Would you accept an inheritance under these sexist conditions?

Oh. I thought *everybody *was getting the same shake from their own families.

In that case … well, I do have some pretty cute cousins.

Why do you think it unlikely?

Let’s say that Z stands for Zedidiah. If the trust were set up so that males got the money for nothing but having a Y chromosome, but women had to jump through a series of ridiculous hoops that most would never achieve, would you not suspect that Zedidiah didn’t want women to have the money at all but was willing to screw with them out of misogyny? I certainly would. And if Z is Zelda, then it seems likely to me that she thought that men probably didn’t deserve a bequest but that women did.

It’s insulting the women, in a way. It’s also insulting to the men, though. It turns them into checks objects. It really does sound judgemental, no matter what sort of descendent you are.

It also sounds like some kind of freaky social experiment. Can you imagine what that would do to cross-sex sibling relationships? Who marries into a family with that kind of trust?

I’d be tempted to change my name and hitchhike away from the madness. Althought I wouldn’t have done that at eighteen. Or maybe I would have if I’d grown up with that sort of resource in my back pocket.

Yep, in a second flat. My refusing wouldn’t fix the trust although if there was an opportunity for all members of the trust to change the conditions I would join in that in a heartbeat.

I wouldn’t take it. Not because it’s sexist or whatever, I really don’t care about that in the least. My thing is, I know I’m not going to be able to pull in a cool million a year.

Seriously, my goal in life is to claw my way into the middle class. If I work it right maybe my grandchildren could become rich.

You don’t have to have a million in income in one year. Your net worth has to reach a million (or, rather, whatever the income from the trust would be the first year you qualify), which is another thing.

Hell yes. [female] Women got few enough benefits going for them. We bleed out monthly, deal with crippling pain monthly, have to host a parasite at some risk to ourselves if the species has to propogate. Deal with jobs that statistically pay less than men while having the same or more responsibilities, are the first laid off or fired in a bad economy, and suffer being replaced by younger models when hubby dearest that we supported through college graduates and starts practicing.

I will categorically state the only reason I made the same income that the other men in my shop did when I started working was my Dad was the plant manager of that plant, and a corporate vice president and he mandated that I would. If I had been hired like the woman that worked for me in that same shop a few years later, I would have made about 15% or so less than a man working the same position. [I was not responsible for hiring or determining salary]

A man has to generate a net worth of about a million dollars to qualify (by which point he’s probably like 75 years old) and can’t even get education assistance from family, and that’s insulting to women? Please. Would you be less insulted if you had onerous conditions attached to your share too, or would you still complain about how the glass ceiling makes the equal application of the conditions - yet again - sexist?

Because traditionally speaking the stereotype has been that women shouldn’t work, can’t support themselves, etc. And yes, if it was reversed, people would probably think it was misogynistic. There’s no way to set up something like that where its not going to look like its biased against women to most people. To quote Spock, “It is not logical, but it is often true.”

To reframe it, say there’s a community where half the people are black and half are white. The community leaders set up a trust fund where if you’re black on your 18th birthday you get a millions dollars, no work needed. If you’re white, you have to earn a million and then you get the trust fund. It’s patronizing, right? Maybe the implication is that black people are too lazy to go earn that amount of money?

Reverse it. White kids get the money with no strings. Black kids have to go earn their share. It’s almost worse. It doesn’t matter who is getting the easier deal - long-standing prejudice against one group means that they’re being discriminated against. (We can throw around terms like ‘white privilege’ and ‘male privilege’ and the rest, but I’m about at my limit already.)

As a man in Ontario, I’d argue that arbitrarily discriminating on sex when read in conjunction with the trust for women is void against policy (but the law is unsettled on this one), that requiring leaving home at 18 is void against policy for interfering with the discharge of parental duties (a policy reason put forth by trusts author and Court of Appeal Judge Gileese), and that prohibiting student loans is against public policy for discouraging education. With these terms of the turst failing, I’d submit that the terms of the trust should be modified under the cy-près doctrine to leave simple gifts wihtout strings attached similar to the terms for the women’s trust.

I’m female.

Short answer: Thanks for the inheritance, grandpa!
Shorter answer: Hell yes!!

In the first place, I think you are not merely in the wrong thread, but in the wrong subforum, as you appear to be answering a GQ question which no one asked. :wink:

In the second place, I think you misunderstood part of the OP. Student loans are not prohibited; they are explicitedly allowed. The loan prohibition exists to prevent men candidates from borrowing against income from the trust without qualifiying from it first; they’re allowed to borrow money for school, but since the amount of that debt is going to reduce their net-worth, they may well choose not to.

Third: while I have no intention of arguing about Canadian law with a Canadian lawyer (because I’m not a Canadian, not a lawyer, and because I don’t feel like it), I’m not convinced that the government should have the power to intervene in the disposition of private property. Are you saying that it should? If so, why?

Please don’t misunderstand; I am stipulating that you are right that the Canadian government does have that authority. I’m asking you if you think that’s the right policy.

As a boy-person, who is also pretty lazy, I don’t see myself taking this offer – it really seems like work and that’s not the kind of bargain I could succeed in.

Definitely sexist against men. In a perfect and equal world, everyone gets the same opportunities and challenges, regadless of gender; nobody just gets a handout.

It’s sexist but HELL YES I’d take the money.

Hell yeah, I’d take it. In fact, who’s this wealthy relative of mine? 'Cause I’m-a sneak over to his house and leave a roller skate on his stairs.

How dare you sir!
I’m not Welsh! I’m from Chester, we shoot the Welsh!

(Ok, so we don’t really, but there is still a bylaw in place saying that we can…)

Admittedly, I don’t live there at the moment, but I’m English, not Welsh. (Not that I have anything against the Welsh, before someone gets all offended. It’s also an insane bylaw that woudn’t stand up in court.)

First, I have never read the book this seems to base on.

Second, being kicked to the curb at 18 while still in high school seems really unfair.

Third, I’m a man(double checks, yup a man) and have the hairy moobs to prove it. (your welcome):smiley:

Fourth, I would not try for the inheritance. It would mean focusing nearly all my time/energy on earning a million dollar salary. That seems a sad thing to do IMHO.

Fifth, IF I were a woman, I would take the money and run, I mean free money, why the hell not.

Sixth, there is no 6th, I’m just on a roll here.

Seventh, I think I’ll have some more egg nog, anybody else?

I just saw that I would need a million dollar net worth not a salary, however I stand by what I said, it doesn’t seem to be a good thing to be so focus on.

I was a lot less practical at that age. Got all upset when forced to stand in front at the lifeboat drill (and just made life harder for the poor third world-hailing stewards.) Now, I’d take the money and run! Then, I’m not sure what I’d have done when the rubber actually met the road. (Or had it actually come time for lifeboats, for that matter. Although I at least like to think I would have stood aside for a young father.)

Of course I would take it. I would share my take with my brother. Whatever.

As someone else said, I may try to challenge the terms of the trust to change to make it more equitable for future generations. It might not be that difficult, we had a comparable situation at work involving a trust that included socially outdated ideas about who could receive scholarships. It ended up not being that big a deal.