3 ms·

> Yup, because what should happen is that the working spouse should leave the non-working spouse penniless and homeless, especially if they have been married 20

> Yup, because what should happen is that the working spouse should leave the non-working spouse penniless and homeless, especially if they have been married 20-40 years. Unfortunately most divorces are initiated by women. Should the man still be required to pay alimony in such cases? What if the man initiates it due to cheating? Women tend to receive alimony in all cases which is pretty disgusting.

watwut 8y ago
If they both agreed on her taking care of kids+house and not working and him focusing on career not being limited by kids+house, yes. Effective way to avoid this is to not arrange things this way. She won't get alimony if she kept her career. Also, working women are more likely to ask for divorce. Being stay at home when relationship turns bad is sorta trap even with alimony.
- hopler 8y ago
  The trick of it really is that being a homemaker had gotten exponentially easier over the last century thanks to automation, creating an awkward imbalance in responsibilities where one person works 40+ hrs plus half of nights/weekends work, and the other works a relatively casual home job plus half the nights and weekends work
  - watwut 8y ago
    Sure. I am not advocating long term homemakers in today's world. I think that women including moms going to work is good development. But also, I would rather be the one going to work then the one at home. I was at home for some time so I can compare the two - unless job is really shitty it is better then completely pointless day after pointless day. But I also get how easily ressentment on other side settle too when job is not perfect. Today it is done either as a value thing (e.g. conservative Christian who believe this is morally right) or for convenience - you actually can't work 40+ hrs plus half of nights/weekends while doing half childcare. Staying at home allows partners career to be unaffected by home. When couple decide they want to split things that way and we're like that for long years, then it makes sense that the one whose career and salary is benefiting pay the other one who lost employemen possibilities. I have however never claimed the above is reasonable or preferable split at all ( unless you both have 4 kids or something). I am all for moms working and for partners to share both household work and both earn.
  - dabbledash 8y ago
    Not sure I agree. I think the focus has shifted from cooking and cleaning to intensive parenting.
- philonoist 8y ago
  Not even in that case, NO! If she initiated to break a marriage by cheating, she did out of her own volition and should have been mindful of her actions having consequences, rather than shifting the burden conveniently on husband. In other cases where also the degree and market value of the divorcee woman is close to zero, its also the responsibility of the her to get back to college with a loan of her own. This is because the husband is already contributing equally towards the living expenses of kids+house financially and is taking care of it( its not nil) along with providing for wife for whatever the benefit I got from her. So the husband doesn't owe her anything. These are the terms by default by entering the contract. If I was a stay at home dad, I did get covered with a roof, food and cloth. Not only that, I get enough security in such matrimonial home from any threat of life, the alternative being homelessness ceteris paribus. My contribution towards my working wife is way lesser in value compared to what she gives me even after I took care of her children who were my children as well. So I can't ask for alimony as if I earned it in case of divorce. Alimony should at best be a loan not security. You got to list out the contributions of husband during the marriage too! Just because my ex-wife was a stay at home mom doesn't make me a free cash supply after marriage. Her alimony is temporary to find herself a job and she is expected to stand on her own feet as soon as possible. I'd also argue that she should pay back with interest whatever it took to support her from financial destitution post marriage. The husband is not at all obligated to pay for someone's living, even if she was his wife before. Even after correcting and compensating with current rules of alimony, if husbands are richer and wives are poorer financially after divorce, that itself is an indication of husband's cost towards such marriage and working wife's freebies of such marriage. Even then, most women are initiating the divorce because financially poorer doesn't mean being in completely destitute. Free money!
  - watwut 8y ago
    > Even then, most women are initiating the divorce because financially poorer doesn't mean being in completely destitute. If the only thing that keeps partner with you is being destitute, then your relationships and marriage is death. You are just exchanging pretention for money, if that. And for christ, why would you want to stay with some who despises you and is with you only because she would be destitute otherwise? Like, what is the point of that all? Don't agree to sacrifice her earnings for marriage. Then, there is no alimony and nothing of the rest after. None of these problems - except it being easier to leave for both of you when it fails.

watwut 8y ago

If they both agreed on her taking care of kids+house and not working and him focusing on career not being limited by kids+house, yes. Effective way to avoid this is to not arrange things this way. She won't get alimony if she kept her career. Also, working women are more likely to ask for divorce. Being stay at home when relationship turns bad is sorta trap even with alimony.

hopler 8y ago
The trick of it really is that being a homemaker had gotten exponentially easier over the last century thanks to automation, creating an awkward imbalance in responsibilities where one person works 40+ hrs plus half of nights/weekends work, and the other works a relatively casual home job plus half the nights and weekends work
- watwut 8y ago
  Sure. I am not advocating long term homemakers in today's world. I think that women including moms going to work is good development. But also, I would rather be the one going to work then the one at home. I was at home for some time so I can compare the two - unless job is really shitty it is better then completely pointless day after pointless day. But I also get how easily ressentment on other side settle too when job is not perfect. Today it is done either as a value thing (e.g. conservative Christian who believe this is morally right) or for convenience - you actually can't work 40+ hrs plus half of nights/weekends while doing half childcare. Staying at home allows partners career to be unaffected by home. When couple decide they want to split things that way and we're like that for long years, then it makes sense that the one whose career and salary is benefiting pay the other one who lost employemen possibilities. I have however never claimed the above is reasonable or preferable split at all ( unless you both have 4 kids or something). I am all for moms working and for partners to share both household work and both earn.
- dabbledash 8y ago
  Not sure I agree. I think the focus has shifted from cooking and cleaning to intensive parenting.
philonoist 8y ago
Not even in that case, NO! If she initiated to break a marriage by cheating, she did out of her own volition and should have been mindful of her actions having consequences, rather than shifting the burden conveniently on husband. In other cases where also the degree and market value of the divorcee woman is close to zero, its also the responsibility of the her to get back to college with a loan of her own. This is because the husband is already contributing equally towards the living expenses of kids+house financially and is taking care of it( its not nil) along with providing for wife for whatever the benefit I got from her. So the husband doesn't owe her anything. These are the terms by default by entering the contract. If I was a stay at home dad, I did get covered with a roof, food and cloth. Not only that, I get enough security in such matrimonial home from any threat of life, the alternative being homelessness ceteris paribus. My contribution towards my working wife is way lesser in value compared to what she gives me even after I took care of her children who were my children as well. So I can't ask for alimony as if I earned it in case of divorce. Alimony should at best be a loan not security. You got to list out the contributions of husband during the marriage too! Just because my ex-wife was a stay at home mom doesn't make me a free cash supply after marriage. Her alimony is temporary to find herself a job and she is expected to stand on her own feet as soon as possible. I'd also argue that she should pay back with interest whatever it took to support her from financial destitution post marriage. The husband is not at all obligated to pay for someone's living, even if she was his wife before. Even after correcting and compensating with current rules of alimony, if husbands are richer and wives are poorer financially after divorce, that itself is an indication of husband's cost towards such marriage and working wife's freebies of such marriage. Even then, most women are initiating the divorce because financially poorer doesn't mean being in completely destitute. Free money!
- watwut 8y ago
  > Even then, most women are initiating the divorce because financially poorer doesn't mean being in completely destitute. If the only thing that keeps partner with you is being destitute, then your relationships and marriage is death. You are just exchanging pretention for money, if that. And for christ, why would you want to stay with some who despises you and is with you only because she would be destitute otherwise? Like, what is the point of that all? Don't agree to sacrifice her earnings for marriage. Then, there is no alimony and nothing of the rest after. None of these problems - except it being easier to leave for both of you when it fails.