I know that upon divorce the legal fiction, especially in community property states, is that each party contributed equally to the marital assets.
But I have always wondered how family law people can even stretch that legal fiction to cases that are obviously not equal. A guy gets higher combat pay because he is risking his life in the military in a war zone. Pumpkin supposedly earned half of that while she was watching "The View" on TV back in their comfy home. A boxer gets the living crap beat out of him for money; Cupcake earned half of that. A guy wins the Nobel Prize - there was even a case in which a long-since divorced wife got part of that (genius as she is).
Even the more normal case of a guy getting his health destroyed because of the stress of a full-time, soul-sucking job while Homemaker dusts a little and then watches Dr. Phil - why is society so heavily invested in bending and twisting everything to try to pretend like this is equal? Why is there massive resistance to saying, "you got a free ride up to now honey, you ain't getting any more if you want a divorce", instead of the usual: "we have to giver her the standard of living to which she has become accustomed, even if the person who earned it loses his standard of living".
I'm not entirely sure. I was in my capstone class working on a sustainability project in India which as soon as "gender" was brought up the whole task became about WOMEN. They used the word gender but nothing of men's issues were addressed at any point. I was able to influence the class in at least paying lip service to the idea of "GENDER NEUTRALITY", policies not favoring one or the other. While they acted as if they were in agreement with that idea, they never gave a shit about actually the men's issues, I brought them into the class to balance the gynocentrism of issues in the course. Finally then on the last day of class before the final paper was drafted they buckled, they decided that they would not be for "GENDER NEUTRALITY" but for "GENDER SENSITIVITY". Now they were able to excuse their gynocentrism, and it seemed to them not only legitimate and fair but scholarly and impressive. They argued some people just need advantages over others because they are facing disadvantages, and so giving them advantages compensates for the disadvantages. So my work was excluded and I barley passed the course while they wrote in their gynocentrism and ignored everything I said and regarded me as a mad man.
So how do they maintain it in their heads that this is equality? They look at it as a game of TIT FOR TAT. It's not real equality (such as rule of law) they are going for, it's childish game of payback in willful ignorance to the larger picture or meaning of the situation.
This is why in traditional societies women were seen as proper in their place within the house and kitchen. She is not able to see all sides of the issue, she makes egoistical decisions based on her feelings and is unable to take in the full implications and contemplate the situation without resorting to her base drives. Now society is occupied by such people.
So the answer in a nut shell is: they're idiots.
We are in the situation of being the sane counsel to a insane dictator, we cannot remove the dictator from power yet, so we have to use subtle persuasion to try to steer the maniac away from causing greater harm than they would had we not been present to advise, without raising the alarm within them which would set loose their rages. Pray the day comes where revolution can actually happen.
