So lifetime alimony seems pretty stupid. I don't see how a judge can look at a guy who is making $90,000 a year and expect him to pay... $90,000 a year in alimony to someone. It doesn't make a shred of sense.
That aside, it's not really important who is receiving alimony, it's a dumb law, nobody should receive alimony, man or woman.
Walmart, Target, most grocery and general goods stores actually. Even the butcher shop where I work employs a couple 65-75 year olds just for wrapping and packaging meat.
I'm not saying bashing all females is right, or that this situation is never reversed. What I, and other people in this thread are saying is it is generally the woman who takes the cake in the majority of these alimony situations, which is proven, if by nothing else than the fact that women on average throughout the entire workforce take home less money than men (not paycheck by paycheck for the same job mind you, just gross income overall over all jobs, men work higher paying jobs on average). This means that more often than not, a man is going to be the target to be paying alimony, not receiving it. This isn't even getting into blatant child custody issues, but that's really for a different thread.
PS: I found it funny that in that article it mainly used personal experience as content, as well as the statement that the amount of women in law classes have doubled, which by his numbers mean a jump from ~6 per 135 to ~12 per 135, or still less than 10%.
Last edited by Goatfish; 2012-12-08 at 07:55 PM.
Case here too is the exact same. It's cherrypicking incidents from personal experience to make your case stronger. It's flawed, insanely so, when you're discussing a topic as big as this. But fine, go ahead and continue jerking to the text of "My nephews friends father got totally shafted by the system after a divorce" if you want.
I'm aware that I am abrasive. But saying you don't care about statistics or scientific studies, doesn't really refute my arguments, not here or really anywhere else. The only way to truly judge a large scale system is through scientific studies, not anecdotal evidence. I mean, I have mine too:
---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 07:56 PM ----------
I never made any claims as to how many woman are paying because I don't know. But the point is woman are paying, and more often now, so the pretense that it's always men is as equally silly as the purported pretension that all women are materially harmed by marriage.
@ semaphore - your raging feminism is showing. I don't deny that over the last few years men have start to play this crutch card on their successful spouses. All I am saying is we got a long way to go to catch up to how many women built there lives around this welfar.. opps i mean alimony. And you bringing up this handful of men in comparison to the years and years this was only done by women, is all a feminist's arguements always end up being, worthless, angry drivil that points to anomolies in statistics.
Last edited by slime; 2012-12-08 at 08:10 PM.
Regardless of how necessary or not alimony is, whether or not the system favors men or women, whether or not power is being abused, and whatever else is being discussed in this thread, this specific case is simply ridiculous. I don't know how they expected someone to pay more than they make a year to their divorced spouse, on top of child support, legal fees, and their own cost of living. Certainly the judge must have seen this coming.
Get fucked. The situation is getting better, and for some particular men it will feel like it is getting worse, but never, not ever, should we use the argument "We suffered, why can't you?" in this argument, or in any argument actually. Being a vindictive cunt isn't a good mindset.
It's one thing to say things should be completely balanced between the genders. I absolutely agree with that.The current trend means shit to me until stuff evens out.
However it's another to try to "even" things out across time, with men getting compensated in the future for perceived past excesses by women in the "last 70 years". I'll suggest to you that it is neither a practical nor a reasonable path to go down, and especially not a smart move to argue from a male perspective.
Alimony should be based on a % of what you make, its very unfair to make people pay for someone who does nothing, but this is america.
If you want to demand everybody else prove everything they say with studies and statistics, you had better be prepared to do the same. So far you have not been able to.
The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...
Last edited by Dch48; 2012-12-08 at 09:30 PM.
From what I understood the "check" is and should be for the kid welfare. And call me crazy but I do think that should be regulated as it should be calculated based on that parent earning and a minimum of how much does a kid need to be taken care of. Just like there is a minum wage there should be a minim alimoney so that any child can live decent and on top of that it's depending on the parent sallary. Case closed. If by any chance the alimony is more then what the parent earns then the system is flawd.