I think there would be less divorce because most men couldn't handle taking care of kids on their own (they need a woman) and the woman wouldn't want to be without her kids. In addition if the man owned all the property and money like it is supposed to be, there would be less incentive for a woman to leave her husband.
2007-02-22 17:01:59 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I don't think so...
2007-02-22 17:05:11 · answer #1 · answered by ☆Angel☆© 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe less divorce...but probably more murder.
You are actually amazingly correct when you mention that most men couldn't handle taking care of kids on their own. My ex never even once suggested that he take the children away from me, he was totally useless as a father, a provider and a husband. I work full time to take care of my children and to supplement the little bit he grudgingly contributes, but that is OK, because I have them.
ME!
When he "controlled" the money and property we darn near lost everything.
Maybe you think that you have all the answers on how society should be run, but there are a LOT of men out there who just don't give a dirty bit about anything except themselves, and the idea of legally putting them in charge across the board is horrifying.
I don't usually spout off like this, but it has been an interesting day for me and I am just a wee bit edgy, and you just keep asking the questions that seem to be designed to provoke.
However, if I have offended you, I am sorry.
2007-02-22 19:20:47 · answer #2 · answered by Snoodsmom 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I really think you're on to something. A lot of women I've come into contact with are greeeeeeedy as hell. I'm so glad I didn't turn out that way. But I do think a lot of men are capable of taking care of kids. Except I do notice that if they have daughters, they get a bit lost sometimes. :3
Edit: to others answering, don't get your panties in a bunch. He does say that men can't handle kids, so he's not all sexist. XD I do agree with you all about the "like it is supposed to be" remark, but I also agree with him that they do give women a victim status a lot of times when it comes to divorce.
2007-02-22 17:06:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No I lost my children to my asshole ex and I didnt get any monies awarded to me no house he even got the minivan! And I still left his ***! Reason being just for the record I was in college he had the job, and the high expensive attorney and I got the short end of the stick. So be it. He was abusive to me he is still abusive to the kids, and our court system is pretty f-ed up! God as my witness..me and my kids are very strong and we will prevail and someday will see him get what he deserves. Someday...
2007-02-22 17:16:31 · answer #4 · answered by Terri 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no there would be less divorce if men and women both went to jail for cheating like they use to do in the old days
2007-02-22 17:10:47 · answer #5 · answered by Peace 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
**In addition if the man owned all the property and money like it is supposed to be, there would be less incentive for a woman to leave her husband**
LIKE IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE?
Hello, welcome to this century!
2007-02-22 17:06:40 · answer #6 · answered by whatelks67 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ummm WOW I will click off of this question before I unleash the one-legged space chickens on you pal.
2007-02-22 17:08:48 · answer #7 · answered by boodini2@sbcglobal.net 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would probably be less marriage, with no need for divorce.
2007-02-22 17:11:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think more,women don't mind leaving their boys with the father ,but the girl could go with her.
2007-02-22 17:08:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
OMG! I am intrigued by your ignorance... I don't want to argue but you cannot possibly be serious with any of this b.s.?
2007-02-22 17:18:56 · answer #10 · answered by Goodbye♥ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is so much wrong with this question, I don't even know where to begin.
2007-02-22 17:06:47 · answer #11 · answered by Terri J 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋