March 2026
For the past thirty years, I’ve been hearing and reading about divorce in the United States being a fair 50/50 split of property. The people pushing that narrative are mostly women and their male allies in the legal system, government and media. “That’s the law and that’s how it’s carried out,” they say. “Sure, there are some variances, but overall it’s 50/50 and fair.” Right. Here is an example of how it works out in reality.

Melissa filed for divorce from Beau. She wasn’t “happy” anymore and decided to stop settling for the “bare minimum.” Beau had prepared a detailed list of all their joint assets, which was pretty much everything they had because they’d married young when they had nothing. Beau was an Army officer. Melissa had never worked during their six years of marriage.
Melissa’s lawyer began, “We’d like to go over exclusions, your Honor.”
“Proceed,” replied the judge.
“What are exclusions?” whispered Beau to his attorney. The attorney touched Beau’s arm and motioned for him to remain silent.
“The Lladro figurines,” continued Melissa’s lawyer. “They were all gifts from the respondent.”
“Noted,” replied the judge. “Anything else?”
“Yes, the David Winter collection.”
Heeding his attorney’s advice, Beau remained silent for the next half hour while Melissa’s lawyer listed almost every gift Beau had bought her during the course of their marriage. Including, of course, the diamond wedding ring.
“I believe that completes all the exclusions,” said the lawyer.
“Very well,” said the judge, “Now on to division of what remains.”
What remains? Beau was confused but knew better than to open his mouth after his attorney’s warning. He watched as the judge parceled out and “awarded” him half of the 40% of remaining assets. His now ex-wife received 80% of everything. Beau was being punished for his generosity of gift-giving during their marriage. Melissa was being rewarded for her selfishness.
Of course, those weren’t Beau’s only losses. He also had to pay all legal costs for Melissa (who initiated the divorce), monthly child support and insurance for the next 13 years, and a portion of his military retirement. The last stung particularly hard, as Melissa had effectively torpedoed Beau’s Army career by injecting her feminist world views into the Army wives club and alienating everyone, including the colonel’s wife. Beau’s officer evaluations reflected that political reality.
Melissa received custody of their son. The judge told Beau that, since he was in the Army, he was not qualified to be a parent. That was too much for Beau and he broke his silence, asking the judge if that constraint also applied to all the single mothers in the Army. His attorney elbowed him in the ribs as the judge told him that he’d jail him for contempt if he opened his mouth again. Beau reveled in his male privilege.
Melissa withheld visitation with his son on many occasions. Authorities did nothing. They declared it a “civil” matter. However, if Beau was just 5 minutes late returning his son from one of the few visitations he received, those same authorities deemed it a “criminal” matter and threatened him with jail time. More male privilege.
(S)he who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.
Frank Herbert
This is the pragmatic reality of a legal system that loudly touts equity and 50/50. They never talk about the fine print. Frank Herbert wrote long ago, He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing. American women can (and do) destroy both marriages and father’s relationships with their children. The legal system ensures that they hold great power in those two areas, with little accountability. Congratulations anti-family and anti-natalists. You’ve won.

















