TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

107

I find it interesting how many men simultaneously hate career women and alimony. If you take on an SAHM, you're consenting to alimony if you two break up. You can't just abandon someone to the streets and/or to scramble because you're done with them. That's not how this works. This person gave up years of their lives to care for your house and your possible kids if you reproduced.


[–]reluctantly_red51 points52 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I find it interesting how many men simultaneously hate career women and alimony.

No shit, who the hell wants an adult dependent who has an incentive to be disloyal?

[–]Oncefa2SJW1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I've never actually seen men, "simultaneously hate career women and alimony", like it's some kind of pattern, maybe among redpills or something.

I've seen people like OP repeat this over and over again because they think they're making some kind of a point, but that's about it.

I will say that it's pretty telling about how women behave and treat (*mistreat) men when they get a degree, possibly a good job, but then they quit all of that to stay at home all day living off the man's income.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Its called a strawman, and it is a tactic of choice for people who haven't thought thru their own opinions as well as they think they have

[–]couldbemage9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The idea that not working is a sacrifice is something I just don't understand. I'd love to not work. Working sucks.

Most people do all that household stuff and work full time. Being a sahm is a great deal. So it seems like asking way too much to keep getting support after you aren't even holding up your side of that deal anymore.

[–]ireadredpillonce62 points63 points  (102 children) | Copy Link

Women initiate 70%-80% of the divorces. If you taken on a bumbling homer simpson of a husband, you're consenting to continuing to look after him while you receive alimony. You can't just abandon him and let him starve to death, wear unwashed laundry, and live in a house with 3 inches of dust. That's not how this works. This person gave up years of their lives to care for you and your kids.

[–]HonestyOverCivility 1 points [recovered]  (6 children) | Copy Link

There was a guy who got his alimony reduced by calculating out the monetary value of his wife’s house labor and arguing that since she’s not longer providing that service to him that it should be deducted from his alimony

[–]ireadredpillonce4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is exactly the story I was thinking of

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Bless this patriot

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Link?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Seconded.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.19 points20 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

Actually the latest data I found was something like 64%, which is lower than the 69% the study that is often cited here found. The comment I’m thinking of also cited to the reasons which is interesting, let me see if I can find it.

Also, alimony is premised upon financial ability, there’s no such thing as alimony-in-the-form-of requiring an ex spouse to continue providing cooking/cleaning services but I mean I’m sure you already knew that. It’s not supposed to be like quid pro quo or anything, it’s supposed to be “rehabilitative” (in most forms).

Edit: here’s the comment:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/ahd96g/comment/eeemtmo?st=JRHYBNJG&sh=2ea324d4

It’s linking an Australian study, but goes more in depth on this topic than the others I have seen.

[–]RadChadswell 1 points [recovered]  (36 children) | Copy Link

Arguably his financial ability is reduced if he no longer has her homemaker services (example: he can't cook and clean for himself and never did before). He would have to hire a maid to replace her labor, which reduces his disposable income. His ability to pay is reduced by not having her contribution to the home, so he can only pay out of what's left.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.9 points10 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Realistically, the financial burden is increased for both simply because it's cheaper to live with someone and pay the same bills for the same utilities for two people, etc. So two households is just more expensive than one. However, when you factor in what is typical (the kids live mostly with mom), his disposable income often goes up while hers goes down, even with child support. That is why you sometimes see articles speaking of "men getting richer" post-divorce (ignoring such a clickbait way of phrasing it, what is true is that their disposable income statistically goes up). Also why more women than men end up in poverty post-divorce.

However, reality is both parties suffer in different ways, and nobody "wins" financially, typically speaking.

[–]RadChadswell 1 points [recovered]  (6 children) | Copy Link

It depends on his other skills, though, and his dependence on her contribution to the marriage.

Even if he wasn't co-dependent, yes absolutely it's always a loss because two households cost more than sharing. Yet it's possible he was as dependent on her homemaking as she was on him for finances. Because she was dependent, she's entitled to financial support to help her survive afterwards without him. He's just left with a big void, even though he may have been as dependent or more on her (non-financially). After all, feminists keep arguing SAHM is just as valuable a contribution as a full-time job. If her contribution really did match his... he's now paying to make up for the support she lost, but he has nothing to make up for the support he lost. The simplest fix would be to subtract that from his income in alimony calculations. Any less treats the SAHM as though she was worth nothing.

There's also a study showing women are happier and live longer after losing their husbands than men when they lose their wives. Arguably this is because the law does a good job of replacing the man's financial contribution via support payments, yet the man is left with a big void where his wife used to help out. Some men are independent are do fine, but others do end up depressed and living like shit on their own.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

If it supports the policy, sure. But right now that policy is “rehabilitative” in most cases, meaning financially rehabilitative.

Someone said they heard of some case where a guy argued that, I’d like to read it but they haven’t provided a link yet.

[–]RadChadswell 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I just think it's an interesting and valid argument that should be used more. Her SAHM contribution has economic value; the loss of it equates to an economic loss.

I'm not saying the guy should get meal-support rehabilitation payments, but he may incur a financial loss paying for services to fill the void of her contribution. That is financially rehabilitative, and it affects his financial ability to pay alimony. If the dude can't work without a cleaning lady and takeout food to replace his wife, that affects his financial ability.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I mean the idea again, is rehabilitative to the financially and career-wise less off party. There are many factors which go into the alimony analysis including the party who would owe support's own financial state and ability to care for themselves. But again, this is looking at numbers and assets and career potential generally speaking, not "well he might want to pay for a maid or get take out regularly". I guess you have to draw the line somewhere.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"If you do X for me, I will do Y for you." "If you do Y for me, I will do X for you. Til death do us part."

Why should any party in the above example be expected to carry out their part of the deal if the other party willfully broke the deal?

I don't just mean specifically in the context of relationships. In any context, why should one party be allowed to make a deal, break the deal, and then still expect the other party to hold up their end of the deal?

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just because that is the way that it is now, does not mean that it is correct, fair, or equal.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷4 points5 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

Unless you live in buckingham palace, you don't need to hire a maid. I live in a 2,400 square foot house. When I clean it myself, you know how long it takes top to bottom? 3 hours, and that's with me taking a ton of care as I go.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

2700 sq foot here and same deal. cant believe people are hiring maids for apartments now

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I mean if you have the disposible income it is nice not to have to mess with cleaning your house. I hire someone. But let's say one of us lost our job. That would be the first thing to go.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Time > money. If the bills are paid, why not spend extra money to buy yourself more time? I had a housekeeper back when I was a delivery driver, I would literally work for 2 hours and earn enough money to pay someone to clean my home for 3 hours. Therefore, I was able to save an hour of my own time each week and still ended up with the same result in the end, a clean house.

On top of that, the professional cleaning person generally cleans MUCH faster than I possibly could, so the amount of things they get accomplished in the 3 hour period (that would not have gotten done if I was responsible for cleaning my home myself) makes it QUITE worth the $ spend.

People will spend 20 minutes clipping coupons to save $0.50, and those same people will scoff at people who spend money to purchase time. Time, the one thing that you cannot get back once you spend (waste) it. The world makes no sense.

[–]RadChadswell 1 points [recovered]  (22 children) | Copy Link

It's easy because you've cleaned before and know how to clean. It's easy for me too, because I've done it a lot. Skills come with practice and experience.

What about some guy who's never done it before in his life because he married a SAHM at 20? He's supposed to learn from scratch, while depressed about the divorce and working full-time and paying to support her?

[–]Reverend_VaderSith Lord1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is exactly what happened to me at 42 when we got together at 17

I couldn't cook for shit and cleaning would not have been an issue apart from me having loads of metal pinning my hands together so I struggle to use my hands (some weeks fine, some weeks I lose all use of one of them)

I was just left to fend for myself as fucked up with cleaning and cooking as she was with money

You know what I did, I learned to cook and still am doing, within a few attempts I had it back to the standard I used to get from my ex, tbh there was never any meal prep before as She fed us on frozen food and junk mainly which is still my diet but I've really cut down on crap

I confidently cook for my daughter now when she comes

She left and kept the child benefit and also claimed a fair chunk in benefits for our kid who lived with me 7/7 for the first 7 months under the guise of living with her, she was probably 10% worse off financially because her affair partner has always been the state

When my kid chose to live with her mom I already knew how much she cost me as the ex refused to hand over a penny (not that there was any point asking - BPD)

The child support was double what she cost on a week to week basis as I added about 15% above what I had to pay as I knew the money would be directed to her mother's bills, her mother sent her to me whenever she needed anything and refused to give her any money

Her mother works 4 hrs a day at minimum wage, she has not looked for more work in nearly 3 years since we split because she didn't need to, I got her a job which she quit after one day

The money that hits her bank is enough for her to get by because the state and myself pay way over 1/2 her costs

A week ago the penny dropped and she realised in six months she loses all that income when my daughter leaves normal education

Did she start looking for work, nope she demanded I pay to divorce her so she gets her half in cash, of course I smiled and declined and told her I'd await her solicitors letter, the last time we spoke she wanted to write me a hand written letter instead of a divorce saying she would not claim more of I paid her cash for her half of the property (which of course was paid 100% by me) - She literally lives in her own made up world

She will be nearly 50 before she has to consider a full time job for the first time in her life, I now have to remortage the house I've already paid for once, I am open to half my pension and savings being handed over which will give her another decade of indolence, I will be mid 50's at best before I can break even if it goes this way, her lifestyle pretty much won't change as I'll still be funding it for another decade, meanwhile I get nothing in return, I paid for her to live with me, now I have to pay for her again and this doesn't even include alimony as in the UK it's not too bad.

What did I get - a tub of Vaseline and told its my job to support her still

Now my core bills are 50% of what the were and that includes CS, I'm banking 50-60% of my wage most months, my house for the first time in 3 decades is finally fucking tidy as I learned most of the mess came from the person who was supposed to clean it whilst I worked full time & overtime

Looking after myself and this place is a piece of piss when you don't live with a lazy slob, if say I have about 30 extra hours a week to myself

My ex literally has never put a penny of her own earnings to anyone but herself

Now if you take me at my word my ex is a POS, I don't hate sahms, I don't hate women, I hate a system that forces me to pay for someone who chooses to do as little as possible and expects me to continue paying for their lifestyle until I'm too old to enjoy life anymore

One of us left because of cheating, lying, theft, verbal and physical abuse, guess who did all that as well but she still gets half

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She left and kept the child benefit and also claimed a fair chunk in benefits for our kid who lived with me 7/7 for the first 7 months under the guise of living with her

I have a friend who's baby momma is doing exactly this. She gets welfare, foodstamps, WIC (which is like food stamps but for a child), subsidized housing, as well as child support, and she takes care of the kid barely once a month (and even then supposedly it's the grandmother who usually takes the kid).

She likes partying, drinking, fucking, etc, and having a kid is a huge drag on that kind of lifestyle. He, on the other hand, enjoys being a dad. He's with another woman now who has her own child (with a deadbeat baby daddy) and they have one together now.

He could probably fix the child support situation and get the baby momma kicked off half the government support she receives (and maybe claim some himself -- after all, he's the one who deserves it, not her), but last time he went to court over the issue, the mom threatened to sue for full custody, meaning he wouldn't be able to see his kid anymore.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

It's not brain surgery. If he's that useless how does he find his way to work each morning or even hold down a job?

yet she's too incapable to get a job to support herself,

I haven't seen one person say she shouldn't get a job. What they're saying is she may not be able to get a job right away that supports herself and the kids.

[–]RadChadswell 1 points [recovered]  (17 children) | Copy Link

I haven't seen one person say she shouldn't get a job. What they're saying is she may not be able to get a job right away

And I'm not saying he should never clean for himself. I'm saying he's might really suck at first, may incur some costs to get through that transition, and that should be factored into the calculations. If she needs a grace period to get on her feet, why doesn't he?

It's not brain surgery.

Neither is waiting tables or serving coffee. She can't immediately get a job, get on her own 2 feet, and figure out how to support herself without alimony?

(I'm talking about just alimony here. Child support is still necessary, because he has to provide for his kids.)

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷-2 points-1 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Neither is waiting tables or serving coffee.

Which aren't going to financially support a household.

[–]RadChadswell 1 points [recovered]  (11 children) | Copy Link

Sure they can, especially with child support on top. Millions of families do it.

Oh you mean support at the same standard of living, because she's a higher class than the other people doing it and shouldn't have to live like those filthy plebians and colored people?

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Million of families do it supplemented by government assistance. And frankly I'm not interested in subsidizing someone else's family because a man who got a free ride for 10 years doesn't want to pay the piper.

Oh you mean support at the same standard of living, because she's a higher class than the other people doing it and shouldn't have to live like those filthy plebians and colored people?

Nice strawman.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Waiting tables absolutely can support a household, especially if you add in welfare, subsidized housing, etc.

You might not be able to afford the house you want, the car you want, or the things that you want to buy, but it will support you and your kids.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Waiting tables absolutely can support a household, especially if you add in welfare, subsidized housing, etc.

🤦‍♀️

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

99.9999% of people who hire other people don't need to hire, they choose to hire because the value gained outweighs the value lost

You choose to clean your own place because the value gained by doing it that way (saving money by not hiring somebody) outweighs the value lost (3 hours) according to your values.

I, on the other hand, chose to hire a housekeeper when I was a delivery driver because I made enough in 2 hours to pay him for 3 hours. Would I rather spend 2 hours driving or 3 hours cleaning my house? I value my time, so the answer is simple for me.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

alimony is premised upon financial ability, there’s no such thing as alimony-in-the-form-of requiring an ex spouse to continue providing cooking/cleaning services but I mean I’m sure you already knew that. It’s not supposed to be like quid pro quo or anything

The idea is that it's unfair to the man. He's paying for something that he's no longer receiving in return. It's basically a form of thievery.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷8 points9 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

What kind of Donna reed fantasy do you live in?

[–]ireadredpillonce8 points9 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

Presumably the mirror universe of the one OP lives in

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷20 points21 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

Op is not arguing for traditionalism.

She is asking traditionalists how they reconcile resenting career women/wanting a stay at home wife with resenting alimony at the same time.

[–]eliechallita10 points11 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Going to go out on a limb and say that they reconcile those views by believing that women shouldn't have any kind of autonomy.

[–]BothWaysItGoesLibertarian6 points7 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Welfare is not a sign of autonomy, it is exactly the opposite.

[–]eliechallita5 points6 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

It's better than being homeless and starving, and it's a good safety net to allow you to gain greater autonomy later on.

[–]BothWaysItGoesLibertarian3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Sure, I support unemployment benefits too. Not sure what it has to do with alimony.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Wait, libertarians are in favor of unemployment benefits?

[–]BothWaysItGoesLibertarian3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

  • Hayek, the poster boy of libertarianism

[–]eliechallita3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

SAHM don't qualify for unemployment in many places because they weren't technically part of the labor pool first, so alimony is intended to support them until they can find employment or some other means of support instead.

In some cases they simply don't have employable skills, or at least their skills don't measure up with the lifestyle that they had before. A drop in lifestyle is fine and expected, but I don't see the point of throwing someone into poverty because of relationship problems, especially since sudden and deep poverty is extremely hard to come back from.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If they cooked and cleaned at home, they have employable skills. If they don't have employable skills after multiple years of not-having-to-have-a-job that is no fault of anybody else. What the hell were they doing for 40 hours a week, that led to a lack of any employable skills? Were they truly holding up their end of the deal if they cannot look back and point to any skills that they gained during their time as a SAHM?

Childcare is employable. If she had any cooking skills at all, she is in demand in the food industry. She likely spent some time doing dishes if she was a SAHM, so there is another employable skill worth noting.

The only woman who can leave a marriage and claim "I don't have any employable skills" without lying is a woman who wasn't really doing too much to support her household.

I'm curious what SAHM-type situations you can imagine that would lead to a woman being entirely skilless.

[–]BothWaysItGoesLibertarian-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, poverty is hard. I don’t see why we should privilege SAHM over other poor people and lay the burden on their ex-partners. It’s two wrongs and they don’t make right together.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

100% irrelevant to the comment you're responding to, tbh

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Welfare?

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ding ding ding!

[–]Jakkol1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

They would have at minimum fault divorces. Mostlikely no or very hard to get divorces.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

So the issue isnt alimony it's no fault divorces?

Alimony in a fault divorce would be OK?

[–]Jakkol0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Think a lot of traditionalists would say so. I wouldn't.

[–]BirdManBrrrr0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

OP can't fathom there's more than a binary of SAHM vs. Career Woman. That's where her entire argument falls apart since she's debating a strawman she concocted in her own head.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s not OP who doesn’t understand this and to suggest otherwise is totally disingenuous.

Bottom line: tradcons can hamster all they want but they cannot rationally explain what is blatant cognitive dissonance.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She is asking people to justify something she thinks they believe when they have not ever claimed to believe it. It's called a strawman. Could you point me towards a single person in this thread who has actually claimed to both resent career women and resent alimony?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Traditionalism = no divorce at all, or at least at fault divorce

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And with that comes a willingness to work through anything. And by work through i don’t mean just stay together and be miserable to save face with the Sunday church crowd. I mean actually work.

The men I hear saying this seem like the ones who are most ill equipped to be able to do this.

[–]azngirl7689[S] 8 points9 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

Did his hands fall off? Did he become profoundly disabled? I don't understand how a man gets to any age without knowing how to care for himself. That's on him.

[–]ireadredpillonce21 points22 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Did her brain fall out? Did her hands fall off? I don't understand how a woman gets to any age without knowing how to care for herself and work at least a minimum wage job. That's on her.

[–]azngirl7689[S] 11 points12 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

If ya'll want SAHMs/Mommywives/Bangmaids, she's not going to be working. Also, going back to work after a few years off is rough. It takes time, you have to support the person who was your in home maid/cook/chauffeur until they can get on their feet.

[–]Dash_of_islamBidet 4 Life>Toilet paper unwashed proles7 points8 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Devil's advocate: learning how to manage a house and cook after a few years off is rough. It takes time, you have to support the person who was keeping your head above the water until they get back on their feet.

You can't survive without food and if someone did not have to cook for years because they sacrificed the time to learn how to cook and the other perfected their cooking abilities then it stands to reason that they should help the guy.

Cooking isn't that easy if you forgot everything and are expected to learn it all of a sudden

[–]muddyrose12 points13 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Are you saying a grown man can't make a sandwich? He can't read the directions on a box of mac n cheese or can of soup?

A grown man can't buy a bag of pre-made salad and throw some dressing on there?

Maybe after years of being taken care of, he won't be able to make a gourmet meal, sure. But lol at pretending a man wouldn't be able to feed himself at all.

[–]ireadredpillonce7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Are you saying a grown woman can't wait tables, wash dishes, or work at a till?

[–]azngirl7689[S] 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Those jobs pay shit.

[–]Dash_of_islamBidet 4 Life>Toilet paper unwashed proles11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

And Mac and cheese is shit too.

If a grown man has to eat children's food, then STAHMs can get minimum wage jobs

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Can you support yourself on a minimum wage job? I’m not saying an ex sah parent shouldn’t have to go out and get a job. But comparing cooking for yourself to earning enough to pay rent, transportation, child care, etc is pretty disingenuous.

[–]Jakkol2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why you assume the SAHM would have a well paying job if she was a career woman instead?

If she was provided a lifestyle more expensive than her market value then she has nothing to say once the person financing her lifestyle above her own means stops doing that. This like saying a parent needs to continue paying their childs bills to infinity because the child got used to growing up to a certain living standards. Utter insanity.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You can't survive without food

I heard about these things called restaurants, fast food establishments and grocery stores where you can get food already prepared. Ain’t that something!

Cooking isn't that easy if you forgot everything and are expected to learn it all of a sudden

You know, someone told me that you can actually get step by step instructions for how to cook a meal...I think they call them recipes or something like that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why so condescending? There are also step-by-step instructions for finding a job and doing your taxes.

Do you have any points to contribute to the discussion? Because all you have shown with your previous comment is that you are more interested in talking down to people than convincing them of anything. Your comment demonstrates that there are easy ways for either member of a dissolving marriage to get their needs met without mandating that their ex-spouse meet those needs.

[–]beachredwhineCongratulations!1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well you have a really twisted view of marriage going on here

[–]ireadredpillonce1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

How is it rough presumably she's been working 80 hours a week in domestic servitude for me for years

[–]lbspredh9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

it's hard to get a job with a decades long gap in your CV

[–]Oncefa2SJW-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually if you were a stay at home mom, it's really not that difficult.

It's difficult for a man, because they're going to ask questions, and you're going to have to give them a good answer... But if your answer is, "I was a housewife", then they're not going to hold that against you. In fact it's pretty normal and expected.

Now you're not going to make the same as a man who has an extra 10 years of experience over you, but then that man never had the luxury of being able to stay at home for 10 years and bond with his children the way you did, so in the end it works out.

What's fair is fair but a lot of women don't want to see it that way.

The fact that so many women turn around and complain about a wage gap that largely exists because so many of them are able to stay at home and not work for decades at a time is pretty shitty, and shows pretty clearly what kind of a person most of them are on the inside.

[–]RadChadswell 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

If he had a SAHM, he's not going to be taking care of himself. Also learning to do it from scratch late in life is rough. It takes time to master it. Yet you argue he's expected to learn and do it immediately, no grace period to get on his feet, and cope with the trauma of a divorce too all because he's a grown man.

So why can't she learn to get a job and take care of herself too? She's not a grown woman? Or is your argument that women are less capable than men?

[–]drunk_kronk1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You seem to be suggesting that learning to cook and clean for yourself is similar in difficulty to earning minimum wage and learning a skill on the side that will one day get you out of minimum wage. Is this about right?

[–]ireadredpillonce1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

All you need is a pulse, an IQ over 80 and the ability to show up at work to earn minimum wage.

[–]drunk_kronk0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

How does that get you out of poverty? A person who was making a good wage is probably not going to hit the poverty line when learning to cook and clean.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting way to avoid answering the question.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

you have to support the person who was your in home maid/cook/chauffeur until they can get on their feet.

Not if they're no longer my maid/cook/chauffeur.

If I'm taking over her role in my life, it's only fair that she takes over my role in her life.

Why should I continue to hold up my end of the bargain (paying her money) if she's no longer holding up her end of the bargain (being a maid/cook/chauffeur)?

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, going back to work after a few years off is rough.

Yes it is. That's why women need to go back to work as soon as their maternity leave is over.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the contract of "I do your laundry, you pay my bills" should end with the divorce.

If she's no longer holding up her end of the bargain, you shouldn't have to hold up yours. That means no alimony, no equity in the home (unless you both put your names on it), etc.

That should be the end of story. The fact that men pay out all of this money after the woman has stopped doing her part, is plain ridiculous.

[–]AllahHatesFagsBLACK PILL MOTHERFUCKER!10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I can accept that, but only if I am legitimately at fault for the divorce. If she fucks around, gets fat, divorces me because "she's bored", gets addicted, or gets arrested she should get jack shit.

If she cheats she goes to the streets!

[–]Freethetreees5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree! All cheaters should end up on the streets with no money from their marriage

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd be interested in meeting whoever thought it was worth their time to fight against this idea

[–]CainPrice30 points31 points  (39 children) | Copy Link

The idea that career women are somehow better from a divorce perspective is where this CMV breaks down. And this idea that men abandon women via divorce needs to get tossed out the window. Women initiate divorces.

Yes, if you marry a non-degreed, never-worked, incapable woman with an income of zero and she divorces you (for any reason or no reason at all - she could be cheating on you and none of the kids could be yours and she still wins big cash prizes), you'll probably have to give her more than 50% of the assets, as well as pay higher than normal child support and higher than normal alimony.

But if you marry a career woman and she divorces you, she still gets the house, she still gets the kids, she still gets half of the assets, she still gets child support, and because she's getting the kids and her ability to work is reduced, she also gets alimony.

She still comes out way better than you do just for being a woman. The fact that she works means maybe you only get the divorce equivalent of a 2.5-inch diameter pipe shoved up your ass instead of a 3-inch diameter pipe. You still get raped.

But marrying a career woman also means that while you're married, you have a wife who's not doing the same level of housework, child care, or dick sucking that a woman with lower career ambitions might do for you. So your divorce sucks about 5/6ths as much, but your marriage sucks about twice as much.

[–]nevomintoarcePurple Pill Woman16 points17 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

dick sucking that a woman with lower career ambitions might do for you

Considering how many guys on TRP have SAHW and dead bedrooms, I press X to doubt.

[–]UEMcGillRed Pill Man8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's because they're unattractive and unworthy of having their dick sucked. First rule, be attractive. Second rule don't be unattractive.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you criticizing TRP or agreeing with it?

[–]reluctantly_red15 points16 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

But if you marry a career woman and she divorces you, she still gets the house, she still gets the kids, she still gets half of the assets, she still gets child support, and because she's getting the kids and her ability to work is reduced, she also gets alimony.

This totally untrue. Career women do not get alimony. Many women who earn more than their ex-husbands pay him child support (can happen even if she has more custody time than him). She only gets the kids if the guy is a pussy and gives up without a fight. Assuming the house is a marital asset its split 50/50. If she wants to keep the house she has to buy him out.

[–]Freethetreees9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yep. This stuff is gender neutral. One of the clients at my work is a wealthy middle aged career woman who pays alimony to her husband, and he’s the one who initiated the divorce.

[–]gasparddelanuit3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. This stuff is gender neutral. One of the clients at my work is a wealthy middle aged career woman who pays alimony to her husband, and he’s the one who initiated the divorce.

It's written as gender neutral, but everyone understands that the laws were created with women in mind, and men understand that the family courts are biased against them. It's a bit like the Title IX laws. They were lobbied for by feminists and written with women in mind, but in gender neutral language, and now some women are objecting to the fact that the laws are being used to address unfairness towards men and redress abuses by women, or worse, feminists.

[–]UEMcGillRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

As much as NJ sucks for most things related to divorce they are pretty fair about child support and alimony.

One friend had his ex try to get an adjustment for childcare because she wanted the kids in private school. The judge pulled both lawyers aside and said "I'm going to give him more money if you guys don't settle." they had 50/50 custody.

Another got no alimony and no child support with 50/50 custody.

They absolutely fuck you over if she's a SAHM with no working history in the past 5 years.

[–]reluctantly_red2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

they are pretty fair about child support and alimony.

The laws are written in gender neutral language. Guys just need to start asserting their rights rather than rolling over and hoping she realizes what a nice guy he's being.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of Jim Crow laws, as well as "new" Jim Crow laws that are on the books and being enforced today, were / are racially neutral, but still target specific racial minorities.

Also the laws we're talking about are not always gender neutral, especially when it comes to child custody laws. Look up the legislative code in the state where you live and look up the words "mother", "wife", etc. They're surprisingly sexist, like in an overt, obvious way, where I live.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Laws are written in gender neutral language but that doesn't mean the people responsible for interpreting and upholding the law are going to do so in a way that reflects the actual wording of the law.

I didn't realize this had to be stated.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you have sources for any of this? I'm not trying to imply that you are wrong, but in order for you to make the above claims confidently, you must have seen some of the research for yourself. Could you let me know where these numbers came from so I can educate myself for future discussions?

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm an attorney. Alimony is a thing of the past. California law reserves spousal support for long-term (more than 10 year) marriages and then only if the woman requires education and training to become self-supporting. In such cases temporary spousal support may be awarded. If a woman has a career already obviously there is no reason for this.

[–]Oncefa2SJW-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Career women do not get alimony.

If she makes less money than you, she will still get alimony.

She only gets the kids if the guy is a pussy and gives up without a fight.

There is a fairly large and proven court bias against men when it comes to child custody. And why should the man have to fight it to begin with? Why does he have to pay out the ass in lawyers fees only for a chance that maybe he'll get shared custody, which costs him money, and also have to continue paying child support?

Assuming the house is a marital asset its split 50/50.

A lot of homes become marital assets even if you bought it and owned it before you were married. Most states define the home that you were living in as the "marital home" and it is considered a marital asset, even in states that aren't community property states.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But if you marry a career woman and she divorces you, she still gets the house, she still gets the kids, she still gets half of the assets, she still gets child support, and because she's getting the kids and her ability to work is reduced, she also gets alimony.

In what percentage of cases does this happen?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

valid question, citations needed

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

A lot of what you wrote about divorce scenarios with “career women” isn’t likely though. Custody, sure, in most states primary caretaker (usually mom) still gets PRC.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

in most states primary caretaker (usually mom) still gets PRC.

Which the guy can whittle down as the kids get older. By the time the kids are teens lots more are living with dad.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, they can also negotiate for more time at the time of divorce.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is interesting who they decide to live with once they are old enough to decide for themselves.

[–]azngirl7689[S] -1 points0 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

FWIW, if the kid isn't yours most courts will let you off the hook. Just an FYI.

[–]CainPrice11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If and only if you know when she's pregnant or very shortly after the child is born that it's not yours. If you've been legally recognized as the father, which is pretty much what happens normally since cheating wives typically don't tell their husbands they've been cheating, you're on the hook for child support even if it turns out the children aren't yours.

[–]YungAnthem9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Fact. OP doesn’t actually understand how any of this works as long as she gets her alimony

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Tbf most of the people here don’t really know how it works either. And some of the manospherian claims I’ve seen about divorce law are simply laughable. OP is wrong that “courts let you off the hook” if you’re not the father without more context, it depends on timing and presumed fatherhood statutes.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of men probably know that it's not fair because of what they've seen happening around them. They may not always understand why, and sometimes it might not be as bad or as common as what they think it is, but pointing out technicalities in the law does not somehow invalidate what actually happens to people in the real world.

I probably know much more about family law than you do, especially in my state, because I actually researched it, have read through the legislative code, and spoke to lawyers about how it works (both in a theoretical sense, and in practice, like what happens depending on which judge you get), and I do not think that the law is fair. I understand it. I know the rationale behind a lot of it and some of the historical reasons for it (many of which are no longer valid today). And I can even sympathize with the female point of view for a lot of it. But I still do not think it's fair, and I'm definitely not alone in that analysis.

[–]BirdManBrrrr3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can you source that?

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

LMAO imagine actually believing this

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

that's absolutely incorrect and you really shouldn't be giving your opinion of the law because you don't know what you're talking about (and clearly don't have a license to practice law)

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

This is not the case in the U.S. If you are married, only some states will allow you to contest paternity. Even those that allow it have a time limit.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

What states do not let you contest paternity?

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

It seems the vast majority of the states have recently gotten on the DNA testing bandwagon. The only exception I have found with a quick google search is Illinois which will not remove legal fatherhood until you can find the biological father and have him assume paternity. I doubt it is the only one. It used to be that the only way you could deny paternity in some states was to prove you were sterile or gone during conception.

It also seems that a lot of states have pushed the time limit back to a few years after discovering the child might not be yours instead of after birth. This is a heartening change. I am not sure how well reflected this is in the courts and agencies, but we seem to be stepping in the correct direction.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Recently? Can you link whatever you found from IL saying that too please?

It also seems that a lot of states have pushed the time limit back to a few years after discovering the child might not be yours instead of after birth. This is a heartening change. I am not sure how well reflected this is in the courts and agencies, but we seem to be stepping in the correct direction.

I agree, although almost all rights have statutes of limitations. I’m just in favor of generally having liberal ones to most of them.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

That last sentence, I wonder if that means there is leeway? It seems weird to allow them to file that if it’s, essentially meaningless, let me look into it.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I guess that would make sense. Rereading that, you could say that "In such situation," refers to the inability to obtain a VAP from the biological parents for any reason, including the inability to find the biological father. I would have to dig much deeper in order to determine whether or not that is included. I know the states are very aggressive in finding a "father" to pay since the 90's when programs started paying the mothers directly and then finding the father for the money afterwards.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Ok so I looked into it, found a case from 12/2018 in which the Ill Ct App allowed a guy to get his rights/obligations removed from a child born of his marriage, kid was like 12 by this point. No bio dad identified. I think the law was reformed in 2015, here's the relevant Act, section 205 if the one about disputing paternity through DNA and sets a 2 year SOL with a discovery rule:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=3638&ChapterID=59

The case is In Re Marriage of Sparks, it's not published yet it doesn't look like.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

On the other hand, the man probably had to work even more to make up for the loss of income of a SAHM, so she can take care of both their kids. So he has even less money left over for him, and once alimony hits, he's doubly-penalized: he carried the financial burden of the household all alone, and now is being penalized for it with an extra alimony.

With that said, your career wife can still try and get alimony from you and chances are, she'll get some.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If she marries me in her twenties and I abandon her and the children in her later years with the kids, then she gets all of the alimony and child support. I don't have a problem with that at all. No one does. BUT if she comes up to me and says she isn't feeling the passion anymore, then she can go fly a fucking kite.

In reality, neither of us gets to agree to anything. This is all decided by the state and it doesn't give a fuck about consent. It can change its mind at any time too.

[–]TheSuperStink 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

Low ambition women are not worth the time of day. If she can work, she should.

I’m not financing the life of a slacker.

[–]reluctantly_red4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Low ambition women are not worth the time of day. If she can work, she should.

I’m not financing the life of a slacker.

Exactly -- sorry ladies -- you wanted equality -- you got it.

[–]eliechallita2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

So how do you feel about career women?

[–]TheSuperStink 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

I guess it depends on your definition. My fiancé has a career (college professor and musician) and makes more than me. I’m happy as she is happy.

Her job requires her to travel 3 or so months per year. I don’t need someone to take care of me.

[–]reluctantly_red2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

college professor

Certainly a career -- a high level career if its tenure track.

[–]TheSuperStink 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

It is tenure track.

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Congrats you got yourself a career woman.

[–]abqkat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. I will never really agree with the idea that taking care of your own kids for years, with very few external demands, is challenging. Or engaging. I couldn't be with someone content to live like that, personally, and think there are implications beyond "it's her choice and deserves respect"

[–]lbspredh2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then again, if she didn't insist on a prenup that saw her supported in a separation that's her own fault for not planning her career well enough

[–]Barely-moralMostly red though3 points4 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

Unless I don't marry her. The risk is assumed because of marriage, not because of the relationship's dynamic, not because she is a SAHW/M

[–]azngirl7689[S] 4 points5 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

If I remember correctly, if you two break up you would hook her up with a job. I think that's good and you have your ideas right. I'm speaking more about the men who want to have their cake and eat it too (have an SAHM but also not pay to put her back on her feet after a breakup).

[–]Barely-moralMostly red though6 points7 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

Oh. Ok, then let me play devil's advocate.

Since no one forces a woman to be a SAHM then she decided that the risks and damage to her career were worth it. Then it would be fair that she suffers the consequences of the risk she freely took when the risk does not pay off.

Of course marriage throws "fair" out of the window.

[–]TalranNow you're a man!9 points10 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

no one forces a woman to be a SAHM

No, generally that's considered a decision made by both parties even before the little bugger comes out.

[–]Barely-moralMostly red though5 points6 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

There is no such thing as a decision made by both parties if the decision is not enforceable. She has the final say, he can't do anything to force her to comply to the "decision made by both parties" if she decides that she does not want to be a SAHM.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is a joint decision in most cases, most relationship decisions like lifestyle choices like that are not “enforceable” by the other party it’s still typically a joint decision. He can divorce her if their lifestyle wishes are not compatible.

[–]TalranNow you're a man!-1 points0 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Uh... that's not how marriage works? And if it is for you, you p much cucked yourself with a bad chick, gg.

[–]Barely-moralMostly red though-1 points0 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Nah. I am smart enough to not marry my partner. She stays at home, but she can only get benefits from me as long as she is a good partner.

Just curious, if a woman ends up abused by her partner it is on her for picking the wrong guy? I think it is.

Also, you didn't answer my point. How can a decision be made by two parties if one of the parties has the final say and there is no way to enforce the decision after it is made? If all the decision making power is on her, how is it a joint decision?

[–]MamaTR5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If your car is stolen, is it on you for picking the wrong parking spot? Don't victim blame, especially in cases of violence.

[–]Barely-moralMostly red though5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The abuser is to blame, the victim has some degree of responsability. The same applies to the car scenario.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

u/MamaTR I am particularly interested in your thoughts regarding this comment

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

So basically anything a man does is the woman’s fault. Got it.

[–]Barely-moralMostly red though0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

How did you get that from my words? Everyone has responsability for the decisions they make.

Choosing a shitty partner? Since you chose that partner, you have part of the responsability. You are not responsible for the decisions your partner makes, but you are responsible for choosing that partner and allow yourself to be exposed to said partner.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Including the decision to marry a person and let be them financially dependent on you.

If women need to own the outcomes of their decisions, so do men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You are the first person to say that in this thread. Not sure why you are saying "Got it" like somebody else presented that idea to you.

That being said, considering how many women have successfully used the "I was abused I can't be held accountable for my actions" defense in court, I would argue that society seems to believe the opposite of what you said.

[–]TalranNow you're a man!3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Just curious, if a woman ends up abused by her partner it is on her for picking the wrong guy? I think it is.

Only as long as she stays, abuse is abuse, and some people have real shitty choices on who to be with.

Also, you didn't answer my point.

I did though. Only a comeplete cuck would just "lie down and take" whatever decision their partner made instead of talking things out like adults. Shocking I know, but that's how good relationships are without needing to dangle financial security over someones head to be "a good girl". Like if you've been with someone 10 years and there isn't enough mutual trust there, then the problem is more on that.

But hey, what do I know, you might just have shitty taste in women, or not enough SMV to get one worth their salt.

[–]Barely-moralMostly red though3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

How do talking things like adults change the fact that the woman has the final say when it comes to her being a SAHM or not?

Sure, the man can leave the relationship if the woman is not compatible but that is it. The final say on whether she is a SAHM is only on her.

Edit: mistakes

[–]TalranNow you're a man!3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Because she doesn't, and usually it's something the couple decide on because the guy is making too much to stay home himself, and her working makes less than childcare+maid does.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost17 points18 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Why is alimony even a thing at all, how long can it possibly take to get a fucking job? I worked during college. I took out loans. Why is a retraining former SAHM entitled to any kind of continuing support from her former partner? She can suck it up and work like everyone else

Can you imagine what a retarded partnership agreement you’d have to have where one of the terms is that if the partnership dissolves then the laggard partners still get supported by the other partners for years afterward? It is insane. I don’t understand how that possibly makes sense to anyone , except maybe in a frame where women are considered something less than adults

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes. That is why being a stay at home parent is a bad idea. If you are out of the job market for any length of time they look obsolete.

[–]abqkat7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And it's not just wages and experience. I will never personally buy the idea that staying home with your own kids, with very very few external demands, keeps your mind sharp. I think that opting not to work for extended time periods takes a toll on most people's identity, opportunity, energy levels, ability to meet challenges. I have seen it IRL, and can't help but wince a bit when my friends make that choice

[–]IllAardvark18 points19 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

The reasoning behind it is that when someone becomes a SAHM they give up potential earnings and work experience. They also do a job at home that would cost money to hire someone else to do. Paying alimony is a way to compensate for this.

[–]CuzDam7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you have a SAHM at home you are literally paying for their entire life, all of their food, housing, shopping, and vacations.

[–]ireadredpillonce6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

They also do a job at home that would cost money to hire someone else to do.

When I hire someone to do a job for me, when they stop doing it I stop paying them.

[–]Scatrereal feminist6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The difference being that your employee can actually save money

[–]ChewedandDigested2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And I’d also continuously employed, not dealing with the issue of a huge gap in their work experience and corresponding career set back

[–]ireadredpillonce4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The difference being that this 'employee' is already entitled to 50% of the business upon quitting.

[–]Scatrereal feminist4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well sure, but your original analogy doesn't really make sense

[–]ireadredpillonce5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure it does, I was talking about spousal support.

[–]couldbemage4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sahm can't? Why not? Be default they own half the assets.

BTW, last I checked live in help get 25k plus room.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

But they already get half the marital assets

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Those are already “theirs” but that goes into the alimony analysis as a factor in my state.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Right my position is that half the marital property is already more than generous. Nobody would ever choose to structure a partnership like this

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well people can get prenups. But the idea would be that it's her property already, so there's no "generosity" it's legally hers by right.

Although again, this is still a factor in the alimony analysis, as well as how much separate property the person seeking support has.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Right , the law is extremely generous to the underperforming partner

It’s so crazy to me as well that “short term” alimony is like, in terms of years. What the hell were people even thinking back when alimony would have been done for life? I can’t even mentally wrap my head around that. Ultimately the whole thing boils down to the fact that what marriage is now is something completely different from what it was, but we have all these relics of that old system

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’ve only seen permanent alimony granted once but they were old people, which makes sense.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It used to be women didn't work, and a man had to make a commitment to the woman's father that he would "take care of her", so alimony was seen as basically honoring that promise to keep her from becoming destitute.

The former obviously isn't true anymore, and the later is more or less just a romantic gesture nowadays.

Neither should really matter in today's world, so alimony really should be a thing of the past at this point.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What about the husband who sacrificed his home life, being able to live at home for free, being able to spend time with his kids, etc?

It seems pretty fair in the end. If you want to stay at home and not work, you should expect that to negatively impact any future career decisions that you might have.

That's like if I work as a coal miner and the coal mines shut down, my employer isn't going to pay me to learn new job skills to transition to another career. Nor will they pay me lost wages based on what I could have made, had I had more work experience in a different field. Why should an ex-wife who is no longer performing her duties at home be treated any differently?

We all take risks in life, and we all have to face the consequences of our decisions when they don't work out to our advantage. Women don't deserve to be coddled and protected from this any more than men do.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why is alimony even a thing at all,

Its not anymore. Only old (over 60) women have even the possibility of getting alimony these days.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s a relic from when marriage was something else

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

because women are children and because the judges and politicians who make the laws are white knight betas

[–]reluctantly_red2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

the judges and politicians who make the laws are white knight betas

That's changing. I'm seeing judges running out of patience with women more and more. I've seen judges tell women directly that they need to get a job pronto and rule against them when they don't.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

🐸☕️

[–]MoodyBrizo 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

If you agree to be a low ambition SAHM you are agreeing to being possible financially bereft should your husband leave you.

[–]nevomintoarcePurple Pill Woman5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Stay at home moms that ask for alimony after a divorce make no sense. They talk all the time about how being a mom is ThE hArDeSt JoB iN tHe WoRlD but then they can't get a minimum wage job for their unqualified ass because washing dishes and waiting tables in a restaurant is hard and the pay is shit.

[–]allweknowisD11 points12 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I’m amazed at how easy everyone on this sub thinks it is to find a job. Especially with such a long gap on your CV.

If that’s the case, wonder why unemployment rates are so high?

[–]MoodyBrizo 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

Then maybe don't have a gap.

[–]BajaBlast904 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You wouldn't have an employment gap if you weren't a SAHM. that's the point. I guess they could get some bullshit retail job to cover the employment gap or save some money but retail jobs on a resume for adults are a red flag. Like you said, if your husband leaves you and you're a SAHM with no work experience or skills you're screwed.

[–]Dweller_of_the_Abyss0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess they could get some bullshit retail job to cover the employment gap or save some money but retail jobs on a resume for adults are a red flag.

Why?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then don't as an adult freely make the choice to be a SAHM.

[–]gasparddelanuit-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You wouldn't have an employment gap if you weren't a SAHM. that's the point. I guess they could get some bullshit retail job to cover the employment gap or save some money but retail jobs on a resume for adults are a red flag. Like you said, if your husband leaves you and you're a SAHM with no work experience or skills you're screwed.

Being a SAHM does not mean that you are chained to the kitchen sink. You can still acquire skills, do courses, have hobbies, volunteer, work part-time or from home and develop transferable skills from managing a household. Being a SAHM just means that your primary responsibility is maintaining and managing the domestic dwelling.

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure6 points7 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Hmmmm...

Why does this post follow the same logic as “If you want to have sex, you agree to take on the risk of pregnancy?” Yet, women don’t seem to think that’s the case, and have even gone so far as to legally institute a way around taking responsibility for the action.

Sounds pretty double standardish.

[–]Freethetreees10 points11 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Having to get an abortion is itself consequence, getting an abortion is “taking responsibility”. An abortion is not a walk in the park, it’s a medical procedure.

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

More like paying someone else to take responsibility.

[–]Freethetreees8 points9 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

What? Most women pay for their own abortions and plan b pills.

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Okay so let me ask you a question:

If I hire someone to clean my house, do you consider that to be “taking responsibility?”

[–]Freethetreees0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes, of course. You’re doing something about the mess. Plenty of responsible people hire house cleaners. I don’t see a difference in doing it directly yourself or paying someone to do it, either way you’re taking initiative to take care of a problem.

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Nope. Somebody else is. You’re just paying them to.

Edit: that’s not you being responsible though. You’re literally paying somebody else to take on the responsibility of doing the thing that you were involved in creating. Unless you’re doing it yourself, you’re not taking responsibility for it because you’re saying that you had no part in it through your actions.

[–]Freethetreees0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

If you’re paying for a service with your own money, it’s just as responsible as doing it yourself.

If you hold yourself to the same standards, then you would have to remove your own appendix, should it ever burst. By your logic, if you pay a surgeon to do it for you, that’s just trying to abandon your responsibilities. You grew that faulty exploding appendix, so it’s your responsibility to cut it out yourself.

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

If you’re paying for a service with your own money, it’s just as responsible as doing it yourself.

Not really. You’re passing the responsibility onto someone else, so sure, it’s getting done, but not by you. Therefore, through lack of action, you’re not being responsible.

If you hold yourself to the same standards, then you would have to remove your own appendix, should it ever burst.

Why remove it though? It would be my responsibility to prevent it from bursting through my own actions, since the condition was likely caused by my own actions. Removing the problem is removing responsibility from the problem if someone else is doing it, and this is what you’re still not understanding.

By your logic, if you pay a surgeon to do it for you, that’s just trying to abandon your responsibilities.

That is correct.

You grew that faulty exploding appendix, so it’s your responsibility to cut it out yourself.

That’s where you’re partly wrong. I didn’t grow it. No part of my deliberate action created it. Therefore I wouldn’t be responsible for it being “faulty.”

Anyway, that’s a bit off topic. If women are really going to be “responsible” for their children, the only ways to do that would be to either birth and care for them, or kill them with their own hands, and I doubt that many women would do that.

[–]Freethetreees0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

The appendix is a vestigial organ we are all born with. It can burst without any fault or incorrect action on the part of the person who possesses the organ.

Well at least you’re consistent. Hope you never need to see a surgeon! Have a good one. I personally see dealing with a problem so tha the problem no longer exists as taking responsibility, but you do you

[–]Jakkol1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If they didn't have double standards they would have no standards at all.

[–]the_calibre_cat3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No you don't, you just agree to take on that added risk which is a result of the legal structure in society. I can disagree with the legal structure and argue for it's reform, alimony should be pretty damn rare.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is already rare, especially so in certain states, so my family law lawyer friends tell me.

[–]nevomintoarcePurple Pill Woman3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those men don't want to get divorced and their hate of career women is due to their ego and having a sense of higher purpose when they can provide for their family.

[–]Jakkol1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you agree to become a SAHM and then treat your husband so bad that he leaves you. You agree to not receiving anything. Alimony is just another vehicle women use to escape responsibility.

The husband has funded years of you just sitting at home raising kids. He is the one who should be getting refunds on the wife. Especially if the wife is the one initiating or at fault with the divorce she should pay back everything.

[–]circlhat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

> This person gave up years of their lives to care for your house and your possible kids if you reproduced.

It's only my kids when the check comes, than it's her kids otherwise. She gave up nothing, she made a choice, Alimony is being phased out anyway. But I see your point, I find it stupid that any men hates a women working.

However a women never gives up anything or a men, often times it's a increase quality of life

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

so basically you are saying that women are helpless and incapable of surviving on their own without a man taking care of them. oldest teenagers in the house.

redpill confirmed

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No. She's saying if you marry one like that, you get what you signed up for. Nobody's gonna cry for you.

[–]ScootsScoots5 points6 points  (41 children) | Copy Link

Alimony shouldn't exist at all.....but I'll give you a year. You are a fucking adult and it doesn't matter how long you've been out of the workforce. You can get a job to support yourself within a year. Yeah, it won't be fun or comfortable. But you made a commitment and failed to keep it.

Women initiate most divorce.

Alimony comes from a time when women's prospects without a man were extremely dire.

You cant have alimony and equality at the same time. Since women consume the overwhelming amount of alimony, you're admitting they are the weaker sex.

Or are you? Which is it?

You cant be a feminist when a man pays your bills sweetheart.

[–]belletaco11 points12 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Alimony shouldn't exist at all.....but I'll give you a year. You are a fucking adult and it doesn't matter how long you've been out of the workforce. You can get a job to support yourself within a year.

spoken like someone who has no idea how the world works. if you ask your wife to stay home and care for the house and kids, you can't be shocked that she becomes dependent on you and your income.

[–]ScootsScoots7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

And she gets a year of free money to figure it out. Then she can fuck off.

Child support is an entirely separate issue.

[–]belletaco3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

you asked her to give up her chances of a career, likely to raise children, take care of the home and take care of you. so now you pay the price for that.

[–]dawnpriestess5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The CMV specifically outlines a low ambition woman who isn't good for much else other than being a SAHM. Not someone who has lofty career prospects who's being asked to forgo them.

[–]belletaco-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Where does it specifically outline that? It just says SAHM.

[–]dawnpriestess3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's right in the title...

[–]belletaco0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lmao @ me. Oops

[–]dawnpriestess0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No worries, your arguments are otherwise valid

[–]BirdManBrrrr3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

if you ask

And she has to do it? She can't say no?

How many women choose to be a SAHM? God forbid, how many actually WANT to be a SAHM?

[–]belletaco3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

And she has to do it? She can't say no?

As I said, if you're getting married, you are going to discuss finances and the decision of someone being a stay at home mom is often made up front. If that is what a man wants and the woman doesn't, sure she can say no, but then those two people are obviously not compatible, so they wouldn't be getting married in the first place. So that hypothetical is irrelevant to this conversation.

How many women choose to be a SAHM? God forbid, how many actually WANT to be a SAHM?

A lot, actually and that's fine, but don't marry a SAHM if you do not plan on financially supporting her, that is the choice you both make together. When choosing to be with a SAHM, you are choosing to be with someone who is giving up their career to be your wife and mother to your children. Part of that agreement is that you will provide for her financially.

[–]BirdManBrrrr2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If that is what a man wants and the woman doesn't, sure she can say no, but then those two people are obviously not compatible, so they wouldn't be getting married in the first place.

It's not binary and there's plenty of room for compromise, so yes it's fully relevant.

Part of that agreement is that you will provide for her financially.

Sure, during the marriage. When she gets the kids, child support, half the assets, the house, etc after divorce why does there need to be a permanent, open ended obligation to the man?

Furthermore, if she cohabitates with someone or remarries, shouldn't alimony be terminated?

[–]belletaco1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not binary and there's plenty of room for compromise, so yes it's fully relevant.

but i'm specifically talking about situations where the woman is the stay at home mom and not taking in any income so no, it's not relevant.

Sure, during the marriage. When she gets the kids, child support, half the assets, the house, etc after divorce why does there need to be a permanent, open ended obligation to the man?

because that is the consequence of marrying a stay at home mom.

Furthermore, if she cohabitates with someone or remarries, shouldn't alimony be terminated?

if she remarries then, yes.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Furthermore, if she cohabitates with someone or remarries, shouldn't alimony be terminated?

Every state I’ve looked into this on has a statute allowing for modification in the case this occurs.

[–]mwait0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yea that's not my problem once we split. Get a job.

[–]belletaco5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

it is though... and that's why alimony exists lol

[–]mwait-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

In some states. But that's why it's important to iron this shit out prior to marrying. I'm not paying anything when we break up. If you want to bail from the work force to raise kids, that's going to be your risk to shoulder.

[–]belletaco9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you want to bail from the work force to raise kids, that's going to be your risk to shoulder.

that's not the sole decision of the wife though. most people go into marriages with financial agreements. if you expect your wife to stay home to raise the kids and take care of the house, you are asking her to forego a career. alimony is the consequence of that decision.

[–]mwait0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If the husband is the motivating factor behind the wife leaving the work force, then yes I agree.

[–]TalranNow you're a man!6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Eh, not to burst you bubble sweetie, but especially with time out of a career and age the prospects to get back into a field (doubly so STEM ones) are pretty dire, male or female.

Alimoney is great for that case where the breadwinner just decides to nope out after 15 years and cheat around, not so much there's fault on the SAHM/F side.

[–]ScootsScoots1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yawn. And women wonder why marriage rates are down.

[–]TalranNow you're a man!3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, virgin rates are up too, incels and femcels rising

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TIL I can be a feminist!

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is one where rp is right.

Alimony is stupid as fuck in 2019. Nobody has any excuse to not work for their own shit

[–]azngirl7689[S] 2 points3 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

That's really reductive. What about the man- it takes two to tango and if he let it get to divorce, he's not blameless either. Men often insist on paying the bills out of some misguided sense of masculinity, so don't put that shit on women.

[–]lbspredh4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

all divorce is blameless, it is merely the end of a contract.

This is kinda like quitting your job and expecting to still get a paycheck every month, obviously if they make you redundant theres compensation sometimes but that would usually be a one off payment rather than a lifetime obligation.

Im not anti alimony in general but I think there has to be a firm date where you are on your own.

[–]ScootsScoots3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

You're an adult, you dont deserve daddies money for 3 decades. Get a job.

[–]TalranNow you're a man!8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So the thing is they can get a job, but say you were both earning 150k/year, get married and crap out some kids. Good stuff, one of you quit, the other keeps working while the other cares for the kids.

Now say you (or the other half) get tired of bringing in all the dough to some lazy shit who only does all the house work, cooks, and cares for your 2.5 kids, so you start spinning plates/riding the carosel again on the side.

She initiates (rightfully), and now you're split, lets say kids are 50/50, so hey equal burden. But you've nixed 15 years of working and retirement savings she could (would) have had, and now they're stuck in a 36k a year job earning peanuts because it's hard to get hired back into a professional position after that much time off.

The person at fault there 100% deserves to make the other party whole financially.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Alimony is not child support.

[–]azngirl7689[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

We aren't talking about me. Cut it out with the personal attacks.

[–]ScootsScoots5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not for you personally. It's like the royal we. It sounds better than saying "if one" or "he/she" but you know that and are attempting to victimize yourself.

[–]azngirl7689[S] -2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Zero tolerance for this crap. Use other words if you don't want to be taken the wrong way. Thanks.

[–]BirdManBrrrr2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Commonly used grammar is commonly used; scootsscoots shouldn't have to change his commonly used grammar because you don't like it for some reason.

[–]happycheese86No Pill-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

How about we just raise the inheritance tax to 99% and no one lives off their parents.

[–]mwait0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you let someone take care of you, you are surrendering your autonomy. If you don't want to face these consequences once the inevitable divorce occurs, send the goddamn kid to day care.

But men need to be aware of the consequences too. Just like it's not smart to fuck a broad without a condom based on her claiming to be on BC.... It's not smart to marry some career mother in a soft ass alimony state.

[–]Dash_of_islamBidet 4 Life>Toilet paper unwashed proles0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

But if assets are split around 50/50 then they both enjoyed a lifestyle while married, and the surplus that was saved/invested is split too.

Afterwarss they are on their own.

Shouldn't it be the woman's fault for not working while married?

People are allowed to marry for no reason at all. No fault divorce means people can leave if they are unhappy and don't even need to discuss it with you

[–]MoodyBrizo 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

And just as many women view men who won't pay the bill as unmasculine and cheap. Don't put that shit on men.

[–]azngirl7689[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

And this is why gender roles are stupid.

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And this is why gender roles are stupid.

Gender roles are not stupid or smart. They are simply a preference. They are not mandatory. They also arose out of necessity and still to some degree conform to the natural strengths of men and women.

We should not be forcing people to adopt them or abandon them. People should have the freedom to live however they choose, provided they are not harming others.

[–]DXBrigade0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree with you that alimony isn't justified anymore. By the way, only 10 % of divorce result in alimony nowadays. That said, OP's point still stand. You choose to marry a SAHM, you know the risk. That's why I don't get why men whine so much about alimony, if you choose your partner carefully, you can easily avoid it. And iniitiating divorce doesn't necessarily mean you are at fault.

[–]ScootsScoots1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. You cant whine about a contract you chose to sign after it bites you in the ass.

[–]EmpoweredGirlMisanthrope2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You know there is something in-between a "career women" and SAHM, it's called a women with a job/career... "Career women" are a sub demographic of people who work, but work many more hours than the average. I've seen it here many times that men want independent women, but not ones married to their job. It looks like you've just put across a case that no reasonable person is arguing against or has done..

[–]abaxeron 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Reported for low-effort rant.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

abandon someone to the streets

The marital assets are split up?

I can see an argument for alimony, but that argument is not that they're being left with nothing otherwise. Alimony is on top of whatever they're getting in the divorce.

As a result, taking the three possibilities (wife earns as much as him, wife earns less than him, or wife is a stay at home mom)

a guy who marries a lower earner is really in the worst scenario, since the assets are being split equally despite their unequal contribution to building up the assets.

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

a guy who marries a lower earner is really in the worst scenario, since the assets are being split equally despite their unequal contribution to building up the assets.

This!!! A woman without an education and career is just not marriage material.

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to Littleknownfacts[M] 0 points1 point  (38 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷12 points13 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Been saying this to them for years and all I get is hamster attacks and ad hominems.

[–]itiswr1ttenEndorsed Negotiable Instrument6 points7 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

To me it stops where "standard of living" is concerned. It included the word standard for a reason, meaning it should be the LESSER of either "equivalent to married socioeconomic status" or "median socioeconomic status plus adjustments for minor children".

Awarding alimony or CS to keep kids in their private school = fair. Awarding the same to maintain a well above median lifestyle = not fair.

I think my stance is reasonable in a circumstance where fault/cause is available remedy to either party. I view it like a business dissolution - you DO need to buy your partner out. You DON'T need to keep dividending your future cash flow unless you agree to do so in lieu or accompaniment of the buyout

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I think the point is a man who resents alimony can mitigate that by marrying a woman who works/has money. Point is you can’t have it both ways.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yea that is a practical strategy to address the stupid system we have

It’s still a stupid system

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

practical strategy

God forbid.

I though you were the rational, practical gender.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don’t see any reason why a person can’t on one hand think a system is stupid and on the other hand acknowledge that’s the system he has to work in and act accordingly. Idk to me those are two separate things

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If he realized it was the system he had to work in and acted accordingly he wouldn’t be bitching about alimony, would he?

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why wouldn’t he

There are all sorts of things that are political realities but I believe shouldnt be so. Just because I can mitigate the harm they cause me doesn’t mean I think they’re good practice

[–]lbspredh1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, it's not like you can force your partner to go to work

[–]itiswr1ttenEndorsed Negotiable Instrument-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Agree on the qualifier that this choice is the punitive result of modern jurisprudence, not one that is socially beneficial on a net basis.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

K

[–]azngirl7689[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

The point of CS and alimony is to maintain the same lifestyle as if you hadn't separated. If one parent is richer, who are the kids going to gravitate to? That's what these things are trying to solve.

[–]ireadredpillonce6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Two people living separately cannot maintain the same lifestyle as if they hadn't separated.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the real truth. Divorce usually isn’t “she wins financially and he doesn’t”. The Bezos and Tiger Woods are huge outliers are huge outliers. In reality, both parties end up with a lower standard of living after divorce.

[–]Dash_of_islamBidet 4 Life>Toilet paper unwashed proles1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, economies of scale

[–]beachredwhineCongratulations!2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That is not the point of alimony. I don't think the people here understand how little alimony you so will actually get and for how short of a time.

[–]itiswr1ttenEndorsed Negotiable Instrument1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not correct. The original jurisprudence of alimony dates back to Code of Hammurabi and dictated that if THE MAN wishes to separate from a women who had his children, he was required to give her adequate resources to raise them, return the dowry, and give her the same inheritance as he did the first son. Alimony or postmarriage payment even into the ecclesiastical courts era was ALWAYS predicated on fault.

Where it has been completely corrupted is the abdication of fault and the idea in your head - that lifestyle is to be maintained permanently or semi permanently at the point of separation.

[–]Dash_of_islamBidet 4 Life>Toilet paper unwashed proles0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

What about one parent can cook and other can't.

Who are the kids going to gravitate to?

Shouldn't the lady send food the days the guy has the kids... Best interest of the kids, and all that stuff eh?

[–]azngirl7689[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If he can't feed himself, he has no business having visitation with the children. He is clearly completely incapable and needs help from an occupational therapist.

[–]Dash_of_islamBidet 4 Life>Toilet paper unwashed proles1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No. I meant the food he can cook will taste pretty bad.

The reason they equalize income for CS is so the children have the same standard of living in both parent's house... Continuing the same line of thought, kids should have the same standard of diet in both houses.

Men are not given custody because the mom doesn't have a job, they are requried to pay, ergo women should not get custody just because they can cook and the man can't, they should be required to cook and send food

It's best FOR THE CHILDREN right? lol

[–]jintanaBlue Pill Woman7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is about social equality.

It is impossible to have magical social equality after making the conscious choice to forgo a career to support children at home, thereby boosting the other partner’s career far beyond what it would have been without the career-sacrificing partner’s action.

A wage-equivalent job does not just happen in a year after a divorce. Do you want to hire someone with a long gap in their employment history?

And people absolutely are thrown out on the streets due to this poisonous mentality you’re speaking of. There are shady ways to accomplish it, and I’m sure the Red Pillers are well versed in what they are.

I don’t know what to say anymore. It’s apparent that some men consider women to be subhuman, and there’s no way to change that. I wish mercy upon them, and for them to stay far, far away from me and mine.

[–]BirdManBrrrr4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And people absolutely are thrown out on the streets due to this poisonous mentality you’re speaking of.

Where in western society is this happening?

[–]dawnpriestess0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is about social superiority.

FTFY

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most of those guys don't mix in circles where college educated women are working in actual careers, so naturally they've never seen what work-life balance for someone like that is (nor would they just meet women like that in general). I would imagine most of these women might even out earn those men, which would be a big ego hit for them. This means those men are stuck either taking the ego hit OR dating someone who may well end up receiving alimony upon divorce. Rock and hard place.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

low ambition SAHM

A SAHM can be an amazing asset that you can't get anywhere else or a total piece of shit. Working doesn't make a woman better. I would trade in everything I own for a decent SAHM that was willing to put in equal effort. The problem is they don't exist because of comments like this that chase most decent women from being a SAHM.

I don't give a fuck about your 60k/year. I don't care about your amazing ability to create powerpoints for people who won't listen and memos for people who won't read. I would like someone who can raise fantastic children who don't feel abandoned. You can't pay someone to do that. They don't exist. A SAHM who loves her husband and children and provides and cares for them can't be measured in money. It's either something wonderful that you take for granted or a hole in your heart that can't be filled.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't think anyone actually finds alimony unfair. If she leaves, she's got next to nothing to her name because she sacrificed career and prospects to raise children, so that does deserve a payoff. Raising children is thankless but socially something we highly value.

What people don't like when she gets the house and a big payoff to maintain her "quality of life." That's not splitting things 50/50 or a fair payoff for things he worked to earn the money for and they built together, that's using the children the extort a payoff that leaves him worse-off while continually being on the hook for her luxuries.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In some cases alimony is unfair. If he/she didn’t work, it’s fair, even more so the older they are because age discrimination in hiring is real.

If money/employment is not an issue and he/she is getting alimony they don’t need just because it’s the law, I don’t think that’s universally fair. Hardly the injustice the mansophere thinks it is, but still.

On the contrary it’s far more fair to get the house when you have custody of the kids.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If she leaves, she's got next to nothing to her name because she sacrificed career and prospects to raise children, so that does deserve a payoff

What? No that’s not true at all. She has half the marital assets

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The lower earner still needs money to keep up on the house payment and utilities.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok so get a job

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well of course the person should get a job. Available jobs for a person that does not have a skill set are low paying so it might not cover utility expense.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't get married.

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

*a

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You’re back!!!

[–]GridReXXit be like that4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol just to grammar Nazi

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Please, please, PLEASE stay. The discourse has dropped considerably in the last few months and I miss posts and comments that actually provided good food for thought, and you helped with that!

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Awww 🥰

I’m lurking 👀

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I find it interesting how many men simultaneously hate career women and alimony.

I bet you can't actually point to any examples of this.

I think that you see criticism of women and it makes you angry, so you remember it. Then later you see a different criticism and that also makes you angry, so you remember that as well.

Inside your own head, you invent a single person issuing both criticisms. But I bet you haven't ever actually seen it in the real world.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you want an low ambition SAHM, you agree to take on the risk of alimony if you two divorce at any point.

I will pay alimony, if it is my fault or my choice. (I doubt it but, It is possible).

You can't just abandon someone to the streets and/or to scramble because you're done with them.

Yes, but if I am not done with them. Aka it is her fault or choice or a simultaneous choice between the 2 of us. I have no reason to take care of her.

This person gave up years of their lives to care for your house

... by her own volition.... I may be willing to pay, I don't know, safety until getting somewhere safe, or maybe half of my salary for a month. but to pay half of my stuff? Nope. No way this is fair. It is asking for a contract to be void, and then at the same time ask someone to pay for a clause in the same contract.

Now, if this was my fault by no doubt? Sure. Whatever. I am willing to pay. I deserved it as a reparation. but then this is reparation, not alimony anymore.

and your possible kids if you reproduced.

I have a obligation as a parent to my children, not to the woman. I am willing to pay child support, if it is for my biological child itself. Not that stupid thing of 1k for a child which is not even mine. This is the definition of cuckery. Nope.

Finally, there is a limit to everything. My grandmother was entirely responsible to make my grandfather a homeless and his death in a flood/storm. All because he cheated.

Yeah I get it, he is a cheater, he is bad. But having him lose everything, including his livelihood, the right to see his children, and make him retort to homelessness is going too far. I myself consider this fate way worse than death.

[–]chubby_leenock_hugsanti relationships / anti gender0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you take on an SAHM, you're consenting to alimony if you two break up.

You consent if you consent; if you made the agreement that you would continue to support them in the case of a breakup then you did and apparently marriage counts as such an agreement; if you didn't and the agreement was that it would last how long it lasts then you don't.

That's not how this works. This person gave up years of their lives to care for your house and your possible kids if you reproduced.

Correct but that is sort of an argument of the kind of "I worked for your company for 10 years and gave up working anywhere else and now that I quit you have to continue to pay me after this point."

Of course if you actually agreed to that with your employer the employer should honour it but I don't see why absent such an agreement that should come as a default.

Having said that I consider people who would just accept being stay at home parents becoming completely dependent on another human being for financial income as adults without negotiating some kind of safety net to be idiots but if you didn't negotiate it then you didn't.

[–]mistercheeez-o____O-0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't see the point to this.Tthe onus should be what would prevent divorce to begin with. So what type of woman is more likely to file a divorce? Is it a career woman or a housewife?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do they hate career women or "career women"? I can't see too many guys actually wanting a SAHM anymore, this just seems like a strawman now.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Life isn't fair.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If someone is a SAHM throughout a marriage and, in the absence of any legal protection, would be destitute in the event of a divorce, I think it perfectly acceptable there should be some sort of entitlement to payment from the husband after a divorce, but it should be reasonable.

The issue many men have with the current standard is that it unjustifiably burdens the ex-husband with keeping the ex-wife in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed and can require the husband to pay alimony for the rest of his life. It also cannot be justified that, regardless of the amount, an ex-wife who was a SAHM, be entitled to 50% of the income her ex-husband earned during the marriage.

Men who have an issue with current divorce and alimony laws think there should be some proportion and reasonableness in the financial arrangements post-marriage. The requirement should be that an ex-spouse who was a SAHM be sufficiently provided for and/or equipped with the skills to provide for herself after a period of time, to a reasonable standard. It should not be that she is entitled to her former lifestyle or the wealth of her former husband when it far exceeds the amount required to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

For men who are not attracted to or interested in dating career women, their best option is not to get married at all, under the current system.

[–]Muse_asvhedu0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The work of a SAHM has actual, monetary value (most SAHM I know are such because they have young children, and it’s actually CHEAPER for her to stay home than it is to pay for childcare). I’m a nanny. I make (at minimum) 24k a year. I’m a live-in, which means that I do not pay for rent, food, or utilities. I’m considered underpaid for my profession. At 24k. Add in everything else a SAHM does (cooking, cleaning, laundry, outings, household management) and you’re looking at something like $4k/month in labor costs alone.

That’s why alimony is such a big thing. A SAHM has basically been putting aside a ‘wage’ and alimony is the ex ‘paying out’ the money she’s earned. She didn’t manage to save that money; it was labor, not wage focused, so the only material way to look at it is in the absence of costs.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

How come this idea is only ever used to justify forcing one spouse to support the other? It is never used to justify forcing the inverse, even though both partners had a role in supporting one another during the relationship; it was not one-sided when the relationship was in full swing, and should not be one-sided when the relationship is over.

If you honestly believe the idea that you posted, you have to apply it to all people equally. If you aren't willing to apply your idea to all parties equally, then you don't really advocate for the idea you posted.

[–]TechnicalCriticism1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

This person gave up years of their lives to care for your house and your possible kids if you reproduced.

You make it sound like someone put a gun to their head and made them

[–]azngirl7689[S] 10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Men often insist on this kind of arrangement. How would such a man react if his wife said "Eff no, I need to keep some power in this relationship"?

[–]Barely-moralMostly red though5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

A compatible man would understand that she is not willing to take the huge risk that comes with being a SAHM. An uncompatible man would not. That woman in question should leave the second one. If she takes the risk, no one is forcing her to do it.

[–]azngirl7689[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Me, personally, I'd insist on a contract with all my duties spelled out and compensation negotiated. This compensation would involve a biweekly allowance and an IRA set up in my name where money is contributed every two weeks to set me up for retirement. I would also require my own bank account for my allowance. That's the only way I would be an SAHM.

[–]Barely-moralMostly red though5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair. As I said, I think being a SAHM is a risk, and it is ok for women to avoid it or expect some sort of compensation. You have to look after number 1 after all.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No one put a gun to their head, but they do assume if their husband decides to divorce them for a younger woman in 20 years that they won’t have to live in a tent. If that was the bargain, I’m not sure you would find anyone but a very desperate woman to sign up. That’s why the op is stating that not wanting to pay alimony is incompatible with wanting a sahm.

If you CAN find one that will agree to getting nothing after 20 years of being a sahm, I suggest you get a good lawyer to write an airtight prenup. I think most judges would assume a woman who sign such a one sided deal would have a mental defect, rendering her incapable of entering any sort of contract.

[–]Zippo-Cat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

First of all, SAHM is not a real job. With modern white goods that absolutely trivialize 99% of household chores it's more akin to parasitism. The most direct proof of this is that there are literally tens of millions of people who live alone - and therefore both work full time AND take care of the house, all by themselves.

Taking care of kids only really takes around the first 4-5 years. The moment you put them in preschool they stop really being your problem, they get friends to play with and pretty much only use your house to eat, sleep and chill for the next 20 years of their life.

SAHM does not mean the woman has no education. SAHM doesn't mean she cannot gain education while being SAHM. You say "low ambition" but to me that just means "lazy". Why should a man literally pay for some lazy woman to live in luxury for xx years and then STILL pay her when they separate because "she has nothing" if the reason she has nothing was only her own laziness?

[–]Barneysparky3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You have not parented.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

why are you automatically connecting SAHM with low ambition? That muddies the validity of your argument a lot. It makes it hard to answer your post according to the cmv rules also, since it's easy enough to agree that a SAHM who does a knock out job of it all has earned some sort of security and protection in the event of a divorce.

Why low ambition? Is that just a reflection of your own view of SAHM/W's value?

[–]dawnpriestess2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Let me ask you, how many men have the luxury of having a feasible lifetime goal of staying at home and letting somebody else provide for them financially?

That wouldn't even be desirable to most men because of higher overall ambition.

[–]BajaBlast900 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

why are you automatically connecting SAHM with low ambition?

Because being a SAHM is a no brainer for an adult woman. Spare me that bullshit bEiNg a mOm iS hArD! It's not fucking rocket science. It's incredibly easy if you know what you are doing. Let's be real here, alot of women choose the SAHM route because they think it's the easy way out. They will do this under the guise of "traditional gender roles". Granted there are women who are dedicated to being the best wife and mother they can be, which entails being a SAHM.

[–]lbspredh0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, sure if it's planned and the stay at homer is actually giving something up to be there, but often they are just unemployed and it's really not like they gave up anything to parent their own child

[–]BirdManBrrrr0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are not binary between SAHM and Career Woman.

It is perfectly reasonable to have a woman who works and makes a good income with a healthy work/life balance that isn't a dedicated ladder climber working constantly to the detriment of everything else.

You can't just abandon someone to the streets and/or to scramble because you're done with them.

Hyperbole and doesn't happen. SAHM who go through divorce don't end up homeless with nothing. Add in women are much more likely to be SAHM at higher household income levels/UMC+/affluent/wealthy there's near zero chance she's destitute begging for change.

How often to women file for divorce vs. men again?

[–]PuleaSpataru69|||0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

Why is a SAHM low ambition??? She is raising her children and taking care of her house and family. Family sits at the base of society and is the most important so molding children in the most important task. Because parents dont spend time taking care of children and children grow up in broken homes this society has gone to hell.

Why is putting your marketing job above your children considered ambitious? Most career women arent saving lives or doing anything worthwhile. You are all easily replaced.

[–]azngirl7689[S] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

With all due respect, if you’re going to go that route so are men. Women don’t just do marketing jobs.

[–]PuleaSpataru69|||0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, but men provide for a family, they're supposed to. Why would a woman CHOOSE a marketing job over her own kids? Men have no choice.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Children after the age of 5 are not even at home the whole day. I hardly think having a career is so detrimental. Also it takes money to raise children and send them off to college. Hard to do that with one parent working.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

She said a low ambition SAHM not that all SAHM are low ambition.

Most career women arent saving lives or doing anything worthwhile

My work directly saves lives.

You are all easily replaced.

Hilarious coming from a self proclaimed gold digging mail order bride.

What's your position on alimony? Come on, let's see how the hypocrisy works.

[–]PuleaSpataru69|||0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I am most definitely NOT easily replaced.

I have no position on alimony. I will NEVER allow my husband to divorce me and I have plenty of evidence and other strategies to keep it from ever happening. I doubt a man from prison can give alimony and that's the only scenario in which my children will grow up in a broken home.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I have no position on alimony

Of course you don't. Because it would make you look like the hypocrite you are.

[–]PuleaSpataru69|||0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I am plenty of things but not a hypocrite.

I think men should pay! But I will never be in a position to need alimony because I will never get a divorce. And if I will it will be to marry a richer man so I wont need alimony anyway. Not that I should qualify for it since I do work full time.

I work full time and save all my money and plan on investing it. So I am saving money and I am being smart about it, I wont wake up broke one day if he dies.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I do work full time

So I guess you put your kids second then.

[–]PuleaSpataru69|||0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I dont have kids yet. I wont work while they are little before kindergarden and my mom lives with us so our kids wont be raised by strangers. I also wont work long hours or weekends.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I thought you said before you had kids but I guess I'm remembering wrong.

[–]PuleaSpataru69|||0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I;ve never said I have kids. I talk about my future kids.

[–]toysjoeMGTOW-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree to take the risk of alimony if you don’t divorce me over some random arbitrary bullshit.

[–]aanarchist-1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

The idea is that career women are busy doing whatever and no time to focus on you, and since she's a career type she has not the disposition to be loving towards you either. Also the career woman wants her "equal" which really means her superior, so you have to make more money than her and ideally would be her boss, so in the end it's the same shit but less in it for you. It's not like the money she makes is going to benefit you. Unless you find me a career woman who's looking forward to spoiling my dumbass and fawning on me too, and who gives zero shit that she makes more than me and dates exclusively for a good partner rather than chad or hypergamy, no argument you make holds any sort of weight in reality.

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

How are you worth all that? What do you offer?

[–]aanarchist 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

Well with that attitude you've already decided that I am not and have nothing to offer, so I will not beg your approval.

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Correct. Nobody is worrying fawning over. You would be included in that.

[–]aanarchist-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Why do you spread your hate to others?

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This response does not make sense.

[–]aanarchist 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

You strike me as a very hateful person. Please don't message me anymore, and avoid messaging me in the future too unless you have something useful and productive to say. There's no point in trying to tear someone down online, find another target.

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your response still does not make sense but one option if you find me hateful is to block me or ignore me that will be fine I will not notice.

[–]CrestfallenWolf-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Repost of a repost, repoasting a repost. Keep hitting that wall one day repetition will equal truth.

[–]azngirl7689[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks for sharing that information. It’s really useful.

[–]CrestfallenWolf0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Useful info in a useful thread. 😀

[–]Venicedreaming-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is where the bitter dudes come out. Who hurt y’all? No one is forced to marry anyone. The terms of marriage is clear, don’t agree with it don’t get married. The rest of us normal people actually enjoy the financial terms the institution has set up

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter