Now, at first it seems like a totally absurd statement. But if you "honestly" and without being "politically correct" look around at the way divorce affect husband and wife in financial terms, you will see what I mean. Of course feminists come up with bogus statistics and distorted facts to prove that still it's the wife who is worse off, but look closely at each divorce case and you will see the reality. In almost all cases it's the husband who will lose the house- a house which the husband may have brought into marriage and towards whose ownership wife may not have made any contribution. And of course there is alimony and child support. If a woman marries a wealthy man, she has got it made for the rest of her life. Even if she splits with him any time she can rest assured she will get large chunk of his wealth which she did not help him earn. Throughout the history rich men have lost their fortunes to women in this way. Look at the divorces of all the movies stars, famous athletes, and in fact any rich man. Billions of dollars worth of wealth is transferred from men to women every year in this manner. While feminists zealously talk about women making 69 cents or 75 cents of every dollar a man makes, they conveniently forget that in all likely hood the man will end up paying the big chunk of that "dollar" to a woman. If women are so poorly paid victims of unjust system, how come they own 65% of property in the USA? There has to be an explanation for this. If anywhere in the western world a man is getting rich one can rest assured a few women will also get sizable chunks of his wealth sooner or later. It is almost impossible for a man to live without coming into contact with a woman. And in today's society a woman who is in contact with a rich man has lots of opportunities of getting money out of him. Even if she can't marry him, she can certainly try to have a baby with him. And bingo!! There come hefty child support payments for next 18-23 years. Child support for the child the man may never have wanted in the first place. Even if a woman has tricked him into it he is still liable. What a fantastic money making opportunity. Certainly worth trying. As Dennis Rodman, the famous Chicago Bull's rebounder said in Opera show once, "Every woman is trying to have a baby with me." And it really portrays the reality. While I m sure not "every" woman is not trying to have a baby with him, political correctness aside, it is easy to see that it's certainly worth many women's while to have one with him. And if marriage and paternity suits don't work, a woman can certainly try other venues such as false rape accusation, sexual harassment, violence charges and plethora of other creative venues which can result in financial compensation. To give the example of Dennis Rodman again, he told of an incident on the same Opera show in which a girl tried to sue him for giving her herpes. Now the poor guy never had herpes in his whole life. Not only that, she was prepared to settle out of court for a measly US $ 250,000. Of course Rodman never paid because he was able to prove he never had herpes. But he did end up paying US $250, 000 to lawyers. Not to mention the pain and suffering he went through. And that is just one example. I m sure most rich and so called "powerful" men out there are also vulnerable. Now I m sure feminist women will quickly point out that the same laws apply to women as well. That a poor man can marry rich woman and get her money as well. But frankly, look around and see how often that really happens? A rich women most of the time marries even richer guy, and when she does not, she makes him sign pre-nuptial agreement. However, men can't get women to sign pre-nups so easily. It has something to do with old values (which, unlike other old values, have stayed because they benefit women). A man is supposed to "provide" for his woman. He feels uncomfortable asking her to sign pre-nup. Especially in those pre-marriage romantic days when talk of money seems so "cheap". However, once he attaches himself with a woman, there automatically is created financial liability on his part. A lot of men end up supporting more than one wife. They have a string of wives waiting for their money. All this has created a culture where it almost seems like men owe women a living. However, even to allude to such a possibility is so extremely "politically incorrect" that nobody likes to talk about it. And because nobody talks about it, most men are unaware of its true danger, until that happens to them. Women also are very well aware of this power to rip off a man they have, and that's how they threaten men. They know if things go wrong, they can just "Kick the bastard out". They will keep the house and the furniture and the kids, but the man will have to start a new life, with his reduced financial capacity and in new circumstances. As one woman, who had divorced a few men, jokingly said once, "I m a good housekeeper. Every time I get divorced I keep the house." However the worst part of it all is that men have somehow accepted it as part of life. The way we accept death, old age etc. Losing loads of money to women is a norm in West for men. And it is accepted as it is without any need for justification.

Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.
Citing examples of famous and rich men tends to distort the image that you seek to convey. But it remains true. With a very high divorce rate today families must decide on asset splits. This now commonly rests on women being in custody of the children and therefore requiring the house to live in. As a consequence the asset split is frequently 75:25 in her favour, or in a sense in favour of the children. However, the wife also has a call on the husband's superannuation fund (retirement scheme insurance). In view of this the decision is increasingly common to let the man keep this money and allow the woman to take the house. With such arrangements becoming common cultural practices it leaves many men in a vulnerable economic position. It is reported that many men are forced then to live in a boarding house or move back with his aging parents. It would be interesting to see more research done on this subject.