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:
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.
The choice is a social good.
Not enough to make it remotely fair.
Unless she is a housewife. If she has a career of her own, I agree.
We were talking about homemakers, not people who 'choose not to improve themselves'.
Yep. Point? Why does a man have to pay for it when it's no longer good?
Alimony is not fair, and how the hell do you quantify what is "fair" repayment? Any number you could put on it is entirely arbitrary. It's a union, not employment.
No. You still haven't explained why that would entitle her to receive money after she ceases to be one.
My point there was you can improve yourself while also being a "homemaker". Wives get degrees, take up hobbies, DIY, whatever- they do have free time within which they can do or learn other things.
There's nothing rational about alimony- it's entirely based on men and women's bias towards women. It's at best a forced "charity" to help women long after they can get back on their own 2 feet.
Besides, you still haven't answered the most important argument: if a woman isn't forced to share the same debt after a divorce, why should she be able to take a share of the earnings? Why is a woman entitled to enough money to "maintain her lifestyle" even if the man is bankrupt, or the alimony puts him there? Nobody is entitled to comfort or safety at someone else's expense.
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.
Her child. There's never any guarantee that it's his too. Although the government will still come for child support regardless of that.
Which gained him work experience and many raises.
How many screws do you have loose?