> Women...so naturally vulnerable ?! In 2026?

All else aside for a second... yes? Women are both physically and economically (primarily when they are stay at home moms) vulnerable. No, that doesn't mean I'm saying that no men are vulnerable at all but averaged out to a population it's clear.

▲

Manuel_D 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Is this actually borne out by the data? According to a quick Google search, men make up 73% of Canadian homicide victims and 66% of the homeless population.

▲

drdaeman 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So the actual criteria is vulnerability, not sex or gender…

	▲	afavour 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		As indicated by the use of "such as" in the original quote, yes

▲

gib444 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Economically disadvantaged often through choice is not "vulnerable". It's "economically disadvantaged", at best.

And I don't make a habit of pointing out women's smaller stature to call them vulnerable?? Wtf

▲

afavour 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Economically disadvantaged often through choice is not "vulnerable". It's "economically disadvantaged", at best.

It leaves them economically vulnerable. When 100% of the income is going into one person's bank account that means they have the opportunity for economic control over their partner. Their partner does not have savings of their own to speak of. No, healthy relationships do not work that way. But a lot of relationships do.

Also, it's often not "through choice". A lot of the time childcare is more expensive than one parent leaving their job. A lot of families can't afford an alternative.

▲

Huarache1 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Force a Prenup ratio equal to the assets they had at the exact point prior to marriage, or meeting each other, as default. Make shared custody also the default, unless one side is found guilty of abuse.

It's 2026, and women are starting to outearn men in some cities. Why make men the sole breadwinners of the family?

▲

afavour 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Force a Prenup ratio equal to the assets they had at the exact point prior to marriage

Which would completely ignore the economic imbalance I was talking about, which occurs during the marriage.

> It's 2026, and women are starting to outearn men in some cities. Why make men the sole breadwinners of the family?

Like I said, making a parent a stay at home parent is simply economic reality for many, while the kids are young and childcare is expensive. There’s no reason why that has to be the woman but the data shows that the vast majority of the time it is.

	▲	Huarache1 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There probably isn't much of an economic imbalance if the prenup ratio was based on when both were single. Even if one party earns less, I don't see how "vulnerable" that would make them if it was prior to meeting the other person.
	▲	9rx 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> making a parent a stay at home parent is simply economic reality for many The topic was couples/cohabitation/marriage, not child rearing. The concerns you raise would be equally applicable where the parents have decided they want absolutely nothing to do with each other. There is truth in what you are saying, but it is an entirely different topic. How to deal with the child is a negotiation that takes place around the child, not around a romantic relationship (or lack thereof). In the romantic relationship, there is no realistic situation where one party ends up with all the money unless the other one willingly hands theirs over. But any of us can do that. I can willing give you all my money now just the same and there would be no good legal recourse if I decide it was a bad idea later. The only reason we have these ideas in the world of romance is due to the historical idea that women aren't capable of thinking for themselves.

▲

programjames 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How are you economically disadvantaged by having the choice to not get a job?