Posted on 05/26/2011 11:26:00 AM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
The other day a friend was telling me about her friend that quit her high-paying marketing job because she absolutely refused to pay her lazy husband alimony after finally kicking him out of the house.
Then last night I ran across this story on The Huffington Post examining if it’s fair for women who make more money not to pay alimony or manimony as they are dubbing it? Why should it be any different than when a man makes more and divorces?
From The Huffington Post:
“There really are two valid sides to this argument. If you think about it, men have been paying spousal support for years to their ex-wives who are staying home to raise the kids. Many of these stay-at-home moms have argued they gave up a career to raise a family and are entitled to compensation for that sacrifice.”
“After all, the goal of spousal maintenance is to financially support someone who cannot support himself or herself after the marriage ends. So does it really matter if that someone is a man or woman?”
“Women argue even if they are the CEO of their own company, for example, they are still often the CEO of the house as well. The school calls them when the kids are sick. These moms still take the kids to the dentist, doctor and extracurricular activities and often wake up in the middle of the night when the child is sick. These high-powered female executives argue because they are moms, by definition, the bulk of the care seems to rest on their shoulders. They’re doing double-duty, so to speak, and don’t want to send a check to their ex every month because they don’t believe he bares the brunt of the single parent job.”
We had another friend who supported her husband through multiple attempts at grad school to find himself and she when she finally decided to divorce him she went ballistic at the idea that she would keep supporting him. I think she got out of it but I can’t remember how she did it. (This was like 10 years ago. I think he finally decided on a career once she stopped paying all the bills and he started making money.)
Does it feel different for a woman to want and expect alimony after a divorce versus a man expecting it?
Do you make more than your husband? Would you pay him alimony if you divorced? Would you be OK with paying manimony if your husband had quit his job years before to be the main caregiver of the kids? Does that change the situation?
I guess it’s better than the man paying vaginamony.
Darn yes it is and only a misandrist would deny it.
If men have to pay in that situation, women should too. Of course, feminists will oppose it, because they really don’t care about fairness or equality, they only care about women profiting at the expense of men.
The one argument they cite breaks down when you consider that women who don’t have children still get alimony after divorce, so it really has nothing to do with the children. That’s what CHILD support is for.
Also, alimony often ends if the woman remarries, while obligations for child support do not. So, clearly, alimony is only about women wanting to be supported by a man, without having to do any of the things they would normally be expected to do in return for that support if they were still married. As far as I’m concerned, it’s state-endorsed robbery.
You feminists have been screaming for equality.
You got it.
Vaginamony.
Man, I had to go look THAT one up.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vaginamony
Hoo Boy!
That’s the FR word of the day.
I see it’s now a keyword. Funny how this thread is the only one listed.
~lol~
Turn about is fair play.
It gets complicated if the money-maker is the wife because in my observation, women assume command and control of the house, which means men do less. But if the husband were the sort who cleans and cooks and shops, then I think it is all the more reasonable to consider not just what he gave up to enable to wife to hold a job AND have a well-ordered home but also what value he contributed to the total worth of the family community. So, it seems to me that it is just for the lower earning spouse to receive alimony if it can be shown that his or her earning less was directly related to service performed to the family. Mind you, I'm talking through my hat. I don't know anything about this stuff.
After the recession that disproportionately led to men being fired - they outnumber men in the workforce for the first time in American history.
As such, employed college educated women find themselves chasing a shrinking pool of employed college educated men.
A woman who supports her husband through graduate school and then is supposed to support him financially after that is just as sick as if they said a man who supported his wife through grad school was supposed to do the same.
I remember the chicflic movie “Under the Tuscan Sun” where she was working while he was supposedly working on a novel but really screwing the neighbor. When they divorced she was expected to support him in the style he was accustomed to.
No wonder only 12% of Americans ever marry more than once - those that divorced once LEARNED.
And if you reversed it and the woman cheated and the man made more is that right. It happens all the time in the USA.
The ali- in alimony has nothing to do with femininity. It is related to “alimentary.” Alimony is money for food.
I think the whole concept of alimony period is antiquated concept from a time before women often worked outside of a family business. I can’t believe that anyone thinks that any form of alimony should exist, either men paying women, or women paying men.
I agree.
Happens all the time when the husband make s the money and the woman stays at home with or without kids. Yeah it sucks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.