what would be the benefit of this.
2007-07-10 05:47:27 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Ummmm... you'd be kinda screwed if you were a single man trying to buy a house.
2007-07-10 05:50:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
People like you really get my goat. It's about time someone told you that there IS a big difference between feminism and sexism. Feminism is about equality for men and women (or it was last time I checked) sexism is about trying to discriminate based on sex - it doesn't matter if you're a man discriminating against a woman or vice versa. Saying that only a woman is entitled to be on the rent book or have a mortgage is the same as saying only women have the right to live in property. You already get half of everything in a divorce, when chances are you have contributed little more than getting pregnant to the family home (which by the by probably sees you alright in child maintenance until the child is 18). Will women ever have enough?
The law is already weighted heavily in favour of women without more stupid suggestions for sexist biased so in answer to your question I can see no benefit for this anarchaic suggestion.
2007-07-10 13:02:54 · answer #2 · answered by ligiersaredevilspawn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Every situation is different. In a married couple the only reason I can see for this is if their husband has shaky credit or they are having problems and looking towards a divorce but in that case don't get into a lease or buy a house.
2007-07-10 12:50:58 · answer #3 · answered by Jason J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely not, unless there's a very, very good reason. What happens if a couple marry/live together, buy a house then split after a few years? The poor guy's got nothing to prove that he contributed to the mortgage during that period, so he's financially f*cked!
2007-07-10 13:00:41 · answer #4 · answered by M'SMA 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
dont think it makes any difference, if a couple fall out it is always the man in a bedsit with a bin liner reguardless of who owns the property. a lot of people are now refusing to even live together because of what they stand to lose.
2007-07-10 13:10:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. it should be both men and woman, as we are all suppose to be equal now so if a woman is on her own she has the same rights as a man on his own.But if it a couple both parties should have there name on as if or when they split i so much easier to half everything.
2007-07-10 12:53:48 · answer #6 · answered by ann113599 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think both should be on the rent book
2007-07-17 19:10:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
^Both names should be on the mortgage and both signatures should be needed to sell or do anything. I know someone whose wife's name was on everything she sold the house out from under him, emptied their bank account, took the children and moved, poor guy didn't' know what hit him. Remember it works both ways.
2007-07-14 21:20:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a marriage, it's a partnership. Both names should be on everything.
2007-07-10 12:56:39 · answer #9 · answered by Delete 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You will get thrown out if you split, a benifit but too who? She will have to honour tenancy and rent, a benifit but too who?
2007-07-17 18:40:02 · answer #10 · answered by Peter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋