What do you about China marriage divorce law

[bestcandy]

China new marriage divorce is something I find very difficult to comprehend their reason for making such laws. Some of the area in this law may likely show that women has been exploiting men through marriage divorce which could be one of their reason for making such law. For instance, the new law dictates that whoever paid for a property generally retains ownership, even if the other spouse's name was added to the title after marriage.

Gifts to the husband:
Property gifted to the husband by his parents will not be considered shared matrimonial property and will remain his property after divorce.
Women are clamouring that the law is against their interest.
What do you think about this law?

https://x.com/WokePandemic/status/1914593066088063398?lang=en

[Vod]

China new marriage divorce is something I find very difficult to comprehend their reason for making such laws.

Does it have anything to do with China's leftover women?  Forgive me if I used the wrong term, but is there not a gender imbalance in the dating pool?   I wonder if the government predicts increased divorces?

[Spaceman1000$]

China new marriage divorce is something I find very difficult to comprehend their reason for making such laws. Some of the area in this law may likely show that women has been exploiting men through marriage divorce which could be one of their reason for making such law. For instance, the new law dictates that whoever paid for a property generally retains ownership, even if the other spouse's name was added to the title after marriage.

Gifts to the husband:
Property gifted to the husband by his parents will not be considered shared matrimonial property and will remain his property after divorce.
Women are clamouring that the law is against their interest.
What do you think about this law?

https://x.com/WokePandemic/status/1914593066088063398?lang=en

I'm in total support of the law, a lot of women nowadays use divorce as a means of sharing wealth and properties of their husbands, hence a rich guy approaches them, they will suddenly agree to marry that guy with the hope of divorcing the guy and sharing the guys well into two, this wealth are sometime generational wealth that were handed over to their husband, but they just come in and less than few years and divide what ordinary they did not build. A lot of footballers in Europe have suffered untold hardship because of certain laws that are bent and most times preferable to women when it comes to divorce.

 I feel most of the laws when it comes to divorce in Europe and some other part of the Western world encourages women to divorce men, trust me if there are no laws that give this women this sort of support when it comes to divorce, there will be less divorce in marriages, as spouse will learn to live together and manage their excesses without seeking for divorce.

[Ucy]

The only basis for divorce could be sexual sin or infidelity, in which case the cheater should be required to compensate the victim for the sake of justice. In the old the cheater is killed in case of adultery as it's a serious crime  but mercy was encouraged by our CREATOR due to lack of qualification to kill by humans who are likely doing thesame evil or sinning generally...very few will survive if justice is served to everyone. But they were forgiven especially when they begged for forgiveness. It's expected they reciprocate this kindness to fellow humans.


Aside infidelity, the couple remains married and cannot be seperated unless by death, which must not be murder done by either side.
The women continues to bear the dead husband surname which qualifies her to inherit his land and probably house, that has to remain within the husband past to present family tree/lineage. This is typically done to keep families of a tribe or ethnic group within lands "permanently" allocated to them.

Aside from the reason mentioned above(sexual sin or infidelity), no divorce is allowed except a temporal seperation. Which means the property will always belong to the family regardless of who owns it. But the owner has more right or say on how the property is used (or managed) by the family..He or she has power to reject or disagree on wrong or unreasonable decisions concerning the property... and that will stand. The consent of main owner on issues concerning his/her property will also matter more even on right or reasonable decisions.

Divorce by the court on Christian marriage (outside of reason related to infidelity) can be considered invalid especially without the consent of either couple. So the properties remains part of his/hers, as long as he/she remains unmarried to another person.

[DeathAngel]

Everybody is out to protect their own interests. I don’t agree with the wife or husband getting everything in the event of a divorce. This is why divorce lawyers exist, in the event of a marriage breakup, assets should be divided fairly, there should be no sleazy tactics to screw the spouse over.

[Kavelj22]

Everybody is out to protect their own interests. I don’t agree with the wife or husband getting everything in the event of a divorce. This is why divorce lawyers exist, in the event of a marriage breakup, assets should be divided fairly, there should be no sleazy tactics to screw the spouse over.

There is no justification for dividing property after divorce, as the spouses decided to marry with their own assets. There is no requirement to share ownership after concluding the marriage contract, with the exception of assets they jointly acquired after marriage, such as the marital home, a real estate investment, or even the family car.

Since the matter is complex and potentially subject to multiple circumstances, the property to be shared must be stipulated in the marriage contract to be binding on both parties. It is unfair for a spouse to have hard-earned wealth, only for the ex-spouse to receive half of it because he was the marital partner for a specific period that has now ended.

An exception to these laws is when there are minor children who still require care. The obligation of the spouses/divorced spouses is to provide for their children according to their means, and if the sponsor is unable or unemployed, the other party is obligated to provide for them until they reach legal age.

I'm speaking generally here, not specifically about Chinese laws. Most of these ideas are inspired from the laws in my country, which are considered highly progressive compared to the conservative, male-dominated society.

[passwordnow]

China new marriage divorce is something I find very difficult to comprehend their reason for making such laws. Some of the area in this law may likely show that women has been exploiting men through marriage divorce which could be one of their reason for making such law. For instance, the new law dictates that whoever paid for a property generally retains ownership, even if the other spouse's name was added to the title after marriage.

Gifts to the husband:
Property gifted to the husband by his parents will not be considered shared matrimonial property and will remain his property after divorce.
Women are clamouring that the law is against their interest.
What do you think about this law?

https://x.com/WokePandemic/status/1914593066088063398?lang=en

Those rules are fair. Whoever worked hard for the property before marriage gets the credential for the title and entitled to that if ever the marriage and relationship of a couple starts to crumple. This is common in countries where there's a vast number of divorce. Men are usually the victim of this kind of thing. Women partners with someone who they know who are quite wealthy and it turns out that they're just after the assets of that guy. There's even a controversy about this with a known football star. And so, in China, this is just a fair rule that everyone needs to know. For the gifts to the husbands from their parents, it's normal to understand that it is a personal gift and not conjugal gifts.

[Agbamoni]

I feel most of the laws when it comes to divorce in Europe and some other part of the Western world encourages women to divorce men, trust me if there are no laws that give this women this sort of support when it comes to divorce, there will be less divorce in marriages, as spouse will learn to live together and manage their excesses without seeking for divorce.

Due to the increase in divorce in this era, I think more laws should be enacted across all continent. Women have taking the easy laws to their own advantage. The good old days, a man and woman get married because they want to spend their entire life together. Now the reasons why most women get married is to gain possession of someone else's property in the most easy way, which I deem wrong. However, if the properties are acquired within the period they were in courtship it can be splited unless the law says otherwise.

[SuperBitMan]

When it comes to marriage it shouldn't be something one should go into in other to deceive the other person, there has been a lot of cases where some women just get married in other to divorce the man later and take half of his property, there has also been cases where a man gets married to a woman in other to divorce her later and then take half of her property and all this happens because that is what the law says and this law has made the marriage union a place of business there's no more love and as a result of that children are not raised well anymore.
This new marriage divorce law is a good one with this law in place no one will get married just to deceive the other person and get his or her property, china will now have marriages that are built in true love it will no longer be seen as a place for business.
Those women in China that are saying the law is against them are not right, my property should be my property and your property should be your property, we are married those not mean when you divorce me you should share my property with me, the only reason you should share my property with me is if you contributed to it.

[Hispo]

China new marriage divorce is something I find very difficult to comprehend their reason for making such laws. Some of the area in this law may likely show that women has been exploiting men through marriage divorce which could be one of their reason for making such law. For instance, the new law dictates that whoever paid for a property generally retains ownership, even if the other spouse's name was added to the title after marriage.

Gifts to the husband:
Property gifted to the husband by his parents will not be considered shared matrimonial property and will remain his property after divorce.
Women are clamouring that the law is against their interest.
What do you think about this law?

https://x.com/WokePandemic/status/1914593066088063398?lang=en

It could be the government of China has noticed something which has become way too common in the west and want to avoid their society to go in that direction.
There is a lot of women who unfortunately take advantage of the divorce laws on their country to take as much wealth and money from their partner as possible when they break up, there are countless stories and testimonies of it in the United States and even in Europe, men who have been literally unable to rebuild their life because how much it has been taken from them, including their children, whom they are forced to continue to feed, even though those children do not longer live with them.

In general, there have been several couples who have been inna situation where they find themselves signing marriage contracts so the man does not get screwed over in case of a divorce. So in some way, I am okey if some governments start to tackle the problem and recognize who are the actual owner of properties, savings and goods in the moment a divorce  occurs. though, I doubt western countries will take the lead of China in this specific issue.

[Ishicryptic]

I'm guessing that the divorce rate in China, must be on the increase and spouses are taking advantage of sharing a richer partner's wealth to demand for a divorce therefore the government needed to address the issue. I know that some people enter marriage not because of love but for money, after sometime they will show their true color, for peace of mind the rich spouse will file for divorce and their wealth will be shared. It must be very painful to lose everything that you have laboured for because of a bad marriage. I hope that more countries will regulate their divorce laws to protect wealthy partners in a marriage in the case of a divorce.

[Floxynice]

Even as a woman, I am fully in support of this law as it addresses property sharing in the case of divorce. It is no news that some spouses have used this as a means of enriching themselves overnight. If you don't love your partner anymore and can't stand staying married to them, why feel entitled to their wealth? I honestly feel that in cases where children are involved, both parents should be accountable to those children and should be charged certain percentages of their wealth to fund the children's welfare.

However, it should be an act of free will by a partner to share part of his or her property with their estranged partner and not done under duress. We already know that the majority of these demands are a result of greed.

[Frankolala]

Everybody is out to protect their own interests. I don’t agree with the wife or husband getting everything in the event of a divorce. This is why divorce lawyers exist, in the event of a marriage breakup, assets should be divided fairly, there should be no sleazy tactics to screw the spouse over.

What of in a case where the wife did not have anything and the husband own everything. Does it mean that equal division is the best. I am looking at it from your own perspective, because they are already one by marital rites and from what the scripture teaches us. Therefore, sharing it equally is the best. However, this has made many ladies in my country rush into getting marriage just to achieve from the rich guy.

[Odusko]

Divorce is not new and most states and countries already have laws for that most of the time it's simple the properties if acquired together must be shared equally and if any one have to get a higher share he or she will be in custody of the kids if there is any, but in the absence of no kid, the laws are there to protect the right of both individuals in the fearest way possible.

[Fiatless]

Everybody is out to protect their own interests. I don’t agree with the wife or husband getting everything in the event of a divorce. This is why divorce lawyers exist, in the event of a marriage breakup, assets should be divided fairly, there should be no sleazy tactics to screw the spouse over.

Divorce becomes more complicated when children are involved. The children should not face financial challenges because of the divorce, so I think they should be considered when dividing assets. The person who will take care of the children should be allocated more financial resources.  Without the children, let the man and the woman go with their own assets. If they have a combined asset, it should be divided equally.

[Salahmu]

We might not be sure of there reason but however whenever a certain pattern has become a norm on a society that people or spouses uses it as means to extort from there partners whenever they feel tired of the marriage, the government has the right to abolish it, meanwhile i wasn't even aware is what a country like China do but is a good development that doesn't have to be injected by anybody from the country because it doesn't favour only one side but the two people because the both side will have to work so that they have equal parts from anything they have

[robelneo]

Women are clamouring that the law is against their interest.
What do you think about this law?

The enacted law is very common among wealthy individuals who want to protect their assets from their partners with a hidden agenda. Therefore, the Chinese government made it a common law for everyone to avoid litigation fees.
I suppose the authors of such a law want to protect their assets, whether they're getting married or filing for divorce.
Looking at the law, it's unfair for women because the men are the ones who acquired assets and manage the business and the job, so in case of divorce, the wife is left with nothing on her own, at the mercy of his ex-husband for financial support if this is not included in the law.

[Hispo]

Everybody is out to protect their own interests. I don’t agree with the wife or husband getting everything in the event of a divorce. This is why divorce lawyers exist, in the event of a marriage breakup, assets should be divided fairly, there should be no sleazy tactics to screw the spouse over.

If they have a combined asset, it should be divided equally.

Though, there are case those assets were acquired with the effort of one of the sides more than an equal effort from both women and men. Let us talk about an hypothetical case, in which the head of the household is a man with a good job which allows him to save money for the future and acquire a house and his partner does not have studies and actually has a low income. If a divorce happens, it would be infair for the man of this relationship to give half his wealth to his ex-wife, including the money got through the liquidation of assets which may have been completely acquired by him.

[Spaceman1000$]

I feel most of the laws when it comes to divorce in Europe and some other part of the Western world encourages women to divorce men, trust me if there are no laws that give this women this sort of support when it comes to divorce, there will be less divorce in marriages, as spouse will learn to live together and manage their excesses without seeking for divorce.

Due to the increase in divorce in this era, I think more laws should be enacted across all continent. Women have taking the easy laws to their own advantage. The good old days, a man and woman get married because they want to spend their entire life together. Now the reasons why most women get married is to gain possession of someone else's property in the most easy way, which I deem wrong. However, if the properties are acquired within the period they were in courtship it can be splited unless the law says otherwise.

Exactly the pointer I'm trying to make, women now see marriage as the easy route to get themselves enrish. Take the case of Achraf Hakimi the Moroccan player who plays for Paris Saint-Germain in France as an example, where his estrange wife filed for divorce files after they had some issues, she did that hoping that the footballers wealth will be shared equally and she goes home with part of it, unknown to her whatever Hakimi was earning, was still going to his mother as signed in his agreement with his club, at the end of the day the court could not even find a significant property in Hakimi's name, in fact it was from what she had that they had to divide some part to give it to Hakimi, I believe the situation herself and alchemy will have settled amicably if she did not see it as an opportunity to enrish her self. This is why I'm saying the laws in some of these European countries need to be reviewed, as it will help discourage divorce cases.

[Accardo]

Marriage is a union between two families, societies, ethnic groups, it could even unite a kingdom. It's not a one night stand, but a life journey. They should be no divorce in the first place, disputes are meant to be settled, if it persists the husband is eligible to reward the wife. Which shows that love and kindness is not meant to depart from the union no matter what.

A kind man extends the care even when the wife has splitted and gone to be alone. The government made this law to fit their needs, they have the most money and wouldn't want a woman to divide and redirect it to another family or tribe. Suppose it doesn't bother them they wouldn't amend the rule.