Even if he is reconciled with those two conditions, he may yet find himself impoverished, from both a pecuniary and emotional point of view, through no fault of his own should his wife determine that she is dissatisfied. Not only does he stand to lose at least half his assets and the matrimonial home, but also risks a lifetime of financially crippling alimony and child support payments. Worst of all, he may be deprived of the company of his children and have their minds poisoned against him by a shrill, vindictive and petty mother. Men value freedom more than security and women security more than freedom. This, by the way, is the reason Western democracies have become much more socialist since women obtained suffrage. Marriage today, as the coercive state institution it has become, gives the woman security at the expense of man’s freedom. A financial advisor who recommended his clients allocate more than half their portfolio to an asset class that had zero upside and a 50% chance of default would lose his job fairly quickly. Yet friends and family around the world stand idly by and let men take this (and greater) risk every day. As far as legal agreements go, marriage is the only kind of contract that permits one party to violate the terms and then punish the party that upheld them. The perversion of the institution has given rise to the current situation under which a man who fails as a husband stands to be ruined while a woman who fails as a wife gets a payday. The fact that feminists are not virulently opposed to the enforcement of alimony payments in a society where most married women have jobs and incomes of their own should tell you all you need to know about the sincerity of their commitment to gender equality.