As can be the case with either partner, Often times when one partner is earning a massive salary, it often comes at the expense of being around for their family during their 20's and 30's while they're setting their more lavish lifestyles up and working continuously. The other partner may have to sacrifice the opportunities in their own respective career path so that the family unit as a whole can maintain a consistent functioning family lifestyle. If both parents worked 12 hour days, there would be nobody helping to clean the house, pick up kids and pack their lunches, take them to extra curricular activities, often times a high income earning individual may be preoccupied with more work on weekends or need to catch up on additional work outside of normal working hours 8-5 and have to do work at home 7-10. Zero career earners in the early 1950's sacrificed on the home front and if the wife didn't contribute anything in the old great generation era, the kids would be a mess. Both partners generally sacrifice equally for the collective family unit as a whole, even if in different ways and deserve equal compensation when it comes to splitting up the collective pie that the family as a whole has made possible to create. If the partner on the home front (and they may also still be working 8-5 as well on top of that) didn't contribute as hard as they did, it likely would not have been possible for the higher income partner who likely is working longer/harder hours at the office to cope and achieve both that and take care of his responsibilities at home to his kids without being a horrible absentee parent to his kids and never being there for them when they need him.
I'd never had said no in my youth but with all the craziness in the feminist movement I have to say if they want truly equal treatment then that does mean doing away with things that have previously helped them but not men
No. It should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If you know that you're not going to be responsible to take care of your spouse, then simply do not get married. A lot of these times these things happen because either couple that got married or foolish and did it for selfish reasons. One of the other is selfish or abusive, or usually a man thinks it's all fun and games until it needs to be taken seriously. It's not about well. It's about the ability to be able to sustain and live. That's why I believe that it should be evaluated by a case-by-case basis. But at that point, if the guy already knows what kind of person he married, then he needs to be responsible for knowing that. But I feel sorry for men who sadly end up having to deal with the opposite effect. But not all men are bad. They just get married to the wrong kind of people.
Yes, I don't understand why it was a thing in the first place. Get your own money, b-word!
Opinion
19Opinion
u What do you mean by "patriarchal notions?"
What if a woman stayed at home to be a house wife and take care of 4 children. That is a job in itself for which she receives no salary or makes any payments into Social Security or any other retirement fund. Years later they divorce. She has no job experience, get unemployment because she never worked, and has no income on which to live. She should be allowed to get spousal support in alimony, and depending on how old the kids are when they split up, child support too. That is just fair as she has nothing to retire on or most likely no savings.
Alimony is horse shit, if you divorce a doctor, you are also divorcing his salary and quality and luxuries of life. So if you leave, then get the divorce and leave, especially when you get half the shit in the divorce, ugh the court system fucks men over royally and women take full advantage of it and exploit everything they can from it. It’s disgusting
The typical scenario is that it's always the women that take the kids and want free money from the ex husband. I have no issue in the dad paying child support if he is allowed access to the kid. Too often men are only allowed visiting rights on certain days. I mean celebrities often do this they have several partners divorce them because they want younger partners etc and expect the rich guy to fund their expensive lifestyle just because they want to find another man to mooch off.
Alimony for the spouse ought to be eliminated (I'm assuming child support would continue, if applicable).
It's definitely old fashioned and unfairly punishes the spouse earning a higher wage.
A spouse isn't a free ticket, and someone who just wants to mooch off their ex is pathetic. Self-sufficency is good for the soul.
Yes and no. If both partners decide to have one stay home while the other works, than when they divorce that person should be given at most 3 years to get back on her feet before alimony is cut off, but if both work no alimony should be given.
I don't think it necessarily needs to be eliminated completely, but it should probably be adjusted/limited.
ex
-Caps on maximum payouts
-Limits on how long it lasts for
-Being more lienent if the guy doesn't have the same earning potential anymore.
The whole "she needs to maintain the lifestyle she was accustomed to" logic is bullshit in my opinion. Ideally it should just be something temporary to help her get back on her feet.
Yeah, see, the benefit of not marrying is that in case you break up (compared to divorcing) nobody forces you to pay your ex a sum of your own money just because he's/she's/it's your ex.
Not gonna comment on the child support matter other than the kids being the one's, who should receive it, not the parent.
Alimot should only be allotted if one of the spouses is completely financially dependent on the other.
Also if the marriage is due to the infidelity of one of the spouses, that spouse should probably a sum.
Child support is a different situation.
There’s no reason for it. If you want to break away from to ur spouse you cannot only take the benefits from having one with you. This would only seem to encourage divorce. I am not sure what is so patriarchal about it though at least today. Aren’t the ex wives more likely to reap the benefits of alimony or am I confusing it with child support?
Assets should be divided fairly, and any children should be provided for equally by both parents. But when the two are no longer a couple, neither owes the other financial support just to maintain a lifestyle.
There should be a maximum term of 2 years for spousal support. Enough for them to get a place and find a job.
As Chris Rock said, it's just like eating at a restaurant. You're at a restaurant, you're accustomed to eating. You leave, you're not eating no more. They don't owe you a steak.
Same with a marriage.
Child support should still be paid though, and the parent paying it should be able to get receipts for everything.
If you don’t want alimony, then don’t ask for stay at home wife. And have dinner ready when she gets home from work too.
Should or not is irrelevant. It is the law in most places, with almost zero chance of changing it. The solution is DO NOT MARRY.
I think marriage should just be a religious thing. The government should have no say in how people's relationships work
Everything is about RACE now!! Didn't you hear?
Sexist things, and gender-related biases have to wait!!! :) :)
Yes because women are "strong" and "independent" and they can pay for their shit themselves.
No but it should be allowed as an option if both parties want it before the marriage begins.
If wife initiates divorce, then she is rejecting her husband, so imho no she should not be entitled to anything,,,
It should be optional I guess.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions