Alimony my female "friend" would have to pay her husband

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

Another point to consider is the cultural stereotype with men/women and alimony. When I divorced my wife was making much more than me and I could have gotten alimony. I never ever tried or pushed this agenda because as a man I found this humiliating, women obviously never seem to feel that way.

[Anonymous 12]

Zarathustra wrote:

Another point to consider is the cultural stereotype with men/women and alimony. When I divorced my wife was making much more than me and I could have gotten alimony. I never ever tried or pushed this agenda because as a man I found this humiliating, women obviously never seem to feel that way.

That is the old school masculinity I agree. I think it is slowly changing now though. Men don’t give a s~~~ about women like that anymore because women want to be men and aren’t very feminine anyway.

[SolitudeParticipant 116]

Zarathustra wrote:

Another point to consider is the cultural stereotype with men/women and alimony. When I divorced my wife was making much more than me and I could have gotten alimony. I never ever tried or pushed this agenda because as a man I found this humiliating, women obviously never seem to feel that way.

^This resonates a lot with me. While I’ve never been in this situation, I’m 100% certain that I would follow the same path as you. Though, I feel humiliation would be less of a primary deterrent. It seems like an astounding level of spitefulness and vengeance would be required to go through months of legal proceedings, manipulations and lying to convince others and yourself that you have a valid claim to your partners past, present, and future earnings.

Maybe some guys have this in them, but I typically only associate that level of sustained vindictiveness with women. I guess you could argue that this is all culturally ingrained. Maybe women learn at some point in their life that they are genuinely entitled to their husband’s money, and they fundamentally believe this. But any person with a shred of honesty and common sense, except probably in a very rare few circumstances, has to know that they are simply stealing. Of course, then again, perhaps not so many people have honesty and common sense (hence the horrible relationships of my past…)

I don’t even know what my point was. Anyway, tip of my hat to you, Zarathustra, for not selling your morals and compromising your dignity.

“The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline towards the religion of solitude.” ― Aldous Huxley

[GrumpyParticipant]

Setting aside both gender and history for a moment in this discussion.

If both the laws and common practice dictate that the higher earning spouse “owes” and is forced to pay spousal support/alimony to the lesser earning spouse. Does it not make sense to apply both the practice and law equally, fairly, and without prejudice in ALL cases?

My petty and vindictive side screams “it’s about time”, and that “this should happen more often”.
The other side of me just asks why is this news? Aside from a few women bemoaning actually finding out what being treated like the husbank is like.

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[SolitudeParticipant 116]

Grumpy wrote:

Setting aside both gender and history for a moment in this discussion.

If both the laws and common practice dictate that the higher earning spouse “owes” and is forced to pay spousal support/alimony to the lesser earning spouse. Does it not make sense to apply both the practice and law equally, fairly, and without prejudice in ALL cases?

My petty and vindictive side screams “it’s about time”, and that “this should happen more often”.
The other side of me just asks why is this news? Aside from a few women bemoaning actually finding out what being treated like the husbank is like.

I do get where you’re coming from. I’m not going to lie and say I’m morally above feeling vindictive. I can’t help but smile sometimes when I read a news story about a woman who gets first hand experience of some MGTOW complaint.

But at the same time, I know that this has to be flawed thinking. Because if it’s wrong when it’s affecting us, then it’s wrong if it’s affecting someone else. If we don’t recognize this, then we’re not any better and really have no justification for criticizing the underlying issue. Maybe I just shouldn’t be worrying about things like “wrong” or “better,” cause they’re not going anywhere.

I experience the same frustration with alternative examples of this type of reasoning. For instance, when the radical left cheers a right winger losing their job/reputation for a borderline controversial tweet, with the right subsequently advocating for free speech and criticizes this narrow mindset. But then the right goes ahead and goes “HA! How do you like it?!” when the same thing happens to some left winger the next time. It’s like, guys, the fundamental issue is that freedom of speech is good, regardless of who’s using it!

Alimony is wrong regardless of who’s getting it. Additionally, the argument that “so many men have been paying women exorbitant amounts of money for so many years. It’s s only fair when women are forced to pay now,” also seems pretty flawed. I mean, this is essentially the rationale behind black activists or native americans who argue for reparations, which I also disagree with. I am not personally responsible for slavery or colonialism and should not have to burden the tax bill for reparations. Likewise, some random high income woman is not responsible for billions of dollars of alimony paid out by men and should not have to burden the leveling of the playing field.

I get that this is all mental gymnastics, because in reality alimony is gonna keep being dished out and men are going to be paying. This is gonna happen regardless of what we think, however. So, I personally would argue that we aim for the highest level of moral reasoning. If it’s going to keep happening, we should at least be on the logical side of the argument.

“The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline towards the religion of solitude.” ― Aldous Huxley

[GrumpyParticipant]

Solitude wrote:

Cause if it’s wrong when it’s affecting us, then it’s wrong if it’s affecting someone else. IF we don’t recognize this, then how are we any better?

It is not a matter of right or wrong nor “being better” really. It is a matter of “acceptable” treatment.

If it is acceptable for the courts to award monies/benefits/largess to a former wife/partner/girlfriend, then it is also acceptable when the inverse happens.
The common divorce today usually has the former husband paying “restitution” to his former wife. That is what has happened in most divorces right up to and including today. Tomorrow and next week/month/year this will continue to happen until alimony/spousal support is removed from law.
When the inverse happens, it is only “fair play”. It is also so rare that when it does happen it is portrayed as both unfair and an epidemic by the media. When in reality it is neither.

Solitude wrote:

I mean, this is pretty much the rationale behind black activists or native americans who argue for reparation

Not quite, was there a recent mass lynching or mass disbursal of smallpox, or a slave ship secretly landed without anyone knowing somewhere in North America?
Having said that, back to “alimony” and the only thing in common with this “discussion” is using the “courts” to win “free” money from someone else.
Divorce awarded alimony happens daily, the historical grievances that some people are demanding compensation for, THEY were not even alive when it took place. Yet they enjoy all the benefits of this modern society. Do they not?

Perhaps I am a little low brow when I say it’s just fair turnaround when the person trying to f~~~ you, gets f~~~ed themselves.
Which in my personal experience has usually been the case when someone tries to screw me over.

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[NoMoreParticipant 1233]

I think a balance needs to be struck. Currently, the husband works full time and the wife takes care of the children. When they divorce, the husband is penalized and she gets more/full physical custody, because she was the primary caregiver. When accounting for money, the husband is again penalized, because he is the higher/sole income earner.

It’s a catch 22. The harder you work the more custody and money she gets in the divorce. If you are awarded less custody, you pay more child support. It’s a win-win for divorcing wives. There should not be an incentive for one parent to minimize custody of a good parent for their own financial gain.

If she gets more than 50% physical custody, then there needs to be an accounting of the expenditures. If she wants 4K in child support, she has to submit detailed receipts and explanations for them. She takes the kid to Disney world for a week and claims 10k in expenses. Well, the dad wasn’t invited, why should he have to cover any costs. She wants to move 3 hours away to go to school, but needs more babysitters to cover her class time. That is her choice and shouldn’t bear on the child support or alimony decision.

At some point the husband isn’t providing child support, but subsidizing the ex-wife’s lifestyle.

A co-worker recently told me, "If you want to see who someone really is, divorce them." I have found out how true this is. When your wife drops the façade of being the caring partner, you will witness all of the greed, hate, and spite that she has masked. It is truly breathtaking!

[Handsome VicParticipant 1613]

Now that women outnumber men in university by a wide margin, get preference for management jobs because of sex quotas– and young women have begun to outearn young men — the injustice of alimony is going to get some visibility.

Women are gonna bitch like hell at paying out to keep a man “in the style to which he was accustomed”. What was fair to get is now unfair to pay.

The truth though is blue pill and feminist judges are sexist in their application of the law. You’re female and want alimony? Oh you poor thing, let’s make him pay. You’re male? Get out and earn you f~~~ing bum.

Alimony awards for men are rare. When awarded, they are short term, low amounts. Contrast with women where alimony is typical, entitlement is a given, lifetime payouts are common, and there is no requirement to ever become self-sufficient.

As with everything male-female, double standards prevail.

Better for a guy to never marry, never cohabitate.

I'm going my own way. Maybe I'll see you there.

[Just MikeParticipant 393]

Kind of a victory and nice to see a man who can get paid out for once. But I see your point, Solitude. Just because he can does it mean he should?

When I see a good, solid case of a woman using the system beyond a fair point, when they really go for the jugular and it stinks of seeking revenge or punishment ie. when it’s completely unfair, that really p~~~es me off. It p~~~es me off when a woman goes well beyond the point of fairness and it p~~~es me off that the system usually turns a blind eye to this and usually grants her what she wants. It p~~~es me off that men have to jump through so many hoops, have to constantly provide evidence of good fathering etc. and still receive nowhere close to this level of royal treatment. Yeh, the system sucks but so do women who perpetrate it beyond saying ‘OK, well I married this guy, we have kids, I don’t want to be with him anymore but it’s better for the kids if we get along and there’s none of this poison’. And sacking a guy for all he’s worth, wallet, heart and soul; no s~~~, that introduces a lot of poison. The label of ‘c~~~’ will never wash off after that even if he tries to do the best for his kids and it would suck for that to show through.

I use women as the example above because, honestly, I’ve *very rarely* ever seen a man in the ‘winning’ position. And as much as I’d like to say ‘f~~~ yes, pillage that s~~~’ to a guy like that, I also like to think that guys have a bit more self-respect than that, to have pride in what they’ve built for themselves within that relationship. Most times it’s the guy putting in the hard yards, harder yards than the woman ever will. Men know the efforts of their hard work. It’s fair he should walk away with what he feels he’s earned within that relationship but if that tallies into a sheer money grab/revenge/just because he can and the system allows it, I don’t feel he’s any better than a woman who does the same.

Society: I refuse your stick and carrot. If you try to beat or shame me you'd better take me down first time. If I want smoke blown up my ass I'll buy a cigar and a length of hose.

[KageParticipant 190]

I have no consideration for those who have none for me. Simple.

[narwhalParticipant]

NoMore wrote:

I think a balance needs to be struck. Currently, the husband works full time and the wife takes care of the children. When they divorce, the husband is penalized and she gets more/full physical custody, because she was the primary caregiver. When accounting for money, the husband is again penalized, because he is the higher/sole income earner.

First off, you’re talking about child support, not alimony. Alimony has nothing to do with taking care of this kids, but for the spouse who apparently made sacrifices in her career/earning potential in one way or anther because of the marriage.

The problem I see is a spouse doesn’t always sacrifice his/her earning potential because of marriage and there is no way to really judge ‘what might have been’ or what that amount should be. Then, that theoretical missed earning potential is independent of the other spouses income, so why is that income factored in.

Taking it further, I’d argue that the higher earner’s income potential is often diminished because of the marriage instead of increased? We don’t take the job because it’s extra hours away from home, or the spouse doesn’t want to transfer to another city.

And if we’re really thinking about it, if alimony is needed because a spouse is unable to earn as much because of the marriage, alimony itself reduces the income of the higher earner, and the higher earned should be compensated with alimony themselves. It’s cyclical downward spiral.

But, regard a woman having to pay alimony, the most I can give is understanding. Attempting to help a woman out of this situation will only hurt the men who suffer from this on a regular basis. Women are in a much better position to get rid of alimony if they wish.

As far as if I would ever take alimony myself, no I wouldn’t. I don’t have anything I didn’t earn or was voluntarily given to me as a gift, and I like it that way. The same would go from a splitting of assets in divorce. If she made 20% more than me, I would want her to get 20% more in assets than me.

Ok. Then do it.

[Author]

Posts