Discrimination against men in family law

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

This chapter of the book "Fake Man" examines both the articles of laws relating to family law and law enforcement practice, which in some cases is fundamentally contrary to the law.

The Family Code of the Russian Federation (which I call anti-family), following the Constitution, states that a man and a woman are equal in resolving family matters. Is this so - let's figure it out. To begin with, I will remind you of some statistics.

The number of divorces in Russia in the first half of 2014 is just over 80% of the number of marriages. Moreover, the numbers vary greatly depending on the region. In the Caucasus (Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia), divorce rates are 8-12% of the number of marriages. And, for example, in the Altai Territory (for the first quarter of 2014) - 103%. This means that the number of divorces during this time has exceeded the number of marriages. Among the Russian population of megalopolises (taking into account the figures for in the national republics), 90% of divorces can be assumed.

Moreover, 80% of marriages break up at the initiative of women. Strange, isn't it? We were always told that women, on the contrary, hold on to their families, that they want children and home comfort. They want to, but only their husband interferes with them. The matriarchal family of feminist Russia does not presuppose a husband at home. His apartment, yes. His money, yes. But not himself. Of course, if you look at the survey data, then there are quite valid reasons for divorce. But what woman (given the female conformity and fear of not looking as plausible as we would like) admits that she needed her husband as a sperm donor and sponsor?

In 97% of cases, the court, upon divorce, takes the children away from the man and hands them over to the women. Thus, the courts follow the old, even from the early Soviet era, the ruling of the Supreme Court. It's time to read my article, which I wrote back in 2012 and which is still more than relevant. It is dedicated to female marriage and divorce scam using the family code.

In order not to spread thoughts along the tree, I'll start with the main thing:

Current (anti) family law and jurisprudence encourages divorce scams, making divorce more profitable than marriage and providing significant legal and direct financial benefits to those with whom the children are left behind

That is, in fact, the whole thesis, which contains a huge destructive meaning.

Let's move on to decryption.

The Family Code of the Russian Federation derived its essence from the family code of the USSR, almost without considering (or considering only formally) three factors.

The first factor is property. People got private property. Rather, it existed before, but very insignificant, since there was no private business (we do not take into account the black market and drug dealers), there was no accumulation of capital. The apartments of ordinary people, the dachas of the bosses - everything was state-owned, that is, it did not belong to citizens. People could neither sell nor bequeath housing. True, at the end of the Soviet regime, cooperative apartments appeared, but even those could not be sold or bequeathed. There were no significant savings either. Now people have the opportunity to create capital, which is what many are doing. If under the Soviet regime everyone was equally poor, then today there are billionaires, millionaires, those who make ends meet, and those who live below the poverty line, and the property stratification of society is very significant - up to caste. Here we also include virtually non-working social elevators (one of the main features of a caste society): the elite is being renewed at the expense of the children of the elite, the middle class is being renewed at the expense of the children of the middle class, the poor - at the expense of the children of the poor. If you trace the biography of current politicians, oligarchs, it will be clear that all of them come from far from common people and already at the start of their careers had a significant advantage over other people, which decided the outcome of the case. I do not argue, there are individuals who are knocked out from the bottom to the big bosses. But the number of such cases is so small that the "rise" should be explained not by social elevators, but by exceptional personal and business qualities and damn good luck. Casuistry, not regularity. You can go to a higher caste without having exceptional personal and business qualities, you can only "stick" to a person from this caste, in other words, find yourself a "pusher" who will promote you - for money, or for pretty eyes - not so important.

The second factor is morality, ethics, upbringing and, accordingly, people's attitude to swindling as such. In order not to indulge in empty disputes, we agree that swindlers were, are and will be under any system in any country. But, as Gleb Zheglov said, the rule of law in the country is determined not by the presence of thieves, but by the ability of the authorities to neutralize them. I would paraphrase and say that the rule of law is determined by the SHARE of swindlers in society, SOCIETY ATTITUDE TO THEM and, of course, the ability of law enforcement agencies to fight them.

So what happens? In the Soviet period (let's not take tsarist Russia, whose morals were not completely broken even by the Bolsheviks), the mercantile, consumerist attitude towards people was condemned. Humanity, altruism, team spirit, honesty were preached. "Philistinism", "materialism" were condemned. Now, living in the period of general "scammer", we condescendingly laugh at Soviet morality, it seems to us false and pretentious. Currently, the ability to deceive a neighbor is called "the ability to live", "business acumen", "commercial streak". Of course, the ability to cheat someone who trusts you, his partner, friend, colleague has nothing to do with "business" or "business". However, in the time of troubles, in which our country has been for more than 20 years, all moral guidelines not only went astray, but also inverted. Instead of truth and trust, lies and mistrust are valued, instead of partnership - "kidalovo". At the same time, a similar lifestyle is widely advertised by the media, tabloid novels, films (especially serials). Children, adolescents, young people see that working, you will not earn much, but by deceiving, throwing and squeezing, you will be successful, rich, famous. You will be jealous of how the teenagers of the 90s (my peers) envied the bandits and those whose parents were bandits. Wanting to become an engineer, doctor or officer was considered a sign of "sucker". And this is not among the lower classes, but in the quite prosperous teenage community of the middle class. Consumerism has already become so ingrained in the minds of people that it has become a part of their essence. "To squeeze out", "to throw" a partner, to get involved in a scam - anything, just to get the coveted trinket. Any mention of morality or even common sense here only brings a smile. But - the most important thing - THIS SOCIETY NOT ONLY DOES NOT JUDGE, BUT IT WELCOMES AND EVERYTHING ENCOURAGES. In other words, neighbors have become for people nothing more than an instrument for achieving selfish interests, and society is not against it.

And the third factor is that in a conflict between a man and a woman, public opinion (including the court) will always be on the woman's side, no matter who is really to blame. We discussed the reasons in the chapters "Feminism" and "The Post-Industrial Period."

Our (anti) family code does not take these three points into account.

1. People have got something that can be divided;

2. People have an irresistible desire to share someone else's;

3. In a dispute between a man and a woman, the man is a priori the accused.

The (anti) family code and jurisprudence contribute to this.

We read paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 31 of the RF IC:

Article 31. Equality of spouses in the family

2. Matters of motherhood, fatherhood, upbringing, education of children and other issues of family life are resolved by spouses jointly based on the principle of equality of spouses.

3. Spouses are obliged to build their relations in the family on the basis of mutual respect and mutual assistance, to contribute to the well-being and strengthening of the family, to take care of the welfare and development of their children.

Yes, well said. But what happens in practice?

The issues of motherhood are decided by a woman alone, since there is not a single law, normative act that would in any way allow her husband (legal husband!) To really influence childbirth. Abortion is legally classified as a medical service - it is equated to liposuction or a facelift. Since there is no law, then there is no means of real influence on a woman who single-handedly decided to have an abortion or keep the pregnancy. She has the right to kill an unborn child without even informing his father.

The questions of paternity, oddly enough, are also decided by a woman individually! The legal husband and father have no right to decide their own - paternal - questions! Whether a woman flies in and takes him "on the belly", whether she kills the desired child - as already mentioned, the woman decides, and only she.

So, remember that the question of birth(which is more important in this article) or not having a child is decided by a woman alone … A man has no leverage other than persuasion (which is useless if a woman is deliberately preparing for a scam) and criminal methods (which are illegal and dangerous for obvious reasons).

"Spouses are obliged to build their relationships in the family on the basis of mutual respect and mutual assistance, to promote the well-being and strengthening of the family." Sounds foldable. But, considering the second factor (total scam and consumerism), what is the probability that mutual respect, mutual assistance, promotion of well-being and strengthening of the family will not remain an empty phrase? The probability is extremely small, and the proof of this is the statistics of divorces, which in 2014 amounted to more than 80% of the number of marriages. People have lost the habit of negotiating, getting used to each other, and solving problems through dialogue. The interests of men and women are purposefully opposed. Do you need a long explanation here?

We read on. Article 41 ("Marriage Contract") tells us that there is a means of protecting your capital and investment in your family from encroachment on the part of a swindler or swindler. But, firstly, it cannot regulate the issues with whom the children will remain after the divorce and how the former spouses will support them (which is very important and which we will talk about a little later). Secondly, as it turns out, already paragraph 3 of Article 42 of the UK prohibits the marriage contract "to contain other conditions that put one of the spouses in an extremely disadvantageous position or contradict the basic principles of family law" … The same is indicated by paragraph 2 of Article 44. The wording is extremely vague, therefore the court can interpret it as you like and declare absolutely any marriage contract null and void. What is "the basic principles of family legislation" and where these beginnings are found - generally a mystery.

So, a prenuptial agreement, formally specified in the law, is actually not worth much.

but the central event of marriage swindle is divorce, and, accordingly, the division of property, the struggle for the place of residence of the child ("division of children") and alimony.

And here again we look at two interesting statistics.

Of the colossal volume of divorces, 80% are initiated by women. It is hard to believe that 80% of Russian men were drunkards, maniacs, rapists, criminals and other scoundrels. Some part does lead an immoral lifestyle, but certainly not 80%. However, another figure comes to the rescue - 95-98% of children are left by the court with their mother. This inequality of parents has become a tradition since the early Soviet era and continues to this day. No misogyny - the facts speak for themselves. At the same time, the figure is so huge not at all because men do not need children. On the contrary, in a year the courts consider one hundred and twenty thousand lawsuits from fathers who want their children to live with them. This is more than 50% of the fathers. More often than not, men have much more favorable conditions for the life of children than mothers. But everything is useless. The matriarchal court believes that men in this way simply want to take revenge on their wife or not pay alimony. In matriarchy, the man is always to blame.

Perhaps there is a clue to this?

Together with the children, the ex-wife receives a living space with the right to live with her children, alimony and a very effective means of influencing the ex-husband. Often (and in the case of a premeditated marriage scam, almost always), the living space, the amount of alimony and the extortions that the ex-wife will receive by blackmailing the ex-husband with children, make up a very tidy sum.

The point here is not even the sex of the fraudster, but the fact that the law and judicial practice are entirely on the side of one sex, currently women. If 95% of children stayed with their fathers, I think there would also be unscrupulous types among men who would engage in marriage swindle. Although, a man would have much more problems: he cannot "accidentally fly in".

If the swindler knew that the children would stay with their father (or at least with the parent who is better financially secured), then the number of divorces would be much less. Divorce would be disadvantageous. Even the probability of failure in 30% (as in Sweden, for example) would noticeably cool the ardor of cunning ladies.

So, here are the points that encourage scam: a woman single-handedly decides the issues of having a child, single-handedly decides the issue of divorce and is almost guaranteed to receive children along with her husband's property, both real and that which he will earn after the divorce. And even with the one that belonged to him before the wedding.

Indeed, after all, in accordance with the definition of the Constitutional Court, parents are obliged to pay alimony for minor children from income received from the sale of real estate, even if this property was purchased by them BEFORE marriage or AFTER the barque. Thus, having paid 25-50% of the income and buying an apartment with the remaining money, a man, when selling this property, will pay another 25-50% of the amount received - that is, from the one with which he has already paid alimony! Thus, real alimony is not at all 25-50%, but 31-75% of a man's income. If he bought and sold an apartment twice, then the percentage of "tribute" to his ex-wife increases even more.

Let us add that at present the parent's spending of alimony (and in 95-98% it is the mother) is uncontrolled. A man does not have any legal mechanisms to control whether his ex-wife spent child support on a child or on her new roommate, a gigolo (yes, don't be surprised, this happens all the time). And sometimes the mother just drinks for child support.

It's good if your wife is decent. Although, as you know, impunity, the "successful" experience of girlfriends and stories told on TV and in glossy magazines, corrupt even the most decent and highly moral. And if a woman is initially focused on a scam? And there are more and more such persons.

I receive from fathers a lot of letters, appeals, which contain both complaints and a request for help. I see similar posts on social networks. The stories seem to be copied from each other: “I am a wealthy man, I married a girl whose income was much lower than mine. We lived normally, without scandals and excesses. Two years after giving birth, she filed for divorce. All of a sudden, for no reason. And now I have actually lost my apartment and have to pay alimony to my wife, which amounts to 2-4 average monthly income of citizens in the region. In addition, for each meeting with the child, she demands money in excess of alimony."

Having deceived her husband, the swindler provides herself for at least 18 years, getting the opportunity not only of a comfortable, but often even prosperous existence, without working anywhere. If in 5-7 years she finds another "sucker" and gives birth to a child from him, then the term of a carefree life will last for another 5-7 years. And if the child is disabled, then the alimony for him will come for life. Yes, no matter how awful it sounds, I myself have heard such reasoning from a woman (although, can you call that ugly creature who thinks that way?).

I often hear: how can a woman take possession of an apartment if it is not in her property? Very simple. The child has the right to live in the father's territory until the age of 18, and the mother with him. And no one has the right to evict her. This is true. But there are many ways to force the ex-husband to "vacate the apartment." From criminal to absolutely legal, known since Soviet times (for example, having arranged regular gatherings of numerous annoying and anxious guests of his wife in the apartment, she has the right to invite anyone to visit until 11 pm. another living space from this courtyard).

And sometimes women are not particularly wise: they simply write a deliberately false denunciation of their husbands, having previously persuaded the child, mother-in-law. Yes, it's a crime. But this is forgotten in excitement.

Here are three cases where it is perfectly legal for a woman to receive a man's good property or part of it.

Three cases from the last appeals to me for help.

1. Before marriage, a man opened a fixed-term deposit in a bank (for a year and a half) and put his savings there. Two months later he got married, two years later his wife filed for divorce. In court, she demanded to divide the interest capitalized for the period of marriage that came up by the amount of the deposit as property received by her husband already in marriage. Since interest was calculated monthly and income arose during marriage (by analogy with a salary), the judge considered them joint property and divided them in half. The amount of husband's interest received by the ex-wife amounted to a little less than one hundred thousand rubles. That is, the judge divided the passive income from the personal savings of a man, to which the wife has nothing to do, between the husband and wife.

2. The second case is even more interesting. The beginning is the same: the man's premarital deposit, interest. But the deposit ended, and the man, being married, took this money to another bank. Six months later - a divorce, and the wife demanded not only half of the accrued interest, but also half of the contribution itself. The husband is against: he claims that the new contribution is the money that he owned before marriage, so he should not share. The wife insists in court that the new contribution has nothing to do with the husband's premarital money, but consists of the jointly acquired family budget. When asked where the money from the first deposit went, she cannot give an answer (“Spent”). The judge demanded an expenditure order from the first bank and a receipt from the second. The amounts did not match (the man rounded up the amount to thousands: from the first bank he took, for example, 857,983 rubles 35 kopecks, and put 857,000 rubles into the second). The judge considered these amounts to be different, and therefore satisfied the wife's claim. As a result, she received half of all her husband's premarital savings and half of the interest accrued during the marriage. Percentage, I repeat, on the money earned by a man BEFORE marriage. Those. to which the wife had nothing to do. The wife's income from this scam is about 400 thousand rubles. Is going to appeal at least regarding the amount of the deposit, it is not known how it will end.

3. The third case is even more interesting, but more complicated. A man is an investor. He invests his own money in enterprises, receiving a share in the business. Having many such shares in various enterprises, a man gets married. Over the course of several years, he has been selling part of the shares, buying new ones, and selling again. I repeat, with my premarital money. General, family money does not participate in this. A few years later, the divorce, and the wife requires not only half of the jointly acquired property (apartment, cars), but also half of the very shares in the businesses that the husband bought in marriage. The husband argued that they were bought with premarital money. But the judge ruled in favor of his wife, explaining as follows. “When an apartment is bought before marriage, it is yours. But if you sold it in marriage and bought a new one, then it is already jointly acquired property. The situation is the same with your shares in the business”. The man eventually lost 50% of his joint property and 50% of his premarital capital.

True, he managed to appeal this decision, and he managed to return part of the funds. As a result, he lost not 50% of the premarital capital, but "only" 20 percent. This, of course, does not take into account the profit that the premarital capital brought him in marriage. That is, he got situation 1 plus situation 2.

Conclusion. Anti-family legislation and the same law enforcement practice have made it so that only vagrants and marginalized people can now fearlessly enter into an official marriage. That is, people who have absolutely nothing to lose. And gigolos (that is, also beggars), who are initially set up to marry a rich lady for the sake of her money.

Any man who has at least some capital, at least some money, property acquired before marriage is under attack. The laws are on the side of the woman, against the family and against the man. A court decision is almost always against a man.

You can, of course, arrange a dance with tambourines around your own property, arrange cunning schemes. And twitch, will they not throw you, as it is described in the immortal comedy of Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky "Bankrupt"? You can organize some kind of fund in the Cayman Islands, spend kilotons of time, megavolts of money and therapies of nerves. To twist the most complicated scheme in order to hide your own money from your own wife.

True, the life of trillionaires shows that even dancing with tambourines is not very good. Every year, women appear on the Forbes list, and all, as one, receive multi-billion dollar capital exclusively as a result of divorce.

When I hear a story about how a poor girl wants to find (or found) a rich young man, then this news does not cause anything but an ironic smile. If earlier girls dreamed of a stamp in their passports, now they dream of two stamps in their passports - marriage and divorce.

I do not presume to say what is the proportion of swindlers among women - I did not conduct any special studies. But, given the wave of letters, complaints on the Internet and in other sources, I see that marriage swindle has long gone out of the category of annoying cases and has become a full-fledged and widespread type of fraud.

Swindlers harm not only by depriving ex-husbands of property. They discredit all women: a robbed man and all his entourage, because of one swindler, ceases to believe women in general. No one wants to risk their hard-earned capital. Many men fundamentally avoid marriage, and they have every right to do so, because it is now impossible to protect oneself by legal means from a marriage swindler.

But feminists are not complacent. The already existing lawlessness of the fathers is not enough for them. They are vigorously pushing bills in which a man, after a divorce, is ordered to pay his ex-wife money in excess of the already certain alimony to "satisfy the intellectual, spiritual and moral needs" of the child, as well as to pay the ex-wife rent of living space or a mortgage if she is homeless. Now such a bill is under consideration in the State Duma of the Russian Federation. Of course, a man will not have the right to control the spending of money on “spiritual needs” either. What the child's needs are, how much they cost and in which apartment the ex-wife prefers to live, it goes without saying that she alone decides. A couple of years ago, the deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Alexei Mitrofanov proposed to introduce a legal norm, according to which the one who receives alimony is obliged to report on spending. As it happens a long time ago, for example, with business travelers. Just present the checks and the question is cleared. It would seem that an absolutely fair requirement of the payer is to know where the money is going. It is absolutely fair desire of the father to know that alimony goes specifically to the child, and not to clubs, lover or vodka. But the initiative did not pass: Mitrofanov was attacked by the entire Duma and branded with shame. Don't you dare encroach on matriarchal privileges for women if you live in a feminocentric society!

What do you think, dear reader, what a normal, sane and wealthy man will marry, which will fall apart with a probability of 80%, after which he will lose all his investments in the family, and even owe him? Who, being of sound mind, would dare to tempt fate and thrust his head into the mouth of a lion? Getting married without fear of anything can now be either the have-nots who have nothing to take away from, or criminal elements who, without hesitation, will simply eliminate their ex-wife.

There is only one way out of this situation - a change in family legislation. How exactly - we will talk in a separate chapter "What to do?".

What is the result? As a result of openly anti-male legislation, official marriage, that is, matriarchal marriage, is opposed to the family. The conclusion of an official marriage with a probability of 80% means that your family will fall apart, because such is the statistics of divorce - the breakup of these very marriages. These are the facts, and you can't trample on them anywhere. You can cite yourself, your relatives and friends as much as you like, but you can't get away from facts - numbers.

In a patriarchal family, official (church) marriage actually meant the entry of a man into the office of the head of the family. Like any boss, he acquired the rights and responsibilities that we discussed in the chapter "The Patriarchal Family." Like any boss, he had the ability to punish and reward. In his hands were the levers of real leadership. Increased responsibilities (to maintain, protect, etc.) were compensated by additional rights, like any chief, be it a director of a company, a minister or a regiment commander. The husband, the head of the family, firmly knew that divorce was impossible, and the children were guaranteed it - in the biological sense of the word. This meant that the investments that he put into the family would not be wasted. Nobody can take them away from him. The wife will forever remain with him (and he - with her). Children are his biological sons and daughters, and they are related to him by life-long blood relationship. Therefore, the man was interested in investing maximum resources in the family, and not anywhere else. At the same time, a woman, entering into marriage, was sure that a man would not leave for another and would not abandon his children.

What does the current, matriarchal marriage mean thanks to the socialist anti-family code? The guarantees to the woman were preserved in full, even beyond what is detailed in the article on marriage swindle. And what does a modern matriarchal marriage guarantee a man? Does he guarantee the wife's fidelity like a patriarchal marriage? No, the wife has every right to mate with anyone, and she will get nothing for it. The husband has no right to even beat her for treason. He cannot even get a divorce - he will have to give his children and property to his wife. Does marriage guarantee a strong family for a man? No, and this is already clearly visible in the divorce statistics. And given that 80% of divorces occur at the initiative of a woman, marriage not only does not guarantee a strong family, but rather pushes a woman to divorce. Does marriage guarantee a man that children are biologically his? No, a woman has the right to give birth from anyone and not tell her husband anything. According to statistics, every third father brings up other people's children and does not guess from this. Yes, he can suspect something and sue, asking to exclude his paternity using a DNA test. But, firstly, for this you need to suspect, and secondly, to go through a long and extremely humiliating judicial procedure - humiliating for a man, because the matriarchal court will exert pressure or even openly scoff. The reaction of the public - and even men - to the male desire to rule out paternity can be gauged from talk shows on the topic. The hall, indignant, spits on such men. By the way, for example, in Germany a man does not have the right to do so. There, DNA tests initiated by men are prohibited. The wife walked up, and you bring up and do not grunt. Enjoy true patriarchy.

Let's continue. Does formal marriage guarantee the safety of men's investments in wives and children? No, after a divorce (and it is practically guaranteed), the court, upon the application of the wife, will forever take the children away from the father, and together with the children, the man's property. And in addition, he assigns an alimony tribute. In this case, the man does not even have the right to check whether the child support is really being spent on the child. For those who are still delusional that men themselves are leaving the family, I repeat: 80% of divorces occur at the initiative of women. Does marriage guarantee that a man will become the head of the family? No. Marriage does not give the man any levers of real power in the family, does not give the man the right to lead the household. Every household member can do whatever he wants, and a man has no right to interfere with this. There are no powers of the head of the family, there are only duties: to support, please, protect and not prohibit anything. Does marriage give a man the right to have children? No, a wife can have an abortion in secret from her husband. A man's consent to an abortion is not required, even if he is at least three times a legal husband.

So what happens? Modern matriarchal marriage does not guarantee a man either the safety of investments, or a strong family, or heirs, or the loyalty of his wife. The wife can leave at any time, taking the children and property. An official marriage, on the other hand, tempts a woman to divorce, because a wealthy man can get a big jackpot off of a wealthy man, and without marriage it is much more difficult to do this.

Reader! What do you say if you are offered to jump with a parachute, but at the same time you will know that parachutes of this design fail in the air with a probability of 90 to 100%, while others do not? I will give up these lousy parachutes and demand others, and if there are no others, I will not jump.

By the way, in the settlements of the Old Believers, as well as in the Islamic republics, the number of divorces is noticeably lower. In Chechnya, only 12%. According to some sources, the Old Believers have about 15%. There, marriage and family are still linked to each other, and not opposed.

For the sake of completeness, I will give two more provisions that are undeservedly forgotten.

1. Family capital can be directed to the formation of the mother's pension, but not the father's. Why the father is recognized as an incomplete member of the family is not clear. He and his wife have equal responsibilities, but about the rights - sorry, move over. Moreover, the capital seems to be family. The Ministry of Labor, in response to our request, replied that in this way the loss of a woman in her salary is compensated for when she goes on maternity leave. However, now not only women, but also men go on parental leave. And this is not uncommon: I personally know of two such cases. In the first case, this is a former classmate of mine, a surgeon, and in the second - a bank employee, where I had a salary card. Who will compensate them for the loss in wages and how? Nobody in any way.

2. If the court leaves a child under the age of 3 with the mother, then she has the right to demand alimony not only for the maintenance of the child, but also for herself. It is assumed that she does not work, but is on maternity leave with the child, and the man supports her. But if the court suddenly leaves the child under 3 years old with the father, then the man has no right to demand alimony for himself. Legislators considered that a man does not need maternity leave, he has 48 hours a day. And money arrives at him through the window.

In addition to the already legalized discrimination, there are anti-male bills that are only being considered by parliament, but they have the opportunity to become laws. So, in accordance with one of them, single men will be prohibited from using the services of surrogate mothers. We understand that for a man, the services of a surrogate mother are actually the only legal way to protect themselves from female divorce scams using a child. But the legislators decided not to leave this hole. So all more or less wealthy men will "give birth" to children. On whom will the swindlers from the privileged sex feed? I don’t know what thought drove the authors of the bill, but the result in any case again plays into the hands of the divorce robbers.

In 2008, parliamentarians proposed to oblige men after divorce not only to pay alimony, but also to provide housing for their ex-wife. Namely the wife: the child, and according to the current laws, has the right to receive permanent registration in the father's apartment. That is, a man will be obliged to buy or rent an apartment for his ex-wife. Weaning children together with property from men has long become a widespread business for women, but if this law is adopted, it will become many times more profitable.

From the book "Fake Man"

UPD. According to 2015 data, the ratio of divorces to marriages dropped to 53%. True, this happened against the background of a decrease in the number of not only divorces, but also marriages.

Alexander Biryukov