than when the government can take them out of a man's pockets.

What is needed to protect people is a divorce insurance policy against any changed or unforeseen circumstances not covered in the prenuptial agreement.  Essentially,  instead of this insurance being provided solely by the man,  at the whim of the government,  an insurance policy is purchased by the couple that will provide adequate financial resources to the woman.  Ideally, this insurance would be purchased from the government,  giving the government a stake in keeping the insurance payouts and premiums reasonable.  Currently,  the government has no incentive to keep the payouts reasonable because the government has no skin in the game.  (I suppose a private company might provide the insurance instead of the government, but then the government still has little incentive to keep payouts reasonable and the private company insurance premiums may be higher to reflect this fact.)

So part of the prenuptial negotiation will be to determine the insurance payout that provides the woman what she considers adequate protection.  The insurance premium can be paid from marital funds generated during the marriage,  because it is a joint responsibility to ensure adequate protection.   This provides adequate protection for the woman while not requiring any pre-marital or post-marital resources from the man.  Thus, the man is insured against having to supply his separate non-marital resources to cover what is a joint marital responsibility.

(At the cost of removing a bit of female agency, the government could specify a minimum payout for adequate protection.  Unless the government sets this minimum too high,  the effect of limiting men's choice in negotiations should not be too dramatic.  Probably, the effect would be to decrease the overall number of marriages and shift the marriages ever more toward assortative marriages.  For example, see  https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2020/07/denying-men-choice.html.)

 

Feminist "Power Imbalance" Myth

Feminist family lawyers try to disempower successful men by using government power to ensure that successful men cannot freely negotiate prenuptial contracts.  A marriage contract involves a man, a woman, and the government.  Compared with government power, both the woman and the man have trivial power.  Given that government power overwhelms spouse power, and is almost always applied against successful men rather than their fiancée/wives,  the "power imbalance" is against successful men.  Feminists try to use government power to prohibit financially successful men from negotiating the prenuptial contracts that the men could otherwise negotiate.  It is a myth that successful men benefit from a "power imbalance."  The "power imbalance" is against successful men. 

Apparently there is a "power imbalance" in prenuptial negotiations because there is a lot of competition among women for financially successful men.  Although both financially successful  men and less financially successful women can reject proposed prenuptial contracts that they do not like,  when men refuse marriage contracts the men consider unfair,  feminists lawyers bemoan a "power imbalance."  On the other hand,  there is a lot of competition among men for physically attractive women.   Physically attractive women can use this competition to their advantage in negotiations,  but this is apparently never deemed a "power imbalance." 

(I have no issue with family lawyers trying to use every legal avenue to act in their client's best interests.  Even if one questions whether an avenue should be legal,  a lawyer would not be doing her/his job if she/he did not try to use all available legal avenues.  What is troubling is the promotion of legal principles that promote gross unfairness.)