Is alimony just a sexual market value clawback for older women?

[MatureDJ]

I was listening to some of Tom Leykis program segments @ YouTube, and in one he made the comment that basically alimony is nothing more than the state doing a clawback for an older woman, since going forward her sexual market value is low, whereas it was higher when she was married (i.e., because she was young or in the state of having not had a disfiguring pregnancy, etc.) IOW, her husband got her good years and because going forward she will have a lot of difficulty finding a replacement husband to support her.

Of course, the alimony statutes are not written with this, but rather in innocuous language of "keeping the divorced spouse to the accustomed standard of living". And as well, it goes both ways, for the rare instance in which a wife outearns her husband - but such women seem affronted that they have to pay alimony as presumably their husband's sexual market value has not decreased.

However, even feminists can't play this card:

"We can't assert rights for women and say that men aren't entitled to the same rights," says the famous feminist lawyer, Gloria Allred.

I remember Joan Lunden, who was a morning show host with an income in the 7 figures, being apoplectic that her husband got alimony

"Why the courts don't tell a husband, who has been living off his wife, to go out and get a job is beyond my comprehension"

and there is also

As a Hollywood actor, John David Castellanos is protective of his image. He stays in phenomenal shape and looks much younger than his 50 years.

But he admits to a fact that might be considered unflattering: He receives alimony from his former wife. To be exact, $9,000 a month.

<snip>

"I feel financially raped," says Rhonda Friedman, the former wife of Mr. Castellanos.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB120700651883978623

:crazy: :crackup:

Of course these days, child support is so high that it essentially takes the place of alimony, for working class folks at least.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Everybody gets whatever they can, by any means they can, supported by any argument that sounds plausible.

When they can't, or when somebody gets something from THEM, they scream bloody murder.

There really is no logic. It all started when the first single celled organisms thought to themselves "Hey, I'm gonna get some of those resources over there so I can reproduce! FUCK those other guys!"

After that it was GAME ON for life on earth...

Very FEW living humans today are "adult" enough to choose to NOT play that game.

 

[Mike32ct]

Tell your employer that they have to keep paying you after you are laid off or fired because you are "used to a certain standard of living."

 

[Scormus]

Love her, have children with her, live with her but never sign the death contract known as marriage in the West

 

[Don_Dom]

My understanding is that alimony is a carryover from pre-feminism, the 60's and before. It was generally accepted that most women would marry and stay home with the kids while the husband supported the family unit. Women could find jobs, but they were generally clerical or service jobs, nursing, retail, etc. intended to be something one did before marriage, or as a 2nd income once the children left the home. With notable exceptions, there really weren't careers for women. On top of that, divorce carried a major stigma with it, especially for women since they, after all, were supposed to be the nurturing homemaker in the partnership and, also, obedient. Men were given a wide berth....As long as they provided for their family, protected it, and he wasn't a blatant alcoholic physical abuser, unable to hold a job, etc. it was, by and large, the woman's responsibility to hold it all together regardless of minor foibles he may have. "Women's intuition," "Behind every great man is a great woman," and all that. A symbiosis that generally worked for 4000 years of human history because it maximized the potential of the family unit by working off of the strengths of each sex, while working together to minimize the weaknesses of each sex.

In short, women needed a husband for both financial support and acceptance as a real woman by polite society. As they went through their life changes, as women do, they had major incentives to stay married. In the 20th century, divorce became available to women who were with men who weren't holding up their end of the bargain. So, alimony made perfect sense. Any woman who got divorced did not do it lightly, took a major social hit (the stigma was so great a king of england was forced to abdicate the throne because he married a divorced woman, for example), and had very little opportunity for employment, much less an actual career. If she was even educated enough for employment at all. Not to mention, when men have every advantage over women in society, home life, etc, it goes to say that there should be an incentive for them to do what's right and keep the family together. A divorced woman was damaged goods, so, you break it, you buy it. Alimony, then, was a good thing.

Fast forward to the 70s and beyond, and the whole thing has been flipped on its head. Women have every opportunity to have a career that men do, have every advantage in the family courts and, with no fault divorce, are free to follow their whims and irrational feelings wherever and to do whatever they want, even commit adultery, and still cash in when they get a divorce. And there is no stigma, ar all. In fact, in most cases women are applauded for "empowering themselves" when they get a divorce allthewhile being bombarded with a you can and SHOULD have it all message by the feminist left and the media. It's absolutely no wonder whatsoever that 75% of divorces are initiated by women. Like most things in the post feminist era, they want to do away with all of the old ways of doing things, except those that worked in their favor. Because women are never at fault and are always the victim, of course.

Ponder, for a moment the state of things: A woman can get married, have her husband support her and their children, change her mind about what she wants, have an affair, file for divorce, take the man's children from him, get alimony on top of child support, AND be applauded by other women and "society" as empowered independent women. That's where we are and it's more than a bit scary.

I agree, in this day and age alimony should be done away with. But as much as I disagree with it, I love seeing women finally get hit with it. Only after enough successful women get screwed over by philandering useless husbands who they have to pay alimony to will it change.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Tell your employer that they have to keep paying you after you are laid off or fired because you are "used to a certain standard of living."

Better yet, tell your parents that you don't want to work and expect them to support your lazy ass indefinitely because you are "accustomed to it".

My understanding is that alimony is a carryover from pre-feminism, the 60's and before. It was generally accepted that most women would marry and stay home with the kids while the husband supported the family unit. Women could find jobs, but they were generally clerical or service jobs, nursing, retail, etc. intended to be something one did before marriage, or as a 2nd income once the children left the home. With notable exceptions, there really weren't careers for women.

The concept of alimony is actually much older than that. It dates back to a time when wives came equipped with dowries. Your payment of alimony was essentially a way of paying back the money that her father had previously "invested" in the marriage. It makes absolutely no sense in the contemporary society.