all 155 comments

[–]neveragoodtime 74 points75 points  (18 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Women used to bring more value to the marriage than men. How? She did all the value added labor in the household. He had a job that paid for the raw materials, and she turned food into a meal, cloth into clothes, cleaning, child care, etc. Then, feminsists decided the only worthwhile value was monetary and thought women should be paid to raise the kids her husband gave her, clean the house he gave her, wash the clothes he bought the family. Feminists decided making $15k cash for herself was better than bringing in $30k of value to her family. And what does she do with all that money she's making? She spends it on daycare, prepared meals, laundry services. Suddenly she brings in no value, and complains about her husband not doing enough work around the house. Marriage pretty much became unsustainable from there. Alimony continues this tradition of paying a woman for work she does for herself and her family. There are many other ways to address the underlying problem without punishing the men they divorced.

[–]MrsStrom 25 points26 points  (15 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not to mention that with the wife at home taking care of the house and children, the husband is free to put more time and energy into his career. Its a partnership, each with their own role to play. A good partnership plays to the partners strengths and weaknesses. That isn't sexist or misogynist. It's common sense.

[–]neveragoodtime 11 points12 points  (7 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly, a good partnership is complimentary so the sum is greater than the parts. I have no problem if the breadwinner is the woman, it's just been that my experience and observation has shown that women do not value the home maker role in their husband. The feminist movement itself devalued the role by getting women out of the house and into careers. Men just don't seem to mind supporting a woman the way women resent supporting a man.

[–]MrsStrom 11 points12 points  (6 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Tbh, men generally have greater earning potential. So it makes sense for the man to work outside the home and the woman to stay home. After all, men don't need to take time off work to recoup from childbirth.

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

    [–]bluemption 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    While your last few points are probably correct, I wouldn't say that men are "healthier" than women. That notion is sort of absurd.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    [deleted]

      [–]bluemption 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      True, but taking a sick day doesn't necessarily mean you are sick. Just like coming to work does not guarantee you are healthy.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      [deleted]

        [–]bluemption -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Well for starters, you have to use something to quantify that statement. If you use life expectancy, for example, women would be "healthier" than men. I just don't think it is something easily given a metric.

        [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Not to mention that with the wife at home taking care of the house and children, the husband is free to put more time and energy into his career.

        You got that backwards honey

        [–]_JustKnight_ 0 points1 point  (5 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Not to mention that with the wife at home taking care of the house and children, the husband is free to put more time and energy into his career.

        This is often said by traditionalists and I simply do not see it playing out that way in real life. I come from an extremely conservative family where everyone is in life long marriages and women take care of everything in the house. When I compare my life to men in my family what you said just doesn't hold up. On top of being FORCED to work harder/take tougher jobs (cuz their expenses are higher supporting more people) ... they really don't have any easier lives. Whatever value their wives add by cooking and house keeping, they more than make up for by generating even more useless work for their husbands like endless house projects, random chores etc.

        And lets face is, in these times of convenience... cooking and cleaning is a laid back less than 30 mins a day job (I know cuz I've been managing by myself just fine for 7 years now). Not exactly equal contribution for a challenging 10 hour day job.

        [–]chakravanti93 1 point2 points  (4 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        When you add kids to any situation the cleaning task goes up. It's not the amount of space you have, it's the amount of people using it.

        Cleaning/cooking up after two people is about a 2hr/day job.

        [–]MrsStrom 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        If those kids are at home, good luck getting anything to stay clean for more than 20 minutes. Children are remarkably adept at dirtying dishes, tracking mud/sand, projectile vomiting, and just plain sucking up large quantities of time.

        [–]chakravanti93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        That's also because mom picks up after kids. "She" generally wants them to make the most of their time and finds a comprimise between picking up after them and teaching them to pick up after themselves and letting them enjoy and learn the most from their childhood in other areas.

        Dad's like "You better learn to clean up after yourself. I do and I won't stand mine not learning to do the same."

        Of course, that's bullshit and we only end up enforcing it about as often as we enforce it on ourselves if we're reasonable. Which is never as often as when you're not working a full time job. Otoh, in the summer, this justifies a certain double standard (as is often the case with children).

        [–]1independentmale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        I just taught my kids to clean up after themselves. It really wasn't that hard. When they don't do it, a few clicks and my router blocks their Internet access until they do.

        Works like a charm. I'm a single father of two and my house is super clean with very little effort on my part.

        [–]_JustKnight_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Sure things are definitely more difficult with a kid. Still 2hr/day of menial labor isn't comparable to the amount of effort required maintain any full-time career. Women have always been getting a free ride and now that they sometimes have to work as a side effect of feminism they are more unhappy than ever.

        [–]drrtyfrrnr 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Women used to bring more value to the marriage than men. How?

        I don't know about that. I think it was a good compromise on both sides. Men are just made to feel that their contributions (going out and making a living in the world) are void of value.

        [–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (1 child)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Nice sentiment.

        But divorce laws and alimony assignment is stuck in (at least) the '70s.

        Too many lawyers and judges making good livings with things just like they are. And with politicians (mostly lawyers) being grease to keep it this way, don't hold your breath.

        [–]bitzin 76 points77 points  (75 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        The answer to this is simple, don't get married, don't have kids. I just solved the problem.

        I'm entirely happy to live with that.

        [–][deleted]  (11 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        [deleted]

          [–]sfudman 35 points36 points  (3 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          get secretly gay married to a bro. Cant be common law married to jill if you are still legally married to bill.

          [–]charlie_bodango 6 points7 points  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Holy shit. That's a really good idea.

          [–]rebuildingMyself 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Won't be long before feminists demand that mistresses get alimony

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Men, you can put us into a corner, and we're sure as fuck going to eat some punches and hit you with a solid counter.

          [–]elokr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          That depends on area. Some states in the US don't recognize common law marriage and others, like South Carolina, view it as a real marriage. Common law marriages can dissolve in legal divorce and alimony in SC.

          [–]1FloranHunter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          It isn't a serious concern. Just look up the law in your region before moving in with a woman.

          [–]YourFoxyFriend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Pretty sure cohabitation isn't a thing anymore.

          Edit: In the US. I just saw a comment hinting Canada is going in the other direction.

          [–]Endless_Summer -1 points0 points  (3 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          That's not a real thing anymore in most cases, and certainly not something recognized in a court of law

          [–]steveob42 5 points6 points  (2 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          http://www.legalinfo.org/life-events/living-common-law.html canada is going the other direction. Live w/someone for two years and they can claim unjust enrichment, probably comes down to who has the most money loses regardless of circumstances.

          [–]dallz_beep[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Holy shit that's insane. I consider this a stealth bachelor tax.

          [–]jackbauer634 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Also in New Zealand, except it's termed a "de facto relationship" after cohabitating for 36 months:

          http://www.justice.govt.nz/family-justice/separation/relationship-property/types-of-relationships-covered-by-law

          [–]Down_The_Rabbithole 41 points42 points  (49 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Don't get married, yes. But some of us want to have the experience of having kids and knowing your genetic line won't die out with you. How do you do that without falling in the female financial deathgrip of after-breakup child support, i don't know. Tips are appreciate.

          [–]Link_GR 12 points13 points  (8 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Get a surrogate mother to carry your genetic offspring. You keep the child. And she walks away with a paycheck. Once.

          [–]Dnuts 17 points18 points  (7 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          You have a point, but this is unrealistic as fuck due to the costs of surroagate mothers.

          [–]fakepizza 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Surrogacy is something like 45k now.

          [–]Memento_Mori_Comitis 6 points7 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          It depends. If you're wealthy, and/or a high-earner, you may be significantly better off going the surrogate route vs alimony to maintain your ex's established lifestyle.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

            [–]Pomnom 12 points13 points  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            if you can't afford a surrogate mother, you can't afford a normal child. Plain and simple.

            What kind of logic is this? You have to pay for the surrogate and the cost of raising a child vs just the cost of rising a child.

            [–]yea_tht_dnt_go_there 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Think of it as divorce insurance in a sense.

            [–]Link_GR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            I'm pretty sure the cost of a divorce + alimony is higher. But, of course, we are talking about the scenario in which you get a divorce. Not all marriages end in divorce.

            [–]FortunateBum 5 points6 points  (2 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Do what that soccer star just did. Pay a woman to have your baby. It's the only safe way.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Who ?

            [–]FortunateBum 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            [–]sfudman 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            have kids with out getting married.

            [–]Down_The_Rabbithole 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            I meant the eventual child support after the breakup. Edited my post

            [–]rebuildingMyself 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            You have much better odds with foreign women raised in a culture that still respects men.

            [–]3kempff 1 point2 points  (19 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            knowing your genetic line won't die out with you

            What difference does that make?

            [–]Link_GR 13 points14 points  (18 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Isn't that what drives us as a species. The need to carry on our DNA?

            [–]elevul -1 points0 points  (3 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Well, there is always the possibility of rented womb (which also means that you can choose the ovum from the multitude of smart women that donate them) or the old illegal possibility of choosing a woman that dies during childbirth or is bound to die within 10 years from conception (perhaps an incurable disease that doesn't transmit to the child)...

            [–]drrtyfrrnr -1 points0 points  (2 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            It isn't the smart women who donate their eggs. Again, women are luckier in that way because smart men do donate their sperm, as it's a less invasive procedure.

            [–]elevul 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            It isn't the smart women who donate their eggs

            Percentage might be lower, but there are a fair amount of eggs from smart girls that use this to pay off their college, if you're willing to pay the premium.

            [–]889889771 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Can you elaborate (money earned, time taken, selection process, other pros/cons)?

            [–]K3R3G3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            But wait! Let's hear what the insightful Wendy Williams has to say about Master P's ex-wife demanding $67 Million (40%) $108.8 Million (65%) from him...

            [–]twonomore 1 point2 points  (9 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            That is actually a good choice. But not one the whole of society can make.

            [–]bassivemalls 11 points12 points  (8 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            You better believe if all men stopped getting married because of how unfair divorce courts are the laws would get changed really quick.

            [–]Canadian_Infidel 13 points14 points  (7 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            They would just change it to "you have to pay alimony to any girl you date for more than a year".

            [–]darklogic420 0 points1 point  (2 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            So prostitution would be legal? /s

            [–]MrMagwitch -1 points0 points  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            .

            [–]1FloranHunter 0 points1 point  (3 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            It is possible that common law marriage will go from basically a non-issue to being the norm.

            [–]twonomore 0 points1 point  (2 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Common law marriage is as binding as regular marriage .

            [–]1FloranHunter 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            But also rare. The conditions that need to be met for common law marriage, in almost all regions, are difficult to meet. For one, you usually have to present yourselves as married.

            But this can change with legislation. At some point feminists will campaign for either wide-spread common law marriage or some other way to force men to give their wealth to women at the present or heightened rate. It will be interesting to hear their rationalizations.

            [–]twonomore 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            You are right. I wasn't aware that in Fl you can not initiate a new common law marriage.

            [–]2lightfire409 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Well that's all great for you, but there are many of us who want children one day, and we're scrambling to figure out how to do that outside of marriage.

            [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            That worked for me in the past. Now my brain is on love with a woman.

            [–]LAMFF 22 points23 points  (14 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            If lawmakers want the marriage/birth rates to go up in this country they'd be wise to drastically overhaul these draconian alimony laws.

            [–]dallz_beep[S] 17 points18 points  (6 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            They wouldn't remain lawmakers for long, which goes against the true thing they want.

            [–]LAMFF 20 points21 points  (5 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Just makes me wonder how long it will be before the bachelor tax is implemented?

            [–]Hoodwink 23 points24 points  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            It kinda already is. But it's swapped around, if you're married you have more deductions.

            If you're looking for taxes on men, the new healthcare laws in the U.S basically made males pay a bunch more than they would otherwise have by making health insurance rates equal between the genders (even though for other insurance schemes it's perfectly Ok to discriminate by gender because there is a large cost disparity between them).

            This at at a time when there's more women than ever making money and in a lot of cases in cities making more money than men. It's just hilarious.

            [–]LAMFF 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            So hilarious it makes me want to drop out of society. Also, everyone on this board should consider hiring an accountant at tax time. Any self-respecting man should figure out how to pay as little as possible into this POS system we live in.

            [–]dallz_beep[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Are you asking me or telling me? Haha yeah but in reality I think they're content to simply import millions of left-leaning immigrants, rather than even attempt to raise the birthrate.

            And they don't pay any tax.

            [–]LAMFF 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            You are absolutely right about law makers legislating only in ways that will benefit their re-election chances.

            [–]Canadian_Infidel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            It's already here. In Canada you get six months to a year off with pay for every kid you have, depending on your employer. If everyone pays in, and only 90% take out, the remaining 10% have 1-3 years salary taken from them. Also, if you have kids your taxes go way down.

            [–]Canadian_Infidel 10 points11 points  (6 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            They absolutely do not want that. They want them to continue to go down. Anyone who would create a strong family from our cultural background is being marginalized. They want immigrants who are used to being treated like garbage here. They are easier to control. They have no cultural heritage of standing up to the man and demanding what they want.

            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            [deleted]

              [–]Canadian_Infidel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The first they is the elites and people who run and own everything. You know, the forty or so families that own 50% of all wealth in the US would probably be included in those circles. The way those people think is pretty scary considering the power they wield. Look at the owner of Nestle, he says that thinking water is a human right is akin to terrorism.

              The "they" in "they are easier to control" is people from third world countries who are so desperate they are willing to do anything. They are brought in to use as a bargaining chip against us. And we are so stupid that we allow ourselves to be manipulated into blaming said immigrants.

              [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Do you read 4chan?

              Read their pol board.

              [–]RichardPerle 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              That multicultural agenda.

              [–]Canadian_Infidel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Actually the term is divide an conquer. The make the poor hate the very poor and as long as we are at each others throats we won't notice that they are pulling all the strings.

              [–]MrMagwitch 9 points10 points  (2 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              .

              [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              When you're a small, not diverse nation, it is easy to be socially democratic.

              Diversity is bad for the common good. Unity is strength, there's a bigger red pill for ya.

              [–]RichardPerle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Don't worry, people like Barbara Spectre are hard at work destroying that part of Europe.

              [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Not going to lie, I found him about a month ago and he is now one of favorites youtubers. Politically incorrect and funny, he gives honest and genuine advice to young guys(predominantly). I highly recommend checking out his videos on, "Men decide what's beautiful in women"(or something similar) and "Men are intimidated by". He's quite redpill in many aspects.

              [–]3G6A5W338E 6 points7 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Entitlement 101.

              And judges, lawmakers support this.

              [–]osheninja2 32 points33 points  (7 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Most government officials want women to have most of the money because women spend money. Women drive a consumer economy.

              [–]HitchSlap92 21 points22 points  (6 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I disagree with your premise.

              I think it's more of the fact that if anyone actually tried to change these laws, they'd be labeled as being sexist. Someone, some how would say x politician is participating in the war on women.

              [–]osheninja2 9 points10 points  (1 child)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              That is very true.

              What premise is it that you disagree with?

              [–]lasertits69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              That the motivation to keep the laws in place is due to wanting to drive the economy. It's about not wanting to give away the female vote to your opponent who will undoubtedly smear you during campaign.

              [–]Canadian_Infidel 11 points12 points  (1 child)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Can both be true?

              [–]Endless_Summer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              We witness it everyday

              [–]FortunateBum 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              It's true. More women vote so women determine who's in office. We officially live in a matriarchy in the western world.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

              [–]Traz_Onmale 8 points9 points  (29 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              This is incredibly warped and unreasonable when women these days are going to college and having their own careers and can support themselves.

              Maybe I don't understand your laws correctly but the more a woman makes the less she gets in divorce, right? I mean there are celebs (Britney Spears) who had to pay their ex-husband a large amount of money.

              [–]dallz_beep[S] 12 points13 points  (21 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The point is, as long as she has a career she shouldn't get anything. (Again, child support is different.)

              [–]animea90 2 points3 points  (20 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              What if she has a job, but had to go for a worse paying one to support her husbands career?

              [–]tsotha 17 points18 points  (6 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Women tend to make less money because they won't commute as far, won't do as much business travel, won't work as many hours, won't do dangerous work, and don't get marketable majors in college. In short, they don't make as much money because of choices they've made.

              My brother was in this position. He put in 50+ hour weeks in a technical position to support an art-history-major wife that worked part time at the local riding stables. When they divorced she got extra alimony because she didn't make much, then she promptly went out and got the stressful, well paying job she was too lazy to get while they were married.

              Incidentally, let me throw this out there - don't date women with horses if you don't have a trust fund and haven't won the lottery.

              [–]Olipyr 11 points12 points  (1 child)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Incidentally, let me throw this out there - don't date women with horses if you don't have a trust fund and haven't won the lottery.

              I'm going to echo this. People think cat ladies are crazy, well, women with horses are exponentially crazier. It's hard to put into words just how crazy they are.

              Stay the fuck away from them.

              [–]icallmyselfmonster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              My little pony will never look the same again.

              [–]889889771 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              A horse woman/man will gladly spend 10k on the horse per year. Horses in general are super expensive, and hard to sell off if the person gets over them.

              [–]animea90 1 point2 points  (2 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I am not supporting that scenario as she made less money for herself.

              A scenario I would support is a wife who had to switch to a lower paying job when her husband got transferred to a different city. It's rare for people to stick to the same job their entire life and they frequently have to move.

              [–]tsotha 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I'm okay with some alimony if she can show she made career sacrifices as a result of the marriage. If she took time off to raise kids, or as in your scenario her career was derailed when the couple moved to advance the husband's career.

              But even in that case I think the "style to which she's become accustomed to" standard is blatantly unfair. Consider a woman who stayed home and "kept house". Now they're divorced and she needs money to live on. But she's no longer cooking, cleaning, shopping, or doing laundry for him, so whatever support she gets should be awarded with consideration of the fact that he's no longer receiving support she provided as his wife.

              [–]animea90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Yeah. I would estimate how much lost income the woman is out due to those sacrifices, then adjust downward based on how much the husband can afford to give her.

              Fortunately, my state provides good pre-nup laws, so the courts have much less control. The husbands who get screwed are the ones that rely on the state to decide divorce asset distribution.

              [–]Canadian_Infidel 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              What about the opposite?

              [–]animea90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              It should be the same either way.

              [–]AncientStiffy 0 points1 point  (10 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Then she made the choice to make her career subordinate to his. Not his fault.

              [–]animea90 -1 points0 points  (9 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Then you are eliminating what little purpose marriage has.

              The idea is that the couple acts for the best interest of the couple. In divorce, alimony is supposed to reflect each persons contribution to the marriage.

              If you don't want that, then there is no reason to get married.

              [–]thebears1986 6 points7 points  (3 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Idealist view you have that doesn't actually play out.

              The ex-wife doesn't go to ex-husband's house and clean, do the laundry, cook...

              Alimony is supposed to reflect EACH person's contribution to the marriage, right?

              [–]animea90 0 points1 point  (2 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The issue is that years of cleaning and cooking look terrible on a job resume. When you make a career sacrifice, you don't just sacrifice current income, you sacrifice future income as well.

              Note: this is all dependent on the wife actually making those sacrifices. I don't support alimony if the wife just earns less.

              [–]thebears1986 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              That is not the issue at all. You skip over details.

              Ex-husband worked extra hours while married because he didn't have to worry about the house. Now that he is divorced he must continue working those hours because his alimony and child support are based on his inflated married life income. The problem is that he no longer has anyone to take care of shopping, cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc.

              His quality of life drops. Ex-wife still gets the money as if they were married but doesn't have any of the duties that enabled her to get the marriage benefits.

              AKA benefits without responsibility.

              [–]animea90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I never specified how much money the husband should give. That will heavily depend on the circumstances.

              But there is a point where the husband can work less(to make up for living on his own) while still providing support.

              [–]tsotha 1 point2 points  (3 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              So if she didn't contribute much to the marriage she shouldn't get much alimony, then?

              [–]animea90 0 points1 point  (2 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              In an ideal system, yes. The current system heavily favors women, but the solution is not to create a system that's biased in favor of men. It should be fair.

              Personally I have a prenup to deal with this, but most people aren't pragmatic enough to plan for possible failures and have to figure it out in court afterwards.

              [–]tsotha 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Prenups are a dicey solution at best. Where I live spousal support can't be specified at all - you can only arrange for the disposition of pre-maritial assets.

              Beyond that there seem to be a whole lot of judges who are willing to throw out prenups on the flimsiest pretense. There was one recently in the paper that was thrown out because the woman was "feeling pressured". You see, she was afraid he wouldn't marry her if she didn't sign the prenup, which the judge decided made the whole thing to unfair to be legal.

              [–]animea90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I am fortunate then. In Texas, prenups can address all assets and aren't thrown out without a good reason.

              [–]AncientStiffy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              That's assuming that SHE wasn't the one who chose to make that decision. If a woman wants to work and have a career, she will. Just because she sacrificed part of her career doesn't mean that it's because her patriarchal oppressive husband forced her to.

              Either way, having a gash qualifying as "contributing more to the marriage" is idiotic. If I was married and worked the way I do (65+ hrs), then I'd encourage my wife to do whatever she wanted. I'm busting my ass to keep the marriage financially secure, so her income is a non-essential factor. If what she decided to do was be a "home maker", then I'd want her to pay me in alimony for the amount of work I put in to subsidize her.

              [–]1FloranHunter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              She quits her job because you can't make her work. Then she divorces you and gets full alimony, possibly (though rarely) for life. To lesser degrees, women choose more pleasant jobs with better work-life balance but less pay.

              I'm not actually against short-term alimony based on actual earning potential and considers the man's lifestyle in addition to the woman's since, well, divorced men living in shitty apartments is not a stereotype for no reason. It's just not how family court actually works.

              [–]Canadian_Infidel 5 points6 points  (5 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Unlikely. And frankly the dealings of multi-multi-multi-millionaires are not really what is being discussed here. For every thousand women getting alimony I would be shocked to hear of one male getting it. Not to mention he would be socially ostracized for taking it.

              [–]Traz_Onmale 0 points1 point  (3 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              It's unlikely because women are marrying up (and men down). Again, I could be wrong about your laws but I thought gender alone is no issue in alimony. So a woman with a career comparable to that of her man wouldn't get anything in the first place.

              [–]Canadian_Infidel 0 points1 point  (2 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              In principle, and legally, yes. However in practice women get the kids and alimony regardless of almost any circumstances.

              So a woman with a career comparable to that of her man wouldn't get anything in the first place.

              That would be nice. Talk to some guys in their 40's and 50's to find out the reality that you may find yourself in at some point. The only time I know of it not happening the way I describe is when the woman recognizes it's wrong to destroy the man financially and decides not to. They know they can any time they want to though.

              Keep in mind this is all my personal anecdotal evidence.

              [–]Traz_Onmale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Do these people have comparable careers to their wives and still have to pay alimony?

              [–]RobbenQC 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Do not get married under any circumstances. It provides no benefits to men beyond keeping an ordinary girlfriend, and comes with absurd risks.

              [–]silverfox007 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              What if they sign a prenup? Or will still be getting some amount of money?

              [–]Johnny10toes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              So we need her to provide us a maid service after divorce because now we have to do it. She can use the alimony payments to purchase that.

              [–]Endless_Summer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Can't find sources on my phone, and I know there's more than one case, but remember the bitch that flipped her shit when her husband wanted alimony? Welcome to the real fucking world.

              [–]ShamanChemistry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              EQUAL RIGHTZ

              [–]heracleides 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              If the woman is accustomed to having things that require money, wouldn't the man be accustomed to the house being kept up and cooked meals? Seems like the woman should exchange those services for alimony. But that would be forced labour and that's only acceptable for men.

              [–]AnotherLostCause 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Child support should not be an issue. Single mothers are terrible at raising children. Fathers should get custody of children.

              [–]Dopamine37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I see people discussing on how to have children without the woman being involved or part of the kids life, people from the past would have been absolutely terrified if they saw stuff like this. Unrestrained female behavior with no consequence or responsibility is the cause of this, how can any man with any self-preservation instincts take the risk of putting his life in the hands of todays type of woman??