NJ Supreme Court Opens Door for Alimony for the Mistress
June 24th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
From Palimony ruling sets precedent in Jersey (Star-Ledger, 6/18/08):
In a decision described as the first of its type in the nation, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a couple does not have to live together in order for one partner to sue the other for palimony after a breakup. The high court ruled that judges should consider the "entirety" of a couple's relationship, and that cohabitation is only one factor in deciding whether they had a "marital-type relationship."
The ruling overturned an appeals court decision last year that said there is no basis for a palimony suit unless a couple lived together.
"It is the promise of support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim of palimony," Justice John Wallace wrote for the court. The high court was ruling in the case of a former North Bergen woman who was attempting to sue a prominent, wealthy and married Manhattan ophthalmologist for palimony after he ended a 20-year relationship.
I do believe that alimony is appropriate under certain circumstances, such as when one parent has made substantial career sacrifices in order to be the primary caregiver for the couple's children, and upon divorce their incomes are very unequal because of these sacrifices. This case, however, goes well beyond that--no kids, no real sacrifices, etc. While the woman in this case apparently isn't going to win her bid for alimony, the case opens the possibility for alimony in other cases where it is inappropriate.
I covered this case earlier this year when the New Jersey Supreme Court first heard testimony in the case. I wrote:
It's hard to have too much sympathy for the guy in this case--he was married with children and had a 20-year-affair. Still, I think it's an outrage that his mistress is seeking alimony, and may get it.
They never lived together, he put her through graduate school and provided her with an apartment, but it wasn't enough, and now she wants palimony. She claims she needs his money and can't support herself because her degree is in Art History--as if her choice of study is his fault!
He allegedly "deceived" her by not divorcing his wife to marry her. It's great how these women have affairs with wealthy, adulterous married men--hardly a trustworthy group in general--and then are shocked, shocked! when the men don't keep their promises to them.
As an attractive young woman she could have had any man she wanted, but the nice guy next door was never good enough--she had to have the most wealthy, powerful man she could get. And now she's an angry, betrayed "victim."
You also have to love Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, who says, "He was an adulterer and he shouldn't be held liable? That's a little troubling to me." It's troubling that he doesn't pay alimony to a mistress? Since when?
The article I was referring to in my previous post is excerpted below.
N.J. High Court Hears Pitch for Palimony Sans Cohabitation
Michael Booth
NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL
January 23, 2008
For the nearly three decades that New Jersey has recognized a cause of action for palimony, cohabitation has been the litmus test. No degree of love, devotion, mutual assurance or sacrifice has been found sufficient without it.But what if the couple is intimate for two decades but can't cohabit because one party stays married to someone else? Put more bluntly, is there equitable power to award palimony to a mistress?
The lower courts have said no, putting the issue before the state Supreme Court in L'Esperance v. Devaney, A-20-07.
Palimony is shorthand for equitable recovery based on a long-term, spousal-type relationship between two parties not married to each other. It was first recognized three decades ago in California in Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976). New Jersey followed suit in Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, 80 N.J. 378 (1979), a case also involving a married man in a relationship with another woman.
But in Kozlowski, there was cohabitation, unlike the case now before the court, which presents other factors that arguably made the relationship just as strong as if the couple lived together.
In 1983, Helen Devaney started working as a receptionist for Dr. France L'Esperance, a New York City ophthalmologist. She was 23 and single, he 51 and married with children. When they became romantically involved, he purchased an apartment for her in North Bergen, N.J., where he visited her frequently over the course of 20 years.
According to Devaney, the doctor continually promised to divorce his wife and marry her. He paid for her college education. They even tried to have a child together, which led to her undergoing fertility treatments. "[H]e was going to marry me, we were going to have a baby, everything was going to be fine," Devaney said in her testimony.
But L'Esperance never left his wife, and in 2003, he and Devaney broke up, leaving her embittered, angry and near the end of her child-bearing years. And he kicked her out of the apartment, which he owned in his name.
Devaney's lawyer, JoAnne Juliano Giger, argued Tuesday that in this situation -- that of a woman who devoted a large part of her adult life to a man who failed to live up to his repeated promises of marriage -- the court should "reject the bright-line rule of cohabitation."
"This was more than a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship," said Giger, of Roseland, N.J.'s Newman, McDonough, Schofel & Giger. "This was her entire adult life, her child-bearing years. She was spurred on by Dr. L'Esperance's promises. He followed through on all those promises, except for one."
Making cohabitation the sine qua non for a palimony claim "deprives the family court of its equitable power" to fashion a remedy when particular facts call for one, Giger said.
Justice Barry Albin asked if the doctor's wife and children knew of his relationship with Devaney, noting, "This may make a difference if they were presenting themselves to the world as a couple."
Giger said the wife and children knew, as did Devaney's close friends, but L'Esperance's business associates were unaware. "They flew under the radar to his business associates, but to her friends and family, they were out there," she said. "How was your client diminished economically?" Albin asked.
"It's easy to conclude that she was better off," said Giger. "But she found herself middle-aged with a [master's] degree in art history. Nothing really to market herself. She pursued the degree because he liked art."
"You're blaming him because she got a master's in art history?" Albin asked.
It is not a question of blame, said Giger. Rather, "she was drawn into economic dependency."
"Can you have a marital-type relationship when one party is married?" Justice John Wallace Jr. asked.
"I believe you can," Giger replied. "Holding yourselves out as husband and wife is not a requirement for palimony."
L'Esperance's attorney, William Goldberg, said the relationship between L'Esperance and Devaney was not as close as Devaney portrayed it, and he urged the court to not allow her to profit from adultery without cohabitation.
"That would create a new concept of family," said Goldberg, a Hackensack, N.J., solo. "I suggest the alternative: a married man, living exclusively with his wife, cannot be said to have a marital-type relationship with another woman because that doesn't make sense."
L'Esperance was more like a "visitor" to Devaney's apartment, he said, adding that during the last three years of their relationship, they barely saw each other.
Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto seemed nonplussed at the argument. "Your client was an adulterer and he shouldn't be held liable? That's a little troubling to me," he said.
Read the full article here.
"));
19 queries. 0.577 seconds.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Since marriage is fervently defended as something holy between a man and a woman and is even written into state constitutions as such, and since it is illegal to marry more than one person, then on those grounds, how could someone owe someone else alimony if they were not married to each other but there was another wife who was?
And after the first few years, didn’t she get the clue he wasn’t leaving his wife?
June 24th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
The most disturbing thing in this case is that the process of selecting judges for the supreme court of NY has lead to a majority of judges with no common sense or scruples.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
If you want your daily chuckle, think of it this way:
The court just legally recognized polygamy, as they ruled that a man can be married and still have a "marrital-type relationship" with another woman.
Reasonable, Glenn, as long as your chivalry does not prevent you from recognizing that the one with the higher earning (often the man) has made substantial quality of life sacrifices (stress, free time, etc) in order to be the primary earner for the family, and upon divorce those quality of life issues should ALSO be balanced.
Since society and the courts view male-female relationships as de-facto prostitution. He should pay her for services rendered. Men should pay to have access to sex, in one way or another.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
"Since society and the courts view male-female relationships as de-facto prostitution. He should pay her for services rendered. Men should pay to have access to sex, in one way or another."
Then is she required to continue providing the services as long as alimony is to be paid?
June 24th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
No. Sex is, throughout the history of society and civilization, one of the things men pay for long after services rendered. The purpose of societies are to grow and gain in power according to their neighbors (to survive and flourish) and to do so they need numbers, and therefore they need to exploit men to take care of children. That's why masterbation is derided... a man can gain sexual pleasure without risking paying the price. Homosexuality is right out.. a man can gain sex AND sexual/personal intimacy without risking the price. Only in civilizations where there is little to no outside fears has homosexuality ever been accepted at any level.
It is due to those reasons that we have 'right' after 'right' after 'right' to protect women from undue burden of parenthood, but none whatsoever for men. Parenthood IS the risk for men, and one society absolutely refuses to allow men to escape.
That's the level of de-facto prostitution: Men pay (preferential treatment, gifts, pandering) women for sex and even potential sex (since chivalry extends to women the man isn't even having sex with). In some cases, the responsibility to "pay" extends far beyond the cessation of sexual activity (divorce, children, palimony). Men pay for sex, always have, always will. If nothing else, you pay by having your legal protections reduced, your legal standing lowered. And even if you never have sex, you will still pay in a traditional society by it's enforcement of preferential treatment for women.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
The courts must not be busy enough, they really want to open a pandora's box!
June 24th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Well first you HAD to get married to get lifetime payments for being female.
Then not enough men married, so they created palimony.
But now not enough men are cohabitating, so they've changed that requirement.
I keep seeing the line lowering. Will it reach 3 dates in 2030? First kiss in 2060?
And, just in case I'm the only one keeping track: palimony does not exist. There is NO LAW that allows for palimony. It is all "law" created from the bench. The judicial branch has no Constitutional grounds to create law, and as such palimony is unconstitutional.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
"And, just in case I'm the only one keeping track: palimony does not exist. There is NO LAW that allows for palimony. It is all "law" created from the bench. The judicial branch has no Constitutional grounds to create law, and as such palimony is unconstitutional."
How does this stop?
June 24th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
The Sacrifice
Hmm, that title sounds almost like a Stephen King film.
Glenn wrote: " do believe that alimony is appropriate under certain circumstances, such as when one parent has made substantial career sacrifices in order to be the primary caregiver for the couple's children, and upon divorce their incomes are very unequal because of these sacrifices."
PK responds: Glenn, there are a variety of things about this thinking that are just wrong.
1) It assumes that monetary and career gains are the only important things in a person's life. It implies that raising one's own children is of no value. Where's the compensation for the breadwinner for putting in a 60 hour workweek at a job they hate because they want to see a roof over their children's heads?
2) Most alimony is not given to some overworked housewife who did laundry with rocks in the stream while her CEO husband flew on jetstreams. Just the opposite: Most alimony is awarded to women who "sacrificed" jobs they didn't want and played tennis or played golf all day.
3) Logic 101: If it was more of a "sacrifice" for a spouse to live off of a breadwinner and cook and clean as compared to making a boatload of money, then women would be more attracted to SAH husbands.
4) The concept of former SAH mothers winding up on the streets after a divorce is a myth. I know plenty of these women (especially in cases where the working class husband didn't have a lot of money to transfer) and the women did something amazing: They got a JOB and WORKED! They often went to a community college and within a few years, got their life and career back on track. JUST LIKE MEN!
5) Traditional marriage (breadwinner supporting a SAH spouse) provides opportunities for women to marry young and raise children. If the system punishes men for doing so, then it's women who lose out. I know of several career women in their 30's who were DESPERATE, and I mean openly desperate to marry a man and raise children and the men said no way because they didn't want the liability. Alimony, like all anti-male entitlement programs for women, ultimately hurts women!
6) Alimony is an extension of victim ideology and backdoor chivalrous patronage: There's one person whose the bad guy and another whose the damsel in distress and they both have different, but "equal", standards. It's affirmative action for marriage. Either women are adults who are responsible for their adult decisions or they aren't!
The ONLY case where I think alimony is applicable is in the case of a spouse abandoning someone whose ill. I can sympathize that a lifetime commitment "in sickness and in health" should mean something. Other than that, there are no sacrifices.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Every time you buy her dinner,
Every time you pay for her movie,
Every time you buy her a drink,
Every time you open the car door for her,
Every time you give her flowers or chocolates, etc., etc., etc.
she writes it down in her little log book and documents your commitment to her. Eventually she will take you to a judge to make you sure you (chivalrous fool) will stay on the hook paying her.
Of course, when she has sex with you she is just expressing her choice, recognizing and acknowledging the commitment you've made to her.
Isn't prostitution wonderful, when legalized by the state as it now is in New Jersey?
http://tinyurl.com/4a38f4
June 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
PK,
The female in this story clearly does not deserve one cent. However, you cannot compare her to a woman whose husband, after 20+ years of marriage, leaves for a younger model. What should this SAH wife do? How will she support herself? There has to be some level of support to be fair. Raising kids should count for something. I hope you at least agree that all finances gained during the marriage should be split in two. Alimony doesn’t have to last forever, and rarely ever does. But a few years of support to get the other spouse at a point where she can take care of herself seems fair to me.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
hmm i sense a business opportunity here Doc will be all over this one..... He could charge a 40% collection fee AND get to continue his anti-male rants cause we all know ONLY men cheat right?????
June 24th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
But we all know that women aren't adults who are responsible for themselves... the law, feminists, and chivalrists point this out time and time again! They look for new ways for women to be less responsible and for men to be more responsible!
I think the only acceptable cases for alimony are similar to cases of fraud: Man marries woman, she works while he goes thru grad school, after school he divorces her. In that case there would be a reasonable expectation that he should pay her alimony for 4-5 years such that she can also get an education on the (now ex-)spouses support. The same would work with the genders reversed, of course, but more people would say "well he took the risk" as if it's any difference...
Short of taking a palimony case to the supreme court and/or very large protests, I don't see many reasonable options. Find some way to tell a judge "no" I guess.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
However, you cannot compare him to a man who's wife, after 20+ years of marriage, leaves him for a richer model. What should the husband do? How will he continue to get sex? There has to be some level of sex to be fair. Supporting a family should count for something. Sex support doesn't have to last forever, and rarely will. But a few years of sex to get the other spouse at a point where he can gain sex on his own seems fair to me.
While your mouth is gaping open, remember that men have just as much right to sex as women do to being supported: absolutely none, unless contractually agreed. If we're going to continue to enforce one side, we must continue to enforce the other.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Demonspawn nailed it: This is nothing more than the New Jersey Supreme Court codifying legalized prostitution.
I wonder if they will now cease to set-up stings for Johns, since all men who even so much as date women are now de facto Johns, and by the same token, all women who date men are de facto whores. They'll have to lock up most all of the adult men in the state; as we all know, the women will get a pass.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Another example of woman wanted to live off the back of men. He paid her appartment, education and many other things, but now that he has dumped her, she wants to keep getting from him some more.
She took some bogus courses and got a diploma and now wants him to pay for her poor choices of education. The worst part about all this, she will probably get it and get lots from him. She wants to live to a lifestyle she has become accustomed to, even if it is a bogus lifestyle. I am willing to wager that she does not work, never worked and does not intend to work.
my 2 cents
June 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Welcome, Neo, to the Real World!
Jeana writes: "The female in this story clearly does not deserve one cent. However, you cannot compare her to a woman whose husband, after 20+ years of marriage, leaves for a younger model. What should this SAH wife do? How will she support herself? There has to be some level of support to be fair. Raising kids should count for something. I hope you at least agree that all finances gained during the marriage should be split in two. Alimony doesn’t have to last forever, and rarely ever does. But a few years of support to get the other spouse at a point where she can take care of herself seems fair to me."
PK responds: The claim of the man dumping his younger wife is emotive hyperbole. What difference does that make? Let's turn this around: Let's consider the case of John DeLorian who was setup (and later aquitted) of conspiring to buy drugs to save his automobile company and after he was ruined and broke his young, attractive wife left him. Should she pay HIM alimony? Where's the concern of the divorce court for his well being after she's gone?
In answer to the first question, she can go on with her life. This is known as being an adult. This relates to your second question of how she should support herself. She can use the want ads. These have job positions listed that will pay her money to pay her bills. You do believe in equal rights for women to earn money, yes? These may not be perfect jobs, but the vast majority of Americans, including many women, support themselves with them while they go to school or pursue new opportunities.
Raising kids does count for something Jeana: It counts for parents who love their children because they're their children, not as a financial tool. Daycare professionals and nannies are paid to raise someone else's children because they aren't their responsibilty. It's their job. Are these her kids or not?
I agree that finances should be split in two and if that's the case, then she theoretically can live off of those. In addition, 1/2 of the EXPENSES were also hers. Was she helping to pay those while she "worked" raising her own children? Hmmm? This is also money she can use to live off of while getting a job or going to school.
Regarding the support not lasting forever. How about this? Let's outlaw abortion since pregnancy only lasts about 9 months. Why should women have a right to terminate a pregnancy when the "support" she provides the fetus doesn't last forever?
Jeana, you have to understand the distinction between what you regard as "fairness" and being owed a living and "equality". In the Real World of Men, life isn't fair and doesn't owe us a living. Welcome to it. You did take the red pill, didn't you?
June 24th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
More Sacrifices
Demonspawn says: "I think the only acceptable cases for alimony are similar to cases of fraud: Man marries woman, she works while he goes thru grad school, after school he divorces her. In that case there would be a reasonable expectation that he should pay her alimony for 4-5 years such that she can also get an education on the (now ex-)spouses support. The same would work with the genders reversed, of course, but more people would say "well he took the risk" as if it's any difference..."
PK responds:Demonspawn, this is such a classic stereotype that I wonder if it ever was anything other than a stereotype!
A quick question:
Did this woman pay for his gradschool free and clear? No loans, no him working as a TA or RA, no BS? Did he really slide for the whole 4 to 5 years while she worked like a dog to support him?
Let's put into context, Demonspawn, that women define "support" as them pitching in with a few bills. Like Jeana picking up the 3rd date and declaring that as "equality." Most of the time, it's just a woman thinking she hit the jackpot and shacking up with a student hoping to hit it big.
Here are some other "unfair" situations:
1) Man pays $30K for a big wedding and blood diamond ring and the marriage caves in after 2 years. Does he get that money back?
2) Man marries a pretty woman who neither cooks or earns a decent living and takes her out to fancy places, etc. She cheats on him and he divorces her. Does he pay him back?
3) Woman spends tons of money at the shopping mall. He divorces her. Does she pay him back?
Family court is basically like a bad parent listening to two (usually one) child griping that their sibling treated them "unfair" and demanding that the parent punish or reward appropriately. And it acts about as wise.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
jeana Says:. What should this SAH wife do? How will she support herself?
My response: With those two questions, you have done more to make women look weak than any male chauvinist could ever hope to do.
I guess that you could say that I am a male product of the women’s rights movement, and probably a product that no one expected. Ever since I was a young child, I have heard that women are just as capable as men. In school, I saw that they were. I then served on active duty in the Navy for twenty years, and I saw again that women are just as capable as men. I worked with countless women during my Navy career. Those women flew airplanes, fixed airplanes, planned complex military exercises, and managed complex military projects. They also went to sea on Navy ships for months at a time (and life on a Navy ship is not like the life on a cruise ship). I have seen female military doctors, female military lawyers, female military engineers. The list of what I saw women do in the Navy is endless. The women did just as well as men, no better and no worse. Many of those women have children and the vast majority of those women successfully balanced their military careers and their responsibilities as parents.
And now you come along and talk to us about SAH wives. Given my experiences in life, I simply do not have the capacity to admire an adult (i.e. SAH wife) who is financially supported by another adult (i.e. her husband) (expect in cases where an adult is caring for a family member with a severe disability). If you are a housewife, it is because you chose to be a housewife. Our society today no longer culturally coerces a married woman to be a housewife. You have an equal say in your marriage, and you could have insisted that your husband respect your decision to pursue a career. If you have children, it is because you wanted to have children (or you were too lazy to pop a birth control pill in your mouth every day). You made your life, stop blaming every one else for the consequences of your decisions. If your husband is happy financially supporting you, then that is between you and him, but don’t expect men like me to be impressed with you. In today’s world, the only men who are impressed with housewives are male chauvinists and members of the FLDS Church in Texas. I have seen what women are capable of accomplishing, and they are capable of being much more than just a housewife.
I am amazed at the number of women who still use the words “spouse”, “housewife”, “homemaker”, and “stay-at-home mom” to describe their professional occupation. Women will never attain true equality in life until they stop looking upon marriage as a profession. If a woman chooses to be a housewife, it is her own choice, and in my opinion, it is a bad choice
jeana Says:. I hope you at least agree that all finances gained during the marriage should be split in two.
My response: I strongly suspect that all SAH spouses share your hope. Community property laws are gender neutral, and there are examples of divorced women who have lost property that they have earned. Do you think that those women share your hope? Here's a link to a story about a woman who was royally screwed by the community property laws that you like so much: http://www.dtic.mil/dacowits/docs/feb2006/TabO_FormerSpousesProtectionAct.doc
June 24th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
It might not be anything other than a stereotype, but I did use it as an example.
In an example that I would consider fraud, the supporting spouse would be bringing in 75%+ of the income that the family lives off of during the period of education.
Those would depend on how one decides to define marrital fraud. There needs to be a clear definition in place BEFORE any alimony is possible, rather than justification after the fact which may or may not apply again. That's why I placed a bright line on the explanation for my example.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I thought palimony was a joke? I know that in Indiana there isn't palimony; and that a couple has to be together for a period of time, live as husband and wife, and have an understanding that they will get married for there to be a common law marriage; and thus alimony.
I have to agree with Jenna and Glenn: when a couple divorces and there is an absence of kids (either never was any or they're adults) and there is a marked disparity earning power between the two, the one who makes less should receive alimony for a reasonable amount of time; say, three years. Now, since marital assets are to be parsed down the middle, I’m sure savvy lawyers could negotiate alimony up, or down, depending on how the assets are split. (e.g. wife makes 1/4th of the husband, but doesn’t want to sell the house to give him half of equity, thus the alimony could be adjusted down.)
I think that the arguments of 1) he left her for a younger woman after she raised his kids, and, 2) she got to stay home and raise the kids while he slaved away at a grueling job or emotional red herrings. Both play on emotions and divert the argument from the facts. The facts of the matter would seem to be as follows: 1) that a man and woman used to live their lives in concert; 2) they are terminating the agreement that set up that situation; 3) one party can not adjust to life after the agreement, financially, immediately; and, finally, 4) the party with less earning power choose this path during the course of the contract.
Where does this set of facts lead me to? Since they are getting divorced, and the man was complicit in his wife earning less (did he divorce her when she dropped out of the work force?) he has some degree of responsibility for the consequences of her earning less. He should have to support her for a reasonable amount of time.
Where I think the situation breaks down is that system advantages the woman too much. (Before any of the women / feminists say it doesn’t: women file for 2/3rd of divorces, they wouldn’t do so if they we not advantaged in the situation.) Women get the kids too often, they get too much child support, and they get too much in alimony. I will keep this argument confine to the alimony angle. I think the biggest crock I’ve ever heard of is the ‘standard of living’ argument. A husband and wife achieve a certain standard of living as a direct result of the marriage. The wife takes a direct action to end the situation, and she has the audacity to demand the same standard of living even though she has opted out of the situation – makes me ill. I think the alimony appropriate is that she should get enough for the bare necessities: a simple apartment, food, a cheap car, and the cheapest insurance out there. There is nothing like living simple for a few years, and the specter of even that going away, to make one motivated to learn a skill and get a decent job.
Anywho, I’ve rambled a bit.
Later,
B
June 24th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Private Benjamin
Andrew says: "Women will never attain true equality in life until they stop looking upon marriage as a profession."
PK responds: Hello Andrew. Simone De Bouvier is way ahead of you. She said:
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."
Alimony was originally designed as MAINTENANCE based upon the notion of chivalrous patronage and inequality in the workplace. The "sacrifice" rationalization was designed later as a gender neutral excuse to both enable women to double-dip and at the same time punish men who still offered this choice to women.
Andrew, I beg to disagree with you that, as a product of a military background, women in the military are doing things as well as the men. They don't serve in combat. They often get out of military duties by getting pregnant and then getting an abortion later. They don't have to get the miltiary haircut. They had affirmative action in college. They don't go through the same physical fitness standards. Other than that, women and men in the military are equal!
In addition, the military life is not idyllic. I know many military families and they are often plagued by divorce, infidelity and unwed mothers. It's understandable, but all those put together hardly make a case for generalizing about men's and women's roles in society.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Since they are getting divorced, and the woman was complicit with her husband earning more, requiring more of her free time to offset the stress of his position (did she divorce him when he needed her to do more housework, supply more sex, give more backrubs?) she has some degree of responsibility for the consequences of him earning more. She should have to support him in the manner which he is accustomed to for a reasonable amount of time.
As long as you support that as well, then it is reasonable to support alimony.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Let's face it guys, there is a large segment of the population that views men as nothing more than mules or oxen. Our function on this planet is to provide. Money is best but when that is not enough, our sweat and even blood.
As marriage weekens either by divorce or by not marrying in the first place and the family bonds erode so goes the ability to use men's earning power. The second and third wave of feminism, like the rest of us, is feeling the financial pinch. The extra cost of living alone, fewer children to support us in our later years, and a zero % savings rate has left many men and women looking on ways to enhance their incomes. Many a NOW / Feminist / Baby Boomer is looking at retirement and thinking that there must be a way to short circut the traditional process. The feminist revolution was never meant to liberate men. It was meant to let women get the things they wanted but remain protected by society at large.
I say get used to this men. We will see everything from increased pressure on a Government paid healthcare system, higher progressive income taxes, and increases social security benefits to more lawsuits like the one mentioned in this article. Women and those who advocate in their narrow interest will need to push the envelope to try and find out a way to pay for "the lifestyle they have become accustomed to". That lifestyle is no longer simply living in a certain neighborhood or not working while raising the children. More and more "lifestyle" is going to mean anything and everything a princess should have.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Upskirting and other dangers to society
Demonspawn says: "Those would depend on how one decides to define marrital fraud. There needs to be a clear definition in place BEFORE any alimony is possible, rather than justification after the fact which may or may not apply again. That's why I placed a bright line on the explanation for my example."
PK responds: I know it's a pun, but the devil is in the details. In order to guarantee absolute fairness, you're opening up a huge can of worms. And for what? To protect a woman who supports a student from getting dumped after he graduates? Trying to prove "fraud" in this case reminds me of the Duke LaCross team rape case. The very prosecution implies abuse from the beginning!
And let's put it into perspective, really: How often do you think this is going to happen? Stay with me here: A grad student looking to get sugar mommas to support him and even goes so far as to marry her and live with her for 5 years just to divorce her later as he had planned all along. Does that seem plausible to you? I'm reminded of the big deal about upskirting a while back and the importance of making sure that a man couldn't use a mirror to look up a woman's skirt. It seems wildly irrelevent and trivial. It's a sign that our society is obsessed with protecting women at all costs.
If the WORST risk us men had was that if we married a student and supported her that she maybe took off, then trust me, I would be sitting pretty wouldn't you?
Listen, either the ladies can handle equality or they can't. No ifs, and's, or buts.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Its as if they get rid of common law marriage and then through another door, under another name, legalize it again. What is wrong with this country? What kind of federal incentives are behind this ridiculous ruling? Must be some form of money involved or they wouldn't of done it.
Its as if they are truely destroying the nature of man and making it impossible for men to have a relationship of any kind, (let alone want to have children). This is bad and a precedent for other states to adopt this law. Everyday it seems new laws are passed to destroy men and the institution of marriage, or the beauty of marriage so to speak. All of this is getting way out of control..........
Do not they understand that if they prevent men from marrying or becoming involved with women/relationships, it will hurt the divorce industry and child snatching profits?????????
The family unit ideal is dead in the water to a large extent, and this government is trying to take control of every aspect of human nature and life as it should be when it comes to family and relationships. It won't be long and only millionaires and government officials will only be able to afford/allowed to have children or a relationship...............
Is this a sign of population control?????????
June 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
BigB says: "I think that the arguments of 1) he left her for a younger woman after she raised his kids, and, 2) she got to stay home and raise the kids while he slaved away at a grueling job or emotional red herrings.
PK responds: BigB, the second point directly addresses the argument at hand: The notion that one party has sacrificed for another. The attractiveness and youth of a new spouse is not relevent to matters that occurred before the marriage dissolved!
You have not shown any justification for why a spouse who earns less is entitled to support. Your lack of even showing a financial need (simply earning less, even at 6 figures, is not a demonstrable need of support).
Divorces are, by their nature, traumatic things. The notion of alimony is that divorce should be pain free for one party at the expense of another. News flash: When marriages are dissolved things are going to change! That's rather the point, really.
It's ok for you all to be chivalrous and view women as helpless and in need of support lest life becomes difficult for them. I can understand that sentiment. I'm just amused that the proponents of such a position claim that women deserve equality with men in voting and the workplace and at the same time don't view men as second class citizens. You sure could have fooled me!
June 24th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
And ya know what, yer kinda right.
Screw alimony. If there's enough of a fraud to support the basis of alimony, then the laws protecting from fraud should be able to cover the infraction, right? Why make two laws when one will work? Marriage is a contract just like any other. Contract fraud law will cover the problems.
which reminds me....
(implied) Contract law is the basis for palimony. While there is no law that supports the concept of palimony, the courts 'reason' for allowing it has to do with "his promise to provide for her" and making that into an oral contract and forcing him to hold up his end of the bargain. Of course, she likely promised, verbally or implied, to supply sex, domestic chores, or something else in return for this support.
Why is the law enforcing only one side of the (implied) contract? Violation of the 14th Amendment's provision of equal protection. Also makes me wonder if Nevada has laws allowing alimony and how they apply in Las Vegas....
Actually, it'd need to be an entire state allowing prostitution, wouldn't it?
June 24th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
DS: On the surface, your argument is compelling. However; I doubt that the husband lost the ability to do laundry, clean, cook, or any other domestic skill that the former wife took over as her primary responsibility in the marriage.
The division of labor allows the husband to do less of the varied, unskilled work at home and focus his energy on gaining specialized skills necessary to earn more. (These skills can range from more a$$ kissing time with the boss, to gaining a reputation in the industry, to some technical skill, etc) The implicit trade off is that one partner keeps the general stuff, that must be done in life, off the other’s plate so the other can really focus in on these valuable skills.
The husband never lost the skills for the domestic side of life; but, rather, didn’t do/use them for the sake of putting more effort into the career and improving his earning power. Granted, he will either need to start doing them for himself, thus reducing his efforts on the career side; or he will need to pay someone to do these chores. Neither of those two situations affects the sustainability of the wife at the time of the divorce. I am not saying that she should have a certain “lifestyle”; however, I do think that she deserves a certain level of support so that she can close the skill gap, in her chosen field, and be able to sustain her life on her own.
The back rubs/affection side of the argument is moot. Affection is given, and reciprocated as a part of any relationship, and when the relationship ends, so does the affection. (Other than those sick, masochistic f*cks who go back to their source of misery and have some twisted relationship with the ex) There is a division of labor, but not of affection.
Later,
B
June 24th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Perhaps that's it, PK? Perhaps there is inherent value in a woman's youth and beauty? That a man should pay for having 'used it up'? Perhaps alimony is really support for the position that a woman's inherent value is as a sex object? That because ex-husband used her her prime sex object value years and she has a reduced ability to get the same deal from another man (due to her fading looks and increasing age) he could compensate her for it?
Do people really understand the positions they are advocating?
June 24th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
No, he didn't lose those skills, the double divided the duty of life for the benefit of both.
Alimony is the idea the he is still bound to share his responsibilities (earning) but the ex-wive is no longer bound to share her responsibilities (clean his house, reduce his stress).
They, TOGETHER, accomplished something they couldn't apart. They BOTH put something into it. If the wife is still to receive her share of the benefit, then she needs to continue to put her part into it. As you demonstrated, it is an extra burden upon him to keep the same level of career focus without her help.
You can't enforce HALF a contract. It's all or nothing.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
This all sounds like a way to take primary breadwinners who cheat on their spouses on an expensive guilt trip. Basically its a case of:
"Well She/he did do something morally wrong and they have to be punished."
"How can we punish them?"
"I know! We'll make them pay the person they had the affair with!"
"How is that right? Its one thing to order an adulterer to pay their actual spouse alimony since that spouse was cheated on, deceived, and had their lfe turned upside down. But how you do justify ordering the adulterer pay the person they cheated with?"
"Because the spouse cheated!"
"Yes but unless the person the adulterer cheated with was raped then it was consensual."
"You're slut shaming!"
"What? I'm slut shaming by suggesting that the person that the spouse cheated with should not get paid for an adulterous relationship THEY CHOSE to take part in?"
"Yes because you're basically saying that the slut had it coming and she doesn't deserve to be compensated for being part of an adulterous relationship!!!"
::Choas ensues::
So soon women won't even have to marry a guy and have a child by him to clean his fortune out.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
PK: I believe that the second point I made: 2) she got to stay home and raise the kids while he slaved away at a grueling job is just as much as an emotional red herring as the other.
I do agree that there are situations where there shouldn’t be alimony. In fact, I argue that there should be alimony only when the spouse who has scarf iced earning power due to a division of labor decision needs time to gain skills to support him/her self. If he earns $1 million and her $100k, no alimony. Him $40k and her $500k, no alimony. Him $80k, her nothing, alimony time. Alimony should be an open ended commitment, and I think it should be explicitly stated that recipient of alimony has a specific period of time to gain a skill to earn $35 to $50k a year, or else its to the poorhouse with that person.
I think my ideas around alimony are reasonable and are not chivalrous. They simply recognize a reality that occurs in marriage, and gives the opportunity for the un/under-skilled spouse time to become able to support him/her self after the divorce.
Ultimately, I do not want to pay child support, alimony, palimony, etc; so I’m not getting married. Hell, I do not date often, either. Should I be dumb enough to fall for some chick, I will be cold blooded enough to state, and record, that there isn’t, nor will there be, any expectation of support. If I am ever dumb enough to make the Great Mistake again, 1) shoot me, 2) there will be a pre-nup. If others who do not want alimony, palimony, and child support are not rational enough to take these pre-cautions, screw ‘em, they have it coming.
Later,
B
June 24th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
DS: Yes, it is an extra burden on the husband, but, he can sustain his life and do the house work. She can not sustain her life and do the housework, too; as she is un/under-skilled. I am not making an argument that the wife deserves a standard of living that was commensurate to what she had before; but she deserves some breathing room to up her skill level. Assistance with rent, food, etc while she gets her LPN, MS Cert, starts her career over, etc isn’t asking for the moon.
Think of it this way: by disallowing alimony, one essentially removes the option of division of labor from married couples. What sane adult, with a 50%+ divorce rate, would say, “I’ll quit work, take care of the domestic responsibilities, and if we ever get divorced; I’ll be happily regulated to menial jobs just to keep my head above water.”
I am of the mindset, that if a reasonable amount of alimony is given to the un/under-skilled spouse so that he/she can become more self-support that marriages and society will be better off as a whole. The level of risk that is reduced is disproportionately greater than the cost of the alimony.
Later,
B
June 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
BigB said: "The division of labor allows the husband to do less of the varied, unskilled work at home and focus his energy on gaining specialized skills necessary to earn more. "
The ex-husband’s support obligation is based on his proven ability to earn. However, that ability to earn is predicated on the division of labor BigB noted. If he no longer has that support, it seems unreasonable to expect him to earn the same amount. Are the courts saying that a wife’s contribution to the husband’s ability to support the family is valueless?
A recent study put the economic value of a housewife’s services at $134,121/yr. Many women applauded and supported this figure. Let’s say the husband earns $67k. In a divorce, shouldn’t the economic value of the wife’s servcies be deducted off his earnings when determining any support obligation, as he will have to replace this- either by diverting his time from earning (at ½ the rate of his former wife’s hourly value), or by paying for alternative service providers from his earned income? If they divorce, he loses his wife’s services, which have a market value of $134,121, but she loses his earnings, which have a market value of only $67,000. It seems she should be paying him, or at least helping him take care of his new home. Why isn’t the loss of this valuable wifely support considered when determining alimony or child support?
June 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
@ Demonspawn's 4:39pm post:
That reminds me of a Chris Rock standup (either Bigger & Blacker or Never Scared) in which he talks about ex-wives that go into the divorce with a list of things that she "is accustomed to". He then goes on to say that the husband should go into court with a of thing he "is accustomed to" saying that if he has to pay alimony then he should be getting some p@$$y payments.
But seriously I do find it odd that people think that in divorce women (even without kids) should continue to benefit from the marriage that no longer exists but the husband should "man up" and get used to doing the things his ex-wife did on his own. I would love to see how mainstrem feminists would react to this one.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
SN: Two things: 1) that study about the value of housework is complete bullsh*t. It is built on the idea that wife does tons of jobs each day, a little at a time; and should be compensated for them all. It is built on several fallacies: she's good enough at the skills to get paid for them in the working world, she would get compensated for her extra duties (people regualry perform duties outside of the job classfication and do not get compensated for it), and, perhaps the biggest fallacy is that people should be compensated for their home life (no one is compensated for living their life outside of work, they are compensated for WORK)
2) My arguement is based around the ability of the wife to earn a decent wage (say, $15 to $20 and hour) and the amount of time she is going to need to get the skills to get there. The wife and the husband choose a division of labor based on the idea that they would be acting inconcert for the rest of their lives. The divorce nulls that basis, so it makes sense to me that the former wife be supported for 2 to 3 years while she re-establishes her earning power.
Later,
B
June 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Yes, but that extra stress shortens his lifespan.
But did she LOSE skill? If she never had these skills in the first place.. not his fault, not his problem, not his responsibility.
It is when the state supplies programs to do that. The entire reason alimony (and child support, mind you) exist is so that the state can pin the bill on some person rather than paying themselves. My tax dollars already go towards programs to allow my ex-wife to survive while she learns how to make a living wage. Why should I have to pay twice.. once thru taxes and once directly?
Oh, so your contention is that men should take the risks of a failed marriage rather than women.
Unless, of course, you know of a significant population of men being stay at home husbands (vs women being stay at home mothers).
June 24th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
PolishKnight Says: June 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Well said, a simple truth.
(The following in particular,) "You have to understand the distinction between what you regard as "fairness" and being owed a living and "equality". In the Real World of Men, life isn't fair and doesn't owe us a living."
June 24th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Demonspawn, PolishKnight, Big B - great posts... Enjoyed reading your comments. Great intellectual stuff.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
PolishKnight Says:. They don't serve in combat.
My response: They don't serve in units that involve hand to hand combat and they don’t serve on submarines, but they do serve in combat, i.e. they fly fighters, fly bombers, serve on warships, etc. Women have been wounded and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, most women in the military don't like the combat exclusion law.
PolishKnight Says:. They often get out of military duties by getting pregnant and then getting an abortion later.
My response: While it is not unheard of for a woman to pull that type of stunt, I don't think that I would use the word "often". Most women who would do such a thing usually don't last long in the military. They get bad evals, are passed over for promotion and dismissed from the military. Women who really want to serve for a full career in the military plan their pregnancies in a manner that will not adversely impact their careers
PolishKnight Says:. They don't have to get the military haircut.
My response: Women in the military don't have to get a crew cut but they do have to maintain their hair in accordance with the military's grooming standards for women. Of note, the civilian wives of military service members don't have to follow those same standards or any hair grooming standards. On Navy ships, women are required to keep their hair very short or keep their hair wrapped up in a tight bun in the back of their head. Long hair could get caught in machinery.
PolishKnight Says:. They had affirmative action in college.
My response: So do minorities.
PolishKnight Says:. They don't go through the same physical fitness standards.
My response: True. But their physical fitness standards are still quite tough. When I was at OCS at Pensacola, the pass time for the cross country run and obstacle course run was different for men and women. Additionally, women had to go over a shorter wall on the obstacle course run. I believe that the men and women had the same requirements for all the pool training, i.e. strokes test, underwater swim, treading water in full flight gear, mile swim, etc. And of course, women had to ride the dunker just like the men. The dunker, a mock up of an aircraft cockpit on rails that slides down into a swimming pool and flips over, was very accurately portrayed in the movie "An Officer and a gentleman". Unlike the movie, very few people were thrown out of the school for failing some aspect of the physical fitness training but many, both men and women, were thrown out for failing too many academic tests.
While I understand your point that men and women are not always treated equally in the military, my point is that women who do serve in the military prove that women can do much more than just be a SAH wife. It is often hard for me to remember that the women who are in the military are the same species of animal as the women who spend their entire adult lives as housewives. The differences between those two groups of women are phenomenal.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Andrew June 24, 3:36
jeana Says:. I hope you at least agree that all finances gained during the marriage should be split in two.
My response: I strongly suspect that all SAH spouses share your hope.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew I stayed at home as primary caregiver for my daughter. I also had to look for work in the evening because of completion of a major renovation project put me out of work. I wanted the opportunity and had said so long before she was even born. My spouse was having a very difficult time coping after the birth of our daughter. Since my spouse got a day job, I choose to look for evening work (a dreadful thing personally, that would surely have lower pay if I were to even find something since it would not be in my field) *Employment insurance provided enough for me to continue paying my minimum of half. I had to look for work (legally) , felt like I had to (upbringing). I asked for that difficulty for the sake of my spouse, our baby, and MY benefit of having this little angel close to me.
*(Which was always more than half when I was working - made certain by having a spouse with a spending addiction and knew how to work 'it' like leaving certain needs up to me - spent last dollar on purse knowing I can hold on to a dollar and we neeeeed this thing like diapers that could have been bought instead - resulting in to broke people that supposedly split the bills.)
My (common law) wife now had an income, maternity benefits payed through EI (She wouldn't let me split those benefits but continued to collect) an additional government check of $640 monthly (baby bonus) which of-course she considered hers because they only give it to the female and 'head of household' taxation status.
A few months ago I described some pretty rotten heavy labour jobs that I had done and compared it holding my beautiful girl and the play time we enjoyed everyday. My last words on that post were, "My wife doesn't owe me a penny."
Andrew, I fought and continue to fight against such entitlements - I can confidently say I walked the talk even when the 'deal' I got financially was nothing like the 'live for free and play tennis' types that are out there. Not my hope and I will not look back and say "Man I wish I spent less time with my daughter."
It was (is) my pleasure.
Lane SAHD
June 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Andrew,
I understand what you are saying and I think—for women’s sake, if nothing else—women should either never be SAH or if they are, limit that time for as few years as possible and then get into the workforce. You are absolutely right that women can do all the things you mentioned. However, if a man and woman decide that she stay home, and sometimes the female insists on it and sometimes the male insists on it, then the consequences of that decision will have to be dealt with later on. Namely, the female probably not having marketable skills and the husband being obligated to provide something for her. This is something that every married couple needs to think about before they live this traditional life.
Big B,
Unless you’re rich, I would guess that both standards of living for the woman and man would naturally go down. Kids too. I don’t think the guy should be poverty-stricken to support his wife as she was used to, obviously. And if women leave men, well, unless there is truly abuse, I’m not entirely sure how much she should expect him to do.
“$40k and her $500k, no alimony.” Why wouldn’t she give him alimony if she made that much more? That’s certainly not fair to him.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Demonspawn:
“But did she LOSE skill? If she never had these skills in the first place.. not his fault, not his problem, not his responsibility.”
I disagree. Yes his responsibility because he knew that when he married her.
I don’t know why they don’t set up alimony like welfare: you must get a job within a year or two and you can still receive your payments, and if you don’t, you lose welfare. And after a couple years, you’re off it forever. Receiving alimony in most cases should go in conjunction with working at a job. The alimony should be a little boost; it shouldn’t totally support the ex-spouse. I don’t see how anyone can afford that.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
First my reaction to the story: OH HELL NO! She knowingly had an affair with a married man, for 20 years no less, and now expects him to pay her?! She's lucky she isn't living on the streets, which is where she should be for knowingly ruining a marriage. I've been cheated on, I know first hand the pain of it. That little hussy needs to be told where to get off, and to get a life OF HER OWN!!
Now the rest:
Demonspawn said:
“If you want your daily chuckle, think of it this way:
The court just legally recognized polygamy, as they ruled that a man can be married and still have a "marrital-type relationship" with another woman.”
Yep, got a real good chuckle out of that one. Great way to look at it!! Someone needs to tell the courts they can’t have it both ways. Either it is legal or it isn't, pick one and stick with it. (not that I agree with polygamy, because I do not)
June 24th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Demonspawn
"Perhaps that's it, PK? Perhaps there is inherent value in a woman's youth and beauty? That a man should pay for having 'used it up'? Perhaps alimony is really support for the position that a woman's inherent value is as a sex object? That because ex-husband used her her prime sex object value years and she has a reduced ability to get the same deal from another man (due to her fading looks and increasing age) he could compensate her for it?"
Please tell me it really didn't take all of this conversation to figure this out. I have female friends who tell me all of the time that 'he took the best years of my life'. What do you think they may be referring to (I would also add fertility)? She is referring to her diminished market value and I agree to a point.
This is one of the reasons you may want a female judge in family court. The male judge sometimes may see right away given the persons physical and mental state that their market value (looks, companionship, friendliness, fun, family ext) is very low so someone must pay. The female judge (in my experience) truly wants to believe in equality and she may see more of the career value (earning potential) side then the market value side. I think many women are more concerned with their market value side of the equation just as many men are more concerned with a women’s market value then the career value side.
Almost every time one of my female friends try’s to set me up with a women they talk about how much money the women makes, I then say that I make more then enough on my own and ask “what kind of companion would she be”. Can you hear the crickets?
All the best
June 24th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
"No, he didn't lose those skills, the double divided the duty of life for the benefit of both.
Alimony is the idea the he is still bound to share his responsibilities (earning) but the ex-wive is no longer bound to share her responsibilities (clean his house, reduce his stress).
They, TOGETHER, accomplished something they couldn't apart. They BOTH put something into it. If the wife is still to receive her share of the benefit, then she needs to continue to put her part into it. As you demonstrated, it is an extra burden upon him to keep the same level of career focus without her help.
You can't enforce HALF a contract. It's all or nothing"
-------------------------------------------------
I understand what your saying but can't help but mention that house cleaning and wash&fold service is available. It's much cheaper than feeding, clothing, providing personal supplies, sheltering etc. another human being. Also sex is not a service I receive because in theory it's already an even trade, a mutual exchange and I'm sure many guys might say that they do most the work. Sure, the sex couldn't happen apart, but with no kids house keeping is a joke if a person is away working most the time and it's left empty. (with out any utilities being used too)
June 24th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
BigB
"SN: Two things: 1) that study about the value of housework is complete bullsh*t. It is built on the idea that wife does tons of jobs each day, a little at a time; and should be compensated for them all. It is built on several fallacies: she's good enough at the skills to get paid for them in the working world, she would get compensated for her extra duties (people regualry perform duties outside of the job classfication and do not get compensated for it), and, perhaps the biggest fallacy is that people should be compensated for their home life (no one is compensated for living their life outside of work, they are compensated for WORK)"
At first I thought the study was harmless and would be a good confidence booster for stay at home moms. That was until it started being used like a rolled up news paper whacking men on the head. These studies come out for a reason and it may not be the most obvious one.
All the best
June 24th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Kevin C says "Please tell me it really didn't take all of this conversation to figure this out. I have female friends who tell me all of the time that 'he took the best years of my life'. What do you think they may be referring to (I would also add fertility)? She is referring to her diminished market value and I agree to a point."
One point - just because she lost some youthful beauty and fertility doesn't mean a sixty year old man although often capable of impregnating a woman has retained his "market value". I don't expect to see twenty year old woman pining over him like they would the twenty year male with six-pack abs.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
It implies that raising one's own children is of no value
Well in strictly monetary terms...it isn't. It isn't worth a paycheck of one's own, a pension, vacation time, job experience and seniority, etc.
That said, let us get to little Miss Entitled. She has a degree paid for by the paramour. End of discussion. Her conduct is execrable and her sense of victimhood is outrageous. Indifferent to her responsibilities to those who are so negatively impacted by her behavior, she now wants palimony? Horseshit!
June 24th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Big B,
At a gathering recently and sat across from two women. One with a more common sense attitude and the other a little entitlement princess. (I know them both) The EP was waving her finger at the other who was describing her daily routine and felt lucky while the EP who I suspect knew she was wrong and was looking for an end insisted if she "cooked hes got to bring home the pay check." Now the EP spend her days playing on the computer, chatting on the phone, and her idea of cooking is to spend five minutes throwing chicken legs on a baking sheet and turning the oven on. Well, I thought I'd do some simple math. He works all day hauling and makes about $200 a day. (Helps with cleaning and laundry according to EP.) So for her 5 minute investment she wants half his earnings. (Like eating the food he bought and supplied the oven and hydro etc is enough)
That's $1200.00 per hour when you consider the actual time worked plus she too gets to eat the chicken. Amazing - I'm shaking my finger.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
jeana Says:. However, if a man and woman decide that she stay home, and sometimes the female insists on it and sometimes the male insists on it, then the consequences of that decision will have to be dealt with later on.
My response: If there were no such thing as alimony and no such thing as community property, how many women would decide to be a SAH wife? Our laws protect lazy and evil women and hurt good women who work. We need to have laws that discourage men and women from being a SAH spouse. It is the only way to achieve true equality.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Andrew...quite a few women would also forgo motherhood, under your terms.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Lane
"One point - just because she lost some youthful beauty and fertility doesn't mean a sixty year old man although often capable of impregnating a woman has retained his "market value". I don't expect to see twenty year old woman pining over him like they would the twenty year male with six-pack abs."
Good point if all things were equal. However, our society tells us that a mans balance sheet far out weighs his six-pack when considering his market value. This is a stereo type to be sure but it is what the media try’s to teach girls. In fact, our financial institutions might not be in the trouble they are now if they had a few of the Sex In The City girls working with them. If offered to them, those girls would have quickly figured out the true value of Collateralized Mortgage Obligations.
All the best
June 24th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Annie Hunter
I think there can be great value in being a stay at home spouse, certainly in the kids early years. It’s just that in our current environment the risk vs. reward is so far out of kilter that even the most aggressive Wall Street trader wouldn’t touch it. Some people do a great job and my hats off to them. Can you imagine being with screaming kids all day while the TV is telling you how great everyone else has it? It can be very tempting to just get up and go for the gold (that everyone else has).
I’m not sure that a few years of having someone stay at home is worth a large percentage of my income being sent to them on a tax-free bases. In fact, I know its not. If people continue to be happy having that potential weapon then it should come as no surprise to them that others want no part of the arrangement.
All the best
June 24th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Annie Hunter Says: Andrew...quite a few women would also forgo motherhood, under your terms.
Annie,
I agree. If a woman is going to choose between SAH motherhood and a career, I would recommend a career. Under my terms (i.e., no alimony, no community property, women must have a job and earn money), quite a large number of women would also choose to have fewer children and they would also expect the fathers to take on a greater role in parenting (both are good things, in my opinion). The SAH wife is a square peg and equality is a round hole.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Surprisingly, men kept the children after divorce for the last few thousand years, and there wasn't the problems back then that we have today sustaining reproduction of cultures (Mexicans will out-breed everyone else in central/north America. Europe will be overrun by Muslims... all based on nothing other than birth rate projections for the next 50 years).
Surprisingly, the cultures that are out breeding the feminist cultures are those where men rule the family and men keep the children after divorce.
No, I knew that one of the inherent values of a female is her sex appeal. Getting feminists to face/admit that, however, is kinda fun to do ;)
Sex was a service that the wife provided for the husband, and was legally recognized as such up until 1960 or so. No, I'm not kidding.
Then would it not be her responsibility to continue maintaining his house since she knew that when she married him? To keep supplying him with sex?
June 24th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
But which should be changed, the SAH wife or equality?
Equality WILL be changed, if not by us, then by the power of wombs of SAH wives that out breed the wombs of those seeking equality.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
DS - "Also sex is not a service I receive because in theory it's already an even trade, a mutual exchange and I'm sure many guys might say that they do most the work."
Sex was a service that the wife provided for the husband, and was legally recognized as such up until 1960 or so. No, I'm not kidding.
Fair enough and I have no doubt that you are not kidding. As one can see and as this post has demonstrated some laws are just nuts.
______________________________________________
Annie says "Quite a few women would also forgo motherhood, under your terms."
DS points out the sustaining of cultures. An interesting point that I don't necessarily disagree with however it begs me to ask the question. What kind of culture are we sustaining?
I bet we would have a 'decrease' in population if the single by choice movement wasn't supported by the welfare state. In that respect I say forgo, forgo, forgo.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Demonspawn
“But which should be changed, the SAH wife or equality?
Equality WILL be changed, if not by us, then by the power of wombs of SAH wives that out breed the wombs of those seeking equality.”
You just cut to the chase and I could not agree with you more. From my observation of a few Christian stay at home moms they had no trouble with the women getting the kids and a check in case of divorce. It may have been used as one up in the relationship (or deterrent).
When shared parenting comes to pass (and it will soon) people will work harder on their relationships. These very women will be the ones who rail against equality. Because as we all know, equality with corresponding reasonability can sometimes suck but equality with only corresponding rights is a tragedy waiting to happen.
All the best
June 24th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
(The judge ruled) - "It is the promise of support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim of palimony..."
Now I'm wondering, how would you defend yourself against the charge that you made an "implied" promise? If you did not actually state a promise or sign a document, what other behaviors would indicate that you "implied" what you did not say?
And does "support" mean only money and property?
How about emotional and domestic support? Fixing the furnance? Giving her cat a bath? Rotating the tires on her car? Crying with her when her mother dies?
Just to pick one problematic example: there a lots of "couples" who remain single and live in separate apartments, managing long-term relationships. They mutually choose this lifestyle and enjoy each other's company without cohabitation.
Is this scenario a "marital-like relationship?"
As always with the law, the devil is in the definitions.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Nuts that it went away? Yes, actually.
When you study the history of marriage, you will understand that it is a bargain: the man trades his surplus income (above that required to support himself) for the woman's sexuality and reproductive capability. That is the basis of marriage, which has been changed into the abomination today where the man is beholden to his historical bargain while the woman is free from hers.
That is why men gain nothing from today's marriage... women have been freed from their obligations.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Demonspawn
Everyone except the suicidal countries agree with the necessity of sex during marriage. I have seen many women and men pay a dear price for treating sex as a bargaining chip during marriage.
Philosophers
Talmudic scholars seriously asked how often spouses should fulfill the debt, i.e., the duty to engage in sex with one’s spouse. The idea is that having satisfying sex in marriage is the “remedy” for inclinations to engage in promiscuous fornication, which is a spiritual disaster. Each spouse owes sexual activity to the other spouse precisely for this reason, to help the spouse overcome tendencies toward sinfulness; a spouse who denies the other spouse sex too often fails to satisfy that spouse’s sexual needs, which frustration increases the tendency to commit fornication. Paul allowed exceptions, as any reasonable person would: he explicitly says that if one spouse is engaged in prayer or other spiritual activity (not watching “The Late Show”), at those times the debt need not be fulfilled; and he implies (see his phrase “due benevolence”) that illness and similar factors provide reasons not to fulfill the debt or ask that it be fulfilled.
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/1796
Present day Malaysia
As sex is a basic biological need, should we then allow the unfortunate husband, from whom sex has been unreasonably denied to legally fulfill his need elsewhere?
If such is the case then we must re-examine the whole institution of marriage from the legal, moral and cultural standpoint and indeed the very purpose of marriage itself.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/29772
All the best
June 25th, 2008 at 1:12 am
JeanB,
“She's lucky she isn't living on the streets, which is where she should be for knowingly ruining a marriage.”
Would that also apply to the man? He knowingly ruined their marriage too. He didn't accidentally have sex with his mistress for 20 years.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Jeana
"Would that also apply to the man? He knowingly ruined their marriage too. He didn't accidentally have sex with his mistress for 20 years."
Good point, the accident that just keeps on giving.
All the best
June 25th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Demon,
“Surprisingly, the cultures that are out breeding the feminist cultures are those where men rule the family and men keep the children after divorce.”
And the ones where men force their wives into becoming breeding ovens and men in some of the cultures can legally sell their wives and get new ones and men can also sell their children into prostitution and men can kill their wives and daughters if they’re raped or if they have sex with someone. Let’s hear it for the non-feminist cultures where women have very few rights!! An MRA paradise!
Personally, I’d rather have our culture and work to make it better rather than a culture operating with a 12th century mindset.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:53 am
You won't have this current culture to give to your great-grandchildren. You will fail miserably when 'they' can out-vote you. That was exactly what I was talking about in my 10:04 post.
It won't "work better" until you take away some of the entitlements from women and make this system work better and more in the advantage of men. If you want to really get in depth with this, check the "single motherhood by choice" thread which (slightly ?) derailed onto how to make society work.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Wow.. so much time here, yet Jeana has not learned a single thing - "An MRA paradise"? Is there such a thing? Tell me where is such a country. Please be aware that I do know a thing or two about Islamic law practiced in the middle eastern countries, so think before you make generalizations.
As for the non-feminist nations - Usually these are poor countries with poor people where the husband cannot feed and cloth the family doing things in conditions much worse than any woman in the US faces. But still he does his very best to do so, without expecting his wife to work and yes most wives do not work outside the house. Apparently poverty does have advantages. It keeps families together - till money gets in. Then suddenly culture shifts to "Women's Liberation" - followed by broken families, drug usage and single motherhood by choice culture - strange but very observable phenomenon.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:47 am
"And the ones where men force their wives into becoming breeding ovens and men in some of the cultures can legally sell their wives and get new ones and men can also sell their children into prostitution and men can kill their wives and daughters if they’re raped or if they have sex with someone. Let’s hear it for the non-feminist cultures where women have very few rights!! An MRA paradise!"
Where is this country? Please let me know what makes you think any of this is legal in that country. Apart from hate (the muslims) propaganda around the OIL, you will be hard pressed to find any such country. Seriously, watching faux "news" channel is not research. Reading Jessica Valenti is not research. So if you are serious about this - do conduct real research on the topic.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Let me give you an angle that will shift your entire perception. Forget men vs. women. Think society vs society. Which ones are gaining, which ones are declining. Why, and how much?
I don't worry about feminism. It will end one way or another. Either the women of this culture will wise up and return to a more traditional social code, or they won't and they will be forced into the "12th century'
Sex and Culture, J D Unwin, 1934.
1. Rigorously enforced traditional gender rules
2. Advancement of Society
3. Relative security
4. Freedom of women from the burdens of survival (women ALWAYS get it first, it's the nature of traditional gender rules)
5. Women's liberation
6. Men's adjustment to women's liberation... declining birth rates, regression, lack of advancement
6. Economic collapse and/or overthrow and/or being conquered by another society
....
1. Rigorously enforced traditional gender rules
That is the cycle, my friends. Advanced society is a transitive condition. Western society is in step 5.
Only question in my mind is if it's possible stop the cycle, or is it only possible to lengthen 2 thru 4 as much as we can?
June 25th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Typo, Western civ is now in step 6.
And for why I did not include step 5 in the 'lengthening' process: really has little to do with disliking women's lib, has to do with the fact that step 6 comes damn quickly after step 5 and is an inevitability. From 4 to 5 is delayable, from 5 to 6 is not.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Its as usual - ridiculous - that for some reason "Women's rights" are something that should not be denied, yet simply demanding equal rights for men is equated to taking away ALL rights from women. So apparently, Jeana, you believe that only one gender can have rights at any given time, basically making it a "US vs THEM" position.
So there, Jeana has once again prevented Glenn's blog from becoming "an echo chamber of misogyny".
June 25th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Morning all! I've oly skimmed this, apologies, but a lovely piece of debating, kudos to all!
@Demonspawn: very interesting. Your six- (or seven?) point cycle of society - is this taken from Sex and Culture, J D Unwin, 1934?; sorry, I couldn't tell if this reference was given in relation to the quote above it or the cycle below it.
If that isn't the source, would you mind sharing more about it?
Have a good morning!
June 25th, 2008 at 6:41 am
The entire idea of alimony is garbage, plain and simple. The idea that you would have to continue to support a wife, much less a mistress, after she's no longer your wife is ludicrous. Pretty soon we'll have to pay alimony just for taking them on a couple of dates.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Demonspawn says: "Perhaps that's it, PK? Perhaps there is inherent value in a woman's youth and beauty? That a man should pay for having 'used it up'?"
PK responds: Well, "duh" DS! The notion of the "sacrifice" is to justify maintenance and chivalrous compensation for a man breaking a woman's "maidenhood". As I've often said, feminism and even the notion of equality for women is just an extension of chivalrous patronage, not a rejection of it. There are two types of sexists: Those like me and nearly everyone else in contradictory denial.
Either women are responsible for supporting themselves, like men, or they just have hobby jobs they come and go from as they please. We have yet to see a society where women actually HAVE to live up to equality on a FT basis.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Damsels in Disdress: The Myth of the PoorHouse
BigB says: "I do agree that there are situations where there shouldn’t be alimony. In fact, I argue that there should be alimony only when the spouse who has scarf iced earning power due to a division of labor decision needs time to gain skills to support him/her self. If he earns $1 million and her $100k, no alimony. Him $40k and her $500k, no alimony. Him $80k, her nothing, alimony time. Alimony should be an open ended commitment, and I think it should be explicitly stated that recipient of alimony has a specific period of time to gain a skill to earn $35 to $50k a year, or else its to the poorhouse with that person"
PK responds: I already addressed the myth of the poorhouse above. For one thing, we constantly hear on CNN.com and read about other studies on Glenn's site about how housewives do the work of a $150K position. So, in theory, they should be paying their husband alimony, right? Surely she can get a job where she gets paid $50 an hour to cook for someone's children and $100 doctor fees to putting a band aid on a child, eh?
OK, ok, seriously. I did address this above in that lots of men support themselves even with just the clothes on their back and coming off of a boat. They may not support themselves in "the lifestyle they have become accustomed to" (TM) but then again, the ex-husband isn't getting anymore bootie calls either.
You are buying into the chivalrous notion that men owe women a living. Even most chivalrists don't believe that. Housewives_earn_ a living by "working" as a housewife. If you quit your job and decide to work as a lifeguard and then wind up getting laid off when you hit 50 and can't work anymore, they don't necessarily owe you a pension either in many cases. That's LIFE! It's tough, but that's how men have had it for the past million years or so.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:49 am
MichaelClaymore says: "The entire idea of alimony is garbage, plain and simple. The idea that you would have to continue to support a wife, much less a mistress, after she's no longer your wife is ludicrous. Pretty soon we'll have to pay alimony just for taking them on a couple of dates."
PK responds: We've had our differences in the past, and I know I'm saying this only because we're in agreement, but to hell with it: Thanks for being you. It's nice to know I'm not alone in my sanity!
June 25th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Western Civilization becoming Sex and the City
Demonspawn says: "Sex and Culture, J D Unwin, 1934.
4. Freedom of women from the burdens of survival (women ALWAYS get it first, it's the nature of traditional gender rules)"
PK responds: In traditional societies including our western one at the height of progress (at the turn of the 19th century) and massive innovations such as flight, public electricity, automobiles, among others (before the culture became a nursemaid for the incompetent), women didn't "ALWAYS" get survival Demonspawn.
Repeat: It wasn't an entitlement. And this causes feminists to grind their teeth to this day. Want to have some fun?
Remind them that back then, and even today, they had to live up to a ROLE. Back then, it was gracious, genteel, submissive _ladies_. They couldn't just pack up their bags and leave and expect "alimony" and welfare to follow them around like a loyal dog they can kick in the face and still fetch their morning paper.
But even today, most feminists talk to us or each other (blah blah blah) to proselyte their viewpoint for chivalrous men, such as those on this forum, to protect women's equality as an entitlement and even alimony. They're still begging daddy for goodies, but they're doing so on a more public level.
And this explains why most modern women are so nasty, arrogant, and insecure all at the same time. It reminds me of sex and the city: A modern urban jungle of entitlements mixed with continous fear and paranoia. They both hate their protector and crave and need him. Nothing has changed other than their role being less admirable. There are good, sweet children who ask daddy for a bike and those who try to manipulate it out of him.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Jeana says: "“Surprisingly, the cultures that are out breeding the feminist cultures are those where men rule the family and men keep the children after divorce.”
And the ones where men force their wives into becoming breeding ovens and men in some of the cultures can legally sell their wives and get new ones and men can also sell their children into prostitution and men can kill their wives and daughters if they’re raped or if they have sex with someone. Let’s hear it for the non-feminist cultures where women have very few rights!! An MRA paradise!
Personally, I’d rather have our culture and work to make it better rather than a culture operating with a 12th century mindset."
PK responds: It's rather funny, Jeana, that the marxist/feminist power elites are basically selling out YOUR interests to immigrants from these countries to buy votes. In the past 20 years, it's become common in the DC area to see women wearing full Hijabs and Burkas.
Most non-feminist cultures are not like that. They're actually surprisingly more equal than here and the women are submissive to the men because apparently gestating children into poverty isn't an "ability" after all! Employers there don't feel they "owe" women who show up for work a utopian paradise. They don't punish their hard working male employees by discrimating against them. This may explain why so many companies, including and especially the ones that provide socialist benefits here, are quietly offshoring to these places! Welcome to equality!
In the meantime, the feminist laws and attitudes are not much better than those of the worst regimes you mention above. How should we make our society "better?" Put up more baby abandonment stations at firestations? I saw a cute Reno 911! where the police were overwhelmed with so many abandoned babies that they came up with an idea to get rid of them: They abandoned them at the firestation.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am
If she were the married one, and he were single and wealthy, what would she owe him after the end of the relationship?
June 25th, 2008 at 10:13 am
The Sky is Falling
Jeana says: "Personally, I’d rather have our culture and work to make it better rather than a culture operating with a 12th century mindset."
PK responds: Guess who holds these positions. Christian religious radicals or so-called scientific progressives.
"The sky is falling! Global warming is real. Oh, wait, climate change! It's getting colder! We should stop burning oil and raise taxes! Oh, and 4$ gas is because of the OIL companies making huge profits! Raising taxes will fix that!"
"Nuclear power is evil! Wind power hurts birds! Let's do solar (it doesn't work, but it doesn't matter!) Don't build more coal plants! Why are the lights going out?"
"Food irridation is EVIL! It's NUCLEAR (not NUKEULAR!) so it's BAD! I don't want foods that are safe! I prefer my tomatoes with salmanilla and barfing up for a week at a time! Praise the Goddess!"
"Genetically engineered foods are MUTANTS! They will become GODZILLA and attack Tokyo! I know because SCIENTISTS say so! We should wait for solar energy to work. It will! Believe!"
"Automation in the workplace is BAD! Unions say we should use 19th century manpower intensive technologies to make cars so they keep their jobs. I'm buying a Honda!"
Thank heavens marxism is a religion, er, I mean science of reason. For a minute there, I thought they were nuttier than the 12th century.
FYI: I live mentally in the 17th century.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Andrew breaks a few eggs: "My response: If there were no such thing as alimony and no such thing as community property, how many women would decide to be a SAH wife? Our laws protect lazy and evil women and hurt good women who work. We need to have laws that discourage men and women from being a SAH spouse. It is the only way to achieve true equality."
PK responds: This is walking right into their arms, Andrew. Simone De Bouvier said precisely that. I actually found her quote right on Glenn's website!
The problem is that this so-called true equality relies upon a massive welfare state, bastard baby exploiting "child" support, socialist programs for working women, and 4th class status for men. Other than that, it's "true" equality and BTW, the former USSR was a paradise.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Pankaj,
You’ve never heard of “honor killings” in the Middle East? You’ve never heard of men buying and selling women? You’ve never heard of selling 10 year old daughters into prostitution (Thailand)? And much, much more.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:10 am
PK,
“Most non-feminist cultures are not like that. They're actually surprisingly more equal than here and the women are submissive to the men because apparently gestating children into poverty isn't an "ability" after all! Employers there don't feel they "owe" women who show up for work a utopian paradise. They don't punish their hard working male employees by discrimating against them. This may explain why so many companies, including and especially the ones that provide socialist benefits here, are quietly offshoring to these places! Welcome to equality!”
So where are you talking about, PK? China? Yes, women sure have it good there! Employers do not believe in any kind of utopian paradise, and so “hard working male employees” (and female employees too—you know there are hare working female employees, right?) literally die on the job from overwork. They can only have one child, and still most of them are very poor (so I guess they do “gestate” them into poverty, actually). American companies offshore to there because they can get virtually slave labor without the pesky human rights protections any decent government would demand. “Surprisingly more equal than here”?? (Except if you are female.)
June 25th, 2008 at 11:21 am
The Myth of Chivalrous Patronage Equality
Andrew's response: They don't serve in units that involve hand to hand combat and they don’t serve on submarines, but they do serve in combat, i.e. they fly fighters, fly bombers, serve on warships, etc. Women have been wounded and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, most women in the military don't like the combat exclusion law.
PK responds: There are policemen who die from falling off their roof putting their satellite dish too, Andrew, but hopefully the police recognize that's not the same as dangers faced on patrol. Women die in these situations in SPITE of protections, not because of them as men do. That's not "equality".
PolishKnight Says:. They often get out of military duties by getting pregnant and then getting an abortion later.
Andrew's response: While it is not unheard of for a woman to pull that type of stunt, I don't think that I would use the word "often".
PK's response: Now you're quibbling over what often means. Perhaps we should debate the meaning of "is" next. This is an option available to nearly all women and not to men and the women aren't even in combat! Continuing:
PolishKnight Says:. They don't have to get the military haircut.
Andrew's response: Women in the military don't have to get a crew cut but they do have to maintain their hair in accordance with the military's grooming standards for women.
PK's response: Most corporations also have basic grooming standards. Women chefs have to wear hair nets. This is not the same as a military haircut which is part of the overall psychological conditioning along with the uniform to remind the men that they serve the military and to build a shared team experience .
Andrew says: Of note, the civilian wives of military service members don't have to follow those same standards or any hair grooming standards. On Navy ships, women are required to keep their hair very short or keep their hair wrapped up in a tight bun in the back of their head. Long hair could get caught in machinery.
PK responds: Total red-herring. This is not the same standard for men. Andrew, let's lay our cards out on the table: If women were removed from the military, it would take a bit of time for logistics but overall it would be as effective, if not moreso, at achieving it's basic mission. Eliminate the men and replace them with women under current standards (or even on the men's) and it would fail.
PolishKnight Says:. They had affirmative action in college.
Andrew's response: So do minorities.
PK's response: And this proves, what? That white women from the same families as white men needed to be treated as if they were the children of poor sharecroppers to be equal? Ok... thank heavens for clearing that up!
PolishKnight Says:. They don't go through the same physical fitness standards.
Andrew's response: True. But ... [rest of very informative interesting story deleted for readability, sorry.]
PK's response: But... nothing. Women are equal except they're not. And you're banking on forcing this on society to be the best bet for "true" equality?
Andrew says: While I understand your point that men and women are not always treated equally in the military, my point is that women who do serve in the military prove that women can do much more than just be a SAH wife. It is often hard for me to remember that the women who are in the military are the same species of animal as the women who spend their entire adult lives as housewives. The differences between those two groups of women are phenomenal.
PK responds: Being "more than just a SAH wife" is not the same as equality. In fact, in the past most women weren't FT SAH wives. This is largely a product of the 1950's when living standards and wages rose so high that many women had this option. Most women had to do PT work and go back to work after the kids were born albeit in less than equal roles.
It's ironic that many career women yearn for the option to become a SAH wife or even just a PT SAH spouse but many men refuse to offer them that option due to liability reasons as evidenced here along with a majority of minority women who wind up as unwed mothers because of a shortage of decent income earning men. How is this proving women's equality?
June 25th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Dang typos! 7 points. It's not enumerated in that book, but it's in there ;) I either came up with it myself or plagiarized it from the stages of democracy, but said book is a monumental source supporting it.
You're reading too deeply into what I'm saying. I'm not making mention of outright freedom from survival needs, I'm talking about freedom from spending 24/7 concerned with it. Perhaps I should of phrased it better: Women are the first to get copious amounts of "free time" (what I call freedom from the burdens of survival) before men. From that they can "examine their lot in life" and start wanting what men have made for themselves rather than thru their husbands.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I can count on one hand the number of MRAs who want to see a return to "12th century" subordination of women.
But because feminists view any gains for men through their pink-colored lenses of a "zero-sum" gender war, (somebody has to lose) they have completely abdicated any actual commitment to equality.
MRAs want to reform and/or repeal discriminatory, sexist, misandrist/misogynist laws and social policies - which is precisely what the feminists claim they also want - only just for women, apparently.
And therein lies the disconnect between feminism and integrity.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Why climb Everest?
Jeana says: "So where are you talking about, PK? China? Yes, women sure have it good there! Employers do not believe in any kind of utopian paradise, and so “hard working male employees” (and female employees too—you know there are hare working female employees, right?) literally die on the job from overwork. They can only have one child, and still most of them are very poor (so I guess they do “gestate” them into poverty, actually). American companies offshore to there because they can get virtually slave labor without the pesky human rights protections any decent government would demand. “Surprisingly more equal than here”?? (Except if you are female.)"
PK responds: I fail to see how this emotional laden paragraph disproves my point that women's higher living standards here are due to chivalrous patronage rather than equality which even you acknowledge oppresses women more than frees them.
Jeana, if you wish to sum up the MRA position of going back to the 12th century and making women wear burkas (even as Obama was bornand raised a Muslim and is therefore one for life by Islamic law), ok. But by the same token, I would sum up your position of women workers being like Willy Wonka and Charlie and his family riding in boats on chocolate rivers with men and minorities as oompa loompas slaves singing cheery songs (eerily similar to black slaves toiling in the fieldsto support the extravagent lifestyles of white women.)
Indeed, Jeana, even with women's birthrates in China at an all time low men continue to dominate in these cultures for one simple reason: Because they CAN!
June 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Stand by for "Friends -With -Benefits- a- mony."
When it comes, all who oppose it will be said to be advocates of twelfth century oppression.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
roy:
I can count on one hand the number of MRAs who want to see a return to "12th century" subordination of women.
But every contributor on this forum combined won't give you enough fingers to count the number of feminists that would like to create a 21st century subordination of men.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Demonspawn, PolishKnight, jeana and everyone else
While we debate the choice of being a single parent there are other forces at work that will solve this problem very quickly. Except for the very wealthy, many single parents need a support structure that requires resources taken from others. I am fine with giving a kid basic health care because he/she did not ask to be in that situation, but when it comes to giving the parent health care and day care paid for by his/her neighbor we have a problem which will only get worse. Do you know the main reason people won’t put up with their money going to other households? Most people will have less money (due to inflation) soon. Take note:
“The Dow Chemical Company will raise the price of its products by as much as an additional 25 percent in July in an effort to offset the continuing relentless rise in the cost of energy and hydrocarbon feedstocks, it announced yesterday. The company also will implement a freight surcharge of $300 per shipment by truck and $600 per shipment by rail, effective August 1. The surcharge applies to North America customers buying chemicals, hydrocarbons and plastics where Dow absorbs the freight currently.”
Not sure how long this will take to hit the retail side but it will be soon. Motives are not questioned as much when the wine is flowing but once that well starts to dry up you better have a very good reason for asking.
All the best
June 25th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Hmmm.................(I'm too lazy right now to go back and reread every comment since I just finished reading them ALL so if I reiterate something that someone else said I apologize in advance) Since mostly men pay alimony, men (perhaps not all but most) will think about this before marrying and add this to their list of "cons of marriage". If the government adds enough cons to marriage, essentially punishing what is supposed to be a reinforcing act, then men will be less likely to marry and less and less women will be receiving alimony as a result of fewer marriages (or such is my prediction). So in a way, alimony is self-defeating. Similarly if palimony is ever accepted into law this would add another point onto men's internal lists of "reasons to not enter into a relationship of any kind" creating an even wider wedge between men and women. The more and more the government seeps into our lives and the more and more punishments and fewer rewards it brings (or the more one-sided rewards it brings), the more likely it is that people will be unhappy and that men and women will be repelled from each other.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
KevinC says: I am fine with giving a kid basic health care because he/she did not ask to be in that situation, but when it comes to giving the parent health care and day care paid for by his/her neighbor we have a problem which will only get worse.
PK responds: Kevin, I'm going to be hardline here and point out that it's the parent's responsibilities to provide healthcare for their children. That's the point of the government substitute husband: Getting the state to fund more and more bills for the 'children' so the mother's income is free and clear for herself.
Once you've allowed a mother to hold her child for ransom to get you to foot the tab for some aspect of it's care, it's all downhill from there!
KevinC continues: Do you know the main reason people won’t put up with their money going to other households? Most people will have less money (due to inflation) soon. Take note:
PK responds: I wish this was true, but unfortunately many people are attached emotionally to the notion of "Free money" and control at someone else's expense that they don't mind being put into a cardboard box. I view this sentiment as similar to vandalism: Someone can't figure out how to build a home so they go out and vandalize or paint graffiti on something everyone sees. "Look! I'm relevent!" they're saying. It's ironic that the so-called American dream of importance has degenerated into the worst form of socialism for so many people. Nothing is worse than someone being a do-gooder with someone else's money.
KevinC says: “The Dow Chemical Company will raise the price of its products by as much as an additional 25 percent in July in an effort to offset the continuing relentless rise in the cost of energy and hydrocarbon feedstocks, it announced yesterday. The company also will implement a freight surcharge of $300 per shipment by truck and $600 per shipment by rail, effective August 1. The surcharge applies to North America customers buying chemicals, hydrocarbons and plastics where Dow absorbs the freight currently.”
PK responds: So Obama's "solution" to this is to stop drilling for new oil (it takes 7 years supposedly to get results) and raise taxes through the roof! Yet, he's still wildly beloved by so many people.
Let's put this into perspective: There are MRA's here who view women as victims for marrying up in income and quitting their jobs. The man "benefits" by working longer hours to support a spouse. Doesn't that amaze you? It makes we wonder at the limits of human reason when people who are living off of someone else are "sacrificing" while the person working owes them that continued "sacrifice" for a lifetime. Black is white, up is down!
KevinC continues: Not sure how long this will take to hit the retail side but it will be soon. Motives are not questioned as much when the wine is flowing but once that well starts to dry up you better have a very good reason for asking.
PK responds: AmericanSpectator hypothesizes that the Republicans only need to run out the clock on issues such as oil where the Democrat's tree-hugging agenda is going to hurt them more by the day.
KevinC: All the best
PK responds: You too. That brings up something else: Men are natural optimists. Our major slackoff according to many on this forum (listen up Celia) is that us men don't make women act equal. We earn our own living, defend the country, and raise the children and pay a lion's share of taxes. We can't afford to wait around for a knight to save us. On the other hand, a Democrat's lot in life is one of misery blaming evil capitalists for all problems and waiting for the government to save them. It's like waiting by the phone for the football star to take you out to the prom.
June 25th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
In reading this, I also thought of those who date, where their sole purpose is financial reasons. Now, they won't have to defraud their victims, they can just sue for palimony.
June 25th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
PK
I agree with most of your statements concerning people and their motives. However, I think we men bear a large part of the blame. It reminds me of a friend who would go on for hours about caucasian women playing both side of the fence. He said that during slavery they played the slave masters side but once it was clear that slavery would not last they played the freedom side. All the while condemning black men to hang if the situation called for a distraction. Fast forward to today and many are taking destroying their own families and calling their husbands every name in the book for a tax free check. You would have thought that someone along the line would have called them on it and asked for a little more loyalty or honesty (how about both).
“PK responds: So Obama's "solution" to this is to stop drilling for new oil (it takes 7 years supposedly to get results) and raise taxes through the roof! Yet, he's still wildly beloved by so many people.”
This, I do not agree with. The lets not drill our oil while at $5 per gallon will only get worse during the general election (picture businessmen on bikes). The same greed that democrats promote will come back to bite (picture soccer moms manicure money going to gas)
Obama just has loud cheer leaders. Many of his followers (see likely voters) don’t vote. If the democrats ran their primaries like the republicans Hillary would have taken it in a walk. Obama is a very weak candidate if it were not for McCain this would not even be a close race. Hillary will make sure Obama does not win in so that she will be on the ballot in 2012.
All the best
June 25th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
"You’ve never heard of “honor killings” in the Middle East? You’ve never heard of men buying and selling women? You’ve never heard of selling 10 year old daughters into prostitution (Thailand)?"
Oh I have "heard" alright, but I know better than to trust everything I hear. Are you sure that you were not lied to? Even an iota? By the way what happens to boys in Thailand? Did you hear what happens to the boys? I bet you don't. Do you know what happens to men who shame their community in the countries that allow honor killings?
Thailand is poor, everyone is suffering. The reason you hear so much about girls only is because people only care about girls. If you were to find the fate of boys, you would prefer them to be sold into prostitution too - oh wait they already are.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Pankaj,
This began with the usual "feminist cultures" are bad and "non-feminist" cultures are good. I disagree for many, many reasons. One is the way females are treated. This does not mean that males are treated like kings, but I will NOT believe in the very male-dominated cultures that exist that men have it worse than women. So don't even try to convince me. Bringing awareness of women's issues and women's rights has a lot of benefits for those backward societies. It's not a competition.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Which gender, in those cultures, has the higher mortality rate, shorter life span, and higher suicide rate?
Men, men, and men.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Actually, Jeana, let's have fun with this.
You propose some scale of "had it worse" and we'll compare men and women thought cultures and throughout history.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Afternoon all!
At the risk of being terribly outspoken...
Throughout most of human history, most people have been at the bottom of the pile, with only a few at the top. The majority of men and women got a bum deal. (Frankly, I don't really care who got a worse time, as long as we don't repeat it. Unless I personally am ever given the choice of death by crucifixion or by being tortured by the Spanish inquisition, I'm not going to champion the suffering of the one over the other, for instance.)
We can't turn the clock back, but we do have an opportunity to make better lives for more people today.... anyone wanna debate how? Either gender using the dim and distant past as a stick to admonish the other with isn't terrbily helpful, but then I guess most debates on the internet aren't meant to be :-p
(Of course, everyone may feel free to now pitch in and tell me this is a terrible attitude "because... " points for originality and working in the P-word! :D)
June 26th, 2008 at 11:15 am
KevinC says: "However, I think we men bear a large part of the blame."
PK responds: I don't like the term "blame" nor using an ambiguous open-ended term such as "large part" since it comes across as blaming the victim. Yes, many victims were careless but the key point is that they are _still_ the victim. In matters of personal relationships, people should be living up to HIGHER standards, not lower ones. You shouldn't have to lock up your silverware and bathroom cabinets when having friends and family over for a visit.
When someone acts in a grossly obnoxious, immoral manner, they are the ones who should be condemned and not their victims who "deserved" it. That doesn't make the victims "heroes" either as has been the latest fad either.
That said, men still have a great deal of power (if not all the cards) to put an end to this, but it means a total review of our relationship with women. If you have to lock your cabinets to keep your children or relatives out of them, then that's a statement that you don't regard them as trustworthy adults.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Jeana says: "This does not mean that males are treated like kings, but I will NOT believe in the very male-dominated cultures that exist that men have it worse than women. So don't even try to convince me. Bringing awareness of women's issues and women's rights has a lot of benefits for those backward societies. It's not a competition."
PK responds: Yet you craved and enjoyed the traditions of male dominated cultures when it suited you. cough, blood diamond, cough. cough, free meals, cough. Oh, just clearing my throat! As I was saying, western civilization has been male dominated all along. It's just also patronizing towards women.
The Democrat/feminist/socialist alliance has been undermining western civilization as a blatant power grab and even welcoming immigrants and customs from these other countries with open arms. Try to be tolerant of "diversity", willya? Tee hee.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I think it is important to acknowledge the role of fantasy role-play in many of our behaviors. Too many women "play the victim". However, to be fair, too many men "play the hero." I think men and women are often times just as guilty.
A woman demanding alimony in a situation like this is playing the victim. And a judge who demands that a man pay the woman alimony in a case like this is playing the hero. The woman is pretending to be a damsel in distress and the judge is pretending to be a courageous knight to rescue her.
MXY
June 26th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
We could, but political correctness would censor our answers.
Most of political correctness is created by the "we were victims" cries.
So that's why I need to "prove" to Jeana that she was never more of a victim than her supposed 'oppressor class'
So yes, there is actually a point to the debate.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Beshemoth: Injustices from the "dim and distant past" sound a lot like "historically disadvantaged groups" to me. So if dim and distant past can be used to justify draconian practices in the present day, why can they not be used in debate? Incidentally, I agree with you, this whole "X was historically disadvantaged more" line is tiresome...but feminists fall back on it all the time. How does an MRA avoid it?
:D
In General: How bad does it have to get? We live in an age where women get parole for killing their husband, and custody of the kids after the dust settles, so divorce is becoming passe. Which is another area where men are getting destroyed (no shocker). We have no reproductive rights, which is being formalized in courtrooms all over the world. Men and fathers are being marginalized the world over, to the point where Father's Day cards are being banned. We have boys falling so far behind girls in school that experts in field ranging from economics to sociology are openly sounding alarm bells. We have an overburdened prison system stuffed to the rafters with men who's crime is to be "poor" and "black"....
We have quite possibly the highest level of funding for "social programs" (per capita) than any civilization in the history of mankind. We have a multitude of groups that style themselves champions of social justice. We have literally THOUSANDS of feminist groups, nearly ALL of which claim to work towards equality of the sexes...that's their very reason for existence....equality.
What have they done about these issues, given their self-proclaimed corner on the "gender issues" market? nothing.
What are they doing now that they've been made aware of these injustices? Denying their existence/importance, and developing arguments in the hopes of derailing any attempt to fix the problems.
Since the apparatus in place for social "justice" and "Gender issues" has repeatedly proven they have NO interest in helping men, and in fact are they very reason why things have gotten so bad for men...WE have to make it happen.
To speak to Beshemoth's point...I would simply suggest people from here make the same arguments in comment sections at various "mainstream sites" too. Like newspapers and magazine sites. Just get the word out.
Because the problems are glaringly obvious to anyone who looks, and so is the feminist complacency/encouragement.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Afternoon Demonspawn!
There is political correctness going on here? Wow, what are y'all feeling you CAN'T express? (I jest, I JEST).
Having said all I said earlier today, with hindsight I feel I was unfair, so I do apologise. Everyone needs a place where they can rant and vent and so forth. If peeps here do truly feel they can't do it anywhere else, my bad for interrupting. Mayyybe this ain't the place I was looking for though; I'm neither adding nor learning anything, so I'm offski to browse for somewhere more suitable.
Cheers for the clarification re the JC Unwin book. I shall see if I can hunt it down, sounds interesting!
If anyone's interested, and this hasn't been posted already (and they are very UK orientated, my bad) I have found a coupla mens' chairty sites http://www.workingwithmen.org.uk and http://www.mankind.org.uk/join.html
Y'all have an excellent evening and a good weekend,
Cheery bye!
June 26th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Fortis: That's the POINT of these policies. Driving a wedge between men and women. It goes VERY far back in feminist literature.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Clockwork
Beshemoth says: "We can't turn the clock back."
PK responds: I find this argument rather amusing. It's usually made by progressives or defenders of a modern status quo or even people who just lack an understanding of history (this isn't directed at you, Beshemoth. You just happened to get me started.)
Didja all ever hear of something known as The Dark Ages? That's a rather extreme, negative example of History "turning back the clock", but it happens all the time. There are also positive examples of history reversing. Howz the Ozone layer? When was the last time the USSR was in action? How about cars? Do you see people assuming that commuters are going to be able to use SUV's and gas guzzlers forever?
The signs a revolution is on the horizon is when people justify something as the status quo. "It's been that way forever so there has to be a good reason." Once people don't know the reason anymore, it's just a matter of time before the tide washes it away.
June 30th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
This is so unbelieveable the only way I can respond is in third person
Lets say I'm the judge in this case & I have ultimate power of final say with no appeals.
I'll go by the name of Judge Floyd.
JudgeFloyd: Okay Ms.Devaney...Let me see if I got this right. You want Palimony based on a 20 year relationship of adultry with a married man whom you knew was married before you started dateing but claim made verbal promises of marriage to you that you now claim in this lawsuite....failed to make good on ??
Ms.D: Yes !!
JudgeFloyd: Was any of this documented by proper & accepted legal means or channels ie. a written contract ? Cause I've read the entire case & I don't see anything in there that answers to this.
Ms.D: No....but that don't....
JudgeFloyd: I'm asking for a simple yes or no to my question Ms.D....
JoAnneGiger (Ms.D's attorney): The accepted precidence in law should not have weight in this matter judge.....We're female and females get their way in family law courts nationwide and this case is no differ....
JudgeFloyd: Over-rulled !! This is not a family law court attorney Giger. Actual Constitutional law takes precident here and another outburst like that will get you centured...you understand me ?.....Okay, I think I'm ready to rule on this one.
First off....Dr.L'Esperance, you're an adulterious flameing bag of dog dookie & I'm sure that Mrs.L'Esperance will punish you far more severely than I could ever dream of....You're going to family law & even the US Constitution can't help you there...Good luck pal !!
Ms.D....Not only do I think you're a Gold-Digging looser but I'm dismissing the charges against Dr.L'Esperance with extreme predjustice. Furthermore...I'm sentenceing your lawyer JoAnneJulianoGiger to 20 months ( one month for every year of the total relationship defended ) life disbarment AND to do community service in the form of guest appearances on rightwing radio & TV talkshows like Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Riley. And your lawfirm partners at Roseland are hereby ordered to read the US Constitution and pass a written test to be graded by me....a passing grade of "A" will get them the minium punishment of having their fingernails ripped out & anything lass than that will mean forfeiting their Jewish-sounding last names and working in any public defenders office of their chioce for the rest of your natural lives.
Maybe this will send the message WesternUnion can't.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:49 am
Just another example of perverting the reason for the existence of something to make the law absent reason and the tool of tyranny.
If a "marital-type relationship" then the court has just endorsed polygamy
and have just rewarded someone for breaking the very laws they swore to protect
Aiding person for breaking the law is, itself, a crime.
Making it not a court, but an organized crime ring
JT
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
This is about as ludicrous an idea as the women that marry rich men, then are handed a huge part of their wealth after filing for divorce within a very short time.
It all fits in with today's 'men OWE women' syndrome and the 'men must always be held accountable for women's actions' syndrome.
As long as men are dumb enough to keep getting into relationships they know can destroy them (which is basically ANY serious relationship) they'll keep paying the price. What's wrong with staying single, casual dating and NO children?
Hey, I learned the hard way, but I finally did learn.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Guys,
It's good for us to share our frustrations on discussions like this, but seriously how do we change the laws? How do we start the reform? How do we punish the politicians who steamroll us, and reward those who look out for men's rights?
One things is clear. These reforms have to be won at State level. Just like the Gay Marriage movement, if you can manage to score a few victories in the first 1-2 States, then the rest will come like a loose thread off a sweater.
Google "Massachusetts Alimony Reform". This group has had a lot of media publicity success in Massachusetts; they are currently headed into their second hearing in front of the State's legislature on January 24, 2008. Support them in any way you can. A blow against alimony there will translate into momentum and hope in all other states.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Change what laws???
This ruling is flawed on its face, it is based on the ridiculous
"It is the promise of support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim of palimony," Justice John Wallace wrote for the court.
It assumes the impossible that a man can make the same promise to two women.
To make the same promise twice REQUIRES that it steal from the first.
This is an idiot ruling.
JT
September 15th, 2009 at 3:41 am
Anyone pick up on the fact that while men earn 20%-30% more money women make more than 80% of all spending decisions?
Sex transfers of wealth is big business. And if we take this into account we see that women are far wealthier than men. Forcing men out of the work (slave place) simply impoverishes men with no substantial benefit to women.
Forcing men to pay for sex beyond its utility is extortion. Why not give legal status to concubines and mistresses equal to a wife?
September 15th, 2009 at 3:43 am
And I wouldn't be so quick to blow out alimony when in the current economy men are being pushed out of work after supporting their wives for decades. Wives who will likely dump them once they are no longer 'earners'.