The she-covery - Female judge in Canada orders 50k a month in alimony payments.
(www.dailywire.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (69)
sorted by:
Imagine thinking this wasn’t intentional malice. For all imp gets wrong he is not wrong here. We were a massively gynocentric society 40 years ago, everything since then has been intentional subjugation.
Society has been gynocentric since the beginning of time. It's just that women no longer have any social accountability and men are expected to have ever increasing accountability for things they shouldn't. "Date the single mom, bigot"
Alimony made sense when women had kids and stayed home to take care of them, because they are sacrificing career and higher earnings potential.
Now? The cause having ceased, so should the effect.
Completely disagree. Alimony has never made sense because a women is equally as entitled to a man's earnings after divorce as she is burdened with his debt.
It's a very odd framing to say she is "sacrificing" a potential career/earnings. It's not as if only the woman loses something when starting a family and that the majority of a man's pay didn't go to supporting it.
People do literally split their debts when they get divorced.
So, if a wealthy millionaire accrues massive amounts of debt, the courts would saddle his trophy housewife with millions in debt- equally split?
[X]
I'm sure what you're talking about is the negotiation of splitting assets and finances, not what is legally mandated by courts and judges as "compensation" for being a housewife. We're talking about the unfairness of alimony, which is an extraction of wealth regardless of debt.
If you spend 15 years in a relationship caring for the household and the kids, that's 15 years you are not spending on developing job skills and developing human capital. It's not really accurate to simply assume that the two are similarly situated after such a period of time.
Doesn't matter. It's a choice- willingly made. Why should anyone else have to pay for your choices? The husband supports the wife already- free food and board + whatever they want to spend money on.
If you have children, the husband is LEGALLY obliged to pay child support and morally obliged to keep them healthy and happy. If you don't have kids together, that's even less reason she should receive money.
Furthermore, if you choose not to improve yourself because you are happy being taken care of, that's also not a justification for receiving money. It's not as if the only way for a woman to increase employability or secure income is through being a career woman. Also, let's not pretend that a woman couldn't find another man to support her and that the previous husband would be off the hook for alimony if she did.
We should just bring back dowries instead
But the man threw away 15 years of earnings keeping the waste of space alive to compensate for the big effort of pushing his child out.
And that changed in the 70’s. By the time the 80’s rolled in there the dual income house was established, feminization of men went full swing, and no fault divorce was a communist invention of Russia to take power from the church. California implemented it to take power from the family unit which was the end result of Russias implementation.
let's double the labor force and consumer base to drive down wages and increase consumption and call it liberation! what a fucking scam