A recent study showed that 78% of millenial men want their job to take priority over their wives' and for their wives to do most housework.
Pew Research surveys found that most men, and more men than women, believe that women should be stay-at-home moms while the kid is young.
This involves sacrificing her own career progress whIle hastening the career progress of her husband - since he doesn't have to do the unpaid labor around the house and for the kid, he is able to go back to school and/or progress more quickly in his career and gain more experience, enabling him access to more and better jobs & pay in the future.
Meanwhile her own economic progress is hindered. This is why alimony exists. To balance out that inequality. Since her labor contributed substantially to his economic progress while hindering her own, it'd be unfair not to balance that out.
Yet most men on here say they don't think alimony or even division of assets should exist, and therefore that women's unpaid labor should count for nothing.
"But it's her choice!" People get compensated for their choices all the time. For example I don't think anyone would say it's unnecessary for the man to get paid for his job just because he chose to do the job.
"Her compensation is getting to live in the house!" But that ends after the divorce, meanwhile his economic advantage positively impacts him the rest of his life, so that's still unequal.
- I agree with you. alimony should exist for that reason (the woman helped the man's economic progress at the expense of her own)Vote A
- I agree that alimony should exist, for another reasonVote B
- no, alimony shouldn't exist. it's justified for men to expect women to help advance their careers while ensuring no financial compensationVote C
- no, alimony shouldn't exist. I admit I'm a hypocriteVote D
- otherVote E
- i don't knowVote F
Most Helpful Guy
I understand what you're saying, but alimony needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and it isn't. I'll give you two cases where the system failed.
My friend put up with his wife smoking weed constantly. For years. She couldn't hold a job and she barely took care of their two kids. Weed was what she needed for stress relief from the kids. So he worked a lot. When he came home, she was so "exhausted" from dealing with the kids that they were his as soon as he got home. She went out to relive stress. Fast forward a few years. She wants partial custody. The court says he's got to set her up with a car and an apartment so she can have supervised visits with the kids when they could barely afford the house they had because she kept quitting jobs. She fails court-ordered drug tests all the time. She's been to rehab on his dime for harder stuff 3 times. He *still* has to pay her alimony (out of their kids' college savings) and she uses it to buy drugs.
That made me think the courts are seriously biased towards women, until this…
My wife's cousin is a nurse. She and her husband have 4 kids of their own. They both had one before. So 6 in the house. She works. He literally does nothing except play video games all day long. He's able bodied and able minded. This goes on for years. He cheats on her and gets his mistress pregnant. His wife is now paying him alimony because she was the one who was gainfully employed. He and his girlfriend live on that and government assistance only. Neither work. What. The. Fuck.
In the classic textbook case, yes, it makes sense and I agree with you. But classic cases are the exception. The courts don't have the resources to look at every case as closely as they should. Obviously! The real underlying problem, in my opinion, is the cheapening of marriage in the first place. One hates to think of people who were trapped in bad marriages in the past—my parent's generation—but if lifting the stigma around divorce and practicing serial marriage hasn't caused a net increase in human suffering, I'd be very surprised. I think a lot of folks your age see this and don't want marriage as a result. I don't blame them when "until death do you part" is taken seriously by very few.2
Most Helpful Girl
if mutual children are involved, the non-custodial spouse (whether husband or wife) should pay alimony.
my father lied about his income to get out of child support, and his lawyers were the crookedest scum of the earth you could ever imagine. the way i see it, you helped make the baby, you help pay for it.
this is also why prenups were invented.
i once dated a guy who told me that, "if you ever publish anything, i can take half your assets if we split because i can say i supported you while you wrote it".
uh, no. i was injured with no use of my dominant arm and it took nearly a year to heal, you greedy piece of shit; unemployment and the savings account you drained were what supported me, not you. so no, you are not mooching off of my hard work. sorry, not sorry.
(i actually stopped writing for about 5 years because of this guy. thankfully, he is no longer in the picture.)
my husband and i don't plan on getting divorced. but, if anything were to happen, we've decided that we'd take whatever we came into the relationship with and split everything we acquired together.0