Defend Alimony

[zengirl]

Im glad that a lot of men have woken up these days and realize that marriage is often nothing more than financial slavery.

 

As the saying goes:

-Woman worries about the future until she finds a husband.

-Man never worries about the future until he finds a wife.

 

This was true in the 19th century and it is still true today. It is a timeless fact of life.

 

In my opinion, if there is one thing men need to learn from women, it is pragmatism. A man will marry a woman just because he finds her beautiful at that moment. He does not think long term. On the other hand, before marrying a man, a woman asks herself first and foremost how he is going to benefit her now and in the long run. If her calculation doesnt find the benefit outweighs the cost, then she will find someone else who can grant her higher 'net profit'. This is part of the main reason why very few women are dealing with paying alimony and giving up assets in a divorce because women would not marry a man who had less than her in the first place. They are pragmatic.

 

Everyone should be pragmatic about marriage----it should be simply about beauty or finances, but about who is a good long-term partner for you. There's no excuse for choosing so unwisely---as just based on beauty---in this day and age where marriage is not a necessity and no one is rushed. Most women I know don't choose partners based on finances. They might have some consideration----a decent career, some goals, self-sufficiency-----but men are certainly free to adopt the same standards, and should.

 

In my view: All people should be self-sufficient before marriage (choosing a traditional marriage with a SAHM or a variant of it with a SAHD for children or whatnot is certainly still a valid choice, but that has nothing to do with the woman or man being self-sufficient when single). If you marry someone who isn't self-sufficient, that's on you too now. You've chosen them and chosen to combine finances with them. If you choose to create a situation where your partner is no longer self-sufficient, that's on you too now. And being the one with the money, you're going to pay for it financially.

[112233]

The fact is, that had he not supported her, she may have --- probably would have --- built better skills ...

 

Unlikely, remember she had, prior to their dating, quit a full time job and taken up part time house cleaning to support herself minimally while doing volunteer work. She had already quit the full time work she had done for 20 years.

[112233]

123, I was shocked to read (first senario, not sure if it's your story or not) the total self-centered attitude. His well being should have been taken greatly into a much higher consideration.

 

I'm always shocked how convoluted the reasoning gets around women and marriage. If it were two women living together for 20 years the outcome would have been massively different and no one would raise an eyebrow.

 

Each person should be responsible for their own path in life, we don't exist merely to carry others. Well we do, but it shouldn't be that way.

[112233]

All the rest is moot unless you're dumb enough not to realize the consequences of your actions.

 

If I'd coached it as two brothers that decided to live together and combine finances, and in the end one sued and took a big settlement, the conversation would have been hugely different and fewer women would have sided with the leeching brother.

 

Make it a childless marriage and somehow morality and common sense go out the window for some people.

[just_some_guy]

The real reason for alimony is because the state doesn't want the responsibility for supporting her lazy, fat ass.

 

Marriages with NO kids? With dual incomes? Where the wife has at least as good a job and financial position than she did going in?

 

If I can work 60 hours a week in a high-stress, high-responsibility job, and she only works 40 hours in a low-stress government position, wtf am I responsible to raise her standard of living after the marriage is over? I mean, REALLY? Just because she has a vagina, she's somehow entitled to the hard-won fruits of my future labor?

 

If you think about it, doesn't that make marriage to a man who earns more, simply a form of prostitution? Just making extended payments on the pussy he got (or not got)?

 

Sorry women, get off your lazy asses and earn your own damn money.

[112233]

If you think about it, doesn't that make marriage to a man who earns more, simply a form of prostitution? Just making extended payments on the pussy he got (or not got)?

 

Sorry women, get off your lazy asses and earn your own damn money.

 

 

It does look a lot like wh*ring. Legalized, regulated, sure, but wh*ring nonetheless. Not that I have any animus about that, prostitution should be legal everywhere. The "marriage contract" is a sham, the legal community makes a fortune on it but the way it's entered into, and the terms and conditions, wouldn't stand 30 seconds in any non-family court.

 

Typically:

 

• Neither party has any legal counsel.
• The terms are altered during the contract without any participation of the parties under contract.
• Neither party ever gets to read the contract.
• Neither party has the contract explained to them prior to signature, if ever.
• The contract document doesn't exist, as such.

 

And that's just the tip of the legal iceberg.

[zengirl]

The real reason for alimony is because the state doesn't want the responsibility for supporting her lazy, fat ass.

 

Marriages with NO kids? With dual incomes? Where the wife has at least as good a job and financial position than she did going in?

 

If I can work 60 hours a week in a high-stress, high-responsibility job, and she only works 40 hours in a low-stress government position, wtf am I responsible to raise her standard of living after the marriage is over? I mean, REALLY? Just because she has a vagina, she's somehow entitled to the hard-won fruits of my future labor?

 

If you think about it, doesn't that make marriage to a man who earns more, simply a form of prostitution? Just making extended payments on the pussy he got (or not got)?

 

Sorry women, get off your lazy asses and earn your own damn money.

 

In dual income households where both parties work full time, I don't support alimony. Perhaps a settlement that helps with debt that might have been accrued by the lesser earning partner (again, regardless of gender) is appropriate. All of that should be worked out, case-by-case.

 

None of this has to do with genders or vaginas.

 

I think house husbands should have the same rights, and don't care about the gender one whit. If you support someone, marry them (thus combining all funds), continued support is legally reasonable. So: don't support someone who isn't financially self-sufficient if alimony will be a problem for you later. Why would you?

 

I think alimony should be given based on the circumstances and should have nothing to do with gender. If that were your argument, I'd jump on board, and so would many of these women y'all are railing at, I'd wonder.

 

More women would still get alimony today, even without any gender discrimination in the system (I honestly don't know if there is any in my state, but it wouldn't surprise me; and I'm all for doing away with actual discrimination.) Why? Because men are less likely to be willing to give up their careers or demote themselves to part-time to stay home with kids or to support a partner's career.

[UnsureinSeattle]

Child support makes perfect sense. Alimony makes very little sense. It should have nothing at all to do with gender.

[Enema]

I think alimony is justified in only certain cases.

 

eg. When the husband has pressured the wife to stay home to raise the kids, so she really didn't have any option.

 

Generally though, I think all financial divorce arrangements are unfair and would always just encourage men to never let their wives stop working.

[112233]

I think alimony is justified in only certain cases.

 

eg. When the husband has pressured the wife to stay home to raise the kids, so she really didn't have any option.

 

Even if she wasn't "pressured" I can see some temporary spousal support to get her going again if that's what's needed but it should be contingent on her making measurable progress toward a specific goal that makes her a better earner.

 

If she's just using it as an additional income to lump on top of the child support she's certainly already getting, it's not serving a purpose.

[Enema]

Even if she wasn't "pressured" I can see some temporary spousal support to get her going again if that's what's needed but it should be contingent on her making measurable progress toward a specific goal that makes her a better earner.

 

If she's just using it as an additional income to lump on top of the child support she's certainly already getting, it's not serving a purpose.

 

I completely agree. :thumbsup:

 

As for my personal story, my wife makes about the same money as me and neither of us ever want kids.

 

Just remove these silly laws from the equation and you'll be right.

[Spark1111]

Where I live alimony is a very rare event except amongst the filthy rich, or where a woman has been a SAHM for years and the court allows a time period for both she and the kids to adjust to the divorce and mom's return to school for job skills.

 

I personally know one woman who did have to pay it to her husband short term.

 

Could this be maintenance? When a divorce is initiated, the larger provider can not stop paying the household bills, mortgage, etc. until the court finalizes the divorce decree. It is for the short term, and is usually very generous.

 

Statistically, a woman's finances plummets after a divorce. A man's income rises, no matter what he pays for child support or in division of assets.

 

A successful surgeon? I'd say he did okay in the divorce and will be fine. I'm not feeling too sorry for him.

 

Look, it's marriage. No one truly knows what was said, what was agreed to, except them! Maybe he did not want her to work. Maybe he liked her home. Maybe it never bothered him until they divorced.

[Spark1111]

Even if she wasn't "pressured" I can see some temporary spousal support to get her going again if that's what's needed but it should be contingent on her making measurable progress toward a specific goal that makes her a better earner.

 

If she's just using it as an additional income to lump on top of the child support she's certainly already getting, it's not serving a purpose.

 

I understand where you are coming from, but the laws exist for a reason....even antiquated ones are hopefully protecting the innocent somewhere.

 

Can they be manipulated to the less innocent's advantage? Of course they can.

 

But bottom line? You can't force anyone to do anything and to argue it through the courst will triple your litigious legal bill.

 

If she doesn't return to school or work, she will eventually run out of money and that will be that.

 

Maybe this up and coming surgeon was embarrassed his wife was a cleaning woman back in the day. Who knows?

 

If it wasn't an issue for twenty years, but now that assets have to be split, it is....sounds like sour grapes to me.

[Distant78]

Alimony should only be used in certain cases. Most notably, infidelity or abuse. There are other exceptions, but it should not be used simply because both parties are getting a divorce, without a good, stable reason.