But if got child support it would be the same, as a feminist you don’t support a patriarchal society, so to me alimony is saying that a woman needs to be taken care of by a man, you can spin itHowever you wanna but it literally goes against everything feminism stands for.
Not really. I didn’t spin it. Here’s the reality. If we would’ve split our savings, like we were SUPPOSED to. Because I contributed to our savings equally, sometimes more since I did make more than he did. Then I would’ve had savings, but he STOLE them. And I could’ve lived off my savings. But instead, he STOLE my savings. And honestly, the alimony paid me back for the savings he STOLE. Also, child support isn’t to support a woman. It’s to support a child. What you’re saying is “oh you’re a feminist so I don’t have to SHARE the RESPONSIBILITY of the child WE BOTH created” that just sounds like someone who wants to abandon their own kid. I do get child support, NOT a lot. But I don’t spend any of it on myself. All of it goes to the CHILD that me AND HE made. So we’re both EQUALLY responsible. That’s what feminism is. Equality. So we’re BOTH EQUALLY responsible. And to be fair, the child support doesn’t even cover half of what the cost of a baby is. It only covers her child care. There’s still food, diapers, clothes, etc. so I’m paying for most of it.
also I don’t need to be taken care of by a man if a MAN hadn’t STOLEN my savings. Do you get it now? If had NEVER STOLEN MY SAVINGS, I wouldn’t have made him pay me back for the MONEY THAT HE STOLE.
So just sell an asset and do a lumb sum payment don’t garnish his wages
@Anonymous First off, my sympathy for what you had to go through - I could not imagine the pain, anger, fear, and betrayal. More power to you for getting through all of this and I hope your ex husband gets hit by a train. Regardless, I am very much anti feminist because I find that their arguments are based on fallacies, BUT I'm not anti woman or ignorant to the challenges that women have to go through as do we men. The whole notion of "women don't need men and that they can do whatever a man can do" is like saying "I'm not human, rather a flying unicorn." Man or woman, we BOTH need each other (or same sex depending on your preferences). We evolved as a species to be social creatures - ever seen Cast Away? It's no coincidence that we humans go crazy with no human contact over time. In the long run, I will need a woman by my side because that what millions of years of evolution programmed me for - just like with you as a woman.
In other words, the idealistic and SEXIST I might add notions that "women don't need men" and other BS lacks realism. God knows I've been through living hell with you women, but never have I heard that "men don't need women." You have men who were too hurt to go back to women and are now anti woman, but over time, I feel they too will suffer emotionally tremendously in the long run because they cannot see the truth...Lastly, I could be misinterpreting what Feminism stands for, but to me, it seems to be very similar to MGTOW in the sense it is driven by pain, hatred, and ultimately sexism. For example, who the hell says "women don't need men or men don't need women?" What kind of a mind says such things? Another POV is that feminism is driven by equality, yet NOT ONCE from ANY feminist have I heard of them fighting for men's rights or what they have to go through (many men have gone through your situation before) and they always seem to whine about areas where MEN have power, NEVER where women have power. It's a very binary POV and crusade. It's like saying I fight for human rights, but only support minority issues...
Why would I sell an asset if he STOLE my money? you're saying it’s okay that he stole my life savings. But you wouldn’t be saying that if I took HIS life sayings. And by the way, I gave him the opportunity to give me MY money back. Because I EARNED that money and I shouldn’t have to sell things considering I had a job and was responsible enough to save portions of it. Why are you defending someone who COMMITTED A FELONY. You’re basically saying “oh. He stole all your money but it’s not okay for you to take it back by getting it from his wages”. Why is his ILLEGAL act okay but my LEGAL one not? Me and him came to an agreement. I asked him for MY money back and ONLY mine. And he said no. So I said the only other option was to civically sue him and report him to the police. Do you know how long he’d be in jail if I had reported him for theft? He stole over 250K from me. What do you want me to sell to get back over 250k? Are you dumb?
He begged me not to report him. And he was the one who offered the alimony and I only accepted it until I was able to go back to work. Considering I was in bed rest, and then had a baby. I only got about less than 10k in total. Out of the 250K he took from me. If anything, I gave him alimony. Can you still call yourself a man after that? And the fact that you’re defending him is just pathetic.
But how can you be ok with women using men? That seem unfair to me, but I guess as long as women come out on top you couldn’t careless. And that’s my whole problem with feminist
Anyone should decide for themselves what path they want to Go. And If a couple decides that the women should Not Work and raise the children instead I think it's fair that He Supports her financially untill she can do it herself. (In Case If a divorce) Maybe a year or two. Not her whole Life that's ridiculous. But only If he insisted she doesn't Work during their marriage it's OK in my opinion. Besides, women have to pay alimony to. My sister had to pay her ex husband.
But that not how alimony screws people over, usually the person that get alimony has moved on and is on there second marriage and still receiving alimony payments
Well that's Not something I'd agree with. I disagree with alimony as a whole. That scenario above is the only one where I could understand the need for alimony
Not really, because if a women decide to be a single mom she would find a random guys money to take. So why does the situation change when a guy is involved
That doesn't really make Sense as a follow Up to my Last Statement? And I don't really know what you mean with that at all. Besides I think I said about 3 Times now that I DON'T think alimony is a good Thing.
It’s makes because a girl was saying that getting pregnant take a toll on your body and she felt she was entitled to her husbands money because of the pregnancy and the toll it took on her body. But you don’t need a man to get pregnant. Women choose to become single mother without men around and they don’t blame the men for what pregnancy did to there body. So it’s a stupid argument to use as to why women should receive alimony
OK I'll explain it again. 2 people are married. The man insist she doesn't Work. He want's her to be a houswife and Care for the Kids. She agrees with it. In that case, and in ONLY that Case, I said it's fine is she get's alimony for a year or two in Case of a divorce. I don't know what you're on about. I don't think they should get alimony cause their Body was effected by the pregnancy. They should get Money cause their husband didn't want them to build a carrer during the marriage.
Ok but I’m actually alimony is payed through the mans life even after he retires, the girl that married the Amazon guy got 20 billion dollars, so that’s what really happens in the real world
Like auf said, I don't think that's fair. Jeff bezos cheated on his wife and that's why they divorced so I do think he's an asshole but I don't think that justifies him playing her that much
That much? So you do believe that a women is entitled to a mans money, yeah that’s the opposite of feminism
No OMG and they say women will twist your words to their liking. It was a general Statement. It's a Lot of Money so I said it's much. For the 100th time, I don't agree with alimony
How about you just say that a women is never entitled to a mans money, isn’t that fair. Especially if he need it to survive.
Like I said before, I belive there is one exception. But in that case the husband choose to be the only Provider. And did not want His wife to work. I personally wouldn't ever be a houswife. But other people are free to do whatever they want.
But feminist would never tell a women to be a housewife and let the men take care of her, so how come your ok with her taking the mans money then
I never said I'm a Feminist myself. And Like I said in my original Statement, Feminist is a word for many different women. Some are radical in their Views and some are Not. I often Heard Feminist say that they want women to be able to choose the path they want to Go. Wheter it's being a houswife or a carer women. To them, feminism means giving women a choice. They don't want to dictate their Life.
Ok but there ok with women take a mans money? How is that empowering
Are you talking about housewifes? It's empowering to have the choice to do whatever they want with their lifes. And it's Not Like Ther aren't enough men who'd Love to have a housewife. As Long as both parties agree, there is nothing wrong with it.
Ok a house wife is obviously dependent on a mans money but if the relationship goes south still don’t think she entitled to his money after it’s over. She is a women after all and it’s not like she won’t find another guy to pay for her lifestyle.
That's Not how it works for most women. We can't Just Pick any Guy we want and let him pay our Bills. I think it depends on the circumstances. If they we're married for several years and He insisted that she doesn't Work, yes I think it's fine If she get's alimony for a year. But It should be agreed upon before they are married.
That doesn’t seem reasonable to me because of her whole purpose in life is to be married to a guy that is gonna take care of her, then she needs to be dependent on that lifestyle she should force the courts to pay anything, it’s like prostitution if a women decides her source of income is gonna come from her selling her body then she shouldn’t complain and ask for money when it doesn’t work out.
I mean she is also talking Care of him and His Kids. Cooking, cleaning and all that. So they are basically talking Care of each other. Some men would rather have a women Like this than a women that works. And I think that's fine. She is putting her carer on hold so she could be losing centuries of experience in the workforce. It's a risk she Takes. Cause she obviously won't have the Same chances at getting a good Job as a 40+ year old without much experience than a 20 year old fresh Out of College. But I think everything should be agreed upon beforehand. He should know that playing her alimony for a year should be the price of her Putting her carrer on hold for him.
I guess but I wouldn’t leave my wife and if we got a divorce she could have just have the house not my money, she could sell it and get half that is a better deal that a man paying money that he need to survive. No reason why a women should be living in luxury while the man is contemplating suicide because he feels lost.
So do they not exist at all anymore in America or Europe?If so, it's still oppression in a way. A man shouldn't have to move or travel out of his home country or native race/ethnicity to find somebody eligible.
@UncleJessieRabbit Or bring them home, as I did.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I think it should be a lump sum pay never an on going thing
That would work too. However, a lump sum payout might mean the person would be taxed in a higher bracket and lose money, so I could see how a payout over, say, five years, would be better.
Not if you put into an IRA or a retirement savings
Issue with that is the person being paid may need that money to live while going to school or job training. I would hope that an at home person would have established an IRA while married. If you're divorced at 35, to not have access to money for 30 more years to escape taxes is harsh.
Ok fine put it in a self directed IRA and invest the money into a business there plenty of ways to avoid taxes
Being out of the job market for any amount of time affects your hireability (?) as well. If that spouse has been out of the workforce for the duration of the marriage, it's hard for them to find a job paying a living wage on par of someone who was the sole support for their family
@DorkVader In five years someone should be able to get training or to get a bachelor's in something to be marketable...
Agree, and the alimony money would help them gain their independence
@DorkVader That's the point. But in the past alimony was a lifetime payoff unless a woman remarried. So if was a lifetime screw you to the ex husband. There's no excuse for that.
Lol your crazy if you think society hold females back from getting higher positions. That statement does even make sense
Lmaoo is this dude one of pesiple who dont know about the wage gap and glass ceiling for women in the workplace
People lmao i can't spell
@Lurdie No such thing. Women make less overall because on average they chose lower paying careers or have less experience in higher paying ones. Logically, a "greedy businessman" if he could pocket the 20% less he allegedly pays women and still get the same results, he would hire only women.
@Lurdie lmao our answers are triggering these males
@Liam_Hayden And why do you think the trend is that women have less experience and "choose" lower paid jobs? It's harder for a female to become someone like an engineer than someone like a teacher/caretaker, and ultimately it arguably comes down to unequal education as well as (possibly unconscious) biases in employer standards. And I'd argue that that, sure the greedy businessman could do that, but biases mean that it's more worthwhile for him to spend more on male workers to get "better quality work" which can rely more on prejudice than empirical data
She can find a job like everyone else
@anononon123 nope. Job isn't just so easily available for everyone and not every woman making the choice to be a homemaker has enough skills to get into the workforce. They are at a very vulnerable position financially and it's just the truth that she is dependent for money. If a man marries a homemaker he knows exactly what he's putting himself into and he has the responsibility to provide for her and give her alimony if they ever divorce. If a man doesn't want that full responsibility on himself he can just marry a career woman. Simple stuff.
That's her problem once the divorce is final, he doesn't have to provide for her after divorce, the next man needs to provide, if she's such a good homemaker, she can find one
If I have to pay alimony, I better be getting sex and food, because "that's what I depended on her for"
It's not a concern for me anyway, I'm not stupid enough to marry any woman, to the men that buy into that crap, they deserve to pay alimony while she fucks around with other dudes
Cut out sodium from your diet man, the saltiness is going all over the place 😂
No one is salty, if the marriage is over, it's over, women shouldn't be allowed to leech off of a man she isn't with
Nope. If a man is divorcing a financially dependent woman he does have to provide not because she has to leech off of his money but for the sake of her own financial security. He may not be her husband anymore, but he's still her ex husband and be was aware the whole time that she's financially dependent on him and that responsibility last during divorce as well. And all of this strongly applies especially if the woman had kids that she will be looking after.
I'll take the kids since she can't, why does he have to make sacrifices for her financial security. After the divorce, your are separate, as in responsible for yourself. Financially supporting someone you're not in a relationship with anymore makes no sense
You do realize most divorces are initiated by women, so she decides to end the marriage, gets a part of my money, and starts fucking other dudes, meanwhile I can't move along into another relationship as I have less discretionary income, yeah seems fair
The moment we are divorced, she's no longer a homemaker, she needs to get a job or go on unemployment. I won't pay alimony, we can sell everything we own, combine all of our assets, and split it 50/50, as half of what we built is rightfully hers, but any money I make afterwards, she shouldn't be able to touch
@anononon123 then just marry a woman who works, and not a homemaker.
I'm not getting married period, you females get too much
You act as though a man doesn't take part in homemaking, who does all the hard, tough jobs around the house, the man
@anononon123 when did I say that women do everything and men do nothing, what the heck. All I said is that homemakers are financially dependent and anyone marrying or divorcing a homemaker has to take that factor into consideration.
No they don't, once it's over, there's nothing to consider, her financial situation is hey business from that day forward, after divorce you are separate entities. Well being a homemaker entails doing everything around the house, not some, she doesn't go into his job and do some of his work now does she
So if said homemaker is fucking the next door neighbor, or some random dude she met, the guy must consider hey finances before divorcing her?
@anononon123 dude your only thought is concentrated to sex
No, my concentration is men not getting screwed over by freeloading whores
I don't understand why a man, who is no longer with a woman, should be responsible for her financial well being, after the divorce, her problems are her problems, if she needs a man to financially support hey, she better become a prostitute or find a sugar daddy
@anononon123 ideally if a woman doesn't work and she doesn't have a husband or boyfriend to be providing for her, the responsibility should go to her father, brother or uncle... basically her other male family members. But si ce you guys destroyed that system... Well... Deal with the alternative 🤷🏽♀️ nothing else to do. Can't stay with parents, can't even get financial support from ex husband until she finds another provider... Gosh I don't know what's going with y'all Western people out there, y'all crazy.
Who destroyed the system, I have a great family support system, and that's how it should be, if she can't support herself, the other people in her family should support her, after the divorce we are no longer family. She should go to her father, not drain the ex husband
Just the same, I know my family would help me out if I feel on hard times, but Indian families are different 🤷🏽♂️
@anononon123 1) the fact is, in your culture people don't stay with their parents or take anything from them anymore once they are adults. That should have never happened in the first place. Deal with the alternative now.2) I am not Indian.
Lol, I am Indian, I might live in the US, but I don't agree with everything they do
Why does she deserve alimony, she deserves half of what they built, and nothing more
@anononon123 because after giving up a career and dedicating your life to your family it takes time to get back into the workforce and back on your feet and become independent.
After the divorce, that's her problem
If I work years in an industry that disappears, do those companies owe us until we learn new skills for another industry, no they don't, so same thing, unless I get sex and food while she gets these alimony checks
Yeah sell the house and split the money in half
Yea, it's a bit less fair when a low status low contributing woman cleans out her high achieving husband. This is what pre nuptials are not a bad idea in cases of wealth imbalance.
Why is it fair? Why does she deserve half?
@Oram52 Because when they got married they both agreed to share a life and everything that comes with it 🤷♀️
Yup, but when they get divorced that lo longer exists. He is no longer responsible for, its no longer whats mine is yours. So why would she be entitled to half if they are no longer a unit.
Because if everything belonged to the both of them it makes sense to divide it in half when they split. The real question is why do you think he would be entitled to more than a half?
More doesn't belong to him, but what each individual earned they keep. If she becomes successful buys properties, has assets, savings in the bank. While they together yes what mine is yours. But if they are divorced why would ex-husband have any claim to her earnings, other than some reasonble proportion. If she worked hard and her total assets are worth 5 million why should ex-husband get 2.5 million?Exactly the same thing, if husband worked hard became successful. Has assets worth 20 million, why should EX-wife get 10 million?They're no longer together, so have no entitlement to individual assets.
How will you determine the proportion the other gets then?
Well for starters prenups should be mandatory like in Belgium. That way couples themselves decide. How much to divide would depend on many factors, one partner for example giving up their future career to raise kids. How much partner helped other partner with their partners career.I would not exceed 20%. And proportions also should be taken into account. 20% of 100,000 is 20,000, 20% of 1,000,000 is 200,000, 20% of 10,000,000 is 2,000,000. Hence there has to be point where proportion is lowered from 20% taking into account actual amount.
You would be ok with paying a man a piece of you income for the rest of your life?
I'm never planning on working so I dont think this would be a issue for me
Lol so you can’t empathize with it
Yeah currently if I get divorced I'd get everything cuz my husbands in the army. I'd by default get the kids, everything in the house, the cars, and be banking off child support cuz the army pays it for him
Wow that wild
Yeah he doesn't really care either. He said hed pay me whatever I needed to make sure the kids have a good life
He would care if the kids moved out and you found a different husband and he was still paying you money
I would obviously move back home, he wouldn't be seeing the kids anyways and he knows that
So you literally just don’t wanna work, and just have someone take care of you for he rest of your life
Yes financially but everything else I'm extremely independent with cuz I have to do shit on my own cuz of how much my husband is gone for work
Welll the guy at Amazon ended up paying his wife and no one was at fault, you can still file for irreconcilable differences and will still have to pay the women. Because society thinks that women can’t make it on there own
That’s all of them unfortunately, hence why somany men are avoiding marriage. These days most women are to be used as cum dumpsters and nothing more
That’s what alimony is when a woman files for divorce she can’t get the court to pay her his salary for the rest of his life.
That's dumb. She is perfectly capable of working and winning her own money. The guy shouldn't have to pay. And yes, I am a feminist
Well next time your at a feminist meeting you should suggest creating a hashtag that promotes getting rid of alimony
Where I come from there aren't femenist meetings, unfortunally.
Oh well then just think about the injustice men face and maybe people will start liking feminist again
No, I mean I live in a place where it's a topic that is not talked that much. Still a lot of sexism. It's a small town after all.
Sexism is gonna happen regardless of where you go, humans aren’t perfect
That's true, but we can always try and make it better.
Yeah but only if we separate and live amoung our own gender, all sexism would Immediately stop
I actually think it would be the opposite as people would create even more stereotypes and hate towards the other gender.
Naww because remember we got along more the further back in history you go, and we where more separate back then. The gender roles where well defined and we knew what each gender brought to the table. So if we created a society where there were female only schools and female only businesses, all the discrimination that feminist blame men for would be obsolete so it’s always amazing to me that feminist never fight for segregation.
Because humans are meant to live together as a community.
You can live together but you don’t have to compete with each other in life, remember the only time men and women interacted with each was in the home. Other than that men went to work and school and never saw women.
That didn't mean that it was a good way. Women back then were considerated property. They had pratically no rights. The sole reason why that segregation happened was because they were forced to stay at home.
I can’t have conversation with someone who thinks that’s women where forced to be stay at home wife’s, I’m sure they would have love to farm the land and work in coal mines. Y’all try to much to prove a history that never happened
Are you freaking serious?