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:
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.
Why should a man be able to dump his wife of 15 years and leave her much worse for it?
Heap fallacy. Just because no perfect fairness is possible, does not mean that you cannot try to make it more fair.
I mean, it's obvious that you want the law to benefit you at the expense of others, so of course you are not persuaded, and never will be no matter the quality of the arguments.
Why should a housewife receive money after a divorce (not initiated by her or initiated for good cause)? Because she sacrificed work experience and raises to be a housewife, which benefited the man.
She gets the earnings that expanded in the time that they were married, and debts acquired during the marriage, not pre-existing property or debts.
Never said I supported that.
.... not even gonna finish the whole thing- as if it's the men who initiate most divorce...
Fallacy doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't mean you wouldn't be able to do it accurately, I mean you shouldn't put a number on it at all. It's not a paid position or something requiring reimbursement. It's like billing your friend for a favour that didn't financially cost anything- you could put a number on it, but you shouldn't.
That's your opinion. You've artificially deemed it a "sacrifice" instead of a choice. If she chooses to take a lower-paying job, is she entitled to the pay from her old job? No, that's dumb, and so is alimony. Divorcing is like quitting or getting fired- you don't get to keep a salary afterwards.
This isn't a 1-way street. The woman benefits too. Many would say the woman benefits more by not having to remain a corporate drone to put food on the table. You view marriage like a sacrifice of the woman that only benefits the man- I won't be able to make a convincing argument otherwise until you see marriage as equal partnership of 2 mutually consenting adults instead of "man inflicts spousal contract on woman".
Bull. Never heard of a woman having to pay after the man gets down on his luck.
That's what alimony is. Otherwise, why is alimony tied to the man's income?