4 ms·

> the ex dies, you will be penniless if you didn't also work Why not work? After some time in divorce (immediately perhaps) you are supposed, as an adult, to s

> the ex dies, you will be penniless if you didn't also work Why not work? After some time in divorce (immediately perhaps) you are supposed, as an adult, to support for yourself. Especially considering you're going to send children into their own lives by 50, and retirement is only coming at 65. You definitely look forward for 15 years of work even if you are absolutely devoted to raising kids. > if you don't have goals, interests and earned income of your own But we can only put the very latter in alimony. Can't put goals there.

Mz 9y ago
> if you don't have goals, interests and earned income of your own But we can only put the very latter in alimony. Can't put goals there. If you got married and started a family because raising a family was a goal, alimony is related to that. Women have historically been provided for by husbands. For women, marriage has historically been a viable alternative to getting a job. It isn't like buying a lottery ticket. Being a wife and mom involves a great deal of work. Raising kids well is a goal. Once they are raised, women need to find other things to do. This seems to be lost on a great many men. Even women seem to often not see it. But it is a reality.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  > Women have historically been provided for by husbands I hope you know that women were also historically accompanied by dowry? Just the woman herself, with her raising a family, was not considered sufficient offering to match the groom. If you hope to find a husband that would provide you towards the end of your life, you should (a) choose very carefully, and (b) have solid understanding of your own contribution. Otherwise, once your husband decides he doesn't want to spend the rest of life with you, it falls apart. There's no doubt why alimony should be paid to support underage children. There's no reason why alimony should be paid to support an adult, a healthy woman of working age.
  - Mz 9y ago
    A) What gets paid to support children is called child support, not alimony. B) I spent two decades supporting my husband's career. When we divorced, he still had a well paid job and twenty years work experience. I was starting over from scratch and was "lucky" to get a better-than-minimum-wage job to start. It aggravates me that the world as a whole acts like having kids and raising them is only a financial cost to men. The fact that women give birth and then take more time off for family responsibilities helps suppress the incomes of most women. Then people don't act like this is a real cost to them. Furthermore, if you just don't want children at all, there are several viable solutions: 1) Remain celibate 2) Get a vasectomy 3) Have only homosexual sex A lot of men seem to desire sex with women, who can then have their entire life derailed due to an unexpected pregnancy, even if they use birth control, which is not 100% reliable. And then they act like women are just overentitled and lazy for wanting compensation for the very real cost to themselves. I'm a woman. I like sex with men. I have been celibate for more than 12 years for medical reasons. The difficulty involved in finding a man who is not just cavalierly willing to ruin my life for his convenience and then walk away makes me wonder if I will ever get laid again. That whole "sleeping with me will destroy your entire future" vibe is a distinct turn off for me.
    - adekok 9y ago
      > What gets paid to support children is called child support, not alimony. In most jurisdictions, child support is more than the cost of raising a child. In Canada, equalizing incomes was the goal of the latest round of child support guidelines, not "support for the child". For a US reference, see http://www.divorcecorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Economic-Cost-of-Raising-Children_William-Comanor.pdf http://www.divorcecorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Ec... > I spent two decades supporting my husband's career. When we divorced, he still had a well paid job and twenty years work experience. I was starting over from scratch and was "lucky" to get a better-than-minimum-wage job to start. And you should get compensated for that. The question is really how much, and how long. > It aggravates me that the world as a whole acts like having kids and raising them is only a financial cost to men. In some sense, it is. See research on the wage gap going back to the 1960's. Never-married childless women earn about the same as never-married childless men. Once people get married and have kids, men take on additional work to pay for their kids. Women take on less work to take care of their kids. This means men have higher "out of pocket" costs than women do. But women pay the "opportunity cost" of raising kids. Hence alimony. > if you just don't want children at all, there are several viable solutions: None of those are truly viable. They're necessary conditions to not having kids. But not sufficient. In practice, a women can name any man as the father if she wants. No paternity test is necessary in most jurisdictions, and such tests are illegal in parts of Europe! In some states, if the father is notified of such a child and doesn't contest it within 30 days, he's determined to be the father, and has no right to fight it after that. See any number of cases where men are paying for kids they didn't even know existed, who DNA proves aren't theirs. The guy doesn't even have to have sex with her. If your girlfriend's room-mate sneaks into the room at night, grabs the used condom, and impregnates herself, well, as the man, you pay for 18 years. No choice, or you go to jail. > That whole "sleeping with me will destroy your entire future" vibe is a distinct turn off for me. As it is for men. The reality is that women hold essentially all control over reproduction. Women can choose to get pregnant, and can force any man to pay for their choices, for the next 18 years. At the threat of jail, losing jobs, passport, drivers license, etc. It is entirely rational to be wary of such side-effects. The point here is that while your choices have cost you, men don't have some magical happy land of money, cigars, whisky, and bro-hugs. There are costs and benefits to the choices made by both sexes.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I hope you know that women were also historically accompanied by dowry? In some cultures. In some cultures, the groom (or his family) paid her family a bride price, and in some cultures the groom paid her (personally, not her family) a dower. In some cultures, in fact, a combination of these existed simultaneously. Of course, pretending that dowry alone was the dominant tradition is necessary to your argument that what the wife brought was viewed as insufficient value on its own, but it's not actually accurate.
Blackthorn 9y ago
> Why not work? After some time in divorce (immediately perhaps) you are supposed, as an adult, to support for yourself. Let's say as a family you decided that the wife would be a stay at home wife to have and support children. Then fifteen years down the line you get divorced. The wife gave up fifteen years of career and career advancement for the family. Alimony is a damn appropriate compensation for that sacrifice, since it's likely that as you start working you're going to be getting minimum wage (and your ex husband, presumably, had those fifteen years of career advancement).
- thriftwy 9y ago
  > for that sacrifice Was career a sacrifice or something that she was happy to get rid of in exchange to support? I think I can find men who would be happy to do chores if a woman would be supporting them with high-paying job, and essentially zero women who will agree to such arrangement. Staying at home without working is a bad decision and you certainly can't chain man over it when it doesn't work. Promising of life-time alimony, in some extreme cases for a wife who never had any children even, is just pushing women into making this bad decision.
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    > Was career a sacrifice or something that she was happy to get rid of in exchange to support? Does not really matter what sort of words you want to call it. She still gave up her earning potential for the family. These decisions are made by two people, not one. And now, as a result of that, in divorce, they are woefully uneven going forward. Alimony is there to balance those scales. Don't like it? Don't have a stay at home family. > I think I can find men who would be happy to do chores if a woman would be supporting them with high-paying job, and essentially zero women who will agree to such arrangement. My friend group alone includes one planned stay at home husband, so you are quite incorrect on this point. > Staying at home without working is a bad decision Then don't do it. > and you certainly can't chain man over it when it doesn't work. Why all the concern for the man here and none for the woman? She's "chained" to lower earnings for the rest of her life as a result of this.

Mz 9y ago

> if you don't have goals, interests and earned income of your own But we can only put the very latter in alimony. Can't put goals there. If you got married and started a family because raising a family was a goal, alimony is related to that. Women have historically been provided for by husbands. For women, marriage has historically been a viable alternative to getting a job. It isn't like buying a lottery ticket. Being a wife and mom involves a great deal of work. Raising kids well is a goal. Once they are raised, women need to find other things to do. This seems to be lost on a great many men. Even women seem to often not see it. But it is a reality.

thriftwy 9y ago
> Women have historically been provided for by husbands I hope you know that women were also historically accompanied by dowry? Just the woman herself, with her raising a family, was not considered sufficient offering to match the groom. If you hope to find a husband that would provide you towards the end of your life, you should (a) choose very carefully, and (b) have solid understanding of your own contribution. Otherwise, once your husband decides he doesn't want to spend the rest of life with you, it falls apart. There's no doubt why alimony should be paid to support underage children. There's no reason why alimony should be paid to support an adult, a healthy woman of working age.
- Mz 9y ago
  A) What gets paid to support children is called child support, not alimony. B) I spent two decades supporting my husband's career. When we divorced, he still had a well paid job and twenty years work experience. I was starting over from scratch and was "lucky" to get a better-than-minimum-wage job to start. It aggravates me that the world as a whole acts like having kids and raising them is only a financial cost to men. The fact that women give birth and then take more time off for family responsibilities helps suppress the incomes of most women. Then people don't act like this is a real cost to them. Furthermore, if you just don't want children at all, there are several viable solutions: 1) Remain celibate 2) Get a vasectomy 3) Have only homosexual sex A lot of men seem to desire sex with women, who can then have their entire life derailed due to an unexpected pregnancy, even if they use birth control, which is not 100% reliable. And then they act like women are just overentitled and lazy for wanting compensation for the very real cost to themselves. I'm a woman. I like sex with men. I have been celibate for more than 12 years for medical reasons. The difficulty involved in finding a man who is not just cavalierly willing to ruin my life for his convenience and then walk away makes me wonder if I will ever get laid again. That whole "sleeping with me will destroy your entire future" vibe is a distinct turn off for me.
  - adekok 9y ago
    > What gets paid to support children is called child support, not alimony. In most jurisdictions, child support is more than the cost of raising a child. In Canada, equalizing incomes was the goal of the latest round of child support guidelines, not "support for the child". For a US reference, see http://www.divorcecorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Economic-Cost-of-Raising-Children_William-Comanor.pdf http://www.divorcecorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Ec... > I spent two decades supporting my husband's career. When we divorced, he still had a well paid job and twenty years work experience. I was starting over from scratch and was "lucky" to get a better-than-minimum-wage job to start. And you should get compensated for that. The question is really how much, and how long. > It aggravates me that the world as a whole acts like having kids and raising them is only a financial cost to men. In some sense, it is. See research on the wage gap going back to the 1960's. Never-married childless women earn about the same as never-married childless men. Once people get married and have kids, men take on additional work to pay for their kids. Women take on less work to take care of their kids. This means men have higher "out of pocket" costs than women do. But women pay the "opportunity cost" of raising kids. Hence alimony. > if you just don't want children at all, there are several viable solutions: None of those are truly viable. They're necessary conditions to not having kids. But not sufficient. In practice, a women can name any man as the father if she wants. No paternity test is necessary in most jurisdictions, and such tests are illegal in parts of Europe! In some states, if the father is notified of such a child and doesn't contest it within 30 days, he's determined to be the father, and has no right to fight it after that. See any number of cases where men are paying for kids they didn't even know existed, who DNA proves aren't theirs. The guy doesn't even have to have sex with her. If your girlfriend's room-mate sneaks into the room at night, grabs the used condom, and impregnates herself, well, as the man, you pay for 18 years. No choice, or you go to jail. > That whole "sleeping with me will destroy your entire future" vibe is a distinct turn off for me. As it is for men. The reality is that women hold essentially all control over reproduction. Women can choose to get pregnant, and can force any man to pay for their choices, for the next 18 years. At the threat of jail, losing jobs, passport, drivers license, etc. It is entirely rational to be wary of such side-effects. The point here is that while your choices have cost you, men don't have some magical happy land of money, cigars, whisky, and bro-hugs. There are costs and benefits to the choices made by both sexes.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I hope you know that women were also historically accompanied by dowry? In some cultures. In some cultures, the groom (or his family) paid her family a bride price, and in some cultures the groom paid her (personally, not her family) a dower. In some cultures, in fact, a combination of these existed simultaneously. Of course, pretending that dowry alone was the dominant tradition is necessary to your argument that what the wife brought was viewed as insufficient value on its own, but it's not actually accurate.

Blackthorn 9y ago

> Why not work? After some time in divorce (immediately perhaps) you are supposed, as an adult, to support for yourself. Let's say as a family you decided that the wife would be a stay at home wife to have and support children. Then fifteen years down the line you get divorced. The wife gave up fifteen years of career and career advancement for the family. Alimony is a damn appropriate compensation for that sacrifice, since it's likely that as you start working you're going to be getting minimum wage (and your ex husband, presumably, had those fifteen years of career advancement).

thriftwy 9y ago
> for that sacrifice Was career a sacrifice or something that she was happy to get rid of in exchange to support? I think I can find men who would be happy to do chores if a woman would be supporting them with high-paying job, and essentially zero women who will agree to such arrangement. Staying at home without working is a bad decision and you certainly can't chain man over it when it doesn't work. Promising of life-time alimony, in some extreme cases for a wife who never had any children even, is just pushing women into making this bad decision.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  > Was career a sacrifice or something that she was happy to get rid of in exchange to support? Does not really matter what sort of words you want to call it. She still gave up her earning potential for the family. These decisions are made by two people, not one. And now, as a result of that, in divorce, they are woefully uneven going forward. Alimony is there to balance those scales. Don't like it? Don't have a stay at home family. > I think I can find men who would be happy to do chores if a woman would be supporting them with high-paying job, and essentially zero women who will agree to such arrangement. My friend group alone includes one planned stay at home husband, so you are quite incorrect on this point. > Staying at home without working is a bad decision Then don't do it. > and you certainly can't chain man over it when it doesn't work. Why all the concern for the man here and none for the woman? She's "chained" to lower earnings for the rest of her life as a result of this.