The Adult Dependent
For how long do you get to suck off your divorced spouse's funds? Jennifer Levitz writes in the WSJ about "The New Art of Alimony":
Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston's public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed "to waive any right to past, present or future alimony."But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife.
"This is insane," Mr. Taylor says, adding that the payments cut his after-tax pension by more than one-third. "Someone can just come back 25 years later and say, 'My life went down the toilet, and you're doing good--so now I want some of your money'?"
The nature of marriage has changed dramatically over the decades. Women now make up almost half of the American work force. But alimony, a concept enshrined in ancient law, has remained remarkably constant. Now, the idea that a husband should continue to support his wife forever, even after the demise of their marriage--long a bedrock of divorce law--is being called into question. Pressures are mounting to change a practice that some see as outdated and unfair.
A commenter there did say this:
Women are at an extreme disadvantage if they have children. They have often taken time out of their careers to take care of children, and have many obligations to those children for years that most men do not even understand in the least. You can not imagine how much time goes into doctor's, dentists and orthodontists appointments, parent/teacher conferences, after school activities, helping with homework, play dates, birthday parties, baking cookies for some party or fund raiser at school, shopping for clothes, food, etc. for the children, etc. The list is enormous.
But, since 1982? This women had a chance to get her life together, and she didn't take it.
Here's an excerpt that relates from one of my columns:
I'm not saying women shouldn't follow their dreams, but if your dream involves roping off air in art galleries, you'd better have a backup plan, and not one you met at a bar. This starts with acknowledging that, in the real world, "How will you be paying for that, Ma'am?" isn't answered with "I'm living happily ever after!"
>>I'm not saying women shouldn't follow their dreams, but if your dream involves roping off air in art galleries, you'd better have a backup plan, and not one you met at a bar.
I don't always agree with your take on the gender wars Amy, but that is a sentence to cherish.
Funny, sharp and very wise.
Jody Tresidder at November 1, 2009 5:18 AM
A Master Chief Petty Officer at Subron 6, back when Charleston naval base was open, was informed that 20 years after his divorce, in which he was the plaintiff and in which he proved that she was the adulterer who squandered the family funds, he was going to have to send half his retirement pay to her.
So he didn't retire. He just left the service. No $$ to her.
Radwaste at November 1, 2009 6:25 AM
We can argue all sorts of stuffs about what happens after the divorce, and what is fair and what isn't.
But that isn't this argument IMHO. Why would any reasonable person conclude that you can come back to a former partner years after the end of a marriage and demand money from them? You are demanding money for the time when they weren't together. This isn't alimony in that sense. Alimony is repayment for the time you were together. That is why it is often apportioned equal to the time you were married. OK, that's a different question of fairness than this one.
So, what has that former wife been doing for her former spouse that merits pay from her former spouse? You can't say kids, because there is no indication that he hasn't payed his child support. You can't say for her career, because that would be regular alimony paid to her right after the divorce... that is compensation for whatever she lost during the marriage.
What would you call this? "When we said your alimony came to an end, we were lying? She owns you forever?" Tell me how this isn't servitude.
Dunno how often it happens.
But as the Cridster would say: "marry WELL." For those of for whom it is too late, all we can do is hope our daughters don't take advantage of anyone, and tell our sons to NEVER marry.
makes you wonder if somebody trying to save marriage, wasn't in fact destroying it.
SwissArmyD at November 1, 2009 7:23 AM
Even assuming this is to get a share of his retirement earned while they were married, one has to wonder what message is truly being said here. The only conclusion one can make is women are viewed by the law as perpetual victems despite what was agreed to at the time.
The only conclusion men can draw is that although benefits of a marriage may end with a divorce decree, the liabilities will not. Therefore, don't get married. I suspect more and more will go the Gene Simmons route of having a legally defined relationship outside of marriage that will avoid the trap of being considered a common law marriage over time. In that approach, gifts may be given but there is never a true partnership or joining financially of the couple's assets.
This further promotes ME thinking instead of WE/US in a relationship. It erodes long term commitment and in the end, hurts the children. Children are the losers when adults fail to fully commit. Sad.
LoneStarJeffe at November 1, 2009 7:49 AM
It seems bizarre that a woman can come back 25 years later and financially sodomize her ex. At the least there should be a statute of limitations that would apply. I imagine there could/should be some indemnity clauses to head off this type of thing.
doombuggy at November 1, 2009 8:01 AM
Wha? She was an *accountant* and she dicked up her finances? She should be paying some sort of stupidity tax or frivolous lawsuit fine.
deathbysnoosnoo at November 1, 2009 8:05 AM
Whilst this post is deserving of as much scorn as we can heap on it, does anyone have any actual solutions? Can partners not, I don't know, pre-nup against this? Is alimony something that can be signed off, at divorce proceedings? ("I, the ex-wife, do hearby waive all rights to alimony, past, present, and future.")
Chronotrigger at November 1, 2009 10:11 AM
Traditional Judaism has no alimony.
According to halacha (Jewish law) divorce means:
1) 50-50 split of all assets, except those specifically excluded from joint ownership in the initial wedding contract.
2) Lump-sum payment of the prenup to the wife - this can be spread out over time if desired, but it's a finite sum.
3) Children become the sole legal/financial responsibility of the man. If it's deemed necessary for a small child to be with their mother, she is reimbursed for that. If there are no small children, she is free to go. That is the starting point for all custody discussions.
Ben-David at November 1, 2009 11:33 AM
BD, thanks for writing that. The mundane contingencies of divorce don't interest me, but ancient Jewish practice in such matters often does, if only because it's so politically incorrect.
I'm no scholar of religion. But Judaism seems to have recognized early & well that human nature isn't a pretty thing, such that perfect procedural justice is unlikely to be found: We haven't earned it.
Another example mentioned by Prager years ago concerned adultery. I can't remember the exact wording, which is important. But consider the discussion here... I'm pretty sure I mis-remembered the definition of adultery described by Prager— He's more likely to have said something in accordance with item #1 here.
(Is anyone still reading? Good.)
I think that Koshersex web page is wrong. It's not a "double" standard, it's a separate standard. A truly wise society will ask different things of men and of women, who each have different weaknesses to defeat.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 1, 2009 1:54 PM
In reading, or at least skimming, the rest of the article, it was good to see that some states are fighting the ridiculous idea that women should be supported forever by men they aren't married to.
"In April, for example, Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge David French prevailed following a 16-year battle to stop or reduce his alimony payments. A state appeals court ruled that Mr. French should not be forced to pay $3,400 a month to his ex-wife, who has lived for nearly 20 years with another man. The judge ordered the ex-wife to pay Mr. French $151,000, the amount she had received from him since he filed a previous case in 2005. Ms. French's lawyer did not return a call seeking comment. Amy Shield, Mr. French's lawyer, said he was pleased with the decision."
But the guys aren't entirely left out of the grabby ex-spouse problem. Continued reading about Brenda Caggiano, who is the one paying the price of being the top money-maker during her marriage.
But yeah, it's mainly the ex-wives doing this. Give it up men, you cannot win. As I said before, our evil plan is coming along nicely.
Pricklypear at November 1, 2009 2:13 PM
The woman got and equitable settlement which included the family home, free and clear. She had a good job in a lucrative profession. She knowingly waived her rights to any further compensation.
Sorry, but the Court blew it on this one unless there is a compelling argument that she was mentally incompetent at the time she signed the waiver.
Omnibus Driver at November 1, 2009 3:01 PM
Just as soon as women begin to be significantly affected by equal application of these laws, things will change.
And women wonder why men generally don't respect them. It's getting harder to do all the time.
I feel so sorry for my daughter.
Jay R at November 1, 2009 3:17 PM
Looks like someone's prejudices haven't changed since the 1950s. Most men today have no trouble understanding those things because they participate in raising their kids.
Pseudonym at November 1, 2009 3:19 PM
Its an ongoing problem, it really is.
Yes, there are circumstances in which I'll agree an ex should recieve some financial support from the former spouse.
Ok, man wanted children, wanted wife to be stay at home mother...so she spends the next 18 years raising the kid, marriage ends...so what does she do now?
Ok, in that instance if he has initiated the divorce, yes he should have to support her while she gets an education and gets a job and otherwise starts her own life.
If she initiates the divorce though, why should she get squat?
The onus to provide for the loss of "marital benefits" should fall upon the one ending the marriage.
----------------------------------------
Chris Rock said about the O.J. trial, "I'm not saying he shoulda killed her...but I understand." Fact is that he has an awkward point. What should really shock us is that there aren't MORE murders between exes. A man who makes 30,000 per year...but has to pay his ex 15,000 of it, hell he's making money even if he kills her and spends 20 years in jail, then at least she won't get his social security when he gets out.
Robert at November 1, 2009 3:27 PM
> Chris Rock said about the O.J. trial,
> "I'm not saying he shoulda killed
> her...but I understand."
I disagree, but that's my kind of contrarianism. This is best pop-culture column of the year.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 1, 2009 3:35 PM
>>>Just as soon as women begin to be significantly affected by equal application of these laws, things will change.
Agreed and it's my understanding this is happening. I have a single experience in the divorce arena (in the no fault divorce state of California. Fortunately mine was amicable). Divorce in California has the potential to be hilarious if not sad. A woman with a good job/career marries a guy. He goes from worthless job to worthless job. His average yearly income is small while hers is good. They are married for 5 years. She decides after 5 years that enough is enough. Guess what California law says about who needs to pay alimony? It's my understanding (and I could be wrong about this) that California was but is no longer a common law marriage state. As women moved to the workforce and shacked up with men who were a drain on their finances, common law marriage became less of a benefit for women. As the stay at home mom diminishes, we will see the law change.
Regarding this specific case, as echoed by others, if the retirement was earned during the marriage and was not addressed in the divorce, I can see a glimmer of judicial correctness in this. This, otherwise, is another example of a judge who is making it up based on his/her biases.
TW at November 1, 2009 5:22 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/11/01/the_adult_depen.html#comment-1675621">comment from PseudonymMost men today have no trouble understanding those things because they participate in raising their kids.
The neighbor-daddy, for example, is the parent who gives their two kids their nightly bath.
Amy Alkon at November 1, 2009 5:36 PM
If she initiates the divorce though, why should she get squat?
Because she still contributed to nearly two decades of that marriage, even if she wants out now. Not giving her any part of the joint assets is a great way to tie women to miserable marriages because they can't afford to get out while giving men the option of getting out if they can cough up the cash.
Initiating the divorce doesn't negate the fact that Theoretical Woman spent the most productive years of her life in a partnership, helping him build a home and presumably a family.
That said, nobody should be able to renegotiate a new settlement 25 years after the fact.
MonicaP at November 1, 2009 6:16 PM
I'd agree with you MonicaP...but for one small little problem.
Alright, two people (lets call them lass & lad) are married happily for 20 years, they have & raise 2.5 kids, white picket fence, family dog, whole nine yards.
One day lass says to lad, "Yeah...I'm not happy & I don't love you anymore, I want out."
Ok...she leaves the marriage and yes, she did contribute something to it. But so did he.
Lad spent 20 years feeding & clothing her, their children, providing a roof over her head, lights for the kids to learn to read by, family vacations, did all the things a good husband is supposed to do for his wife and children. That is 20 years of his paying bills to take care of her. Now in that time, maybe she got an education, maybe she didn't, but either way for all but the absolute worst of all possible worlds, the opportunity was certainly there for her to develop skills, even if only as a part time hobby while the kids are at school.
So now the marriage is over, she's gone. Now she gets money for what...10 years? 20 years? Forever?
So she is compensated for her contribution through a cash settlement..
What about HIM?
How is HE compensated for HIS contribution?
Before he was sacrificing half, perhaps even 3/4 or 9/10ths of his income to support his family. Yes he got something out of it. He had two children, and he had the love, sex, & companionship of a mate.
She got two children, the same sort of company as he did (if not quite as pretty *l*) and she got the comforts of a good home and a good life as well. She gets compensated with cash.
What about HIM?
SO now...Lad's situation is as follows:
His kids are grown & on their own, so now he's alone in the house.
His wife is gone...with probably half the total resources he spent 20 years accumulating to provide for them both, maybe the house, oh and not only what was there, but she also gets half of his future income and half his social security...because she's not happy anymore, he's alone, a lot poorer, lost his place to live, which he probably spent 15 years paying off, and because he is now that much poorer, and that much older, his chances of finding another mate, a new companion if you will, are rather low. (Fair or not, men's ability to support their would be mates IS a factor, and should be)
SO...his compensation is: Loneliness, at least temporary homelessness, and a lifetime debt.
Her compensation by contrast...because she stopped being happy after 2 DECADES of having to worry about nothing because the provider was diligent & hard working...is half what the provider built, and lifetime payments?
And this sounds...reasonable to you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look I don't want people, men or women, to be miserable. But I don't believe it is the responsibility of EITHER husband or wife, to pay long term support to the other party, so that person can look for eternal bliss or find themselves or any of that other happy horseshit.
The problem here is the idea that she is somehow entitled to live the same way she used to. Why the fuck should she be "Entitled to live according to the manner in which she is accustomed"? Let her get out, get a job, and do just what he spent 20 years doing for her.
See Monica, a married man, who happens to be a good man, doesn't work for himself. He busts his ass at work sometimes putting his life on the line, even wrecking his body or ruining his health in the old age to come, to build up the resources he needs to provide a good life for his wife & children. He works long hours, takes careful stock of earnings, and puts aside whatever he can to ensure his children have beds to sleep in, lights to read by, and that his wife has good food to eat and good doctors to take care of her.
If he's a lucky man, its a job he loves and values, but that doesn't matter, what matters is that the labor he puts in at that job, is done out of love and regard for the family he's providing for. Once upon a time, even if they didn't love one another forever, well the two were bound by a measure of respect and mutually seen to duty.
Present day divorce law, and by extension alimony, has "liberated" women from their half of the bargain. The wife who was simply "no longer happy" is now collecting lifetime payments for a duty she no longer performs, for services she no longer offers, for comforts she no longer provides. Her husband, once a noble & proud provider, who sacrificed untold wealth & resources for the sake of his loved ones...he is now reduced to basically servant status. He no longer recieves anything she provided, she no longer gives anything of herself...yet he is expected to continue to give, and continue to give, and continue to give, until there is nothing left of him.
And this sounds...like justice, to you?
--------------------------------------------------
Much is made by women about how wives & daughters were thought of as "chattel" or "property" of men. But never do you hear those same women today, speak of how men were regarded by those women.
If a wife was chattel, a husband was an ox. His labor & resources were not just his, the plow was pulled for his family. His labor was theirs, oh he might hold control over it, but never or nearly never do you find an account of a rich man starving his wife, no not even a mistress, in texts of centuries passed. For that matter, the poor farmer who wrecked his body behind a plow, is never or almost never said to have left his wife in want of food or clothing, unless he had none at all to give or pay for. Indeed the opposite is true. Civil war letters written by southern wives had only to write to their husbands on the front, "If you do not come home, we will surely starve." And that was enough for these men, who had endured the most bitter and horrific battles of the age, to abandon everything they'd risked their lives for, and rush back home to provide extra labor to see to their families. What does that say about what men were, and what we still expect them to be?
Much is made over men having held all the power. And in some ways perhaps men did, but it is plain to see that the "power" was not something frequently misused.
What of the reverse equivalent today? Divorce is easy for women under not even a hint of pretext, a woman who is simply "not happy" takes half his worth and demands and recieves by law, half again in many cases for life, and in trade, they provide nothing ever again.
--------------------------------------------------
So what is reasonable?
Lets take Lass & Lad again. 20 years, 2.5 kids raised and on their own. Now she's not happy and she wants to leave. She files for divorce. What SHOULD she get?
Under those circumstances, I would argue that it would be entirely reasonable to split the EXISTING assets down the middle. Lets say he has saved 100,000 towards retirement for them both, has a 60,000 home, and they have two cars valued at 20,000 each. I would argue that it is reasonable to sell the home & cars at market value, combine it with the saved up fund for retirement, and split that down the middle, providing Lass with a 100,000 settlement, I would even think it fair, to provide Lass with 6 months of alimony, totaling 50% of each paycheck from Lad, to allow her time to find her own place, and start her own life away from Lad. Thereafter, they owe each other nothing at all, each of them got half the results of 20 years of married life.
Now it is probably true that she won't live the same quality of lifetyle, but why should she recieve the comforts of his lifestyle at his expense, when the very act of divorce says she does not want to be part of his life?
Robert at November 1, 2009 8:17 PM
I learned a lot during my brother's divorce...from what went on and do reading and what is lawyer said and a child's advocate.
Here, basically the judge can do whatever they want. They can toss out pre-nups - though they generally do tend to follow them on who gets items even if they change values. The appeal standard is that "No sane person could come to that conclussion" though some times appeal courts won't truely hold it to that standard.
The Former Banker at November 1, 2009 8:32 PM
Robert said:
Now it is probably true that she won't live the same quality of lifetyle, but why should she recieve the comforts of his lifestyle at his expense, when the very act of divorce says she does not want to be part of his life?
Why? BECAUSE SHE CAN!
It will not change until the laws are changed.
As an example, how many of you would get married as many times as you could, if you knew that you would get tax-free money for free, all of the tax returns, any kids from the marriage, a free house, a free car, and maybe a vacation home...AND get to see your ex, who you used for the money anyway, become broke, destitute, and pathetic????
Get rid of no-fault divorce and archaic child custody laws and watch the divorce rate drop drastically...
Interesting how my son is the only kid in his whole grade who is from divorced parents...and that we happen to live in the richest school district in the state. I park my 8-year-old honda next to the numerous Lexus's, BMW's, and Range Rovers (and the occasional Prius piece of crap). What does it say? Easy...it says that there is a lack of divorce when women can make more money by staying married.
Anyway, good comments Robert.
mike at November 1, 2009 8:37 PM
Marriage=connection, union, giving, obligations.
Divorce=separation, severed connection. Cessation of giving and attendant obligations.
You get divorced because you no longer want to share you life - including financial ups and downs - with this person.
However much you contributed to the marriage - or "gave up" to raise your own kids!!! - divorce means that relationship IS NOW ENDING.
Divorce should lead to separation. Alimony is now used - against the background of victimology politics - to subvert that.
Ben-David at November 2, 2009 12:52 AM
Crid:
perfect procedural justice is unlikely to be found
- - - - - - - - - -
Yes, but more to the point is the redefinition of marriage to suit the new culture of taking.
Look to newly coined phrases - and policies - like "no fault divorce" for the root of the problem.
If I get married because of what I want to GET rather than a desire to give... then I don't feel at "fault" if I DEFAULT on those vows when it suits *me*.
Marriage and divorce are then experienced internally through the lens of entitlement.
It's no coincidence that alimony laws were passed in starting in the 60s and 70s.
It wasn't to protect women (as the original Jewish pre-nup was) - in fact, women's financial independence was increasing.
The legislation expressed the selfish nature of newly "liberated" relationships - and a growing perception of women as a privileged victim class - which under the self-righteous handwringing expresses the taker mentality.
Ben-David at November 2, 2009 1:06 AM
Robert writes: A woman...takes half his worth and demands and recieves by law, half again in many cases for life, and in trade, they provide nothing ever again.
A long and passionate post. Although it only addresses a stereotypical situation, the point is well-made: In the absence of minor children, the courts do indeed look mainly at economic factors. It might be amusing for a court to pass a judgement awarding the woman alimony, but requiring her to do half the housework, provide half the meals, and see to (half?) the sexual satisfaction of the ex-husband.
On the other hand, one tends to forget that a divorced household is automatically much more expensive to run. Both parties should expect a reduction in their standards of living, simply because there are now two households to run.
Taking the stereotypical case of "lass and lad", six months of support is nonsensical. If the woman was a pure housewife for 20 years, she needs and deserves a chance to develop job skills, which likely requires an education. "Lad" can continue a life with dignity without housekeeping and cooked meals - if nothing else, those can be purchased. "Lass" has a much more difficult problem if she has no marketable job skills.
The role of the court in such cases ought to be to strike a compromise that leaves both parties equally unhappy.
bradley13 at November 2, 2009 2:15 AM
And if he had squandered his money could he have come back and gotten money from her?
Not a chance. The man falls under the unwritten too bad so sad rule.
I keep telling young guys don't marry or have children with 90% of American women. You are signing away your full rights as an American citizen and will be relegated to 2nd class citizen status.
The pitfalls are too great. My daughter's mom is currently lining up her 4th victim although her latest divorce has not gone through yet.
David M. at November 2, 2009 4:46 AM
"'Lass' has a much more difficult problem if she has no marketable job skills."
She has marketable skills: cleaning, running errands and sex work. But the pay will likely be much, much lower for her next job, the new employerwill likely require a whole new bedroom regime (including much higher frequency--possibly even kink), he might be less tolerant, etc.
No suprise, then, that the response of a stay at home spouse in those circumstances is like any worker seeking to avoid a middle-age layoff who has protection beyond the normal worker: sue the employer, claim unfair termination, and demand a fat settlement to go away.
Spartee at November 2, 2009 5:26 AM
If lass was a sahm for 20 years, I assume it was a joint decision. Lad agreed to support lass in exchange for a different distribution of labor. He must realize that she will not be able to earn a high wage if she reenters the workforce.
But I bet he really liked not having to do the laundry.
Then there's the indirect contributions she made to his career. As in, how much more time he was able to put in because he didn't have to leave early for doctor's appointments and PTA meetings.
It was a partnership, and her being paid for her contribution to that partnership is totally fair.
MonicaP at November 2, 2009 7:41 AM
Agreed MonicaP - but if she is going to continue to recive compenastion should she not also be required to provide support?
She recived compensation for her contributions at the time she provided them. If she chooses to leave why should she continue to get comensation if no longer providing support?
ANd if alimony were truly about support it woulnd be set at levels that "keep her in the style she is accustomed" Nor would it be so hard to modify downwards if the guy were suffer finacial hardship
lujlp at November 2, 2009 8:05 AM
"However much you contributed to the marriage - or "gave up" to raise your own kids!!! - divorce means that relationship IS NOW ENDING." BD
Life is choices and with each choice comes opportunity costs. When a person decides to stay home with children there are opportunity costs, regardless of whether or not you choose to use quotes around "give up".
Staying home means not working; the lifetime earnings and earning potential of that person decreases. Whether we like it or not relationships can boil down to a series of deals that are negotiated b/w the partners. One stays home and takes care of all that shit and gets financial security. If a man doesn't like that burden then he shouldn't marry someone who wants a traditional set-up. No way is right or wrong, so long as each person choose for him/herself and isn't forced into the situation.
You said above that if the stay at home person (woman) wants the divorce she gets squat. So we give people who choose to "raise their own kids!!!!" the option of, say, potential physical abuse or living on minimum wage? I'm not joking about that. People stay in really bad (black eyes; broken bones) relationships b/c they feel that the bad is offset by the fancy cars and jewelry.
By creating a system where people are destined to live at a SUBSTANTIALLY lower standard than they would have had they not stayed home w/ kids, upon divorce, doesn't help anyone man or woman.
People need to raise their kids to not be assholes and it seems that having parents around, who do a good job, is the best bet kids have. We should encourage people to, yes, MARRY WELL, and not be shitheads, but you suggest punishing the stay at home person. That doesn't really help parents make the best decisions for their families.
Gretchen at November 2, 2009 9:28 AM
It appears that the basic assumption is that women are whores who MUST continue to be paid if they ever provided sex, and/or are children with no adult agency whatsoever.
BTW, no one needs to be a SAHM for more than a few years. If after that the wife continues to enjoy the good, work-free life at her husband's expense, tough shit for her if she decides she wants to leave the relationship behind. Get used to a new "standard of living."
Women as child-whores, and men as rented mules. What a charming situation has developed since we "liberated" women from marriage.
Jay R at November 2, 2009 10:30 AM
I think what is lost in the no-fault changes, is fault. [Duh?] We use fault to apportion blame and decide who is in the right. Then it is rather easier to decide who gets paid.
The importance of looking at this for a moment as a contract, can't be overlooked. Using the Lad and Lass from above... when she decides to leave she is breaching the contract. It doesn't matter what she contributed previously... Ladd is expecting her to CONTINUE that same arrangement, and she has decided to change it. [for the sake of argument, there is no infidelity, or abuse] From that perspective, Ladd is the injured party. He entered into the contract and has kept it's covenant.
Why should he owe her anything, if she is injuring him? He is not the one who started the action, nor does he desire the change.
Likewise, if he is going to shack up with the stewardess, head off to maui and breach his contract, why shouldn't he owe Lass as the injured party, compensation?
But here is the thing. IF they are a unit when together, they are a unit. They are both compensated as part of that unit, WHILE they are part of it. If one of them wants out, they should be compensating the other, for breaching the unit contract.
But it doesn't work that way. If they BOTH brought money into the unit, they split the assets and go their own ways. If only one did, that person is expected to pay the one who didn't. This makes no sense. This makes no sense since they were BOTH functioning as a unit, since they were both contributing to the unit. They were both there. Does Ladd now owe her money for all the years he has ALREADY sheltered her?
The argument is being made that he has to pay this cost bacause she COULD HAVE had a career, outside the home.
But she made that decision too. Yes? IF she had wanted that career, there are millions of people everywhere, that go right back to it. There are also millions of people who decide to be SAHM AS a career. That is their decison in the matter.
If the one can one day just change the locks on the door and say: "you owe me." why wouldn't they do that? What is their incentive to do else? What is their incentive to try?
They enter in to the contract for mutual benefit, but if one can leave the contract and still receive the benefit, of what value is the contract?
SwissArmyD at November 2, 2009 10:47 AM
"Taking the stereotypical case of "lass and lad", six months of support is nonsensical. If the woman was a pure housewife for 20 years, she needs and deserves a chance to develop job skills, which likely requires an education." ~Bradley
I fear the stereotype, as you term it, is far more common than you think. Most men still expect to do the same things, they expect to provide for their families, pay the bills, etc. In short, perform "breadwinner" roles, now I'll admit I did borrow a bit of tradition in the overt "stay at home mother" role, in our modern society she was probably holding a job and already had an education...but if we factor that in, her expectations after divorce are even more ridiculous, because she would already have experience and skills and education, and should need very little interim support.
But let us go with your assertion. How much time is spent on child care? Now for my children, a great deal, because they are home schooled, but homeschooling is fairly rare still, if the children in this example went to school, then unless the lady Lass was trying to make the place clean enough to perform surgery or make microchips the size of dustmites, then she should have had plenty of time for the last decade at least of the marriage, to do some part time work, earn some money or go to school. Any man who has taken care of his house, knows it does NOT take an entire day, no not even more than a small part, perhaps an hour or two, to keep a place clean enough for civilized living. So what did she do with her time? And wait, here is an idea...how about if she needs time for education to develop some job skills...well she doesn't file for divorce the day she ceases to be blissfully happy.
Delay gratification & independence a bit, provide the services she had for the previous 20 years, for 1 year more, and use the rest of her time to go to school and learn a trade or get some certifications and look for work. Every job does not require a 4 year degree, and if she wants to do that, then well the half she gets out of the division of assets at the time of the divorce is more than enough to support herself while she goes to school.
Is it easy for her? Probably not, probably not. But why the fuck should it be easy? Nobody owes her an easy life, certainly not the husband she's leaving.
-------------------------------------------
Liking not having to do the laundry...does mandate payment for life.
Indirect contributions to a career, I've heard that one before, and sometimes, to be fair, it is even 100% true. I know a soldier whose wife quizes him on board questions every day, so when he attends, he's well prepared.
My point is that she WAS paid. She got a home, spending money, vacations, children, and comfortable life, she recieved compensation for 20 years.
Half the assets that exist at the time of the divorce is quite reasonable for all that, since her contribution did help to build it. But then part of everything he earns after that...for life? What kind of sense does that make? She already got half that she worked to build. Why should she get compensation for things after the divorce? What compensation is HE getting?
--------------------------------------------
So let me ask, how is HE to be compensated?
Robert at November 2, 2009 1:43 PM
What about hte legally binding judgment, signed by a judge, that specifically waives "...future alimony..."
Are legal contracts and judgments open to re-interperation and change years later. What about the rule of law??
Mark at November 2, 2009 3:17 PM
"BTW, no one needs to be a SAHM for more than a few years. If after that the wife continues to enjoy the good, work-free life at her husband's expense, tough shit for her if she decides she wants to leave the relationship behind"
Jay R- my cousin and her husband have 5 kids ranging in ages from 8 months to 11 years old (they're 36). She's a SAHM and homeschools the kids. By the time youngest is in college, she'll have been a SAHM for almost 30 years. Does anyone "need" to be a SAHM for 30 years? Maybe not, but that's irrelevant because it's a mutual decision made by husband and wife about what's best for their family.
Presumably if a guy supports a SAHM it's because he wants someone who will manage the household, raise the kids, and potentially support his career. Don't feel like being the sole-bread winner? That's fine, because there are plenty of women out there who want to work and have a career- marry one of them. Just figure out your priorities and be accountable who you decide to spend your life with.
Shannon at November 2, 2009 4:44 PM
To Shannon: A tangent, yes, but this reminds me of a pet peeve of mine regarding the comic strip "Zits." Connie Duncan is a SAHM......to a now 16-year-old Jeremy.
And it's her decision. Fine. But there has never been a clear explanation for it, since she was originally supposed to be a child psychologist. Everyone knows that you can't let your skills rot over time if you ever hope to get paid for them again.
In other words, of all the women you know who are SAHMs right now, what percentage of them have NO kids younger than high school age? Probably less than 10%.
I, personally, see Connie's position as little more than the writers' way to give Jeremy an excuse to think of his mother as petty and stupid for asking him to do chores at any time. As in: "I'm a typical modern high school student who's already working 50 hours a week for no pay, and she expects me to do HOUSEWORK on top of that when she has nothing ELSE to do all day? I don't think so!"
(A friend thinks otherwise, even though he doesn't read the strip - that is, he thinks kids whose mothers stay home are less likely to have sex and become parents. Dunno.)
lenona at November 2, 2009 5:09 PM
Don't feel like being the sole-bread winner? That's fine, because there are plenty of women out there who want to work and have a career- marry one of them.
Exactly. If you've made the mutual decision for your wife to stay home for decades, then accept the fact that you have made a commitment to support her forever, married nor not. (If it makes anyone feel any better, I'd be saying the same about a SAHD.)
And to answer an earlier question, even after the divorce, she's still making contributions to his life in the form of his career advancement -- the time he was spending in business meetings instead of helping with homework. She's still being compensated because he's still reaping the benefits of their time together. He doesn't have to climb back down the corporate ladder to where he was before they met. Why should she?
MonicaP at November 2, 2009 7:00 PM
"Don't feel like being the sole-bread winner" -Shannon,
that's the problem. 75% of the the time it isn't HIM who feels like it should stop.
Read that again. IT ISN'T HIM WHO STOPS THE MARRIAGE. It's her.
Now are you telling me that he should get punished financially because she was the one who decided to change the rules?
"Just figure out your priorities and be accountable who you decide to spend your life with." Shannon
THIS is absolutely true, but in the opposite way you think. Since SHE can, at any time, decide that she is done being married, and make him pay for it, through no fault of his own. Well then, why should he marry? He has to be accountable for her, and not the other way around.
Certainly the women who initiate divorces are not all doing it because they feel like it. In a fault situation there are surely many men who are wrong, and women who divorce them.
There IS an incentive for women to end it, however. Since the whole thing is no-fault the downside to her is quite different than the downside to him. I am not talking about the SAHM that suddenly discovers that her soon to be ex is playing around. I'm talking about the one who decides that she has had enough of marriage and compromise, and discovers through her circle of friends that she can get out of that pretty well if the guy is doing well enough.
What do you think a person is really like if she comes back 25 years later and demands and receives NEW alimony from the guy she was once married to? Or how about the one whose mom lives 3 houses down and takes care of the kids while she works a part time job. While the alimony and childsupport pay her way? Is she using her college education to answer those phones? Is she getting her career re-started so that when the kids turn 19 she'll be ready? Why would she do that if she can just keep coming back to the well?
Please to note how many of those SAHM's decided one day to be that, and then persuaded their husbands that it was "best for the kids" Sure you can say it was a joint decision, but how often is it?
Just like anything there are noble self-sacrificing people, and there are chisellers, of both genders. Unfortunately the law and courts have chosen a side, to the other's detriment.
SwissArmyD at November 2, 2009 7:21 PM
"the time he was spending in business meetings instead of helping with homework."
That's interesting MonicaP...
How do these things happen if they are BOTH working? Magic? Interestingly men do these things too. When you are divorced, you both still go to the teacher conferences. When they are over at your house you still do their homework with them. Funnily enough, it seems like there is a book report due every time they are at your house. When the kid gets in trouble, who do they call?
And would he be persuing that high paying career if he didn't have an expensive family to support? Or would he have chosen to follow a path with a smaller paycheck?
SwissArmyD at November 2, 2009 7:28 PM
"How do these things happen if they are BOTH working? Magic?"
My parents always both worked. When my sister and I were young, my mom worked part-time. When she went back to work full-time, my dad rearranged his schedule to work from home 1-2 days a week. They pretty much split taking off time for doctor's appointments, school events, sick days, etc. They also basically split cooking, cleaning, laundry, grocery shopping, yardwork, etc.
This worked out well for my family BUT they both had flexible, 40-hour-a-week careers that allowed them to do this. If one spouse was shooting up a career ladder that demanded 15 hour days and lots of outside-of-work socializing and networking, it would definitely be beneficial to have a partner who largely took care of the household and kids. In doing so they would be invaluably supporting their spouse's career, allowing the latter to have kids AND a career where otherwise only one might be possible. So of course it would be harder for a divorced or single parent to give 100% to their job.
"And would he be persuing that high paying career if he didn't have an expensive family to support? Or would he have chosen to follow a path with a smaller paycheck?"
You CHOOSE to have a family, and if that's what you want out of life and then it's your responsibility to support them. You could just as well say, "Would that SAHM be folding laundry and scrubbing toilets if she didn't have a family to support? Or would she have chosen to live by the beach and drink margaritas all day?"
Not to mention that plenty of people pursue a job that pays above and beyond the cost of raising kids. You don't need a 7 figure salary to support a family, but many people would jump at the opportunity to earn that much-I would!
Shannon at November 3, 2009 12:08 AM
"Exactly. If you've made the mutual decision for your wife to stay home for decades, then accept the fact that you have made a commitment to support her forever, married nor not. (If it makes anyone feel any better, I'd be saying the same about a SAHD.)"
I don't think anyone should have to support anyone else forever. We don't even do that with our children (hopefully).
Rehabilitative alimony is fair if a woman has been home for a long time caring for children. I know men who won't "let" their wives work outside the home. But it is supposed to be just that - rehabilitative. She should go back to school and/or get started in some sort of career. The alimony should end within a certain period of time - usually 5 years if it's been a long marriage.
I have one friend who has "lifetime alimony". She was married to a doctor for 18 years, and they have 4 children, two of whom are still at home, one is 7 or 8 now. He cheated on her with his assistant, so she left him - that's why who leaves who does not necessarily denote blame. It wouldn't necessarily be fair to punish the leaver.
She took the alimony rather than a lump sum payment. That was her choice, and now she regrets it, because it does have a catch - she can't remarry. She's a lovely women and would love to remarry, but now, she has to weigh the cost/benefit analysis of every relationship. Is he really worth giving up $5000 a month (or whatever she gets - I'm not sure)? It's made her social life kind of sad. She would have been better off with a settlement.
lovelysoul at November 3, 2009 6:27 AM
How do these things happen if they are BOTH working? Magic?
Of course not. But we weren't talking about what happens when both people are working. We're talking about what happens when a joint decision by a couple renders one of them minimally employable for the rest of her life.
MonicaP at November 3, 2009 7:06 AM
Part of the problem here is that the old social contract that recognized the husband as the head of the household has been broken. And yet the husband still retains all of the traditional responsibilities under that contact. When I was married to my first wife, after we had been married for a couple of months, she decided that she wasn't going to work anymore. She was going to stay home and I was going to support her. What could I do about it? I couldn't force her to work. And yet I feared asking for a divorce, because I was afraid she'd pull out the "stay at home" card and I'd be stuck with alimony. And she knew good and darn well that there was nothing I could do about it, and she lost respect for me.
(I did eventually ask her for a divorce, but only after I caught her red-handed running what amounted to a one-woman escort service. I had two guys who were willing to testify that they had a barter arrangement with her for sex. At that point, I think she was afraid of being prosecuted for prostitution, and she gave me a no-fault divorce without further conditions.)
We're entering an age where it will no longer be possible for most women to "marry up"; many couples will have the woman as the breadwinner. Expect major changes in divorce laws once that happens.
Cousin Dave at November 3, 2009 7:25 AM
Shannon... the number of people who actually make 7 figure is really quite small... according to the IRS. Here.
The top 1% of adjusted gross incomes starts at ~$300K... and there are only 1.3 million people in the country above that. Top 10% is $100k and above. So the other 90% of people who have a net AGI make less than $100k a year.
The point I'm making is that the number is small. The situation you are talking about is small. It happens, but it isn't a compelling argument for how damaging excessive alimony is for the other 90% of everyone. I used the word excessive. I haven't a problem with a few years, to re-learn work habits and such. Remembering that she is not supporting the kids out of that alimony, that is a separate issue. The alimony is for herself.
To LS, I agree with the idea of rehabilitative, my question is how many avail themselves of it?
In terms of assigning blame, the standard should be who did wrong, not who leaves. Clearly for your friend she was right. I would say of her though, what does she need to do for herself, as a sovereign person? At this point is it about continuing to get the money out of him? Is she defining herself by that? Presumably the ex pays child support so that part is covered. She is letting her life be defined by by her former relationship with him. She should take the steps to strike out on her own, to be her own person. Yeah, it's tough to give up the automatic payday, especially if she feels it is OWED to her.
But it is a devil's bargain because she is letting the rest of her life be defined by it. She should gather herself together and move on, regardless, so that she can call the rest of this life her own. In any case, I can't imagine why she would marry again after all that. It isn't a requirement for her. If she wishes to do that, than she has again to make a choice. Is the new husband worth more than punishing the ex husband? Is she willing to move forward, rather than always looking back?
SwissArmyD at November 3, 2009 7:27 AM
In terms of assigning blame, the standard should be who did wrong, not who leaves.
Law would be a far easier affair if we had any real idea how to assign blame for this stuff. My ex might say I was at fault for asking him to leave. I might say he was at fault for screwing around. He might say I was at fault for forcing him to screw around by working too many hours. I might say he was at fault because he wouldn't get a job. It never ends.
It seems your viewpoint on this hinges on what value you place on SAHM and housewife status. If she's truly a partner, then she has a vested interest in the assets that come from that marriage, which don't end at the divorce. If you are renting her housekeeping and sexual services, then the best she can hope for is a severance package.
Cousin Dave: Sorry you got screwed, and I'm glad you were able to disentangle yourself eventually. But I don't believe a woman running an escort service out of her home represents the norm for divorce. She sounds like a special brand of awful.
We also need to consider whether building a career is even possible for the newly divorced woman. At 40, maybe. At 60, she'd have to be pretty exceptional to build a career for herself.
MonicaP at November 3, 2009 9:01 AM
"Law would be a far easier affair if we had any real idea how to assign blame for this stuff." MonicaP...
There are a couple that are prety straightforward, and used to be used. Primarily Adultery. Doesn't mattrer WHY you fool around, you can't do it. Fraud is another one, especially if married to more than one person at once... These ones cover a LOT of ground.
Also, to your point of vested interest of a SAHM in the household... why do you think the husband doesn't have that? Is that not what he is protecting and providing for? Maybe I misunderstand what you mean.
Regardless all of these things, you have to ask yourself this. If a man was stay at home, and then go divorced, would you say he doesn't need to go get a job? Careers are a relative thing anyway... we change careers ~4x in a lifetime on average. When you are 40 you have 25+ years to work at least. Why is that not time enough to get a career going? Would you allow a guy to say these things? You are taking away a woman's power to self determine by expecting that she can't do anything, IMHO. It's bad news.
SwissArmyD at November 3, 2009 10:31 AM
Cases in which the cause of a divorce is completely obvious are few and far between. Even adultery doesn't always make the cut, and every ex-husband and ex-wife thinks he or she is the injured party.
I said above that I would feel the same about a SAHD. In cases where a man has sacrificed decades of earning potential for a relationship, the same rules apply.
The ex-wife should certainly go get a job. She doesn't abdicate responsibility for her own life. One reason divorce sucks is that when you split assets and earnings like that, everyone's standard of living suffers, and nobody is happy with the results.
MonicaP at November 3, 2009 11:29 AM
Monica: first of all, thanks. I will have to say that I've met even worse, though. Certainly not all women do that kind of thing. Not even a majority do. But I think a significant number do -- maybe 25%, but I'm just guessing on that based on my own experience. And at the time a lot of this went down, I was living in an area that was notorious for attracting con artists of all stripes.
But that isn't even really the point. The focus needs to be kept on the legal disparities. I had mentioned before about the traditional marriage contract: it assigned certain responsibilities, such as earning the family's living, primarily to the husband. This was especially true starting with the beginning of the 20th century, as agriculture as the primary mode of employment for the bulk of the population started to wind down. At first, the industrial workplace was filled with men, women, and children alike. But then child labor laws removed the children, and then in the aftermath of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, women were gradually removed, leaving the men as solely responsible for the financial support of their families.
Particularly at this time, the law granted husbands considerable latitude as the assumed decision-maker of the household. The wife and children had reduced authority and autonomy, in return for which their room and board was provided for. We can argue about the propriety of this arrangement, but at the time, it mostly worked. And the reason it did so was that it placed burdens and provided benefits to both parties more or less equally. However, the nature of the burdens and benefits differed: the wife's burden was to be more or less obedient to her husband, but in return she benefitted materially from her husband's labor. Said labor was the husband's burden, in return for which the benefits he received were mostly non-material: companionship, an orderly home, child-rearing, and romantically.
What kept the parties from simply discarding their burdens? The husband's disincentives consisted of divorce laws which would strip him of much of the material benefits of his labor, plus the fact that he'd lose the non-material benefits of the marriage. The wife's disincentives, however, were different. Since society abhorred the abandonment of those unable to take care of themselves, the benefits of the husband's labor could not be totally stripped from the wife. Instead, society imposed other constraints, only part of which was in the legal sphere. The woman would have few other life paths open to her. She was unable to get many jobs by which to support herself, partly due to legal discrimination, and partly due to the fact that most jobs in that day consisted of heavy labor for which she was not physically qualified. Plus, there were social constraints; a woman who left her husband for no good reason was likely to find herself an outcast in the community.
So the 1960s came along, and women understandably were getting tired of the limited life paths available to them. They wanted more choices. The legal restrictions were gradually removed, and at the same time, advances in technology greatly reduced the percentage of jobs requiring heavy labor. And feminism made it a point to banish the social-outcast status of divorced women.
Which brings us to where we are today. A principal of contract law is that a contract must put some obligation on, and provide some benefit to, both parties. It's called a "consideration", and that's why you often here of things such as, for instance, a condemned house being sold for one dollar. Why the one dollar? Because a consideration is required on the part of the buyer; a contract calling for the seller to turn the house over to the buyer, without the buyer being required to do anything at all, is legally challengable.
Well, the situation we have today is that the marriage contract demands no consideration on the wife's part. When a man signs a marriage license, he is assuming most of the traditional responsibilities of the pre-feminism man: he agrees to provide support until adulthood for any children that are born into the marriage. He takes on a certain obligation (which varies a lot) to maintain the financial status of his wife, should she choose not to be self-supporting. And he agrees to the fact that all assets he acquires during the marriage are property of the marriage; often this applies to assets he acquired prior to the marriage too.
On the other hand, when a woman signs a marriage license, in the eyes of the law, she is agreeing to absolutely nothing. The traditional authority of the husband over the household is now an exploded legal theory. The wife is not legally required to provide any of the traditional non-material benefits of marriage. If she doesn't feel like cleaning the house or doing the laundry, she doesn't have to. If on the wedding night she tells her new groom, "I'm never ever having sex with you; get used to it", there is nothing he can do (legally) about it. If she decides that she wants children and he doesn't, she can get pregnant without his consent. If he refuses to have sex with her so as to avoid pregnancy, she can simply get pregnant by someone else, and the state will hold him responsible for the children even though he is not the biological father. If he wants children and she doesn't, there is no legal way he can force her to get pregnant or carry it to term.
If the wife doesn't feel like working, she doesn't have to. If she does want to work, and just dump the children in day care all day, there is nothing the husband can do about it. And there are many ways in which she can keep her own assets apart from the joint assets. For example, in my state, a husband in a marriage cannot purchase real estate without granting his wife co-title, but his wife *can* buy real estate in her name only. In the event of divorce, the wife's real estate holdings are not considered joint assets and the family court can't touch them. She can, legally, walk away with millions of her own holdings while also taking half of everything her husband has.
In short, the wife has no legal responsibilities whatsoever in the marriage. The marriage contract requires no consideration of her. She can marry under false pretenses without fear of legal punishment, and in this day and age, likely no social punishment. In fact, she might even get encouragement and praise from certain quarters. None of these things is true of the husband.
And I'm not saying all wives will take advantage of this. But some will, and the number will be higher than it would be otherwise. Remember, if you reward a behavior, you will get more of that behavior. There's very little downside to women for marrying under false pretenses; she isn't going to be prosecuted. And the chances of her not gaining custody of the children, or having to pay support to her husband, are remote (other than for certain exceptional cases). So why not divorce, when it's that easy? The federal government will even provide her with free counsel under VAWA if she can make up a good enough sob story.
So I'm seeing a lot of comments asking why, if this is that bad of a problem, why more men aren't lobbying to get this fixed instead of expecting the women to do it for them. Well, us guys are very much a disfavored demographic among certain political spheres, but okay, we take your point. It's unrealistic for us to expect women to lobby for us. But we'd be happy if women would just quit lobbying against us. The feminist establishment is all out in support of things like VAWA that basically presume that all problems in hetero relationships are caused by men, and assign legal favor and disfavor accordingly. We'd be happy if feminists would stop fighting against the application of due process to TRO, custody, and paternity hearings. We'd be happy if feminists would stop supporting preferential admission for women at universities where the student body is already 60% women. We'd be happy if feminists would admit that current elementary school methods do not work well for teaching boys. We'd be happy if feminists would stop saying that false rape accusations never occur, and if they'd stop spreading myths like Super Bowl Sunday, and if they'd stop promoting things like the Duluth Model. And we'd be happy if they'd stop being threatened by men who prefer to look abroad for wives (I'm talking about that ridiculously unconstitutional monster called IMBRA).
But they've made it very, very clear that they aren't going to stop. In fact, they're going to double down, every chance they get. And since they have access to our tax money, there's no way we're ever going to beat them. It' just not going to happen. The tipping point has already been passed; the snowball is rolling down the hill and there's no way to stop it. Remember this the next time you hear a woman ask, "Where have all the good men gone?"
Cousin Dave at November 3, 2009 1:00 PM
Cousin Dave,
Nice post!
Where are all the good men? Well, good men look to do good things for women who need, and thus appreciate, them. But today, women need men like fish need bicycles. Appreciation? You have GOT to be kidding. Animosity is more like it. So ... there it is. Where does that leave good women? Out of luck. Sorry. Think of it as "collateral damage."
Remember, since feminism took over it is women getting steadily unhappier, and men getting happier, despite all of the injustice and prejudice men face. It is just so GOOD to be able to expect all the sex you want from women with NO corresponding obligation. A "Woman's Nation?" We are a nation of sluts who can be expected to pay, and then go, their own way. "Cougar Town" indeed. NIIIIIICE!
And women think THEY were liberated! Gullible fools, still slurping the "empowerment" Kool Aid.
Jay R at November 3, 2009 1:44 PM
Dave and Jay R, I totally and completely appreciate my man. He is the best lover and friend I have ever had. He doesn't expect me to do anything for him - he loves me enough that I WANT to do everything for him. And I do.
When I hear men complain, I wonder, "What is he not giving her?" because most women would be extremely happy if treated the way I am - free to see my girlfriends whenever I want, respected for my intelligence, and loved unconditionally. If you GIVE that, most women would be deliriously happy to be with you.
lovelysoul at November 3, 2009 5:08 PM
it may be true for most women, lovelysoul... but you are only married to one at any given time. If it doesn't matter to her how much you do, you ended up with the one that is not most. Two things go with that. One is, how often do you expect to hear peaople actually complain about situations they are happy with? It self-selects that when somebody complains they are unhappy. Also... strange and odd as it may semm, there are people out there who liek you and respect you less, the nicer you are to them. End up being a downward spiral where the more you try the more they hate you...
SwissArmyD at November 3, 2009 8:17 PM
"Also... strange and odd as it may semm, there are people out there who liek you and respect you less, the nicer you are to them. End up being a downward spiral where the more you try the more they hate you..."
Actually. Swiss, that is not strange to me at all. As a landlord, I've found that to be very true - the more I've tried to help people out, excuse their rent, etc, the more it seems they find reasons to hate me. It's like they're embarrassed that they need my help, so the more intent they are to criticize me. In the end, they usually screw me over, and justifying it as being my fault. It's almost like the more I help them, the more they'll screw me over...like they lose respect for me for helping them.
lovelysoul at November 3, 2009 8:30 PM
"If the wife doesn't feel like working, she doesn't have to. If she does want to work, and just dump the children in day care all day, there is nothing the husband can do about it. And there are many ways in which she can keep her own assets apart from the joint assets. For example, in my state, a husband in a marriage cannot purchase real estate without granting his wife co-title, but his wife *can* buy real estate in her name only. In the event of divorce, the wife's real estate holdings are not considered joint assets and the family court can't touch them. She can, legally, walk away with millions of her own holdings while also taking half of everything her husband has."
That is very unfair. I don't believe that's true in my state, but your post was quite brilliant, Dave. You succinctly described several decades of marital circumstances without exaggeration or self-pity. I just want to commend you for that.
lovelysoul at November 4, 2009 1:41 AM
The old divorce saying: I want to divorce him but I want to stay married to his money.
David M. at November 4, 2009 4:44 AM
"When I hear men complain, I wonder, "What is he not giving her?" because most women would be extremely happy if treated the way I am"
I mean no offense Lovelysoul, you have stated that you appreciate your man and in our prior conversation you have showed yourself to be very intelligent, but this position could be taken by some to be the root of the issue. It may just be me, but it doesn't seem very far off of "What did HE do to piss HER off."
Us men and women are the same in the respect that we control our behavior and therefore choose it as such. Some women can be battle axes right from the jump, or change into one when they realize there is no social stigma or repercussions to face. With all the things that Cousin Dave has stated, why would a women choose otherwise. I know some guys can be jackasses, but after a while when one pays attention, it's plain to see that not all women are angels until crossed by a man.
Swiss had stated that this woman in the article had questionable ethics for coming back and asking for money much later in life. I wonder, was this woman always like this, or did she simply take advantage of an avenue which is available to her now after a series of bad choices later in her life?
I think it takes a very strong womat in North America not to take advantage of the system in the manner which Cousin Dave stated, and for some men who are aware of this situation, they are simply waiting for the other shoe to drop, hoping that their wives don't turn into these shrews.
Amax at November 4, 2009 5:24 AM
If the wife doesn't feel like working, she doesn't have to. If she does want to work, and just dump the children in day care all day, there is nothing the husband can do about it.
But the reverse is also true. I am consistently hearing two messages in this blog post...one I agree with, one I don't.
Women and men need to be treated equally in divorce settlements, and alimony is an idea that is past it's usefulness.
I agree with this idea and frankly don't see much of a point in alimony in most circumstances. There are some very rare situations where alimony is appropriate (a monied spouse deciding to leave a very ill spouse incapable of work is the first example that comes to mind) but if both parties can work at the time of divorce, both parties should be responsible for their own destiny and financial well being.
The second message that I keep hearing is exampled in the quote above. Much that the men are complaining about here is a matter of control. Just about every man here who is up at arms about this blog post keeps talking about how a man can no longer force a woman to provide sex, provide children, get a job, stay home, etc. These are complaints about men no longer having control over women! Marriage should never be about control...relationships are about compromise and building a life together. If you truly long for days when men had control over things...I can see how this new world frustrates you. It astounds me to repeatedly hear,
"I can't force women do to what I want anymore, so what good are they?".
If that is your view of relationships, I'm rather glad that I am not with you.
This isn't a 'Men are being taken to the cleaners by women' issue, this is a 'The spouse with more money has to pay the spouse with less money' issue. My husband stays at home and I work. I know that if we get a divorce my husband will not only get half of our assets, but he will likely get alimony for at least awhile if not forever. The idea of it doesn't fill my heart with glee, but that is the cost of having one spouse at home, and no one today can honestly say that they are surprised by that fact.
If a woman (or man)lies to you to get you to marry, you can sue for an annulment and walk away free and clear. I understand that in some circumstances people change into something evil over a period of years during a marriage, but most of the time when a spouse turns out to be something that you detest it is because you didn't look closely enough before you made things legal. It sucks, we all make mistakes, and we need to make laws that are as equal to both sexes as possible. However, if you fucked up, you need to suck it up and take your lumps and try to learn from it for the next time.
(Holy cow, I'm starting to sound like Crid!)
-Julie
JulieW at November 4, 2009 10:04 AM
"These are complaints about men no longer having control over women! Marriage should never be about control...relationships are about compromise and building a life together. If you truly long for days when men had control over things..."
Actually, it's more as if men have no control over whether or not a woman decides to stop comprimising, then men have no say and get raked over the coals as a result. Sure I've come across some jackasses who have treated their spouses badly and therefore she decides to 'take a stand' so to speak, but I have also come across quite a few guys who where decent who went through a 'closing up shop' sort of deal, no matter what they did or do to try and fix it.
The point the guys are trying to make is that there is apparently little or no real impetus for a woman in North America to continue comprimsing with a man if she choses not too for whatever reason. I don't think the guys want a puppet, but someone who wants to comprimise as much as they.
Amax at November 4, 2009 10:25 AM
Julie -
Let's try it this way:
"Men are being taken to the cleaners by women"
and
"Alimony is outdated"
are covert ways of talking about women's continuing ability to force men to "provide" - which can often include forcing them to work, curtailing their life choices, and even imprisonment.
That is why men are talking about how male coercive power no longer exists... not because they want to go back to that, but because coercive power is still being wielded in modern relationships.
Ben-David at November 4, 2009 10:32 AM
Amax, I really don't know how this woman was able to come back after 25 years and receive alimony. That is highly unusual and goes beyond just taking advantage of the system.
I received a lump sum/property settlement and specifically had to waive the right to alimony, and my ex also did. We each waived the right to ask for more money from each other in the future. That's a pretty standard part of any settlement agreement, or at least it is now.
Perhaps that clause was missing from their agreement, but even so, it doesn't seem possible that a judge would grant her alimony after 25 years. Either there's something missing from this story - as in some financial consideration that wasn't fulfilled previously - or that judge should be removed from the bench.
As my divorce attorney explained to me, the rule is that if the amount of cash and/or property you receive is substantial enough to cover your living expenses, you're not entitled to receive alimony. It's usually an either/or situation. You don't get both.
lovelysoul at November 4, 2009 10:46 AM
are covert ways of talking about women's continuing ability to force men to "provide"
And we are on the same page on this. No healthy adult should be allowed to avoid working for their keep...and unhealthy ones need to find a way to work around their illnesses. One of the best programmers I ever worked with was a quadriplegic. Very few people have an appropriate excuse to avoid earning their own living.
That is why men are talking about how male coercive power no longer exists... not because they want to go back to that, but because coercive power is still being wielded in modern relationships.
Thank you for the clarification and the even handed verbiage.
The point the guys are trying to make is that there is apparently little or no real impetus for a woman in North America to continue comprimsing with a man if she choses not too for whatever reason.
I don't think that there is any motivation for anyone to compromise unless they really want to. If I wanted to, I could quit my job today and go home and inform my husband that I'm not working anymore. If he wanted to he could inform me that he is no longer going to keep the house. Short of pitching a fit and screaming and yelling neither of us could do a single thing to force the other to change their mind.
This ability to avoid responsibility only becomes coercive when someone chooses (or is forced) to enable the behavior. As an example...If I quit my job and tell my husband that I am no longer going to work, he can choose to allow that to force him to redouble his efforts, or he can tell me that I better get off my ass or we are loosing the house! If he suddenly decided that he was no longer going to do the laundry, I could do my own and allow him to live in nasty stinky underwear until he changed his mind. This isn't about being shitty...it is about allowing people to feel the consequences of their actions. The divorce laws need to be repealed until that is allowed to happen.
-Julie
JulieW at November 4, 2009 11:13 AM
"Just about every man here who is up at arms about this blog post keeps talking about how a man can no longer force a woman to provide sex, provide children, get a job, stay home, etc." JulieW
mmmm, I think if you go through and re-read you might see something different. It's not a matter of force, but expectation. If it was decided she would be a SAHM, then you don't figure you are going to get home at night to find that there aren't even leftovers. Here or there, depending on schedules and whatnot, who cares? But after a year... you figure you are on your own. Start noticing that your clothes are mysteriously separated out of the laundry? Eventually you are going to come home to discover your key doesn't unloock the door anymore.
No force, no coercion. It's just that your partner seems much happier when you are not around... and eventually can take action to make sure it stays that way.
SwissArmyD at November 4, 2009 1:51 PM
"mmmm, I think if you go through and re-read you might see something different. It's not a matter of force, but expectation."
Thank you SwissArmyD, this was what I had wanted to say but you did it much better. Take force out and expectation in and you will now see what so many men are up in arms about. Granted, laws and policies will have to change in order to effect some of these changes.
Amax at November 4, 2009 2:23 PM
JulieW writes: "Just about every man here who is up at arms about this blog post keeps talking about how a man can no longer force a woman to provide sex, provide children, get a job, stay home, etc. These are complaints about men no longer having control over women! "
First of all, thanks for keeping a level head on this topic, and I'm not saying that to be sarcastic. As for your question: Is it about control? Well, it's about what each person is bringing to the relationship, and about what privileges and responsibilities they have. And yes, let's be frank: in the past, the main privilege that the husband gained in the marriage bargain was that control. And the main responsibility that the wife assumed in the marriage, as part of her half of the bargain, was that she would submit to that level of control and perform the jobs of the traditional wife role, more or less.
So we've decided, for absolutely valid civil rights reasons, that we can't let that happen anymore. That's the way it should be and should have always been, and I make no argument the other way. However, I am pointing out that with that gone, the marriage bargain is now, from a legal and social standpoint, very one-sided. There is absolutely no legal or social pressure for the wife to fulfill the responsibilities of the marriage bargain. If she decides she doesn't want to, then no one can (legally) compel her to. In fact, there isn't even a consistent legal or social definition of what the wife's responsibilities in marriage actually are any more.
But, on the other hand... "If he wanted to he could inform me that he is no longer going to keep the house. Short of pitching a fit and screaming and yelling neither of us could do a single thing to force the other to change their mind." Not true at all, in your case. You can charge him with DV and molestation, get a TRO, and get him thrown out of the house with nothing but the clothes on his back. You can sue for temporary support and compel him to make the mortgage payments on the house that he is not permitted to enter. You can blackmail him with the threat of never seeing his children again, perfectly legally. You can sue for divorce, get the house, half of all the other assets, primary custody, and years of support payments.
And if he is unable to pay the amount ordered? You can get his ass thrown in jail! You can, using the power of the state, compel him to labor so you can enjoy the fruits of his labor. He can't control your body, but you can control his!. The family courts are fully in favor of the concept of indentured servitude when it comes to child and spouse support. If he doesn't earn and share with you the amount that you think you deserve, you can take away his freedoms and any hope he might have of ever having companionship or a family again.
Now, JulieW, you sound like a pretty level-headed person, and so you may be horrified by having read what you've just read. Are these cases extreme outliers? As Glenn Sacks continues to document, not at all. Thousands of men are currently in debtor's prison in the U.S. for not paying support, and in most of these cases, it's because they simply do not have the ability to earn the amount that the court has ordered them to pay. And once they miss a few payments, the state starts accruing arrears, with interest, against their account even while they are in jail and unable to earn an income. After a couple of years in jail, they accumulate an amount of debt that they can never hope to repay in their lifetimes. It's like sharecropping all over again.
I'll leave you with one other anecdote, with the full realization that the plural of anecdote is not data. Anyway: a relative of mine married a woman who seemed to be a good catch, some years ago. She came from a fairly to-do family and seemed to be a good catch. Problem: she was a paranoid schizophrenic, and her family had been engaged in a massive operation to cover up her condition and convince him to marry her so they could be rid of her. A few weeks after the wedding, she decided she had him trapped and she didn't need to take her meds anymore. I'll skip the details, but it took six months for him to divorce her, and he was lucky to have survived it. Even though the real duration of the marriage was only a month, she still took him for his house and half of his bank accounts. And BTW, he checked on the possibility of annulment. In our state, the only cause for which the court will entertain an annulment petition is bigamy, and his lawyer told him most other states these days are the same.
Cousin Dave at November 4, 2009 2:33 PM
It's not a matter of force, but expectation. If it was decided she would be a SAHM, then you don't figure you are going to get home at night to find that there aren't even leftovers. Here or there, depending on schedules and whatnot, who cares? But after a year... you figure you are on your own. Start noticing that your clothes are mysteriously separated out of the laundry? Eventually you are going to come home to discover your key doesn't unloock the door anymore.
But I wonder about tolerating that type of behavior from someone who (in theory) loves you and wants to take care of you. I'm not talking about becoming adversarial at every opportunity, but as you've mentioned, you are talking about a consistent pattern. When a pattern of behavior starts to emerge with my husband that bugs the heck out of me I will sit him down during a quiet moment and start a conversation something like this,
"I noticed that you "insert behavior that makes me want to poke out my eyes" and have been for awhile. Before I get all wound up and blow this out of proportion, I would rather talk with you about it and find out what is going on."
Typically I will get an intelligent reasoned response and we have a conversation. But I have an intelligent reasonable husband...so that helps.
My point is that I wonder (on both sides) if some of the feeling of powerlessness in relationships is perception rather than reality and that if when things started, if people stood up for themselves a bit more if some of these relationships could be saved or could be happy for longer, or if nothing else people could see that they needed to get out sooner.
-Julie
JulieW at November 4, 2009 2:36 PM
"No force, no coercion. It's just that your partner seems much happier when you are not around... and eventually can take action to make sure it stays that way."
That seems to be the time to take action to find out WHY your partner isn't happier being WITH you.
I don't think many women really prefer to be home alone or without a partner. There are reasons people grow apart - often ones that can be fixed if addressed early enough - but what stands out for me is the way this situation is described as being almost inevitable, like the husband has no responsibility for the condition of the marriage. He just comes home to find his key doesn't fit the lock, or his laundry separated, and he has no idea why?
This sort of estrangement may be unavoidable in certain cases, or with some very self-absorbed partners, but I think it can be prevented a lot of the time if couples make an effort to really communicate and find out what makes the other happy.
And expectations may need to be shifted. Yes, marriage is a contract, but that doesn't mean the duties have to stay the same forever, especially if one partner is growing increasingly unhappy. It's more important to stay close and emotionally connected than to adhere to strict guidelines or enforce obligations. Although it takes work, marriage shouldn't feel like a job.
lovelysoul at November 4, 2009 2:44 PM
"My point is that I wonder (on both sides) if some of the feeling of powerlessness in relationships is perception rather than reality and that if when things started, if people stood up for themselves a bit more if some of these relationships could be saved or could be happy for longer, or if nothing else people could see that they needed to get out sooner"
And you are correct, if things where equal, this is exactly what most people would do, or should do. However, there seems to be some sort of societal movement where we have one party who doesn't have to adhere to this pattern or process if they choose not to.
Think about what men lose if they leave, and the whole idea about this situation, what happens when they get left. Yes we have to choose wisely when it comes to picking our mates, but with the courts and society by and large siding with women, the man can lose quite a bit for simply getting married, hence why we have warnings from some saying not to.
"That seems to be the time to take action to find out WHY your partner isn't happier being WITH you."
I completely agree that anyone in a LTR should be thinking this way, HOWEVER, it is also up to someone to let their partner know what their issues are. I may not win much respect for this, but when I hear about a guy who never took care of his wife, I have little sympathy, if he treated her badly, I hope the courts rip him a new asshole.
I really get riled when good men get screwed, and it happens far too often these days. There are quite a few good women on this site who get it, kudos to you, however, how can you tell the good ones from the bad? The ones who CHOOSE not to use the system for their own gain, it's there anytime they want to, what makes them not want to. Don't tell me good treatment because I know of many men who treated their wives like gold and have gotten shafted, HARD. One of them dated for quite a while too.
In the end it's a gamble, you do the best you can with what you know, and you do the research, (dating, checking out the parents, all of that) and then hope that you picked right. Choosing well is simply increasing your odds, but it doesn't elminate the chance that you may end up at the bottom of the barrel.
Amax at November 4, 2009 3:21 PM
JulieW and LS, I get what you are saying, but think about how it looks in retrospect. There are clear times you can prolly point to in your life where you say "coulda, woulda, shoulda." But when you were there, in those moments, was it that clear to you? Every day, you wake up and think that day will be a bit better. Heck you're young, you've been told that this marriage thing has to be worked at, and so forth, so you work at it.
I'm not talking about a situation where BAD things are happening. Maybe you've even gone in for counselling. I did. And I finally dragged my wife with me, her crying all the way. I was rewarded with even less cooperation for months afterward, because of the embarassment. I'm talking about a deadening situation where your partner no longer cares. Possibly hasn't in a long time.
You can imagine the potential downsides of nuking the situation, from a guy's perspective. He can lose a LOT. For a situation that isn't really bad, but kind of a mooching room-mate. Is it worthwhile to pick fights? How're you going to MAKE them do anything?
The point has been made about perception, and how you mightn't be as powerless as you think. The thing is, when you wake up that giant you can't really tell how large it is.
Let's talk about the mooching mate. Let's say it's the guy who is a deadender and doesn't ever work. What's the downside to kickin' his butt out of the house? He's not contributing. Not a whole lot of downside. Let's say it's the woman who is the deadender. Can you kick her out of the house? Are you going to get custody of the kids? Are you going to get to keep the house? It's ALL downside for you. The odds of having to pay her alimony are quite high. the odds of having to pay her lawyer, and such are quite high. The odds of you paying a lot of childsupport are quite high... after all you are the one with the job.
Basically the only upside is not having to deal with her anymore. The immeasurable downside is not seeing your kids much anymore. The money is just money, not seeing the kids? that'll rip your lungs out.
Unfortunately we are talking about failures in a thread like this. The Try harder to figure out what she wants, try to help him when he needs it, you two are a unit, right? That talk IS good for things that havent imploded yet. Marry WELL. It's a great thing to keep in mind before you do it.
It's after you've gone to he11 that we are talking about now, and how the situation is made worse by everyone's reaction to it, including the legal one.
SwissArmyD at November 4, 2009 4:44 PM
Swiss, I'm sorry you went through that. I certainly can't claim to have married well the first time either. I've learned a lot and hope I'll do better from now on. Too bad there's not some formula, or list of warning signs we can heed. There kind of is, but it takes years of experience to learn them.
We tend to only deal with the terrible breakups here, but I know many men who have been treated very well in divorces. My boyfriend's ex, for instance, treated him fairly, as he did her. He helped her find a new place to live and gave her what money he could to start over - even helped her move - and, in exchange, she let him keep the house, which he had invested much more in than she, but, by law, she probably could've taken it, or at least fought him for months. Yet, they handled things maturely, amicably, and without lawyers.
Of course, it helps that there were no kids, but somehow, I suspect it would've been the same. The thing about choosing wisely and marrying well is that it's even easier when the relationship doesn't work out. Most issues can be resolved fairly between people of good character. Besides love, that is perhaps the most important thing to look for.
People ignore those little signs all the time. If someone's willing to "cheat" a little here or there, steal from their employers, betray the confidence of friends, or lie smoothly when it benefits them, we should know it's only a matter of time before that behavior is used against us. Yet, we tend to just observe and excuse it when we're "in love".
Hindsight is always 20/20, and I bet many of those here who have endured the worst breakups and been "taken to the cleaners" can see, in retrospect, that there were glaring character flaws in those partners from the beginning.
lovelysoul at November 4, 2009 5:30 PM
"Let's talk about the mooching mate. Let's say it's the guy who is a deadender and doesn't ever work. What's the downside to kickin' his butt out of the house? He's not contributing. Not a whole lot of downside. Let's say it's the woman who is the deadender. Can you kick her out of the house? Are you going to get custody of the kids? Are you going to get to keep the house? It's ALL downside for you. The odds of having to pay her alimony are quite high. the odds of having to pay her lawyer, and such are quite high. The odds of you paying a lot of childsupport are quite high... after all you are the one with the job."
Once again Swiss, you put this better than I ever could. This is what I was alluding too. If the guy is the deadender, rip him a new @$$hole for sure, if you can. I may not win a popularity contest for this opinion but this is what I think. Some do work some sort of job and simply don't get it. But if as Swiss stated, if the woman is the deadender, what then? You get treated as if you failed, even if you didn't.
I know you ladies mentioned that society has to change, and it does indeed have to, I completely agree with you. In the meantime however, men 'in the know' have to gauge the risk vs reward. I do know women have to as well, both genders do, but even the 'good man' can lose his shirt if the woman he choses decides he isn' worth it and decides to 'trade up'.
You ladies are straight up and have decided to do the best you can for your respective marriages, not every woman is like that sadly, and decide to take advantage of some of the 'benefits' society will allow them. If a woman decides to divorce, obviously her mate was a failure, no matter if he was one or not.
If you have a dude who wants to make things work and do whatever they can to fulfill their wives needs, his wife is under no obligation to fulfill her role unless by her own choice. If she changes her mind, for whatever reason, everyone involved gets the shaft.
Not saying that there aren't guys who would also take these advantages if there where available, I bet money that there where in the past. As of right now, they aren't yet LTR's are threatened still.
Amax at November 4, 2009 5:48 PM
This thread is like the energizer bunny- keeps going and going. But I think by now the trolls are gone, so it's an adult conversation.
All's fair in love and war
Therein lies the problem. The woman has the ace in the hole of screwing the guy over, even if she chooses not to use it.
But you get love, sex, jealousy, money, betrayal, and kids into the mix, along with petty day to day stuff like toilet seats and dirty laundry/dishes, and you have all the ingredients for a shit sandwich. Which the guy usually eats.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" should also include "or who just gets bored of the whole relationship".
And it's also true that guys will pull this crap too (take advantage of the law). Tom Arnold is a good example. I saw several examples at Microsoft when the guy took half the stock options and left the working gal.
And can you imagine the shit storm in a few years when gay marriage is legal?
Good discussion here, thanks for hosting Amy.
sterling at November 4, 2009 6:49 PM
Yes, good discussion. If I could make just one change to family law, it would be this: I would make no-fault divorce available only if both parties consent. If one spouse says no, then no divorce, unless fault can be demonstrated.
Cousin Dave at November 4, 2009 7:25 PM
Cousin Dave, I understand the sentiment, and I agree divorce should be made more difficult, perhaps with counseling mandated beforehand. But often it isn't a "fault" - one party maybe simply lose all respect for the other, for good reason -maybe they're lazy, or selfish, or uncaring. Love can't exist without respect - but these are not easily proveable "faults."
Even in cases of cheating, which would be a fault, it's very hard to prove, trust me. Unless you have a camera crew, like on the TV show "Cheaters", or a PI following your spouse around and catching them in the act, it's nearly impossible if someone wants to lie. Even if the infidelity has already been confessed, you better have it on tape, because once in court, the cheater will say, "We're just friends!" or "My partner is jealous and paranoid - there's nothing going on."
Cheaters don't necessarily want to divorce, especially if it will cost them for being at fault. So, it really puts an undue burden on the other spouse to prove fault.
Not to mention how this sort of he-said/she-said battle prolongues the agony for everyone, especially the children. That's why courts moved to no fault divorces. It's just too hard to determine what's going on, since each partner will tell a different story.
lovelysoul at November 5, 2009 6:49 AM
And you are correct, if things where equal, this is exactly what most people would do, or should do. However, there seems to be some sort of societal movement where we have one party who doesn't have to adhere to this pattern or process if they choose not to.
My point is that neither party is forced to adhere to this if they don't choose. My husband cannot force me to go to work in the morning and I cannot force him to wash the dishes. However, we do it out of mutual respect. Once that respect is gone, that is the end of the relationship, not the legal crap that comes afterwards.
I really get riled when good men get screwed, and it happens far too often these days. There are quite a few good women on this site who get it, kudos to you, however, how can you tell the good ones from the bad? The ones who CHOOSE not to use the system for their own gain, it's there anytime they want to, what makes them not want to. Don't tell me good treatment because I know of many men who treated their wives like gold and have gotten shafted, HARD. One of them dated for quite a while too.
And I agree that we should quit rewarding ending marriages with financial sodomy. However, it isn't men who are getting the finacial shaft, it is the more monied spouse. The fact that it is typically the man is a conversation for another day. :-)
What's the downside to kickin' his butt out of the house? He's not contributing. Not a whole lot of downside.
From a financial perspective, the downsides are the same. If I kicked my husband out he would get half of everything plus alimony...I bet my bippy. Not that it is a great example, but look at Brittany Spears and K-fed. Can you honestly say that there was no downside for her kicking that oily greaseball to the curb? Or Madonna and Guy Richie. You can't say he was poor, but he got MILLIONS of dollars that he didn't earn.
Yes, good discussion. If I could make just one change to family law, it would be this: I would make no-fault divorce available only if both parties consent. If one spouse says no, then no divorce, unless fault can be demonstrated.
I disagree. Why would you want to stay married to someone who really doesn't want you? I say remove the financial incentive. Split the assets equitably (notice I didn't say equally) and let you go your own way, but know that you cannot use the legal system to fuck over your spouse financially. Require all claims of abuse be proven in a criminal court before they are considered in family court. Make shared custody the starting point, allowing both parents to be parents. If women want equal rights, they should have equal rights.
-Julie
JulieW at November 5, 2009 8:12 AM
"And I agree that we should quit rewarding ending marriages with financial sodomy. However, it isn't men who are getting the finacial shaft, it is the more monied spouse. The fact that it is typically the man is a conversation for another day."
Actually, I more or less agree with this -- whichever spouse can be cast into the role of "provider", in the court's eyes, is the one who's going to get the broomstick.
"but know that you cannot use the legal system to fuck over your spouse financially."
That's where I'm trying to go with eliminating the non-consensual no-fault divorce. There could be better approaches; as you say, if standards of evidence are applied to abuse charges and TROs, part of the problem disappears. What I'm trying to figure out how to get rid of is the situation where the party who files first gains legal leverage, especially if he/she knows how to play the game. What I want is to give the other party some negotiating leverage; an ability to say, "if you want out of this marriage, you are going to have to compromise with me." As things stand, the party who files first it's the non-providing spouse, can pretty much dictate the terms.
As I've said previously, we're about to enter an age where the wife will be the provider spouse in the majority of marriages. It's in women's interest to get these issues rectified now, before the pendulum swings the other way.
Cousin Dave at November 5, 2009 12:32 PM
What I'm trying to figure out how to get rid of is the situation where the party who files first gains legal leverage, especially if he/she knows how to play the game. What I want is to give the other party some negotiating leverage; an ability to say, "if you want out of this marriage, you are going to have to compromise with me." As things stand, the party who files first it's the non-providing spouse, can pretty much dictate the terms.
I see your point. I also see how requiring two signatures can force some level of negotiation between the two parties. I have concern about the spouse who would drag the divorce on for years as a filibuster to keep the other spouse from moving on. Balancing those two interests is difficult.
The real difficult part of this is finding a solution that doesn't require an additional level of governmental intervention. We could come up with the best solution ever, but if it requires governmental management, they will screw it up.
-Julie
JulieW at November 6, 2009 8:08 AM
Leave a comment