And Now It's The Goose Getting Goosed
Now, I understand paying to support children you decided to have with your partner, but it's my feeling you shouldn't get to up your financial circumstances in life by marrying somebody, and then taking an ongoing chunk of their wealth with you after the marriage falls apart.
In fact, I've always "kept myself honest" in the relationship sense by being against marriage and/or moving with a man -- especially one in better financial circumstances.
On a sideline about the living together thing; over time, I'm quite annoying, as are most humans who aren't in a coma or dead. I think it's much nicer to keep time you spend with somebody you care about short (and thus, sweet). If, as opposed to living with somebody, you're perpetually dating somebody, you're less likely to the point where you're screaming at the person to do something or other al-fucking-ready!! (I always swore I'd never be like that to a man.)
Also, as long as I live within my own means, and live in my own place that I pay, I have no ulterior motives for staying with a man (as in, staying with a guy because you hate to move out of the mansion in Beverly Hills -- back to that one-room apartment with the bare lightbulb swinging overhead in Van Nuys). Then, the only factors that remain for deciding whether to be together or not is whether you light each other up, and you're better together and have more fun together than alone.
Back to the alimony question; for years, men have been paying it to women, and not just to those who are bringing up their children, but women with zero children who are already on to the next boyfriend. But, suddenly, there's a bit of change in the wind. Now, women are forking over big chunks of alimony, and they're not liking it a bit. Anita Raghavan writes for the WSJ:
As a Hollywood actor, John David Castellanos is protective of his image. He stays in phenomenal shape and looks much younger than his 50 years.But he admits to a fact that might be considered unflattering: He receives alimony from his former wife. To be exact, $9,000 a month.
"The law provides" for it, says Mr. Castellanos, who for years starred in the soap opera "The Young and the Restless."
In the nearly 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against gender discrimination in alimony, few male beneficiaries have stepped forward to talk about it. Those who did typically went by pseudonyms or the golden rule of 12-step recovery: first names only.
Little wonder, considering the attention that has come to some former husbands of alimony-paying celebrities. "Why the courts don't tell a husband, who has been living off his wife, to go out and get a job is beyond my comprehension," Joan Lunden, the television personality, said in 1992 when a court ordered her to pay her ex-husband $18,000 a month.
But today's men are shaking off the stigma of being supported by their ex-wives. Several agreed to talk on the record for this article, in part because they say the popular image of the male alimony recipient is unfair: He's not always a slacker.
Mr. Castellanos says he has acted in or produced five movies since the breakup of his marriage, including a couple of projects that he says are nearing completion. If any of these projects strike gold, he says he would gladly forgo alimony.
...Some feminists say cases such as Mr. Garnick's show progress of a sort. "We can't assert rights for women and say that men aren't entitled to the same rights," says the famous feminist lawyer, Gloria Allred.
But the women who have to pay it are sounding a different chord. "I feel financially raped," says Rhonda Friedman, the former wife of Mr. Castellanos. So distasteful are the monthly payments she makes to him that after filling out the check she used to spit on it. Especially galling, she says, is that she was required to pay a substantial portion of the legal fees he racked up while securing a lucrative divorce agreement.
To be sure, some men don't want alimony, viewing it as an embarrassment. Others are just as high-powered as their wives. Yahoo President Susan Decker and her soon-to-be ex-husband have taken alimony off the table, according to court records. Meanwhile, Sara Lee Chief Executive Brenda Barnes is paying no alimony to her ex-husband, a former PepsiCo Inc. executive who now manages his own money. Until their youngest child recently turned 18, Ms. Barnes, who earned a total of $8.7 million in fiscal 2007, was receiving child-support payments from her former husband, according to court records.
...To Ms. Friedman, that financial history fails to support the argument that she should send thousands a month to her ex-husband, with whom she had no children. "I don't understand why someone becomes your financial responsibility just because you married them," says Ms. Friedman, who earns about $500,000 a year as the supervising producer of the soap opera "The Bold and the Beautiful."
Mr. Castellanos also argues that as an artist, he provided his wife with invaluable advice and insight that helped Ms. Friedman rise from production coordinator to producer.
Ms. Friedman hotly denies that he had anything to do with her success.
I agree with the guy who wrote a letter to the editor about the Raghavan story:
Alimony, regardless if it's for men or women, is an out-of-date concept. Just because one wins the lottery of marrying rich, I don't understand why one would be entitled to marital welfare the rest of one's life, if the person is able-bodied and can work. Alimony should be high in the first five years after a divorce and then decline once the former spouse is able to get back on his/her own two feet and begin to work again for a living.Dr. Peter G. Hill
Weston, Mass.
Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to earn a living. The old-fashioned way.
Dr. Hill is from Mass. They only award life time alimony in "long-term" marriages, 20 years or more. Most of it is short term spousal support so they can get back on their feet. This will vary hugely by state. Cal. is one of the worst since the have palimony laws, that's really fubar. It's like alimony for cohabitation.
While the idea of alimony to either gender burns like a sitting on a hot plate I'm actually torn in some cases.
If the souse is disabled you usually have to pay life time alimony. I'm not sure how I feel about this; on one hand why should one pay especially if the disabled spouse was unfaithful, abusive etc. , but if the don't then tax money will have to cover them.
There are also vindictive separations which split as punishment, often found with abusive spouses. One spouse control the other completely preventing them from working or even getting out of the house. The person hasn't worked in 20 years (if ever) and has been isolated from their support structure. Punitive alimony appears justified.
The spouse helped build the family business behind the scenes. This can occur for any number of reasons, ego, immigration status, cultural perception, etc. So now everything is in one persons name and they both had an equal hand in the business. Some compensation appears appropriate.
Then you have the typical gold digger as one extreme and Rupert Murdock as the other. All gold digger (K-Fed et al.) should get nothing ever under any circumstance. Rupert Murdock deserved to get spanked in his divorce for being such an asshole.
vlad at April 11, 2008 5:38 AM
Just because one wins the lottery of marrying rich, I don't understand why one would be entitled to marital welfare the rest of one's life, if the person is able-bodied and can work.
Not to beat a dead horse, but this is the very reason I was appalled at Heather Mills' unmitigated gall at thinking she deserved more of Sir Paul's money than she got. I understand that she needs money to take care of Beatrice, sure, but I think he's in a much better position to have custody than she is. She has been doing her "charity" work for a long time, as well, so her overinflated sense of entitlement just rankles. When my ex and I divorced, I took alimony off that table immediately, because I wanted that 160-pound monkey off my back right then. And given his track record, I had this icky feeling that he'd either be living off his mommy and daddy (which he is), or trying to get money out of me instead of paying child support. Not gonna happen, bucko. The kids live with me, not you. You didn't want the responsibility then, you don't want it now, I'm certainly NOT going to reward you for that!
Flynne at April 11, 2008 5:42 AM
Men are hardwired to look for young, nubile women to produce their offspring. Women are hardwired to find a man who has the means of providing for said offspring. It's no more dishonest for a woman to love (or be initially attracted to) a man for his money than it is for a man to love (or be initially attracted to) a woman for her slamming hot rack.
Alimony is outdated. Once upon a time, when women did not have careers or a means of supporting themselves, it made sense. These days it not necessary in most cases.
KDR at April 11, 2008 7:14 AM
Especially galling, she says, is that she was required to pay a substantial portion of the legal fees he racked up while securing a lucrative divorce agreement.
Family Court claims to use "best interests of the child" as their legal test. Elsewhere, Eugene Volokh has described how this test is vaguely defined, vaguely applied, most likely unconstitutional in how it violates due process and equal protection, and mostly allows judges to rationalize any damn action they please.
However, Volokh is wrong. In my experience the test that comes first is: who can pay the lawyers? Having determined who has the deep pockets to pay the lawyers, everything else is decided: who will get custody, who will pay support, and specifically who will pay the lawyer bills.
Who can pay the lawyers determines what is in the best interest of the child.
(offtopic note to Amy: if you really want to watch a train wreck in progress, one in which you sort of hope there are no survivors from either side because of how idiotic they all are, make yourself some popcorn and visit: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/04/10/this-has-not-been-a-good-week-for-woman-of-color-blogging/ it's one post of many that is discussing our favorite thief. One of the highlights if you ask me, is that the blogger she is accused of stealing from often has lots of sexist and racist things to say, except she's a minority, so it's okay. It's not worth your time really, but it is fun to watch so many dipshits and hypocrites nail each other.)
jerry at April 11, 2008 7:46 AM
There is one instance in which I think alimony is appropriate: when the couple decides to have a family and they both decide that one of them will stay home to raise the kids (sometimes it's cheaper to do this, so it's not always an emotional decision).
The stay at home spouse will be greatly disadvantaged when getting a job in the workforce after a divorce be it a man or a woman. Because both members of the marriage decided one will stay home and the other will earn the money, when the marriage breaks up the stay at home spouse should get some help...WHILE LOOKING FOR A JOB. Maybe the person will have to start out pushing paper around and maybe that person will not be able to maintain the same lifestyle for the rest of his/her life...but...tough.
What burns me is the sense of entitlement and victimization so many women have during a divorce. A man with whom I am close is going through a divorce from his wife who earns a LOT of money as a nurse practitioner. He is a former cop - he was injured while on duty and can't shoot a gun with full accuracy so he can't work. He also had brain surgery b/c he had an aneurysm so he isn't in great shape.
He is on disability and has stayed home with their two children, one of whom was born with a heart condition which will probably end her life before she's a teenager. The wife was cold and manipulative during their marriage, often "forbidding" him from seeing his friends and family. There's just a lot of stuff that happened and seeing a therapist didn't help as she doesn't see anything she did as being problematic.
Well now they're getting divorced and he had to move out of the house and the wife - who make more money than he did even when he was a full time cop - DEMANDS $2000/month for the mortgage. She "can't afford" it on her own.
...meanwhile he has almost no money left for his itty bitty apartment. He's doing it because he wants to make sure his kids' lives aren't affected more than they have been but he isn't under legal obligation - just emotional duress. I hope he stands up for himself...
When you get divorced and can't afford the home you sell it. You don't push the ex-spouse into financial ruin because you think a house is the thing kids need to feel secure and happy. Sorry but a 3 and 1 year old don't care if they have a pool. They care about feeling loved and that they have parents who aren't constantly arguing and being petty.
Gretchen at April 11, 2008 7:57 AM
A good hearted guy and an ice fisted bitch. Not much the system can do to help him. I hope your friend stands up for himself. Think of it as teaching the kids that they need to do it or they get steam rolled.
vlad at April 11, 2008 8:05 AM
Payback's a bitch, ain't it?
There's gonna' be a LOT more of this.
Enjoy your high-powered careers ladies, and keep those checks a comin'!
(Daddy's going to start getting custody of the kids, too.)
WELCOME TO OUR WORLD, GIRLS!
Jay R at April 11, 2008 8:44 AM
Mr. Castellanos also argues that...he provided his wife with invaluable advice and insight that helped Ms. Friedman rise from production coordinator to producer.
Ms. Friedman hotly denies that he had anything to do with her success.
Why is the "spouse providing invaluable insight and counsel" a valid argument when it's a woman going after the money of a successful male CEO but not when it's a man going after the money of a successful woman?
Conan the Grammarian at April 11, 2008 9:01 AM
Wipe the drool off your chin, Jay R. Geez.
Bitter, much? o_O
Flynne at April 11, 2008 9:03 AM
"if you really want to watch a train wreck"
Good grief! Talk about self-centered viewpoints. It's all out us, we are so disadvantaged because we are colored.
Totally pathetic. I read several blogs - most of them, the person does not have a picture online, and I haven't a clue what color they are. If there was ever anything that would act as a great leveler, it's the Internet. And yet, the WoC bloggers appear totally obsessed with how they are discriminated against...
bradley13 at April 11, 2008 9:23 AM
Totally pathetic. I read several blogs - most of them, the person does not have a picture online, and I haven't a clue what color they are. If there was ever anything that would act as a great leveler, it's the Internet.
Exactly. I talked about this yesterday, on one of my column entries, to a girl named Claire who complained that I shouldn't be so harsh on her because she's "young." All I knew was that she posted that I didn't know what I was talking about, and then gave rather silly (and wrong) examples to support her opinion. Naturally, this got me on my broom.
An excerpt from my response to her complaint that I was hard on her:
Amy Alkon at April 11, 2008 9:30 AM
I worked for a downtown law firm after college and I could tell you divorce stories that would make your hair stand on end. Most of the divorces involved a rich, bored housewife caught banging the poolboy, tennis pro, business partner, neighbor, whoever.
It's common for the court to order a man to pay his cheating wife's attorney fees, regardless of personal resources.
It's common for the court to give the cheating wife custody of the kids, regardless of personal behavior.
It's common for the court to give the cheating wife the house and car, and force the man to pay for the house, car, the children, and alimony, which is essentially a salary to keep her from getting a job.
So now the relationship is over and the man is forced to pay her while she tells the kids what a bastard he is and sleeps with her boyfriend in their former marriage bed.
Cuckoldry by court order. I'm surprised there aren't more violent ends to American divorces, frankly.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 11, 2008 9:35 AM
"I'm surprised there aren't more violent ends to American divorces, frankly."
I'm surprised so many people are still getting married in the first place. I recently turned 38, and a lot of people are surprised if they find out I've never been married. I just smile mysteriously and say it's saved me a lot of money.
Pirate Jo at April 11, 2008 9:48 AM
"An excerpt from my response to her complaint that I was hard on her:" Which blog was that one I'm curious?
"Most of the divorces involved a rich, bored housewife caught banging the poolboy, tennis pro, business partner, neighbor, whoever." This is why I don't like house wives, does not apply to ALL house wives. I don't care how dim you are but sitting around the house makes you bored and thus more likely to do something stupid and get resentful. Most of the time I hear women bitching about their hubbies (real bitch not just the goofy joke) they have paintball ammo size rock and drive vehicles that I couldn't even dream of affording.
I told my wife right from the start I dislike and distrust house wive from our age group. So if she even contemplates becoming one I'm out the door that day and going back home with as much money as I can smuggle out of the country.
vlad at April 11, 2008 10:08 AM
How noble of him! While he sinks his time and efforts into projects with a marginal chance of "striking gold" with any of them, he's happy to rake in the nine grand a month. But, boy, when he strikes that goldmine, that alimony is off the table! What a guy!
Apparently, all I have to do shack up with some rich and gullible old lady who likes my hot body, give it a few months, then kick her to the curb and I'm set! I can spend all my time playing with all the ridiculous, hare-brained projects I can think of. And if one of them happens to break the odds and pan out for me, Baby, you're off the hook!
There's nothing heroic about foregoing the alimony once your ship comes in, if it ever does. Get a job, loser, live a one-room basement apartment, and type all the crappy screenplays and submit them to all the producers you care to...on your own time!
Maybe not every man who accepts alimony is a slacker, but Castellanos is NOT the example you want to forward your argument.
Patrick at April 11, 2008 10:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/11/and_now_its_the.html#comment-1539474">comment from vladIt was "The Hating"
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2008/03/the-hating-is-t.html
Her name's "Claire" and she's near the bottom of the comments now.
Amy Alkon at April 11, 2008 10:36 AM
Patrick,
Castellanos is the flipside of the reality of how alimony makes wage slaves of everyone.
Last night I was asked if I wanted to run for office. I don't, but the truth is, I cannot, unless my ex-wife agrees. The office in this state would only pay something like $30,000 a year, about a third of what I am paid now. Taking ANY job for ANY reason that results in a lowering of alimony or support requires either a) the permission of the ex, or b) the payer to pay the same amount as before. (Imputing wages)
So folks that dislike their job? Too bad. Folks that want to go back to school? You can't. Folks that want to start a business that will pay lots in years 3 and 5 but very little until then? No way.
This is true EVEN if the new job would permit payment of alimony and child support at rates far far higher than anything close to poverty level.
In my case,
Folks that moved from a high paying city to a low paying city in another state JUST so that I could be with the children that the ex moved, STILL requires the ex's permission to take a job in the new city that pays less, OR be forced to pay the old amount.
Just because some people have written scripts while waitering or living on scraps doesn't mean that Castellanos should be forced to. His wife needs, must, support him in the lifestyle he came to become used to during the marriage. Anything else is a clear human rights violation.
(Another offtopic link for Amy, this via FARK: The upside to the Iraq war: many young Iraqis are turning against Islam. (Of course, prior to the war, the country was actually highly literate.) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04youth.html)
jerry at April 11, 2008 10:40 AM
Sorry for my weak html fu on the last post. That offtopic link should be:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04youth.html
jerry at April 11, 2008 10:44 AM
heh, my lawyer told me two things about ever marrying again:
1] ironclad prenup, to level the field. "It isn't about planning for failure, it's about making sure everyone's expectations align." After thinking on that for a few years... I think it would be a help, since my ex said point-blank that I OWED her a living.
2]"Don't ever let her stay home with the kids. It's not good for her in the long run anyway, and this is the main reason alimony is given." If you both have careers, there are a lot of places that will figure the child support on an math basis, and you split everything else, and move on. No Alimony. For some reason, if she stays home, you owe her a living or somesuch...
AS IF YOU AREN'T A TEAM OR A UNIT.
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. The test should always be to remove gender from the equation. The the case should proceed on individual merits. If an ex can't afford to pay for the house and the kids and so-on. Fine, then the person WHO CAN pay for the house and the kids should get them, while the person who needs retraining, is unfettered to go get it.
I can't speak to every case, but in my own, even with smart lawyers, I had to hand everything to her, assume all the debt, and continure paying for everything. 5 years later she has done nothing to get a career back with her advanced engineering degree, and my alimony is still more than half her taxable income. Why should she try to get her career going, when I am paying her?
Sometimes the practical implications of these laws and legal opinions just don't hit the mark. On the other hand, a friend who ended up in a bad marriage, essentially fraudulently, gets pounded from the other side. The guy took off and dissappeared, and it doesn't matter if she has her kids and two of his. Nobody can find him to get him to pay.
Like a lot of things, it is the conscientious who pay for the irresponsible, and the downright criminal. If it runs you to chapter7, then your children are turned against you, because you are not trying hard enough. The hoped for solace is that when they grow up they will figure out a few things.
bitter? yeah, it's a pretty bitter check to write twice a month, so it has that affect on the person too. It is, after all, 58% of my take home pay... and I was lucky.
SwissArmyD at April 11, 2008 11:14 AM
Well, there is a double standard, but it is changing, though I will never know. In the past in Texas there is no alimony (well limited depending on length of marriage). But the divorce wiped out my life savings anyway. All the courts and lawyers wanted was my money. So did my ex-wife. It took me two years but I got out with sole custody of my son, with the ex owing me child support (she hasn't paid in six years).
The family courts (Harris County, Houston TX) didn't care that my ex lost her medical license for prescribing drugs for herself. The courts didn't care that she was on felony probation for the drug violations. Nor did they care that my wife and ranch hand were manufacturing methamphetamine on my ranch. They even ignored the positive drug tests. She was my child's "mother" and the court felt my son should be with his mother. Well, right up until she went to prison.
Now my son is very happy, and doesn't miss his mother at all. And I suppose it would be hard to make those child support payments on prison wages anyway. And now that it is all behind me I would laugh except that I know how bad it must be for people who can't afford to fight a very biased family court system.
So I hate to say it, but kudos to that guy who is getting alimony from his wife.
And alas, I will not have to worry about divorce, alimony, any of that crap ever again. It will be a cold day in hell with me on my bare knees blowing satan with a smile on my face before I get married again. But that's just me. Words of wisdom? Don't marry a closet meth addict. Or better yet, don't get married at all. AmericanMeth dot com
Sterling at April 11, 2008 11:21 AM
SwissArmyD -
What if you are married with kids? Do you believe the wife should still work? I never understood why a couple would have kids only to drop them off at day care at 7am and pick them up at 7pm. Some complete stranger will have a greater impact on your child's early development than you and your wife/husband combined....
What about when those kids are teens or even pre-teens - are they to come home to an empty house after school because mom is at work? That's how you end up with a drug using, pregnant 14 year old.
My wife stays home and works about 20 hours per week as a freelance graphic artist. She's there for the kids and to run the household. I have dinner, clean clothes and a warm loving home and my wife has financial security and doesn't have to worry about the yard, her car, shoveling snow etc.
Aside from my wife working from home, its a pretty traditional marriage. It works for us, though.
BDT at April 11, 2008 11:35 AM
yes BDT, I was married with kids, and my ex told me 3 days before her maternity leave ended that she wouldn't be going back to work. She played the 'man should provide' card and I fell for it. I gave up my career as a photographer to become a programmer, to make the ends meet, and even when the kids were in school she did all that she could to avoid getting a job. All the while complaining about how tight the finances were.
When the kids are really small, under a year, it may make sense for the family UNIT to have one parent stay home. It shouldn't be a foregone conclusion that it's the wife. After that, the UNIT should decide what works best for them, but just because she stays home, doesn't mean that if they divorce, he owes her a living. They will have to decide how to work as a unit, and how to work as individuals, but much of the caselaw is written to favor her, regarldess of the situation.
You said yourself that your wife works on other things than just household work. This is fabulous, because she has a place to put her mind, other than the house. I wouldn't have a problem with that either, it's healthy. But if a person doesn't really want to do anything, they have plenty of time to be vindictive, and feel victimized.
I hope you NEVER find out that the sound of one hand clapping is silence.
SwissArmyD at April 11, 2008 11:52 AM
"yes BDT, I was married with kids, and my ex told me 3 days before her maternity leave ended that she wouldn't be going back to work." I would have filed for divorce within 24 hours. I might plan a very nasty trap for her to make sure I have shit load of black mail or some such, thus making her work. However to each his own.
"Aside from my wife working from home, its a pretty traditional marriage. It works for us, though." so if your happy then go with it.
vlad at April 11, 2008 1:29 PM
"That's how you end up with a drug using, pregnant 14 year old." No, that path is set long before he or she is 14. I'm fine with someone staying home till age 2 or 3 even 5 yo when kindergarten starts. After that oh hell no unless I have a huge house and no staff.
vlad at April 11, 2008 1:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/11/and_now_its_the.html#comment-1539503">comment from vladI'm fine with someone staying home till age 2 or 3 even 5 yo when kindergarten starts. After that oh hell no unless I have a huge house and no staff.
Don't understand how people justify it after that age. You can have a job that's almost full-time, but lets you off to pick up the kids and be home for them after school.
Amy Alkon at April 11, 2008 1:41 PM
Flynne,
Me? Bitter? Not at all! I'm happily married for 28 years with 3 great kids. I'm just observant, is all!
Jay R at April 11, 2008 2:16 PM
Gretchen said: "There is one instance in which I think alimony is appropriate: when the couple decides to have a family and they both decide that one of them will stay home to raise the kids (sometimes it's cheaper to do this, so it's not always an emotional decision)."
I agree -- it might be difficult for that spouse to get back into the job market after a long time out, and he/she might never make what he/she would have made if she hadn't decided to take several years off.
I think I might consider compensation for one more situation: if one spouse worked his/her ass off putting the other through school, and it wasn't reciprocal. For example, one spouse has her medical degree because the other spouse worked his ass off at Applebee's in order to pay their rent while she was in school. Now that she is pulling in the big bucks, she promptly leaves hubby, who is still waiting tables, for a hot young intern. However, I guess I wouldn't advocate support for life -- but I do think I'd support giving him a big enough chunk of compensation to allow him to do the same if he chose.
My parents agreed to put each other through graduate school, one at a time, while we kids were growing up. They both got much better jobs as a result. Luckily, they are still happily married. However, if Dad had gone through school and then dumped Mom before she took her turn, I'd think he owed her a little something.
By the way, just had a good (male) friend get royally screwed in a divorce settlement. No kids, she had a perfectly decent income herself, and she'd brought no assets into the marriage, while he'd brought about $10 million. Guess what, she didn't get alimony, but she did get half the $10 million, and then some. That's bullshit if you ask me.
Weirdly enough, my aunt, who got divorced way back in the late 80's, ended up paying alimony to her husband. He was an alcoholic who never went far in life; she worked herself into the ground going to night school while working a full time job, while he went out to bars with his buddies. He had no interest in doing the same. As a result, she ended up being the big breadwinner throughout most of the marriage. When they got divorced at last (they're Catholics, so it took a while), the kids were all grown-up and on their own, yet she ended up paying him alimony. Again, bullshit, if you ask me.
Gail at April 11, 2008 4:14 PM
It's no wonder that there are more single adults in this country now than married. I think that changed just last year. I know a whole lot of people living together that won't get married, partially because of fear of a divorce.
Then theres this, (A bit off topic, but funny), my mom just sent it to me. Hope you enjoy this as much as I did!
This is an actual letter from an Austin woman sent to American company Proctor and Gamble regarding their feminine products. It's PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best webmail-award-winning letter.
"Dear Mr. Thatcher,
I have been a loyal user of your 'Always' maxi pads for over 20 years and I appreciate many of their features. Why, without the LeakGuard Core or Dri-Weave absorbency, I'd probably never go horseback riding or salsa dancing, and I'd certainly steer clear of running up and down the beach in tight, white shorts. But my favorite feature has to be your revolutionary Flexi-Wings. Kudos on being the only company smart enough to realize how crucial it is that maxi pads be aerodynamic. I can't tell you how safe and secure I feel each month knowing there's a little F-16 in my pants.
Have you ever had a menstrual period, Mr. Thatcher? Ever suffered from the curse'? I'm guessing you haven't. Well, my time of the month is starting right now. As I type, I can already feel hormonal forces violently surging through my body. Just a few minutes from now, my body will adjust and I'll be transformed into what my husband likes to call 'an inbred hillbilly with knife skills.' Isn't the human body amazing?
As Brand Manager in the Feminine-Hygiene Division, you've no doubt seen quite a bit of research on what exactly happens during your customers monthly visits from 'Aunt Flo'. Therefore, you must know about the bloating, puffiness, and cramping we endure, and about our intense mood swings, crying jags, and out-of-control behavior. You surely realize it's a tough time for most women. In fact, only last week, my friend Jenifer fought the violent urge to shove her boyfriend's testicles into a George Foreman Grill just because he told her he thought Grey's Anatomy was written by drunken chimps. Crazy!
The point is, sir, you of all people must realize that America is just crawling with homicidal maniacs in Capri pants... Which brings me to the reason for my letter. Last month, while in the throes of cramping so painful I wanted to reach inside my body and yank out my uterus, I opened an Always maxi-pad, and there, printed on the adhesive backing, were these words: 'Have a Happy Period.'
Are you ****ing kidding me? What I mean is, does any part of your tiny middle-manager brain really think happiness - actual smiling, laughing happiness is possible during a menstrual period? Did anything mentioned above sound the least bit pleasurable? Well, did it, James? FYI, unless you're some kind of sick S&M freak, there will never be anything 'happy' about a day in which you have to jack yourself up on Motrin and Kahlua and lock yourself in your house just so you don't march down to the local Walgreen's armed with a hunting rifle and a sketchy plan to end your life in a blaze of glory.
For the love of God, pull your head out, man! If you just have to slap a moronic message on a maxi pad, wouldn't it make more sense to say something that's actually pertinent, like 'Put down the Hammer'
or 'Vehicular Manslaughter is Wrong', or are you just picking on us?
Sir, please inform your Accounting Department that, effective immediately, there will be an $8 drop in monthly profits, for I have chosen to take my maxi-pad business elsewhere. And though I will certainly miss your Flex-Wings, I will not for one minute miss your brand of condescending bull ****. And that's a promise I will keep.
Always.
Best,
Wendi Aarons
Austin , TX"
Bikerken at April 11, 2008 6:15 PM
The point is, sir, you of all people must realize that America is just crawling with homicidal maniacs in Capri pants... Which brings me to the reason for my letter. Last month, while in the throes of cramping so painful I wanted to reach inside my body and yank out my uterus, I opened an Always maxi-pad, and there, printed on the adhesive backing, were these words: 'Have a Happy Period.'
Absolutely hilarious.
Amy Alkon at April 11, 2008 7:58 PM
It could've only been better had it been preceded by the word, "Kid,.."
Bikerken at April 11, 2008 8:04 PM
Take the thinking to the final level: The failure of divorce/custody law is politically motivated. Title IV-D and a cesspool of other Orwellian federal law and policy pays the states to divide families unequally for revenues.
As a commenter said early on, Constitutional rights need not apply; these are effectively secret courts run by dictators and the alliances they have with their troupes of lawyers, social worker nazis, and psychological professionals is enabled by gender feminist lobbies aided by trial lawyer lobbies.
It's a business. Follow the money.
That leftists care not a whit that the State has finally taken to itself this absolute power is understood. But it is a tragic, sweeping failure of conservative activism that what started as welfare reform over a decade ago under Clinton and a Republican Congress is left standing to create such havoc and ruin.
The Right sees legions of urban drive-by dads that must pay and pay large. But the Left sees the terrifically enriching power and financial windfall of converting all women into male victims all the while trumpeting gender equality. The fraud committed against all statistics is by now so rampant as to keep this sea-to-sea charade running. It is myth upon myth upon myth, and only recently have a few men learned how to turn the tables.
But even the best laid plans and all that. Turnabout is fair play, at least when "fair play" went completely out the window at the same time as Title IV-D was created. That men are sucking on the teat of the State's right to simply proclaim another's property theirs is precisely as morally and constitutionally offensive as when the genders are reversed.
That's not bitterness. That's a cold, objective view on fistfuls and fistfuls of political and judicial power once granted and now gone down the same road such things always do. Imagine: In America in 2008 courts have the power, without recourse, to steal, extort, deny due process, imprison, kidnap, coerce, threaten, and basically ruin their otherwise innocent subjects.
Ten at April 11, 2008 8:18 PM
By the way, all the anecdotes and all the subjective reasoning about when alimony and support are proper and fitting aren't worth the blogpaper they're written on.
Do you really think you're going to carve out a fair little way to take personal property by juryless declaration from a politically motivated bench? Really?
Where exactly is that right enumerated?
Freedom might be just a touch rougher than that...
Ten at April 11, 2008 8:22 PM
I assume you mean that the alimony stops after the spouse gets a job. That's reasonable.
I still oppose it. Staying at home to raise kids is an economic choice, with opportunity costs. Let's take these costs into account for both parties. If we are to compensate the stay-at-home spouse for loss of income potential, then we must also compensate the at-work spouse for loss of family time.
It seems to me it's a wash either way. So, sure, let's pay alimony temporarily, just until the stay-at-home spouse get a job. But then let's require that money be repaid as a loan. The former get the stay-at-home spouse into a job, the latter accounts for the at-work spouses lost family time.
Jeff at April 12, 2008 8:26 AM
That's great, Jeff. So the State really is in the business of ruling domestic fairness. I stand corrected.
And by what standard shall it do so? By what standard both constitutionally sound and not guaranteed to devolve into excess power and a corresponding assault on personal rights?
Ten at April 12, 2008 9:24 AM
Hey, wait a minute!
There really isn't good reason to even think about blocking courts from determining what happens when a family is disrupted, either from within or without. It's what courts do that we think is unfair that makes us mad. And it's still possible to produce fairness in a court trial - by not assuming that the status quo is either desirable or permanent, and by activism.
But the time to do this is not when you, yourself have arrived at court. That's too late. If courts suck today, it's because people today have not figured out that they might have to be served by those same courts.
I know. It's all George Bush's fault.
Radwaste at April 12, 2008 9:41 AM
Ten said "Do you really think you're going to carve out a fair little way to take personal property by juryless declaration from a politically motivated bench? Really?"
As I see it, marriage is not unlike a business, and business assets are often divided by an, er, "juryless declaration from a politically motivated bench." Sometimes one partner puts in more sweat equity while the other put in more financial assets -- both contribute to the partnership, but in different ways. That doesn't mean that Ms. Moneybag Partner will walk away with all the financial assets leaving Mr. Sweat Equity with empty pockets if the business dissolves.
The vast majority of the time, I completely agree with Amy and others that that the parties should take care of the kids but that the Heather Mills of the world (male or female) shouldn't walk away with an unearned fortune. However, I don't see any problem with taking into consideration whether a spouse is entitled to a bit of compensation if that spouse made agreed-upon career sacrifices to further the parties' mutual goals of having a family or what have you. It should be the exception to the rule, but I think Gretchen and I both pointed out an example or two where some spousal compensation might be appropriate.
You want pure romance and no hassle? Either get a pre-nup or don't get married. And don't have kids. No one's making ya do it.
And by the way, Ten, your constitutional arguments aren't worth the blog paper they're written on.
On a totally different topic: Bikerken, that letter is the funniest thing I've seen all week. Thanks!
Gail at April 12, 2008 12:21 PM
Sorry, Gail, but without an understanding of the underpinnings of prior, personal, Constitutional rights -- something you sadly give no indication of respecting -- as well as an understanding of precisely why those rights are being railroaded, you've compromised a realistic stake in the debate.
The simple facts are that divorce, alimony, custody, and support are now political levers that involve for-profit contracts that range the gamut between private and public, bench and bar, state and State, legislature and the courts, etc, etc, etc.
That this concerns you not as it does indeed trample the most essential, most precious, and most traditional civil, personal rights of innocent voters concerns me.
As you just showed us, these conversations usually devolve into some level of social nihilism: no kids, no relationships, no problem. The folly of that approach is self-evident, and that canard can be avoided by a simple understanding that, for example, no-fault is a very bad idea. The great majority of the other superficial approaches to "solving" government's divorce/custody/alimony/support problem with more government are just as easily refuted.
Start at the beginning. Follow the money.
Don't like at-fault marriage? Fine. But by what legal, ethical, principled standard would you impose no-fault over against at-fault divorce? Convenience doesn't cut it...if for no other reason that the trillions no-fault divorce costs the State are highly inconvenient. At some point you must choose your poison. Freedom is hard.
Gail, realize that you tacitly propose at-fault division of assets but you do so, presumably, within a logical framework that completely avoids the problems of no-fault divorce. Like I've implied, not only is subjective reasoning entirely flawed within the context of social government, but it destroys freedoms and rights. Choose one side of that equation but do not then expect to possess the other.
Ten at April 12, 2008 1:19 PM
Yo, Ten. I'm a lawyer. I have a pretty good grasp of the constitution and constitutional law, actually. And it doesn't have shit to do with this particular discussion.
Gail at April 12, 2008 1:22 PM
"Divorce, alimony, custody, and support" are by-products of marriage, and Gail sums this up nicely: "You want pure romance and no hassle? Either get a pre-nup or don't get married. And don't have kids. No one's making ya do it."
The reason divorce is so expensive is because it's worth it. If people would quit getting married or at least be a lot more careful about who they DID marry, the divorce "business" would dry up through lack of demand. That this business persists is a reflection of the fact that people keep making dumb decisions, not some kind of shadowy political conspiracy. Your tinfoil hat must be cooking your silly brain.
Pirate Jo at April 12, 2008 1:40 PM
"Your tinfoil hat must be cooking your silly brain."
And that's the *second* funniest thing I've read all week! Thanks, Pirate Jo. I'll have to use that one sometime.
Gail at April 12, 2008 3:06 PM
Ten, has a point though. Why not just leave marriage up to private contracts? We could have a UCC-style test for a valid marriage contract and be done with it. Let the parties involved negotiate the terms. Then judges would be bound to apply the agreement, not their own fancies.
It would solve a lot of problems, me thinks.
Jeff at April 12, 2008 5:54 PM
Ah, a "constitutional law" expert arguing for the universal existence of systemic constitutionality on that basis alone. From which in the next post we descend into ad hominem.
As the man said, you'll never reason them out of something they weren't reasoned into. (Although Jo's interesting defense of billions in unnecessary and State expenses incurred in its Orwellian family court system is as amusing for it's sheer illogic as it is delicious for its irony.)
Do either of you constitutional experts know what Federal Title IV-D is? Do either of you know (despite my having already briefly explained it) why and where it came about and further, why it persists? Do you know the statistics on any of the problems with family court as they, by now, virtually universally apply to alimony, custody, or support? Federal kickbacks? Contracts between family court and law enforcement?
Is "constitutional law" somehow aware of the separation of powers?
How about bench/bar co-mingling? Legislature/bench? Legislature/bar? Have either of you worked a bill? Have either of you so much as set foot in your statehouse?
Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. Do you care about any of this? Or are your minds, such as they are, already settled, thereby being immune to further such fact?
I'll take it back to the lead paragraph in Amy's article, one that describes a status quo utterly based on political influence:
Do you ever wonder how and why this occurs?
Given that this vast phenomenon overwhelmingly favors women, given that this phenomenon legally disfranchises and many times ruins one parent at the financial opportunity and sole choice of the other, given that this phenomenon legally "kidnaps" children from that same disenfranchised parent (to that child's subsequent massive harm, statistically speaking) and given that these actions are put into law and policy by a known lobby of gender feminists and trial lawyers at the systemic, gross, typical, and unrecoverable expense of the rights of a million losing litigants, exactly what term of constitutional legality was it that gave the State all these rights?
Article? Ammendment? Anything?
I mean, to hear you state it, due process violations, presumption of innocence violations, and half a dozen other violations of fundamental rights surely aren't constitutional issues. Because you're lawyer in matters constitutional. Because you therefore know better. Because I wear tin foil hats and invented Title IV-D and the vast infrastructure of "welfare reform" legions who've taken the law, literally, into their own hands.
(Which, if you really think about your boast, partly explains the usual problem with those practicing "constitutional law" and the just expression of somebody's actual constitutional rights, but that's hitting a bit low then, isn't it?)
Short version: Kindly either just proclaim victory...or go back to your books on the matter. It's all out there and given your tacit professions of willful ignorance, I admit being somewhat less inclined to spoon feed it to you.
Here's a guy more generous than I. (Of course, he's not talking to folks actually versed in the delicate and vague nuances of "constitutional law" so maybe I presume too much: Stephen Baskerville, Taken Into Custody.
Check Amazon. It's only a few keystrokes.
Ten at April 12, 2008 6:14 PM
> The reason divorce is so
> expensive is because it's
> worth it.
I'm going to steal that line.
Crid at April 12, 2008 6:30 PM
Hi Ten. Not surprisingly, you are totally missing my point. My constitutional law expertise is relevant here only to the extent that I can say with total confidence that the constitution has nothing to say about alimony. Nada. Zippo. Totally irrelevant. You are talking out of your ass, about constitutional law and just about everything else. With a yawn, I challenge you to name a single portion of the constitution and explain exactly how it relates to alimony. Point me to the passage. Point me to the amendment.
Unfortunately, the Constitution does not address every arena of life. It won't tell you whose turn it is to clean the bathroom, or whether the milk carton is recycleable, or the proper mode of RSVPing to a wedding invitation, and it's got jack shit to say about alimony and child support. The Founding Fathers did a hell of a fine drafting job, but alas, even they had their limitations.
Sorry, Amy and crew. I know that I should not engage Ten on this thoroughly dull and idiotic topic, but 'tis 5 a.m. here in NYC, and I just got back from a hell of a fun late night with a bunch of old buddies. As a lifelong insomniac, I need to wind down before I can possibly think about sleeping. I promise to shut up once I have it out of my system, or once it gets unbearably tiresome, whichever comes first. Amy, Pirate Jo and Bikerken, I nominate you to spank me and tell me to shut up, OK? (It's Amy's blog, and Pirate Jo and Bikerken made me laugh in this thread. If the rest of you are ready for me to shut up, please tell a good joke first.)
Jeff -- I don't disagree with your private contract idea, if I understand your point. That's a pre-nup. You can bet that before I agree to put some dude through school or give up a career for him or whatever, I'd want something in writing stating what I'd get out of the deal. I think pre-nups are a great idea. Both parties should know going into a marriage what will happen should things not work out. (Then again, that might be why I've decided that not getting married at all is the best and happiest course for me.)
Gail at April 13, 2008 2:19 AM
Is it? California, for example, does not allow prenuptial agreements to modify alimony obligations, the very topic of the OP. The parties to a marriage cannot settle in advance child custody arrangements, even if the intent is to establish joint custody rights. Prenuptial agreements cannot modify jurisdiction or laws of application. Prenups are often held unconscionable when a commercial contract wouldn't. In general, family courts have unprecedented latitude to void prenuptial contracts, far in excess of what a court might do in a commercial dispute.
There seems to be a great difference between a contract (as conventionally understood under the UCC) and a prenup. To modify my point a bit, what about applying the commercial contract approach to the marriage contract? Why not allow the parties themselves set the terms, instead of the state setting a single, standard contract.
A more commercial-style marriage contract would seem to have some benefits. Gay marriage is solved. The government allows assignment of benefits for contracts that meet specific criteria, just like commercial contracts. Religious people have their wishes respected, too. Indeed, a church might marry only under certain specific terms in the civil marriage contract. Judges would be obligated, by an appeals process lacking in family court, to enforce contracts as written.
What do you think?
Jeff at April 13, 2008 6:14 AM
Gail, in lecturing me on non-enumeration while breathtakingly holding your elitism as a competent (or primary) broker of constitutional principles, you utterly miss the very thing you purport to be an expert in.
Are you aware of that? Because that irony is picture perfect; one could not have crafted it better if one had tried, fully conscious of it:
I say that the practice of family court, which I see I thrice now raised for your dim, constitutionally-expert consideration, is by nature of it's policies, conventions, and body of rulings, anti-constitutional.
Your default position appears to state that family court and the practice of related contemporary law (probably by sole virtue of it's ascendency to some shabby semblance of peer respect within the already parasitic legal system, replete with chronic bench/bar corruptions, et al, something I'd also asserted and you left just as unaddressed) are assumed and presumed by way of their existence alone, to be constitutionally faithful.
From there it follows, in your mind, that anything family court does is constitutional. Should family court (which is indeed not enumerated in the Constitutional and Amendments) divide personal property by arbitrary standards as enacted by political lobbies via scores of congresses, well, then surely it's constitutional because it's not expressly forbid by the Constitution.
Spectacular. You make the argument precisely opposite your own.
That arrogance, which is all a reasonable mind can take away from your various mutterings, is complete in itself -- a contemporary, legislated effect has created its tacit but original constitutional approval; an assertion has created its proof. It, like your logic, looks simply to itself for self-evidence.
It exists, therefore it is good. Not being forbid, it is not enumerated. Not being enumerated, it cannot be unconstitutional.
Try that again, Gail. By loudly stating that alimony is not mentioned in founding documents, you assert that the present day practice of making alimony is not a constitutional issue and could not be, even when it's organ tramples the Constitutional rights of its victims as a matter of course.
The rights Americans have taken as their birthright do indeed include the enumerations contained in the original documents. Those precise enumerations are matters to be protected against future assaults of legislated law.
I gave you enough info to see all this for yourself. I sent you in the general direction of a leading expert in all of the mechanisms of how the State's regime functions and you can't and won't even compose a reply on points.
Because you are an expert.
The experience of legions says that field of law has corrupted constitutionally-related ethics into virtual obliteration. With logic like this, one can surely see how.
There are none so blind as they who simply refuse to see.
Ten at April 13, 2008 11:35 AM
Is it just me, or has Ten still not pointed out any passage of the Constitution that has anything to do with anything?
Until you do, Ten, I have nothing on which to, er, "compose a reply on points." My point is that the Constitution doesn't have shit-all to do with this argument. I do hope you're not suggesting I go down every article and amendment and explain why each and every one has nothing to do with this argument. I also refuse to show why each verse of Spencer's "The Faerie Queene" has nothing to do with this argument, by the way. (I was an English major undergrad, so I'm an authority there too.)
Anyway, I regret to say that you are boring me. Almost as much as "The Faerie Queene." So if you will excuse me, I'll talk to Jeff, who has said something interesting. Let me know if you feel like pointing to something specific in the Constitution instead of endlessly ranting on about conspiracy theories, OK?
Jeff, I don't think your contract idea will come to pass, as you've articulated it. I don't have a problem with it, actually -- I do see marriage as being not unlike a business partnership, and I have no problem with the rights, responsibilities and expectations of the parties being spelled out, and the parties being held to their bargain. As you suggest, there could be certain ground rules and limitations as there are with drawing up business contracts or wills and trusts. Maybe we could even have the lawyers involved on the beginning of the marriage, advising the parties and drawing up the contract, instead of on the tail end, when the parties are trying to claw each other's eyes out. Sounds good to me. (Although it's still easier just not to get married . . .)
But here's why I don't think it will ever fly: Most people see marriage as a romantic and/or religious thing, and they don't want that type of contract, even if it would be good for them. They don't want to believe they need that kind of thing with their little sweetie-pie. (That's also why people don't get prenups.) Therefore, any politician who suggested it would be shot down in flames. In particular, the idea that such a contract might allow gay marriage would cause rioting in the streets in some areas of the country!
Alas, I think our best hope is to try to make the alimony rules a bit more fair -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and alimony shouldn't be given willy-nilly and in enormous amounts. A strong showing should be made that it is appropriate in given circumstances.
Actually, our best hope would be to try to get people to wise up and not marry assholes like Heather Mills in the first place, but alas, I don't see that happening any time soon either.
Gail at April 13, 2008 1:23 PM
Ten said "I gave you enough info to see all this for yourself. I sent you in the general direction of a leading expert in all of the mechanisms of how the State's regime functions and you can't and won't even compose a reply on points."
Oh wait! Ten has referred me to a book! If I understand him correctly, he is suggesting that, rather than Ten wasting his time making valid points in this thread, I instead zip right over to Amazon.com with my credit card, purchase the book and read it, and then refute any points that the author makes that might possibly relate to this argument! Or alternatively, that I try to glean what the author is saying from an online book review, and then refute it!
And here I was thinking that Ten hadn't made any relevant points to refute. Well, I can certainly refute that one. Are you freaking kidding me?
Gail at April 13, 2008 1:41 PM
Shorter Gail:
Any practice of law cannot be unconstitutional if it's practice was not prohibited in the original documents. Oh, and I'm an xpurt! Dope.
Close enough?
You see, Gail, since you assert an imaginary and inevident Internet expertise so as to so "prove" these constitutional negatives of yours, thereby vindicating every practice of law under the sun and thereby making what would be my third or perhaps fourth actual round of, yes, "valid points in this thread", null and void before I'd repost them, then I'm afraid that indeed you are and were deemed irredeemable. Dead horse, meet beating. Beating, horse.
You're a self-professed scholar. Did you get that way denying meaningful research? Baskerville has a PhD and should earn even your lofty respect thereby. Most of his stuff and most of the countless pages of stuff of others like him is all over the landscape. Educate yourself. If there's still room, I mean.
At any rate, Exactly what part of the unconstitutional practice of law is it that's not subject to scrutiny under the original documents, Gail? I mean, since we're "proving" the legitimacy of stuff by merely disappearing it from all responsibility to those original structural ethics.
Ten at April 13, 2008 2:36 PM
Amy, am I just feeding a troll?
Gail at April 13, 2008 3:38 PM
Because surely it couldn't be that you cannot back the delicious assertion that unless its specifically prevented by enumeration, anything goes.
No, it couldn't be that.
Ten at April 13, 2008 3:52 PM
That's actually not what I said, Ten, but it's easier for you to make stuff up than it is to make a coherent argument. The truth is that you don't have the foggiest idea what the Constitution has to do with alimony payments, so you rant. Which is why you are a troll.
I'm now going to go out to dinner and have a charming evening instead of arguing with you. I have a feeling you'll still be here when I get back.
Gail at April 13, 2008 4:03 PM
Leave a comment