4 ms·

The fact that a woman can look for alimony shows that system is broken.

by epx 10y ago

kgwgk 10y ago
Men can get it as well. (The system may be broken nevertheless.)
thedevil 10y ago
I agree that the system is broken. Alimony is usually an atrocity. But I advise against mentioning gender. Turning it into a gender-issue is going to make people dislike and downvote you and kill any hope for reform. It's also unfair to women who pay alimony (my half-sister for example).
nugget 10y ago
Many women pay men alimony these days. I know a handful of female MDs whose ex-husbands ''supported'' them through medical school and are now receiving quite generous spousal support. The real problem is a divorce system laden with incentives for couples to rip each other to shreds, with lawyers and others (follow the money) only too happy to help. Watch 'Divorce Corp' on Netflix. It may change the way you think about marriage and divorce in the United States.
jelliclesfarm 10y ago
Alimony comes after divorce. I am questioning the validity of something that comes even before that..marriage. I have often questioned the usefulness of marriage in the modern world. What is its function other than the religious aspect of it? There is certainly no moral clause to it..fidelity doesn't have anything to do with a piece of legal paper. Does the state benefit by validating and continuing to reward what is essentially was born as a religious contract between two people. Personally..I think a lot of issues from gender inequality to lgbt inequalities can be resolved if the artificial social contract of 'marriage' loses its validation from courts and the state.
- morgante 10y ago
  Arguably one of the benefits of marriage lies expressly in the expense of divorce. It's a way of precommitting people to working through the rough patches in a marriage instead of splitting at the first sign of trouble. If you look at it strictly from a game theoretic viewpoint, there's definitely value in having a contracted cost of separation. The tough part is in making sure this cost isn't too high (as it used to be) nor too low (that people run immediately).
  - jelliclesfarm 10y ago
    The social benefit of staying together instead of splitting up at the first sign of trouble is to raise progeny together as a bonded pair. Birds do this better than human beings and that's why they are usually bond for life. It is expensive to raise offsprings and it is not worth expending energy to gather resources to raising offsprings that aren't your own. So..from a game theory point of view..it is not about divorces or alimony but the ability or inclination(or lack thereof) to be monogamous. Earliest mention of alimony occurs in the code of Hammurabi..wherein a man shall return the dowry of the woman along with a portion of his property ..but only when the woman has borne his offsprings. And until the children have been reared and the property/monies split evenly amongst mother and children, she cannot seek another suitor or marital partner or have other children. Alimony comes from necessity ..it is necessary in a society that is rife with inequalities. If men and women were equal in a marriage, there would be no need for alimony. In the olden days, a woman entered a marriage with a dowry. In gold or currency or property. The dowry was meant to be her financial nest egg and the man has no rights over it. Entire dynasties and kingdoms were based on marriages and dowries. And then it was the time of churches to decree what is moral and what wasn't. Divorces were all initially only due to infidelity and often by the man. Alimony became a safeguard so a man wouldn't profit from his philandering ways. If the fault lies with the woman, the woman forfeits the right to collect alimony. With no fault divorces in our modern times, alimony became part of the divorce settlement. If we don't have divorces, there won't be alimonies..if we don't have a marriages, there won't be divorces. Therefore, the only way eliminate gender inequalities is to eliminate the institution of marriage. Times have changed. What if..as a thought experiment, we revamp all manners of social contracts. We will have to reconsider the basic human right to procreate to perpetuate the species. It should become a responsibility and a privilege to be earned..not a birthright to be exercised by all. And also eliminate the institution of marriage. Thoughts?

The fact that a woman can look for alimony shows that system is broken.

by epx 10y ago

The fact that a woman can look for alimony shows that system is broken.

kgwgk 10y ago

Men can get it as well. (The system may be broken nevertheless.)

thedevil 10y ago

I agree that the system is broken. Alimony is usually an atrocity. But I advise against mentioning gender. Turning it into a gender-issue is going to make people dislike and downvote you and kill any hope for reform. It's also unfair to women who pay alimony (my half-sister for example).

nugget 10y ago

Many women pay men alimony these days. I know a handful of female MDs whose ex-husbands ''supported'' them through medical school and are now receiving quite generous spousal support. The real problem is a divorce system laden with incentives for couples to rip each other to shreds, with lawyers and others (follow the money) only too happy to help. Watch 'Divorce Corp' on Netflix. It may change the way you think about marriage and divorce in the United States.

jelliclesfarm 10y ago

Alimony comes after divorce. I am questioning the validity of something that comes even before that..marriage. I have often questioned the usefulness of marriage in the modern world. What is its function other than the religious aspect of it? There is certainly no moral clause to it..fidelity doesn't have anything to do with a piece of legal paper. Does the state benefit by validating and continuing to reward what is essentially was born as a religious contract between two people. Personally..I think a lot of issues from gender inequality to lgbt inequalities can be resolved if the artificial social contract of 'marriage' loses its validation from courts and the state.

morgante 10y ago
Arguably one of the benefits of marriage lies expressly in the expense of divorce. It's a way of precommitting people to working through the rough patches in a marriage instead of splitting at the first sign of trouble. If you look at it strictly from a game theoretic viewpoint, there's definitely value in having a contracted cost of separation. The tough part is in making sure this cost isn't too high (as it used to be) nor too low (that people run immediately).
- jelliclesfarm 10y ago
  The social benefit of staying together instead of splitting up at the first sign of trouble is to raise progeny together as a bonded pair. Birds do this better than human beings and that's why they are usually bond for life. It is expensive to raise offsprings and it is not worth expending energy to gather resources to raising offsprings that aren't your own. So..from a game theory point of view..it is not about divorces or alimony but the ability or inclination(or lack thereof) to be monogamous. Earliest mention of alimony occurs in the code of Hammurabi..wherein a man shall return the dowry of the woman along with a portion of his property ..but only when the woman has borne his offsprings. And until the children have been reared and the property/monies split evenly amongst mother and children, she cannot seek another suitor or marital partner or have other children. Alimony comes from necessity ..it is necessary in a society that is rife with inequalities. If men and women were equal in a marriage, there would be no need for alimony. In the olden days, a woman entered a marriage with a dowry. In gold or currency or property. The dowry was meant to be her financial nest egg and the man has no rights over it. Entire dynasties and kingdoms were based on marriages and dowries. And then it was the time of churches to decree what is moral and what wasn't. Divorces were all initially only due to infidelity and often by the man. Alimony became a safeguard so a man wouldn't profit from his philandering ways. If the fault lies with the woman, the woman forfeits the right to collect alimony. With no fault divorces in our modern times, alimony became part of the divorce settlement. If we don't have divorces, there won't be alimonies..if we don't have a marriages, there won't be divorces. Therefore, the only way eliminate gender inequalities is to eliminate the institution of marriage. Times have changed. What if..as a thought experiment, we revamp all manners of social contracts. We will have to reconsider the basic human right to procreate to perpetuate the species. It should become a responsibility and a privilege to be earned..not a birthright to be exercised by all. And also eliminate the institution of marriage. Thoughts?