If I have to read one more post from those guys that constantly talk about how hard men have it because their ex “took everything they had”, I’m going to lose it. Legally there’s something called family property. It applies EQUALLY to both parties in a relationship. That includes spousal support if the court determines that one spouse was financially dependent on the other for some reason. That support is virtually never for an extended period of time unless the spouse granted it is totally incapable of earning their own money. Often it’s granted to the spouse who is largely responsible for the day to day care of small children, and who was at stay at home parent. Even then it’s not a forever situation. As for child support, you’re not “giving” that money to your ex, you’re supporting your children. Just like children are supposed to benefit from their parents’ ability to enjoy a certain lifestyle, the courts expect that both parties will continue to ensure that the children can continue to enjoy the same lifestyle as much as possible. The people who complain that they have to pay so much to their ex often also seem to forget that it’s their children who are the ultimate recipient. Child support isn’t just to buy clothes and toys! It’s so that the children will be able to live in a decent place. So they’ll have the same ability to enjoy activities that they did during the marriage such as extracurricular sports or lessons. So that they don’t have to suffer any more than they already are because their parents broke up. Family property includes things that were purchased during the relationship or earned during the relationship, such as pensions. Those are split between both parties, not just the guy’s. Lots of women have pensions too and they are subject to exactly the same laws. The only reason that more men are paying a larger proportion of support is because on average men still earn significantly more than their female partner. Usually it’s the women who give up the opportunity to earn more when they have children, because they are often the ones doing the majority of child care and / or family support such as managing the household. The courts recognize that just because someone isn’t being paid with a paycheque doesn’t mean they’re not contributing in a big way to the family income. Having one person taking care of household related matters is often the only reason the other person is able to achieve what they do in a career, and therefore why they have higher earnings. The courts don’t look at the gender of the person as much as they look at the income potential that person has when they determine things like child or spousal support. Btw, as a female in the legal profession who has also been married and divorced, I can speak from experience because I left the marriage with much less property than my former spouse. We had joint custody of our children and both of us paid child support to whichever of us was the primary childcare provider at the time. My financial circumstances changed for the worse substantially following the divorce, whereas his improved shortly thereafter. He got the house, because our children lived primarily with him for the first couple of years and we all decided that it was better for the kids to stay in their own home and go to their same schools. So PLEASE stfu about how your evil ex “took” everything. It was half theirs and they’re entitled to it!