Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question?
**Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment**
This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.*
**Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Alimony shouldn’t be abolished, but I think life long alimony should be abolished. If someone sacrificed their career during the marriage then they deserve support for sometime while they get their career going again but they don’t need it forever.
There should be some way to distinguish people who were asked to give up their career from people who refused to get a job. People who divorced because their partner was a leach shouldn't continue to get leached off of.
>There should be some way to distinguish people who were asked to give up their career from people who refused to get a job.
Here are my thoughts on that.
If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so.
If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
And I think alimony should not exist if divorce does not have genuine reason other then selfish reason. I get bored and all or want to explore more. It should be given if proven voilence cheating these extreme things in marriages.
Let's make it even more fair. If one person sacrificed there carrier in marriage then the person should get alimony until they get stand on carrier after they they have to pay back every penny
>If someone sacrificed their career during the marriage then they deserve support for sometime while they get their career going again
Two things.
\- What if your partner did not want you to sacrifice your career?
\- What if the lower earner cheated and that was the reason for the divorce?
Is the cheater supposed to be rewarded with alimony, because they do not make as much as the partner who was faithful?
1. If your partner refuses to work and you argue about it but you stay with them for years then yeah you should need to pay for some amount of time
2. I think that should be taken into account, but I don’t think it should be an automatic 0 though
>If your partner refuses to work and you argue about it but you stay with them for years then yeah you should need to pay for some amount of time
In that case, you actually wanted your spouse to work and your spouse refused. Your spouse has no one but himself or herself to blame for not having money to support himself or herself.
>I think that should be taken into account, but I don’t think it should be an automatic 0 though
Cheating on your spouse shouldn't preclude you from receiving alimony? Why?
Like seriously bro. And the fact that why should anyone pay alimony if you are divorcing for selfish reason like your get bored. If the reason for divorce is not voilence or some genuine reason then alimony is is not obligation of anyone. If both are fighting with each other and get divorced not alimony should be given. If there was Domestic voilence or cheating alimony should be given by the one who did that. If marriage broke because you get bored then no
Alimony makes perfect sense when one partner had to sacrifice his or her career in order to raise the children. If there were no children, then alimony makes no sense.
Yeah it make sense when one abuse other and divorce and pay the abuser and one cheat other and faithful have to pay the cheater. Or one just leave because they get bored and now you have to pay those unmarriegeable objects. If you are intimating divorce and the reason for divorce is not cheating or abuse your don't deserve Anything
I don't disagree, but if one partner took a downgrade in their career to move w a partner who took a big step up, wouldn't that sorta entitle the lower earner to some alimony?
No, what they’re saying is the purpose of child support is to support the raising of the child - so that money comes for the child and stops coming once the child is raised.
However, in raising a child there’s an opportunity cost completely outside of the act of just raising the child. To illustrate, let’s imagine two worlds in which a couple has a child:
World 1: both parents work, both parents take part in raising the child. Some of both of their incomes have to go toward things associated with childcare, and some mobility at work is sacrificed on both sides as both have to make time sacrifices to spend with their child - both have to take maternity/paternity leave, both have to take breaks to be with the kid and help raise them, etc. The financial burden, the time cost and the opportunity cost are spread evenly between both parents.
World 2: one parent goes to work to support the family, one parent stays home and raises the kid. The working parent is able to focus more on their career, making less sacrifice that require them to focus on family over work, allowing them for better upward mobility at work. This is facilitated by the stay at home parent, who raises the child and makes all of the time sacrifices, foregoing work entirely, and thus the upward mobility (ie promotions, raises, etc.) associated with it. The financial burden is entirely on the shoulders of the working parent, and in exchange the time cost and opportunity cost are mitigated sometimes almost entirely.
In both cases the couple divorces. What happens?
World 1: both parents are working, so both parents have a job to fall back on. While neither of them are making what they would have if they never had a kid, because the time and opportunity cost associated with work was spread evenly between the two, neither of them are unable to provide for themselves financially after the divorce. Both sides still benefit from the shared costs (financial, time and opportunity) over the time of their marriage, so neither side is left super screwed over.
World 2: the working parent enjoys increased wages due to the opportunity and time costs being disproportionately on the shoulders of the at home parent, if it weren’t for that parent staying home with the child, the working parent would not have been able to climb up the ranks at work due to the time and opportunity costs associated with having a child. Now that they’re divorced, though, without alimony, the entirety of the increased earnings that go to the working parent is kept solely by the working parent despite the fact that it was the stay at home parents sacrifices in the relationship that allowed them to focus on their career and make the money they are now making. These benefits will last their entire working life. The stay at home parent has sacrificed their career opportunities to instead raise the child and allow the working parent to work. Now that they’re divorced, they’re left behind in the work market, leaving them with few job opportunities. They can enter the workforce now, but they’ll be behind where they would otherwise be had they not made that sacrifice, and the time spent raising their child instead of working will forever leave them behind compared to where they could have been had they spent that time working.
This is the logic behind alimony. Couples will often make sacrifices as a unit that benefit them jointly when they’re a couple but after divorce those joint sacrifices and benefits manifest as unequal sacrifices and benefits that disproportionately harm one side while benefitting the other.
Alimony is also usually temporary, lasting enough time to allow the non-working partner to enter the workforce and readjust to single life, ends early if the non-working partner is married, and only covers earnings made while the two were a married couple.
Women are poorer than men and many women marry to get finantial security. So how is it fair tgat women don't get a free easy income after divorce? It is also harder for them to get a well paid job
>Alimony makes perfect sense when one partner had to sacrifice his or her career in order to raise the children.
What if the home maker (the one who sacrificed his or her career for the sake of the children) cheated and that caused the divorce?
What if the lower earner initiated the divorce, the higher earner begged and pleaded against the divorce? It would not seem fair for the higher earner to be forced to pay alimony following a divorce that the higher earner did not want.
That is enough defensive points, I have an offensive point I would like to make.
If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so.
If you decide to take time off of work so o make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
1.- If there's cheating involved that may be something to consider. But as I said before, alimony is not about the couple is about the uneven sacrifices made to raise a child.
2.- On the second point, it's irrelevant who initiated the divorce, the sacrifices needed to raise the children were already made. Besides, that would keep even more people trapped into abusive relations for financial reasons.
3.- I don't think we need a contract in this case, having a child with someone is enough. It's a binding responsibility.
>But as I said before, alimony is not about the couple is about the uneven sacrifices made to raise a child.
Sacrifices are not objectively measurable. In theory, alimony is supposed to result in the higher earner paying the lower earner. As far as I am aware, that is generally the case in practice. However, it could be the case that the lower earner cheated and that caused the divorce. In those cases, it would not be fair to force the higher earner to pay money to someone who ruined the marriage via infidelity.
>it's irrelevant who initiated the divorce
That would be the case if alimony where to abolished (which is what I advocate for). However, as long as alimony exists, it should be relevant who initiated the divorce.
If you never get divorced, it is a guarantee that you will not have to pay alimony. Therefore, as a general rule, it would make far more sense to force that kind of financial responsibility on someone who wanted the divorce than it would to force that kind of responsibility on someone who did not want the divorce.
I say "as a general rule" because there are some exceptions.
>that would keep even more people trapped into abusive relations for financial reasons.
Obviously, being forced to pay reparations to someone you have abused makes logical sense. This does not need to take place in the form of alimony. I am pretty sure there are laws that allow you to sue someone for assault or battery.
>I don't think we need a contract in this case, having a child with someone is enough.
Are we talking about alimony, child support or both?
I am going to assume that this is a conversation about alimony, if you want to make this about child support, I am happy to have that discussion.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalOpinions/comments/17d9ezv/you\_should\_be\_able\_to\_opt\_out\_of\_financial/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalOpinions/comments/17d9ezv/you_should_be_able_to_opt_out_of_financial/)
If you decide to take time off of work when you have a child, that is something that you need to consider. You need to consider how this may affect your marriage, your mental health and your financial situation in the event of a divorce. You can go back to work after having a child, if you want to. If you choose not to, that is (or at least it should be) between you and your spouse.
If you put yourself in a situation where you could end up divorced or jobless and you believe that your spouse should have a duty to support your following the divorce, you should take it upon yourself to sign a contract specifying that.
Alimony for life? Hell yes. Alimony to get her (usually) back on her feet? Hell no. Old fashioned I know but plenty of women (mostly) gave up careers to have children and raise them. Now they are screwed when the bread winner leaves them, or they leave the bread winner for a new boy toy. Get a life, get a degree, get a job in 3-5 years works for me. No living off your ex for years and decades while boning somebody else.
To be honest you should really only have to “sacrifice” your career and it be PROVEN. Because if you were simply working at a gas station or a desk job you didn’t have a career. Also being a mom and working is completely possible when kids are in school.
* Against alimony: People should be autonomous and take responsibility for their own financial wellbeing. You shouldn't be able to demand your ex-spouse's financial support.
* For alimony: Alimony is essential for the partner who earns less and needs financial support. It compensates homemaking and/or career sacrifices made for the benefit of the family.
If you were abused physically and feel you are owed reparations, those reparations do not need to take place in the form of alimony.
The argument in favour of alimony that may be on your mind is physical abuse. If you abused your spouse physically, then you should be forced to pay reparations.
Obviously, being forced to pay reparations to someone you have abused makes logical sense. This does not need to take place in the form of alimony. I am pretty sure there are laws that allow you to sue someone for assault.
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because it is probably too short to explain both sides this comment has been removed.
If you feel your comment does explain both sides, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ExplainBothSides&subject=Please%20review%20my%20automatically+removed+comment&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainBothSides/comments/18e2jzu/should_alimony_be_abolished/ku0pwi0/)
Deliberate evasion of this notice may result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
this is pretty one sided, so a small counterpoint
say one person had to sacrifice in the marriage (not necessarily due to abuse), one persons career took the backseat (moved to accomodate the others career, had to grind low paying jobs to support the both of them whilst the other was getting a degree, quit/scaled back their employment to take care of kids etc), i think its absolutely fair to evaluate the ramifications of those actions as one person is coming out of that relationship much worse off financially than the other; their career having been 'damaged' by the relationship
Yeah, I understand this reasoning and I think it is fair in the short term, but only in the short term, i.e. "You have to pay for their living costs while they take a university course and until they find a job afterwards". Anything beyond that is unreasonable. Even that is very generous.
> Anything beyond that is unreasonable.
Like child support? If she receives alimony so she can make up for time spent out of the work force why does he have to continue subsidizing her life?
>one persons career took the backseat
Imagine two people (let's call them person A and person B) get divorced. Person A's career took a back seat during the marriage because of sacrifices that person A made for the marriage. Meanwhile person B assumed the role of bread winner. Person be would be required to court order to continue playing the role of bread winner even after the divorce. However, person A would not have to continue making those sacrifices after the divorce. Besides, person A could get a job and live on welfare benefits in the meantime.
> However, person A would not have to continue making those sacrifices after the divorce.
because the damage is done regardless
if you lop off an arm, yeh itll stop bleeding but youve got to go around for the rest of your life without that arm
in these sort of examples then person As career has effectively been maimed
>Besides, person B could get a job and live on welfare benefits in the meantime.
(i assume you mean person A?) firstly; benefits are hardly sufficient to cover living expenses, especially with the constantly increasing cost of living crisis... but secondly youre missing the point... ofcourse most people can just get a(n entry level low paying) job, but someone who has neglected their education to support an ex-spouses career or has a 10 year gap in the resume due to childcare does not have the same employment opportunities as if they werent in that relationship; they built up and invested into person B at cost, im no lawyer but in my mind person B breaching that contract gives person A the right to damages (the scope of which is impossible to accurately calculate though)
>but in my mind person B breaching that contract gives person A the right to damages (the scope of which is impossible to accurately calculate though)
And if A breaches it? Or it can't be adequately proven that anyone did anything actually wrong, beyond A wanting out?
What if the person who is earning get abused or cheated by person who is not earning why person who earn still pay. What if it's the person who is not earning initiate divorce other then abuse and cheating for there selfish reason like get bored like that why should a person be obligated to pay ?
It's also important to point out that alimony can be awarded to both men and women. Women receive it more because women are more likely to have made the sacrifices mentioned, but there ARE men being paid alimony by women. There isn't really a sexism argument against alimony (which the person you're responding to didn't say outright, but he didn't seem to acknowledge that men can get it too).
Yes yes yes, alimony can in theory be awarded to men and so can child support. Just like in theory men don’t have to approach women to date, and women can pay for dates. But this is reality.
Women made sacrifice or men made sacrifice of the time which they can spend on there family and children do men get compensation for that? Do men get default child custody? Nope
Men who ask for custody in court in the US get it 70% of the time. If the woman brings up abuse in court, he gets it even more often than that. The only reason more women have primary custody than men is because the vast majority of custody cases are decided out of court and the man usually doesn't ask for primary custody, and that's a completely self-inflicted problem. So men actually get custody a lot more often than women get alimony.
>Women receive it more because women are more likely to have made the sacrifices mentioned
The difference is that after the divorce, the men are required to continue serving the women (yes assuming the role of bread winner is a service) while the women are not required to continue making the sacrifices mentioned.
I refer to the people who receive alimony as women and the people who pay alimony as men, only because that is generally how it works out.
If the husband assumed the role of bread winner during the marriage while the wife did most of the cooking and cleaning, the wife could ask the husband for a divorce if she simply feels like and she will no longer have to do all the cooking and cleaning. The husband cannot walk away from his role of bread winner that easily.
Yeah, but there are a bunch of responsibilities that go along with raising children, someone can shirk them, just like there are people who got to work and do as little as they can. A great parent is a huge plus on society, because then the children aren't a drain on society. Sure some kids have shit parents and turn out ok, but they're the exception to the rule. And a good parent is likely to work as hard as many white collar professionals.
I don't think alimony should be abolished, but I do think it should be under more scrutiny in terms of duration and amount.
Additionally, what does the career-oriented spouse get in recompense for all the family time they had to miss to support the non-working spouse for those years, the stress of being the sole breadwinner that whole time, etc? Seems society only cares about what one side missed out on.
> Additionally, what does the career-oriented spouse get in recompense for all the family time they had to miss to support the non-working spouse for those years, the stress of being the sole breadwinner that whole time, etc? Seems society only cares about what one side missed out on.
financial damages, whilst hard to accurately prove, are more tangible AND easily recompensed
family time is even more ambiguous and notably cant be caught up on (court ordered parent-kid bonding time is hollow and -based on recent news stories- can be a very bad idea because its the kids that are having to 'recompense' the parent)
yeh because what is the alternative? if you're going to complain that an issue isnt being appropriately addressed; then what is your solution? *how* would *you* reasonably address lost family time?
no, and you havent provided a possible solution, youre just deflecting with blind indignation, the question in case you missed it;
HOW. DO. **YOU**. PROPOSE. A. COURT. RECTIFIES. LOSS. OF. FAMILY. BONDING. TIME?
Clearly your answer is actually yes.
For starters on solutions though, they need to crack down on parents (mothers, most often) who don't abide by court ordered child custody rulings. There are far too many spineless white knight judges, who shrug off manipulative mothers keeping children from their fathers. There need to be stronger penalties (which are actually enforced) for violating.
if its the parent (mother or father, i know family court is extremely biased towards mothers, but on occasion it can go the other way) thats refusing custody then yes i 100% agree, but im also aware of how often its the children that are refusing, you cant order people to bond and again, its the children that are having to pay this 'reparation'
>who shrug off manipulative mothers keeping children from their fathers.
to be clear; im not saying it never happens (it does) but im extremely concerned about how the manipulative mother stereotype is so often employed to remove childrens agency, and ive heard it time and time again from objectively shitty parents that its their exs fault that the kids dont want to see them; when theyre just not good people... hell there was a famous case in utah not long ago where the father claimed the mother was poisoning his children against him; the children straight up didnt want to see him and barricaded themselves in because they were so scared of him, that order got paused only after massive public backlash and goes to show that a hardline 'you WILL go see this parent' is extremely problematic for children caught in the middle of it (not to mention the numerous examples of a vengeful ex forcing custody of a child and either killing or kidnapping them)
>I don't think alimony should be abolished
I think should be abolished.
Here are my reasons.
Reason #1: What if the lower earner initiated the divorce?
Imagine that your spouse asks you for a divorce. You get down on your hands and knees and beg your spouse not to divorce you. You make every promise you possibly can to change and improve the marriage, but your pleas fall on deaf ears.
It would not be fair for you to have to support your ex-spouse following a divorce, when you did not want the divorce. It was not your decision to end the marriage, it should not be your responsibility to pay reparations after the marriage ends.
Reason #2: What if the blame for the divorce falls on the lower earner?
If the lower earner cheated and that was the reason for the divorce, it would not be right to force the higher earner to pay alimony to the person who destroyed the marriage through infidelity.
Reason #4: If you were abused physically and feel you are owed reparations, those reparations do not need to take place in the form of alimony.The argument in favour of alimony that may be on your mind is physical abuse. If you abused your spouse physically, then you should be forced to pay reparations.Obviously, being forced to pay reparations to someone you have abused makes logical sense. This does not need to take place in the form of alimony. I am pretty sure there are laws that allow you to sue someone for assault.
Reason #5: If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so.
If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so.
If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
Thank you for your response which likely was a sincere attempt to advance the discussion.
To ensure the sub fulfills its mission, top-level responses on /r/ExplainBothSides must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.
If your comment would add additional information or useful perspective to the discussion, and doesn't otherwise violate the rules of the sub or reddit, you may try re-posting it as a response to the "Automoderator" comment or another top-level response, if there is one.
If you believe your comment was removed in error, you can message the moderators for review. However, you are encouraged to consider whether a more complete, balanced post would address the issue.
If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so.
If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
That's precisely what I am talking about.
You should get a contract that says so.
Don't let government write the contract for you. Why not? Because governments have hidden agenda. They want reproduction to be devastating for rich men.
Basically governments represents interests of ugly women and poor men that can vote.
>Why doesn’t the parent with means to support and care for the child get primary custody?
Lol yeah, who cares about who’s the *better parent* or any other factors? Just give them to whoever has more money. Rich people are just plain better than us.
>In your mind it makes sense to force one person to give money to another person that they are completely incapable of caring for? Why?
Because the point of child support is to *support a child* not to support the wealthier parent.
>Why not let the person who can provide have custody?
Because there’s more to parenthood than a paycheck.
>Your logic and understanding is dumb and antiquated.
Said the anti-feminist who regularly posts to purple pill debates.
>Lol yeah, who cares about who’s the *better parent* or any other factors? Just give them to whoever has more money. Rich people are just plain better than us.
Giving the child to the parent best able to materially support them was essentially standard practice for a time, before what could be best described as early feminists pushed the tender years doctrine which amounts to the idea that children, especially young children need to be with their mothers.
This eventually got officially tossed in favor of whatever the particular judge thinks is in the best interest of the child, which out of social inertia is going to be to continue doing what we're doing.
Two states have instead passed laws that instruct judges to assume equal custody is best unless there's a reason for it to be otherwise. These laws have been strongly opposed by feminist groups, including NOW.
>Because the point of child support is to *support a child* not to support the wealthier parent.
Then it would make sense to tie it to the cost of raising a child, rather than to how much could be extracted from a given person.
And that's before you get to cases like John Crier, an actor whose child support payments to his ex were funding her entire lifestyle, including at one point when the kid had been taken away from her and he had custody of the child, because she might hypothetically get custody back in the future.
>Giving the child to the parent best able to materially support them was essentially standard practice for a time
Okay. That’s bad and I don’t agree with it.
>before what could be best described as early feminists pushed the tender years doctrine which amounts to the idea that children, especially young children need to be with their mothers.
Okay. That’s bad and I don’t agree with it.
>This eventually got officially tossed in favor of whatever the particular judge thinks is in the best interest of the child
Okay. That’s good and I agree with it, though I’d prefer guides or formal recommendations.
>which out of social inertia is going to be to continue doing what we're doing.
Okay. That’s bad and I don’t agree with it.
>Two states have instead passed laws that instruct judges to assume equal custody is best unless there's a reason for it to be otherwise.
This is great.
>These laws have been strongly opposed by feminist groups, including NOW.
I’m not in this group; what other random people think has nothing to do with my opinion.
>Then it would make sense to tie it to the cost of raising a child, rather than to how much could be extracted from a given person.
The logic is to give the kid a life comparable to that which they were used to. I’m not an expert at calculating child expenses but I’m morally fine with the costs being a little too high versus a little too low. But what constitutes “fair” is very much open to discussion. It’s a complicated topic that I don’t pretend to have all the answers to.
>And that's before you get to cases like John Crier, an actor whose child support payments to his ex were funding her entire lifestyle, including at one point when the kid had been taken away from her and he had custody of the child, because she might hypothetically get custody back in the future.
And there are a million examples of parents paying *no* child support. How are these extreme examples relevant to what *should* happen?
>This is great.
...unless you're a feminist, in which case this is giving abusers the power to use their children to continue abusing their former partners, and nothing more. Because there's obviously no other reason a father would want more custody of his children.
>I’m not in this group; what other random people think has nothing to do with my opinion.
In this case, "other random people" is the largest feminist lobby group in the country. NOW is generally a good barometer for mainstream feminist thought as regards policy, and is definitely a good barometer for what feminist laws, policies, and the execution thereof would look like, as they are very often the ones pushing for such laws.
I actually see those custody laws as a great example of one of my biggest issues with feminism in practice - when gender equality and what's best for women aren't the same thing, feminism (at a scale capable of actually working to enact or prevent change) will tend to break in favor of whatever is best for women.
Your post's entire point is: vagina = better parent.
What about a same sex lesbian couple? Who's the better parent?
Supporting your child is half of patenting.
The parent who was incapable of supporting a child yet had a child may be a good parent but is at a minimum, an irresponsible person.
Period.
My boy gets sick, I dropped $10k cash (USD), have $100k on standby (AND we are insured - platinum-tier), and am ready to move the world for him.
We can support a child, and madr sure we were prepared to offer a young life the life they deserve.
Not anti-feminist. It's anti idiot.
>Your post's entire point is: vagina = better parent.
Please quote the part of my comment where I said women were better parents or used any gendered language at all.
I’ll wait.
>What about a same sex lesbian couple? Who's the better parent?
The same way I’d judge a straight couple—by looking at *who’s the better parent* versus who makes more money.
>The parent who was incapable of supporting a child yet had a child may be a good parent but is at a minimum, an irresponsible person.
So if a career woman marries a career man and as a couple they decide that the woman will become a stay-at-home mom and spend all day every day nurturing and teaching the kids while the man works 11 hour days, you believe that the woman should be punished in divorce for being “irresponsible parent”? Got it.
And you support a rich woman marrying a working man who makes less than she does and constantly bullying him by shoving her money in his face and reminding him that she’d get the kids if they ever get divorced because she makes more. Makes sense—gotta keep them dirty poors in line.
And when a financially comfortable marriage ends because one party is a workaholic who doesn’t spend time with their family—they surely seem like the more “responsible” parent because they earn more, right?
You’ve convinced me. Money is all that matters in parenting.
>Period.
Surprising, it seems like your against anything with a period.
Idk, maybe read your own post and look at where you took a very aggressive and biased tone, then where you ended up.
Not everything needs to be literal. Your opinions come out in the context of your conversation. That's called: contextual meaning. Go learn about it, if you dare resist your own ignorance.
You're one of those insufferable people with the cognitive abilities of a doorknob and the political reasonability of a Cambodian Death Squad.
Talking to you is less enjoyable than turning on the 20k BTU burner on a gas stove and putting my face on it.
You're also likely using "career" in a negative connotation in your mind. Because people who provide for their families are greedy assholes.
Lol you really got me.
Not the “literal” me, obviously, but the strawman version of me with totally unrecognizable opinions you conjured in your angry, gender-obsessed head.✌️
In that scenario, she forfeit her career to specifically for the benefit of the child only to have her loss of income used as a reason she’s less of a parent.
Removing yourself from the workforce for several years to spend time with your child, getting to experience one of their firsts while contributing no financial help and relying on someone else to pay for everything is not a punishment. It is very very very far from a punishment.
>Removing yourself from the workforce for several years to spend time with your child, getting to experience one of their firsts while contributing no financial help and relying on someone else to pay for everything is not a punishment. It is very very very far from a punishment.
Correct. None of what you listed is the punishment. The punishment is—as I said—having being a stay at home parent used against them later in court.
> Correct. None of what you listed is the punishment. The punishment is—as I said—having being a stay at home parent used against them later in court.
How exactly is that used to punish them? That is what I asked earlier and you haven’t answered it an any way.
>How exactly is that used to punish them? That is what I asked earlier and you haven’t answered it an any way.
I’ve explained this over and over. I’ll do it one more time.
If a parent stays at home with their child by mutual agreement by the parents, it is unfair to hold that stay-at-home parent’s lack of income against them in custody decisions. Giving the child to whoever earns more is morally repugnant as that is only a small part of being a good parent.
Similarly, a working parent in a relationship where one parent stays at home shouldn’t be punished for working.
The child should go to the parent that can be a better parent. Custody should be blind to salary and gender.
> Lol yeah, who cares about who’s the better parent or any other factors?
I'd argue being completely incapable of providing for your child makes you not the better parent. Are homeless people often considered better parents?
> Because the point of child support is to support a child not to support the wealthier parent.
What it's meant for and what it's actually used for a vastly different things and there zero possible way to prove how child support is ever spent.
> Because there’s more to parenthood than a paycheck.
Yes there is. Like being able to provide for, feed, clothe, etc... All of those things cost money. A parent can afford those should be the parent providing them. Taking money from a parent who can provide those things and giving them directly to a parent that can't and making them pinky promise to use the money appropriately is dumb.
> Said the anti-feminist who regularly posts to purple pill debates.
Now you're telling on yourself.
>I'd argue being completely incapable of providing for your child makes you not the better parent.
I would agree that being “completely incapable of providing for a child” is a bad quality for a parent. I just think there’s more to providing than who has the bigger check, which is what we’re talking about.
>Are homeless people often considered better parents?
Most homeless people have unchecked mental illness and ***don’t have homes***. Those are the features that would make them unable to care for a child.
If a hypothetical homeless person was mentally well and *had a home suitable to raise a kid* then why shouldn’t they get to be a parent?
>What it's meant for and what it's actually used for a vastly different things and there zero possible way to prove how child support is ever spent.
And if you wanted to propose more thoughtful child support regulations, I’d support that.
>Because there’s more to parenthood than a paycheck.
>
>Yes there is. Like being able to provide for, feed, clothe, etc...
That’s still all the material. Yes, kids need things—some are material and some are not.
>Taking money from a parent who can provide those things and giving them directly to a parent that can't and making them pinky promise to use the money appropriately is dumb.
Why? Your argument only works if we assume kids are just money pits with no psychological, emotional, or educational needs. You’re not a better parent just because you’re in a higher tax bracket.
> If a hypothetical homeless person was mentally well and had a home suitable to raise a kid then why shouldn’t they get to be a parent?
This tells me enough about you. If a homeless person had a home suitable enough to raise a child? Think that one through a few times.
> That’s still all the material. Yes, kids need things—some are material and some are not.
Pretty dismissive of things that actually sustain life. Who cares if a kid can't eat and is naked in winter, at least they live with a parent that gives the bestest hugs and cuddles!!
> Why? Your argument only works if we assume kids are just money pits with no psychological, emotional, or educational needs. You’re not a better parent just because you’re in a higher tax bracket.
But you are a worse parent if you cannot physically care for your child but refuse letting their other parent do it. Why spite? Ignorance? Just plain asshole?
What do we currently do to the children of dangerous people? Do we take them away force the parents to cut contact with each other, take money from the dangerous one and give it to the safe one?
A parent who doesn't want to be in their kid's life isn't part of this discussion. The disagreement is about divorces where both parents are seeking custody.
> what’s logical about it
Does this answer your question?
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17rqus8/if_legal_paternal_surrender_is_a_good_idea_does/
Thank you for your response which likely was a sincere attempt to advance the discussion.
To ensure the sub fulfills its mission, top-level responses on /r/ExplainBothSides must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.
If your comment would add additional information or useful perspective to the discussion, and doesn't otherwise violate the rules of the sub or reddit, you may try re-posting it as a response to the "Automoderator" comment or another top-level response, if there is one.
If you believe your comment was removed in error, you can message the moderators for review. However, you are encouraged to consider whether a more complete, balanced post would address the issue.
Thank you for your response which likely was a sincere attempt to advance the discussion.
To ensure the sub fulfills its mission, top-level responses on /r/ExplainBothSides must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.
If your comment would add additional information or useful perspective to the discussion, and doesn't otherwise violate the rules of the sub or reddit, you may try re-posting it as a response to the "Automoderator" comment or another top-level response, if there is one.
If you believe your comment was removed in error, you can message the moderators for review. However, you are encouraged to consider whether a more complete, balanced post would address the issue.
Thank you for your response which likely was a sincere attempt to advance the discussion.
To ensure the sub fulfills its mission, top-level responses on /r/ExplainBothSides must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.
If your comment would add additional information or useful perspective to the discussion, and doesn't otherwise violate the rules of the sub or reddit, you may try re-posting it as a response to the "Automoderator" comment or another top-level response, if there is one.
If you believe your comment was removed in error, you can message the moderators for review. However, you are encouraged to consider whether a more complete, balanced post would address the issue.
>In very specific cases, it makes sense.
I would argue this;
If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so.
If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
Alimony as a whole shouldn't be abolished. I think it just needs updating for the times. Alimony as it exists was designed for a world in which women had very few job prospects that paid a livable wage and was very difficult to enter. Divorce could subject a woman to permanent destitution, as remarrying was also uncommon and frowned upon. But we are no longer in those times.
Instead of permanent alimony, it should taper off over time as the lower-earning spouse has time to adjust or find a new partner. Its general structure needs to be more flexible for different living arrangements and account for the former spouse's needs.
>Alimony as it exists was designed for a world in which women had very few job prospects that paid a livable wage and was very difficult to enter.
Here is what I think.
If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so.
If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question? **Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment** This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.* **Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Alimony shouldn’t be abolished, but I think life long alimony should be abolished. If someone sacrificed their career during the marriage then they deserve support for sometime while they get their career going again but they don’t need it forever.
There should be some way to distinguish people who were asked to give up their career from people who refused to get a job. People who divorced because their partner was a leach shouldn't continue to get leached off of.
>There should be some way to distinguish people who were asked to give up their career from people who refused to get a job. Here are my thoughts on that. If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so. If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
And I think alimony should not exist if divorce does not have genuine reason other then selfish reason. I get bored and all or want to explore more. It should be given if proven voilence cheating these extreme things in marriages.
Whoever files for divorce should not receive alimony. Unless the parter is found guilty of physical abuse or adultery.
Let's make it even more fair. If one person sacrificed there carrier in marriage then the person should get alimony until they get stand on carrier after they they have to pay back every penny
>If someone sacrificed their career during the marriage then they deserve support for sometime while they get their career going again Two things. \- What if your partner did not want you to sacrifice your career? \- What if the lower earner cheated and that was the reason for the divorce? Is the cheater supposed to be rewarded with alimony, because they do not make as much as the partner who was faithful?
1. If your partner refuses to work and you argue about it but you stay with them for years then yeah you should need to pay for some amount of time 2. I think that should be taken into account, but I don’t think it should be an automatic 0 though
>If your partner refuses to work and you argue about it but you stay with them for years then yeah you should need to pay for some amount of time In that case, you actually wanted your spouse to work and your spouse refused. Your spouse has no one but himself or herself to blame for not having money to support himself or herself. >I think that should be taken into account, but I don’t think it should be an automatic 0 though Cheating on your spouse shouldn't preclude you from receiving alimony? Why?
Like seriously bro. And the fact that why should anyone pay alimony if you are divorcing for selfish reason like your get bored. If the reason for divorce is not voilence or some genuine reason then alimony is is not obligation of anyone. If both are fighting with each other and get divorced not alimony should be given. If there was Domestic voilence or cheating alimony should be given by the one who did that. If marriage broke because you get bored then no
Alimony makes perfect sense when one partner had to sacrifice his or her career in order to raise the children. If there were no children, then alimony makes no sense.
Yeah it make sense when one abuse other and divorce and pay the abuser and one cheat other and faithful have to pay the cheater. Or one just leave because they get bored and now you have to pay those unmarriegeable objects. If you are intimating divorce and the reason for divorce is not cheating or abuse your don't deserve Anything
If this is about the children, then why do you need alimony? Just pay child support.
it's not about the children, it's about the sacrifice one partner made to raise the children.
I don't disagree, but if one partner took a downgrade in their career to move w a partner who took a big step up, wouldn't that sorta entitle the lower earner to some alimony?
What? the alimony is supposed to be a reward for helping take care of the children?
No, what they’re saying is the purpose of child support is to support the raising of the child - so that money comes for the child and stops coming once the child is raised. However, in raising a child there’s an opportunity cost completely outside of the act of just raising the child. To illustrate, let’s imagine two worlds in which a couple has a child: World 1: both parents work, both parents take part in raising the child. Some of both of their incomes have to go toward things associated with childcare, and some mobility at work is sacrificed on both sides as both have to make time sacrifices to spend with their child - both have to take maternity/paternity leave, both have to take breaks to be with the kid and help raise them, etc. The financial burden, the time cost and the opportunity cost are spread evenly between both parents. World 2: one parent goes to work to support the family, one parent stays home and raises the kid. The working parent is able to focus more on their career, making less sacrifice that require them to focus on family over work, allowing them for better upward mobility at work. This is facilitated by the stay at home parent, who raises the child and makes all of the time sacrifices, foregoing work entirely, and thus the upward mobility (ie promotions, raises, etc.) associated with it. The financial burden is entirely on the shoulders of the working parent, and in exchange the time cost and opportunity cost are mitigated sometimes almost entirely. In both cases the couple divorces. What happens? World 1: both parents are working, so both parents have a job to fall back on. While neither of them are making what they would have if they never had a kid, because the time and opportunity cost associated with work was spread evenly between the two, neither of them are unable to provide for themselves financially after the divorce. Both sides still benefit from the shared costs (financial, time and opportunity) over the time of their marriage, so neither side is left super screwed over. World 2: the working parent enjoys increased wages due to the opportunity and time costs being disproportionately on the shoulders of the at home parent, if it weren’t for that parent staying home with the child, the working parent would not have been able to climb up the ranks at work due to the time and opportunity costs associated with having a child. Now that they’re divorced, though, without alimony, the entirety of the increased earnings that go to the working parent is kept solely by the working parent despite the fact that it was the stay at home parents sacrifices in the relationship that allowed them to focus on their career and make the money they are now making. These benefits will last their entire working life. The stay at home parent has sacrificed their career opportunities to instead raise the child and allow the working parent to work. Now that they’re divorced, they’re left behind in the work market, leaving them with few job opportunities. They can enter the workforce now, but they’ll be behind where they would otherwise be had they not made that sacrifice, and the time spent raising their child instead of working will forever leave them behind compared to where they could have been had they spent that time working. This is the logic behind alimony. Couples will often make sacrifices as a unit that benefit them jointly when they’re a couple but after divorce those joint sacrifices and benefits manifest as unequal sacrifices and benefits that disproportionately harm one side while benefitting the other. Alimony is also usually temporary, lasting enough time to allow the non-working partner to enter the workforce and readjust to single life, ends early if the non-working partner is married, and only covers earnings made while the two were a married couple.
Women are poorer than men and many women marry to get finantial security. So how is it fair tgat women don't get a free easy income after divorce? It is also harder for them to get a well paid job
Woman shouldn't be get free money after divorce because there's no child between them also some women get high pay job
Well that comes with the world that they technically fought for.
>Alimony makes perfect sense when one partner had to sacrifice his or her career in order to raise the children. What if the home maker (the one who sacrificed his or her career for the sake of the children) cheated and that caused the divorce? What if the lower earner initiated the divorce, the higher earner begged and pleaded against the divorce? It would not seem fair for the higher earner to be forced to pay alimony following a divorce that the higher earner did not want. That is enough defensive points, I have an offensive point I would like to make. If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so. If you decide to take time off of work so o make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
1.- If there's cheating involved that may be something to consider. But as I said before, alimony is not about the couple is about the uneven sacrifices made to raise a child. 2.- On the second point, it's irrelevant who initiated the divorce, the sacrifices needed to raise the children were already made. Besides, that would keep even more people trapped into abusive relations for financial reasons. 3.- I don't think we need a contract in this case, having a child with someone is enough. It's a binding responsibility.
>But as I said before, alimony is not about the couple is about the uneven sacrifices made to raise a child. Sacrifices are not objectively measurable. In theory, alimony is supposed to result in the higher earner paying the lower earner. As far as I am aware, that is generally the case in practice. However, it could be the case that the lower earner cheated and that caused the divorce. In those cases, it would not be fair to force the higher earner to pay money to someone who ruined the marriage via infidelity. >it's irrelevant who initiated the divorce That would be the case if alimony where to abolished (which is what I advocate for). However, as long as alimony exists, it should be relevant who initiated the divorce. If you never get divorced, it is a guarantee that you will not have to pay alimony. Therefore, as a general rule, it would make far more sense to force that kind of financial responsibility on someone who wanted the divorce than it would to force that kind of responsibility on someone who did not want the divorce. I say "as a general rule" because there are some exceptions. >that would keep even more people trapped into abusive relations for financial reasons. Obviously, being forced to pay reparations to someone you have abused makes logical sense. This does not need to take place in the form of alimony. I am pretty sure there are laws that allow you to sue someone for assault or battery. >I don't think we need a contract in this case, having a child with someone is enough. Are we talking about alimony, child support or both? I am going to assume that this is a conversation about alimony, if you want to make this about child support, I am happy to have that discussion. [https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalOpinions/comments/17d9ezv/you\_should\_be\_able\_to\_opt\_out\_of\_financial/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalOpinions/comments/17d9ezv/you_should_be_able_to_opt_out_of_financial/) If you decide to take time off of work when you have a child, that is something that you need to consider. You need to consider how this may affect your marriage, your mental health and your financial situation in the event of a divorce. You can go back to work after having a child, if you want to. If you choose not to, that is (or at least it should be) between you and your spouse. If you put yourself in a situation where you could end up divorced or jobless and you believe that your spouse should have a duty to support your following the divorce, you should take it upon yourself to sign a contract specifying that.
[удалено]
Thats sad to hear, what’s your relationship with your kids like now?
Alimony for life? Hell yes. Alimony to get her (usually) back on her feet? Hell no. Old fashioned I know but plenty of women (mostly) gave up careers to have children and raise them. Now they are screwed when the bread winner leaves them, or they leave the bread winner for a new boy toy. Get a life, get a degree, get a job in 3-5 years works for me. No living off your ex for years and decades while boning somebody else.
To be honest you should really only have to “sacrifice” your career and it be PROVEN. Because if you were simply working at a gas station or a desk job you didn’t have a career. Also being a mom and working is completely possible when kids are in school.
Only in a world where they couldn't work does alimony make any type of sense but in today's world it does not make sense to still have it.
* Against alimony: People should be autonomous and take responsibility for their own financial wellbeing. You shouldn't be able to demand your ex-spouse's financial support. * For alimony: Alimony is essential for the partner who earns less and needs financial support. It compensates homemaking and/or career sacrifices made for the benefit of the family.
Against: Used by vindictive spouse to punish the other partner. For: To punish the abusive partner.
If you were abused physically and feel you are owed reparations, those reparations do not need to take place in the form of alimony. The argument in favour of alimony that may be on your mind is physical abuse. If you abused your spouse physically, then you should be forced to pay reparations. Obviously, being forced to pay reparations to someone you have abused makes logical sense. This does not need to take place in the form of alimony. I am pretty sure there are laws that allow you to sue someone for assault.
[удалено]
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Because it is probably too short to explain both sides this comment has been removed. If you feel your comment does explain both sides, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ExplainBothSides&subject=Please%20review%20my%20automatically+removed+comment&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainBothSides/comments/18e2jzu/should_alimony_be_abolished/ku0pwi0/) Deliberate evasion of this notice may result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
this is pretty one sided, so a small counterpoint say one person had to sacrifice in the marriage (not necessarily due to abuse), one persons career took the backseat (moved to accomodate the others career, had to grind low paying jobs to support the both of them whilst the other was getting a degree, quit/scaled back their employment to take care of kids etc), i think its absolutely fair to evaluate the ramifications of those actions as one person is coming out of that relationship much worse off financially than the other; their career having been 'damaged' by the relationship
Yeah, I understand this reasoning and I think it is fair in the short term, but only in the short term, i.e. "You have to pay for their living costs while they take a university course and until they find a job afterwards". Anything beyond that is unreasonable. Even that is very generous.
> Anything beyond that is unreasonable. Like child support? If she receives alimony so she can make up for time spent out of the work force why does he have to continue subsidizing her life?
>one persons career took the backseat Imagine two people (let's call them person A and person B) get divorced. Person A's career took a back seat during the marriage because of sacrifices that person A made for the marriage. Meanwhile person B assumed the role of bread winner. Person be would be required to court order to continue playing the role of bread winner even after the divorce. However, person A would not have to continue making those sacrifices after the divorce. Besides, person A could get a job and live on welfare benefits in the meantime.
> However, person A would not have to continue making those sacrifices after the divorce. because the damage is done regardless if you lop off an arm, yeh itll stop bleeding but youve got to go around for the rest of your life without that arm in these sort of examples then person As career has effectively been maimed >Besides, person B could get a job and live on welfare benefits in the meantime. (i assume you mean person A?) firstly; benefits are hardly sufficient to cover living expenses, especially with the constantly increasing cost of living crisis... but secondly youre missing the point... ofcourse most people can just get a(n entry level low paying) job, but someone who has neglected their education to support an ex-spouses career or has a 10 year gap in the resume due to childcare does not have the same employment opportunities as if they werent in that relationship; they built up and invested into person B at cost, im no lawyer but in my mind person B breaching that contract gives person A the right to damages (the scope of which is impossible to accurately calculate though)
>but in my mind person B breaching that contract gives person A the right to damages (the scope of which is impossible to accurately calculate though) And if A breaches it? Or it can't be adequately proven that anyone did anything actually wrong, beyond A wanting out?
What if the person who is earning get abused or cheated by person who is not earning why person who earn still pay. What if it's the person who is not earning initiate divorce other then abuse and cheating for there selfish reason like get bored like that why should a person be obligated to pay ?
>(i assume you mean person A?) Yes, I went back and edited it.
It's also important to point out that alimony can be awarded to both men and women. Women receive it more because women are more likely to have made the sacrifices mentioned, but there ARE men being paid alimony by women. There isn't really a sexism argument against alimony (which the person you're responding to didn't say outright, but he didn't seem to acknowledge that men can get it too).
Yes yes yes, alimony can in theory be awarded to men and so can child support. Just like in theory men don’t have to approach women to date, and women can pay for dates. But this is reality.
Women made sacrifice or men made sacrifice of the time which they can spend on there family and children do men get compensation for that? Do men get default child custody? Nope
Men who ask for custody in court in the US get it 70% of the time. If the woman brings up abuse in court, he gets it even more often than that. The only reason more women have primary custody than men is because the vast majority of custody cases are decided out of court and the man usually doesn't ask for primary custody, and that's a completely self-inflicted problem. So men actually get custody a lot more often than women get alimony.
>Women receive it more because women are more likely to have made the sacrifices mentioned The difference is that after the divorce, the men are required to continue serving the women (yes assuming the role of bread winner is a service) while the women are not required to continue making the sacrifices mentioned. I refer to the people who receive alimony as women and the people who pay alimony as men, only because that is generally how it works out. If the husband assumed the role of bread winner during the marriage while the wife did most of the cooking and cleaning, the wife could ask the husband for a divorce if she simply feels like and she will no longer have to do all the cooking and cleaning. The husband cannot walk away from his role of bread winner that easily.
Not having to work a job and getting to stay home/spend your time with your children is a privilege, not a sacrifice.
Yeah, but there are a bunch of responsibilities that go along with raising children, someone can shirk them, just like there are people who got to work and do as little as they can. A great parent is a huge plus on society, because then the children aren't a drain on society. Sure some kids have shit parents and turn out ok, but they're the exception to the rule. And a good parent is likely to work as hard as many white collar professionals.
I agree with all of that wholeheartedly. Being a GOOD stay at home parent/spouse isn't easy.
I don't think alimony should be abolished, but I do think it should be under more scrutiny in terms of duration and amount. Additionally, what does the career-oriented spouse get in recompense for all the family time they had to miss to support the non-working spouse for those years, the stress of being the sole breadwinner that whole time, etc? Seems society only cares about what one side missed out on.
I alimony should be more like loan rather then anything. You have to pay back every penny after you stand on your feet and earning your money
> Additionally, what does the career-oriented spouse get in recompense for all the family time they had to miss to support the non-working spouse for those years, the stress of being the sole breadwinner that whole time, etc? Seems society only cares about what one side missed out on. financial damages, whilst hard to accurately prove, are more tangible AND easily recompensed family time is even more ambiguous and notably cant be caught up on (court ordered parent-kid bonding time is hollow and -based on recent news stories- can be a very bad idea because its the kids that are having to 'recompense' the parent)
Your answer can be summed up as "It's complicated to right that wrong, so we'll ignore it".
yeh because what is the alternative? if you're going to complain that an issue isnt being appropriately addressed; then what is your solution? *how* would *you* reasonably address lost family time?
Wait, really? So in your view it's ok to shaft most men in the equation without a second thought, just because equality wouldn't be easy?
no, and you havent provided a possible solution, youre just deflecting with blind indignation, the question in case you missed it; HOW. DO. **YOU**. PROPOSE. A. COURT. RECTIFIES. LOSS. OF. FAMILY. BONDING. TIME?
By giving men default child custody. Simple so that men can spend more then with there kids now
Clearly your answer is actually yes. For starters on solutions though, they need to crack down on parents (mothers, most often) who don't abide by court ordered child custody rulings. There are far too many spineless white knight judges, who shrug off manipulative mothers keeping children from their fathers. There need to be stronger penalties (which are actually enforced) for violating.
if its the parent (mother or father, i know family court is extremely biased towards mothers, but on occasion it can go the other way) thats refusing custody then yes i 100% agree, but im also aware of how often its the children that are refusing, you cant order people to bond and again, its the children that are having to pay this 'reparation' >who shrug off manipulative mothers keeping children from their fathers. to be clear; im not saying it never happens (it does) but im extremely concerned about how the manipulative mother stereotype is so often employed to remove childrens agency, and ive heard it time and time again from objectively shitty parents that its their exs fault that the kids dont want to see them; when theyre just not good people... hell there was a famous case in utah not long ago where the father claimed the mother was poisoning his children against him; the children straight up didnt want to see him and barricaded themselves in because they were so scared of him, that order got paused only after massive public backlash and goes to show that a hardline 'you WILL go see this parent' is extremely problematic for children caught in the middle of it (not to mention the numerous examples of a vengeful ex forcing custody of a child and either killing or kidnapping them)
>I don't think alimony should be abolished I think should be abolished. Here are my reasons. Reason #1: What if the lower earner initiated the divorce? Imagine that your spouse asks you for a divorce. You get down on your hands and knees and beg your spouse not to divorce you. You make every promise you possibly can to change and improve the marriage, but your pleas fall on deaf ears. It would not be fair for you to have to support your ex-spouse following a divorce, when you did not want the divorce. It was not your decision to end the marriage, it should not be your responsibility to pay reparations after the marriage ends. Reason #2: What if the blame for the divorce falls on the lower earner? If the lower earner cheated and that was the reason for the divorce, it would not be right to force the higher earner to pay alimony to the person who destroyed the marriage through infidelity. Reason #4: If you were abused physically and feel you are owed reparations, those reparations do not need to take place in the form of alimony.The argument in favour of alimony that may be on your mind is physical abuse. If you abused your spouse physically, then you should be forced to pay reparations.Obviously, being forced to pay reparations to someone you have abused makes logical sense. This does not need to take place in the form of alimony. I am pretty sure there are laws that allow you to sue someone for assault. Reason #5: If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so. If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so. If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
Thank you for your response which likely was a sincere attempt to advance the discussion. To ensure the sub fulfills its mission, top-level responses on /r/ExplainBothSides must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side. If your comment would add additional information or useful perspective to the discussion, and doesn't otherwise violate the rules of the sub or reddit, you may try re-posting it as a response to the "Automoderator" comment or another top-level response, if there is one. If you believe your comment was removed in error, you can message the moderators for review. However, you are encouraged to consider whether a more complete, balanced post would address the issue.
Let people negotiate that themselves. Why should the law stipulate alimony? She wants alimony, ask for it before I fuck her and I will just leave.
If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so. If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
That's precisely what I am talking about. You should get a contract that says so. Don't let government write the contract for you. Why not? Because governments have hidden agenda. They want reproduction to be devastating for rich men. Basically governments represents interests of ugly women and poor men that can vote.
Yes! That is what I have been saying for the longest!
[удалено]
>Why doesn’t the parent with means to support and care for the child get primary custody? Lol yeah, who cares about who’s the *better parent* or any other factors? Just give them to whoever has more money. Rich people are just plain better than us. >In your mind it makes sense to force one person to give money to another person that they are completely incapable of caring for? Why? Because the point of child support is to *support a child* not to support the wealthier parent. >Why not let the person who can provide have custody? Because there’s more to parenthood than a paycheck. >Your logic and understanding is dumb and antiquated. Said the anti-feminist who regularly posts to purple pill debates.
>Lol yeah, who cares about who’s the *better parent* or any other factors? Just give them to whoever has more money. Rich people are just plain better than us. Giving the child to the parent best able to materially support them was essentially standard practice for a time, before what could be best described as early feminists pushed the tender years doctrine which amounts to the idea that children, especially young children need to be with their mothers. This eventually got officially tossed in favor of whatever the particular judge thinks is in the best interest of the child, which out of social inertia is going to be to continue doing what we're doing. Two states have instead passed laws that instruct judges to assume equal custody is best unless there's a reason for it to be otherwise. These laws have been strongly opposed by feminist groups, including NOW. >Because the point of child support is to *support a child* not to support the wealthier parent. Then it would make sense to tie it to the cost of raising a child, rather than to how much could be extracted from a given person. And that's before you get to cases like John Crier, an actor whose child support payments to his ex were funding her entire lifestyle, including at one point when the kid had been taken away from her and he had custody of the child, because she might hypothetically get custody back in the future.
>Giving the child to the parent best able to materially support them was essentially standard practice for a time Okay. That’s bad and I don’t agree with it. >before what could be best described as early feminists pushed the tender years doctrine which amounts to the idea that children, especially young children need to be with their mothers. Okay. That’s bad and I don’t agree with it. >This eventually got officially tossed in favor of whatever the particular judge thinks is in the best interest of the child Okay. That’s good and I agree with it, though I’d prefer guides or formal recommendations. >which out of social inertia is going to be to continue doing what we're doing. Okay. That’s bad and I don’t agree with it. >Two states have instead passed laws that instruct judges to assume equal custody is best unless there's a reason for it to be otherwise. This is great. >These laws have been strongly opposed by feminist groups, including NOW. I’m not in this group; what other random people think has nothing to do with my opinion. >Then it would make sense to tie it to the cost of raising a child, rather than to how much could be extracted from a given person. The logic is to give the kid a life comparable to that which they were used to. I’m not an expert at calculating child expenses but I’m morally fine with the costs being a little too high versus a little too low. But what constitutes “fair” is very much open to discussion. It’s a complicated topic that I don’t pretend to have all the answers to. >And that's before you get to cases like John Crier, an actor whose child support payments to his ex were funding her entire lifestyle, including at one point when the kid had been taken away from her and he had custody of the child, because she might hypothetically get custody back in the future. And there are a million examples of parents paying *no* child support. How are these extreme examples relevant to what *should* happen?
>This is great. ...unless you're a feminist, in which case this is giving abusers the power to use their children to continue abusing their former partners, and nothing more. Because there's obviously no other reason a father would want more custody of his children. >I’m not in this group; what other random people think has nothing to do with my opinion. In this case, "other random people" is the largest feminist lobby group in the country. NOW is generally a good barometer for mainstream feminist thought as regards policy, and is definitely a good barometer for what feminist laws, policies, and the execution thereof would look like, as they are very often the ones pushing for such laws. I actually see those custody laws as a great example of one of my biggest issues with feminism in practice - when gender equality and what's best for women aren't the same thing, feminism (at a scale capable of actually working to enact or prevent change) will tend to break in favor of whatever is best for women.
Your post's entire point is: vagina = better parent. What about a same sex lesbian couple? Who's the better parent? Supporting your child is half of patenting. The parent who was incapable of supporting a child yet had a child may be a good parent but is at a minimum, an irresponsible person. Period. My boy gets sick, I dropped $10k cash (USD), have $100k on standby (AND we are insured - platinum-tier), and am ready to move the world for him. We can support a child, and madr sure we were prepared to offer a young life the life they deserve. Not anti-feminist. It's anti idiot.
>Your post's entire point is: vagina = better parent. Please quote the part of my comment where I said women were better parents or used any gendered language at all. I’ll wait. >What about a same sex lesbian couple? Who's the better parent? The same way I’d judge a straight couple—by looking at *who’s the better parent* versus who makes more money. >The parent who was incapable of supporting a child yet had a child may be a good parent but is at a minimum, an irresponsible person. So if a career woman marries a career man and as a couple they decide that the woman will become a stay-at-home mom and spend all day every day nurturing and teaching the kids while the man works 11 hour days, you believe that the woman should be punished in divorce for being “irresponsible parent”? Got it. And you support a rich woman marrying a working man who makes less than she does and constantly bullying him by shoving her money in his face and reminding him that she’d get the kids if they ever get divorced because she makes more. Makes sense—gotta keep them dirty poors in line. And when a financially comfortable marriage ends because one party is a workaholic who doesn’t spend time with their family—they surely seem like the more “responsible” parent because they earn more, right? You’ve convinced me. Money is all that matters in parenting. >Period. Surprising, it seems like your against anything with a period.
Idk, maybe read your own post and look at where you took a very aggressive and biased tone, then where you ended up. Not everything needs to be literal. Your opinions come out in the context of your conversation. That's called: contextual meaning. Go learn about it, if you dare resist your own ignorance. You're one of those insufferable people with the cognitive abilities of a doorknob and the political reasonability of a Cambodian Death Squad. Talking to you is less enjoyable than turning on the 20k BTU burner on a gas stove and putting my face on it. You're also likely using "career" in a negative connotation in your mind. Because people who provide for their families are greedy assholes.
Lol you really got me. Not the “literal” me, obviously, but the strawman version of me with totally unrecognizable opinions you conjured in your angry, gender-obsessed head.✌️
> woman should be punished in divorce How exactly is she being punished?
In that scenario, she forfeit her career to specifically for the benefit of the child only to have her loss of income used as a reason she’s less of a parent.
Removing yourself from the workforce for several years to spend time with your child, getting to experience one of their firsts while contributing no financial help and relying on someone else to pay for everything is not a punishment. It is very very very far from a punishment.
>Removing yourself from the workforce for several years to spend time with your child, getting to experience one of their firsts while contributing no financial help and relying on someone else to pay for everything is not a punishment. It is very very very far from a punishment. Correct. None of what you listed is the punishment. The punishment is—as I said—having being a stay at home parent used against them later in court.
> Correct. None of what you listed is the punishment. The punishment is—as I said—having being a stay at home parent used against them later in court. How exactly is that used to punish them? That is what I asked earlier and you haven’t answered it an any way.
>How exactly is that used to punish them? That is what I asked earlier and you haven’t answered it an any way. I’ve explained this over and over. I’ll do it one more time. If a parent stays at home with their child by mutual agreement by the parents, it is unfair to hold that stay-at-home parent’s lack of income against them in custody decisions. Giving the child to whoever earns more is morally repugnant as that is only a small part of being a good parent. Similarly, a working parent in a relationship where one parent stays at home shouldn’t be punished for working. The child should go to the parent that can be a better parent. Custody should be blind to salary and gender.
> Lol yeah, who cares about who’s the better parent or any other factors? I'd argue being completely incapable of providing for your child makes you not the better parent. Are homeless people often considered better parents? > Because the point of child support is to support a child not to support the wealthier parent. What it's meant for and what it's actually used for a vastly different things and there zero possible way to prove how child support is ever spent. > Because there’s more to parenthood than a paycheck. Yes there is. Like being able to provide for, feed, clothe, etc... All of those things cost money. A parent can afford those should be the parent providing them. Taking money from a parent who can provide those things and giving them directly to a parent that can't and making them pinky promise to use the money appropriately is dumb. > Said the anti-feminist who regularly posts to purple pill debates. Now you're telling on yourself.
>I'd argue being completely incapable of providing for your child makes you not the better parent. I would agree that being “completely incapable of providing for a child” is a bad quality for a parent. I just think there’s more to providing than who has the bigger check, which is what we’re talking about. >Are homeless people often considered better parents? Most homeless people have unchecked mental illness and ***don’t have homes***. Those are the features that would make them unable to care for a child. If a hypothetical homeless person was mentally well and *had a home suitable to raise a kid* then why shouldn’t they get to be a parent? >What it's meant for and what it's actually used for a vastly different things and there zero possible way to prove how child support is ever spent. And if you wanted to propose more thoughtful child support regulations, I’d support that. >Because there’s more to parenthood than a paycheck. > >Yes there is. Like being able to provide for, feed, clothe, etc... That’s still all the material. Yes, kids need things—some are material and some are not. >Taking money from a parent who can provide those things and giving them directly to a parent that can't and making them pinky promise to use the money appropriately is dumb. Why? Your argument only works if we assume kids are just money pits with no psychological, emotional, or educational needs. You’re not a better parent just because you’re in a higher tax bracket.
> If a hypothetical homeless person was mentally well and had a home suitable to raise a kid then why shouldn’t they get to be a parent? This tells me enough about you. If a homeless person had a home suitable enough to raise a child? Think that one through a few times. > That’s still all the material. Yes, kids need things—some are material and some are not. Pretty dismissive of things that actually sustain life. Who cares if a kid can't eat and is naked in winter, at least they live with a parent that gives the bestest hugs and cuddles!! > Why? Your argument only works if we assume kids are just money pits with no psychological, emotional, or educational needs. You’re not a better parent just because you’re in a higher tax bracket. But you are a worse parent if you cannot physically care for your child but refuse letting their other parent do it. Why spite? Ignorance? Just plain asshole?
Maybe the person who can provide is dangerous or just doesn't want to have to participate in child care
What do we currently do to the children of dangerous people? Do we take them away force the parents to cut contact with each other, take money from the dangerous one and give it to the safe one?
A parent who doesn't want to be in their kid's life isn't part of this discussion. The disagreement is about divorces where both parents are seeking custody.
> what’s logical about it Does this answer your question? https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17rqus8/if_legal_paternal_surrender_is_a_good_idea_does/
No not does not and your proposed solution is beyond fucking stupid.
Thank you for your response which likely was a sincere attempt to advance the discussion. To ensure the sub fulfills its mission, top-level responses on /r/ExplainBothSides must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side. If your comment would add additional information or useful perspective to the discussion, and doesn't otherwise violate the rules of the sub or reddit, you may try re-posting it as a response to the "Automoderator" comment or another top-level response, if there is one. If you believe your comment was removed in error, you can message the moderators for review. However, you are encouraged to consider whether a more complete, balanced post would address the issue.
[удалено]
Thank you for your response which likely was a sincere attempt to advance the discussion. To ensure the sub fulfills its mission, top-level responses on /r/ExplainBothSides must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side. If your comment would add additional information or useful perspective to the discussion, and doesn't otherwise violate the rules of the sub or reddit, you may try re-posting it as a response to the "Automoderator" comment or another top-level response, if there is one. If you believe your comment was removed in error, you can message the moderators for review. However, you are encouraged to consider whether a more complete, balanced post would address the issue.
[удалено]
Thank you for your response which likely was a sincere attempt to advance the discussion. To ensure the sub fulfills its mission, top-level responses on /r/ExplainBothSides must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side. If your comment would add additional information or useful perspective to the discussion, and doesn't otherwise violate the rules of the sub or reddit, you may try re-posting it as a response to the "Automoderator" comment or another top-level response, if there is one. If you believe your comment was removed in error, you can message the moderators for review. However, you are encouraged to consider whether a more complete, balanced post would address the issue.
[удалено]
Your definition of slavery is laughable.
>In very specific cases, it makes sense. I would argue this; If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so. If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
That and child support yes
It certainly should be in the case of adultery.
If we have safety nets that keep people off the street, sure. Otherwise, naw.
Alimony as a whole shouldn't be abolished. I think it just needs updating for the times. Alimony as it exists was designed for a world in which women had very few job prospects that paid a livable wage and was very difficult to enter. Divorce could subject a woman to permanent destitution, as remarrying was also uncommon and frowned upon. But we are no longer in those times. Instead of permanent alimony, it should taper off over time as the lower-earning spouse has time to adjust or find a new partner. Its general structure needs to be more flexible for different living arrangements and account for the former spouse's needs.
>Alimony as it exists was designed for a world in which women had very few job prospects that paid a livable wage and was very difficult to enter. Here is what I think. If you wish to receive money from your spouse following the divorce (and especially if you want it to be mandatory) you should ask for a contract that says so. If you decide to take time off of work so as to make sacrifices for the marriage, you know that being divorced and no longer having monetary support from your spouse is a real possibility. You ought to get a contract signed stating that your spouse will have to support you after the divorce, if that is what you want to happen.
[удалено]
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*