Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is this new law bad for women? I don't even think alimony should exist PERIOD.
Hmmm I wonder what the defense of marriage folks convinced gays are ruining marriage will think of this bit of legal shenanigan cheapening marriage. I'll bet you won't see the Church or petitions or protests or any such animal.
Truth in advertisement this is the anti gold digger law. All well and good, but it puts all women bothering the time of day with men in the same net. If I had spent the better part of my life minding the million intangibles of family life... the real price tag would bust everyone's pocketbook. What a civilization fails to value leaves them. It's been going on for centuries.
The more I listen to these men hating on half the species, I think lesbians & this younger crowd refusing to get married have a strong point. They're not even attempting to put on the appearance of impartial anymore.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,143,759 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
Your not "discussing" anything. You went on some mad rant about how you think I consider women should be barefoot and pregnant. Get a grasp.
If you did take this personal, I will apologize. It wasn't directed at you personally. But, I have a very very strong feelings about this subject after watching the "hell" my friend went through when the person who she thought was her "partner" in life, became the most mean, hateful, person. Not once taking into consideration all she had sacrificed and done for him over the course of 30 years.
It can be necessary in some cases. In my case I had a stay-at-home mother. She did eventually return to work as my brothers and I got older, but imagine if my parents had divorced while we were still young. Suddenly she has 3 kids to raise, and a resume with a five-year gap of no working? I think in a case like that, at least a few years of alimony are appropriate since a five-year gap on a resume is going to limit your earning potential for a while, and her five-year resume gap was something both partners in the marriage had agreed upon.
But permanent, unending alimony is outdated and should never happen. In addition, in cases where a couple had a stay-at-home dad, the mom should be the one paying the dad alimony. And if there aren't kids I don't think alimony is appropriate at all.
I would be embarrassed to live off my ex husband after the marriage ended.
Get a frickin job! It is not someone else's responsibility to support your behind.
Read Aus10's post, it describes me to a T.
My ex makes big bucks and will be paying me. No guilt, no embarassment. I don't know why I would be or what's so fracking special about me serving coffee at a Starbucks or filing forms in an office. A job is just a job and if I don't need one...well lucky you, you can have it!
Maybe alimony would be appropriate in very, very few situations...but come on. Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique in 1963. That's almost fifty years ago. I think she'd be rolling in her grave to see how some have bastardized the feminist movement.
"Feminism is about choice", yes, but it's also about consequences. You choose to stay out of the work force for years, decades even, it's not hard to figure out that you're going to have a damn hard time getting back into the workforce. And I have a tough time feeling sorry for someone who throws away an education to stay home. Expecting a spouse to be there forever is like expecting to be guaranteed a job at the same company for the next thirty years, or counting on Social Security for your golden years. It's simply a naive and careless way to live life.
I suppose the millions of people who were laid off during this recession after working umpteen years with the same company should petition their ex-employers for maintenance payments, too? After all, do they not face discrimination and unique challenges in trying to find a new job? Do they not deserve to maintain the lifestyle to which they are "accustomed"? I bet most people would think that what I just said is ridiculous. So how is alimony that much different?
The world wouldn't work without stay at home moms (and dads). And not everyone is going to have a job, and they probably shouldn't since there aren't enough jobs.
Maybe alimony would be appropriate in very, very few situations...but come on. Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique in 1963. That's almost fifty years ago. I think she'd be rolling in her grave to see how some have bastardized the feminist movement.
"Feminism is about choice", yes, but it's also about consequences. You choose to stay out of the work force for years, decades even, it's not hard to figure out that you're going to have a damn hard time getting back into the workforce. And I have a tough time feeling sorry for someone who throws away an education to stay home. Expecting a spouse to be there forever is like expecting to be guaranteed a job at the same company for the next thirty years, or counting on Social Security for your golden years. It's simply a naive and careless way to live life.
I suppose the millions of people who were laid off during this recession after working umpteen years with the same company should petition their ex-employers for maintenance payments, too? After all, do they not face discrimination and unique challenges in trying to find a new job? Do they not deserve to maintain the lifestyle to which they are "accustomed"? I bet most people would think that what I just said is ridiculous. So how is alimony that much different?
Many 'chose' to stay out of the workforce to raise children thinking that their spouse would be able to support them and their family for as long as it took for their children to grow up and leave the house. For most, this is at least 18 years, and if you have multiple children a few years apart it's much longer.
It's going to be interesting to see how this kind of stuff plays out in the future since many people are educated and work before they start families.
As for your last paragraph, they do get unemployment which holds them over until they find a new job. Would that not be similar to alimony? Being laid off and trying to find a new job is much different than being out of work raising a family for 20+ years. It's the sacrifice you make to raise those children and you would think the other parent would be willing to make sacrifices as well. That goes for either men or women.
This is one reason I am EXTREMELY hesitant about getting married and having children. I wouldn't want my children raised by a nanny or babysitter, but I'm also not willing to leave myself completely dependent on a person who could up and leave at any time because he decided he wanted to trade me in for a younger model, or simply didn't want the responsibility of a family.
Many 'chose' to stay out of the workforce to raise children thinking that their spouse would be able to support them and their family for as long as it took for their children to grow up and leave the house. For most, this is at least 18 years, and if you have multiple children a few years apart it's much longer.
It's going to be interesting to see how this kind of stuff plays out in the future since many people are educated and work before they start families.
As for your last paragraph, they do get unemployment which holds them over until they find a new job. Would that not be similar to alimony? Being laid off and trying to find a new job is much different than being out of work raising a family for 20+ years. It's the sacrifice you make to raise those children and you would think the other parent would be willing to make sacrifices as well. That goes for either men or women.
This is one reason I am EXTREMELY hesitant about getting married and having children. I wouldn't want my children raised by a nanny or babysitter, but I'm also not willing to leave myself completely dependent on a person who could up and leave at any time because he decided he wanted to trade me in for a younger model, or simply didn't want the responsibility of a family.
Actually, no, it wouldn't be similar. What's the max that someone can receive unemployment, still 99 weeks? Plus, in order to continue to receive UI, you need to show that you're actively looking for reasonable work. When you find it, the unemployment stops. If you exhaust your unemployment and cannot find work, you're SOL.
Let's compare that to lifetime alimony. Not every woman receiving alimony is some long-suffering real-life Edith Bunker who just got tossed out on her *ss because her husband wanted to trade her in for two twenties. Cases abound where ex-husbands are paying alimony to women that cheated on them, who have jobs, who are cohabiting with other men. You want to see something even crazier, Google "Second Wives Club". How, exactly, is any of that fair, and how does any of this not screw up any kids that might be involved?
Forgive me for being uncomfortable with a piece of legislation that demonizes men and infantilizes women; that amounts to legalized extortion (pay or go to jail - aren't our prisons full enough?); that ruins relationships between parent and child and that jeopardize subsequent marriages; and completely turn off millions of people to the institution itself. Family values, this ain't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/quote
