 |
|
A Case Against Alimony
By Adam H
The intent of this article and/or essay is to persuade you, the reader, that Alimony is an outdated concept, no different from forced slavery in many respects and not necessary in an age of equality. The reason I write this article is that Alimony is a much-neglected issue but a vital one that should not be overlooked. To begin with, I shall prove to you that alimony is forced labour for the benefit of another, and also obligations without rights. For example, were you aware that:
Alimony assessed by courts, on the wife's behalf and taken against a man's wages for his work performed, fits ALL of the criteria of INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, under Title 18, USC., Sec.1584 and PEONAGE, under Title 18, USC., Sec. 1581 Hence: the concept of Alimony is illegal and violates anti-slavery laws in America.
(Were you to make a similar claim in other countries, I have no doubt you would find similar laws to make a case against alimony.)
The International Labour Organization's Forced Labour Convention of 1930 defines forced labour as "all work or service, which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily." Why the gender neutrality? I mean how often does this happen to women?
As you know, alimony is supposed to pay the "marital debt" that women are "owed" he's forced to pay and support a woman who does nothing for him, and if he fails to pay, he risks prison and contempt of court. The only official law remaining in the justice system where imprisonment happens for non-payment of "debt" Except, that this is a "debt" which the man had never started. Last time I checked debitor's prisons were supposed to be outlawed, except if you're a man that's forced to pay alimony and child support. And what of the woman in this? She does nothing for him while he's forced to pay her to do nothing, and as we know there are no laws forcing her to do anything for him. So it is in essence, a forced men to women transfer.
As there's no way for a judge to know what she did around the house, the injustice is huge. For example she could be dropping the kids in full time day care for all the judge knows, and chances are she'd still get alimony. For a woman to claimed she compromised her career because she chose to parent her kids full time is a choice she made and should not have it both ways.
And let's be honest here, Men have no hope in hell of getting alimony off their wife even if they did live up a biological standard that's easier for her to attain in this. Men should not consent to being economically marginalized. Alimony then, is a marriage tax for men only; a subsidy for women only, if you will. In an age of "partnerships" it does not deserve to exist. Otherwise, in the eyes of the law, Men will always be working to economically marginalize themselves by being responsible, in short: Men should not be punished for being responsible.
Of course, some of will you argue that women have a need for alimony, so I'll demolish that argument in several steps:
Firstly, women lost the right to alimony the instant they wanted equality,
Secondly, why do you want to encourage dependency? Alimony undermines the willpower to become self-sufficient and self-reliant, and such a thing is hardly good for a grown adult.
Thirdly, it gives her incentive to break up a marriage; it's unacceptable for any state to provide economic incentives for divorce, and economically marginalize Men in the process.
Moving onto more detailed arguments, a common claim is that women forfeit forgoing a career in favour of staying at home, and raising a family, entitles them to alimony. Were we to flip the coin over to see the other side, I could say that men compromise their parenting relationship by working full time and should be paid by their ex-wife to make up for it, to which I would probably be shouted down with a herd like chorus of "you made a choice, you can't have it both ways" which is my point exactly.
Fred Hayward, in his article "A patriarchy ruled by women?" writes, "A wife's control over her husband's body is so extreme that we invented "alimony." (Alimony is the requirement that a man's body continue to serve the needs of the woman even after their marital contract has officially ended and she no longer has an expectation, let alone a requirement, to lift a finger for him for the rest of her life.)"
Moving on to the ERA (equal rights amendment) that was narrowly defeated, one of the more interesting comments made by main-steam women's advocates is that alimony would have been gotten rid of since it's gender discrimination against men, even women's advocates admit alimony is inherently sexist, how much more justification do you need to get rid of it? After all, if women were forced to pay men after divorce for doing nothing do you seriously think this would still be legal in this day and age? The double standard here is unbelievable. Don't believe me? To quote:
"We can refuse to support an Equal Rights Amendment which would have (1) thrown away protective labour legislation, (2) made it more difficult for a woman to get "alimony" (3) made women eligible for the draft."
Robin Morgan, Going Too Far 1970
In Conclusion:
I remember watching Ally Mcbeal and hearing one woman say she was "riding the alimony pony" with a grin on her face. There you have it, not only is she mocking him for the forced labour she would never do, she's also mocking him for being helpless. Now tell me how many laws force women to support men (here's a hint: none) and now tell me do you seriously want men to always be at a slave like disadvantage? To finish, I would like to say, that if the roles were reversed do you think the nearest woman would stand for it? I doubt it, so why should the nearest man?
(Second Last Note: John Gotti, an infamous crimelord, was taken to court by his wife for not supporting her (In terms of money I imagine) it's against the law to not support your wife, but there are no laws forcing the nearest wife to support their husband....)
(Final Note: Alimony based on the "common law" right of a wife to be supported by her husband, but there is no equal law for a husband to be supported by his wife. What a surprise....)
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you respond to the idea that women have biological clocks that they have no control over? If a woman discovers that her mate is not, after all, suited to her idea of what a good father should be and leaves her marriage accordingly, she then has to search out another candidate for the position of father to her child(ren). Men by virtue of their biology can out wait them. They are completely free to treat any woman frivolously or without "due" respect for their limits on fertility.
I wonder if the problem is not with divorce law, but with marriage law. In as much as marriage is an undertaking or contract if you will, that is disproportionately easy to get into, and hell to get out of - grief causing as opposed to pure extrication. Even life insurance has a 10 day cooling off period in Canada. You can opt out of the contract if you wish within 10 days of signing it.
Also, in Canada, spousal support applies equally to both partners, both in law and in application of that law.
Now, one could argue conversely that imposing spousal support onto a man limits his ability to attract another similar quality mate and erodes the quality of his suitably.
He could also argue that alimony to the first wife is a form of imposed loyalty to her. This imposed loyalty affects the life, welfare, or sense of well being of, or simple loyalty to, a second wife or prospective second wife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great thoughts Don, I might put something like what you've said in my article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>How do you respond to the idea that women have biological clocks that they have no control
>over? If a woman discovers that her mate is not, after all, suited to her idea of what a good
>father should be and leaves her marriage accordingly, she then has to search out another
>candidate for the position of father to her child(ren).
What's wrong with adoption? Why does the kid have to be from herrrrrrrrrrrrr genes to be her kid?
>in Canada, spousal support applies equally to both partners, both in law and in application of
>that law.
It does here too, though men are rarely awarded alimony because the man is usually the primary breadwinner.
>one could argue conversely that imposing spousal support onto a man limits his ability to attract
>another similar quality mate and erodes the quality of his suitably.
But isn't that reducing men to the level of wallets? Isn't it saying that a man has to have gobs of money or he's not a suitable mate?
I am anti-alimony, but I would not argue it that way. I would argue it as a personal responsibility thing. If a wife quits her job to be a SAHM, that's her mistake. It's her own damn fault that she threw her career/job prospects straight down the toilet. If she couldn't afford to pay a nanny and keep working full-time, she shouldn't have had kids. I am sick of people who have kids even though they can't afford them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is your article not mine, and, so, I can't really tell you "why" you should write your article. I can only voice some challenges to what you write that, in my opinion, might stop a reader dead in their tracks. I have, then, assumed that you want people to read what you write.
Not everyone who writes an article actually cares if anyone reads it. Some will write an article to, say, "just" complete an assignment, or simply having a "go" at it, getting the experience of writing, or fulfilling some sense of obligation to contribute to a cause or group, or to express strong feelings as part of healing their wounds - grieving.
When someone reads what you write you will not be there to answer questions. If you sincerely wish your article to be read, then you should try to "write" or "express" yourself in a way that reflects this. Try to anticipate what may confuse or confound someone else "simply" from the way you have constructed it.
Expressing strong feelings or sentiments in an article gives it great dynamics and is a very good way of maintaining reader interest.
What you may want to consider is this : some topics already have an innate (built in) capacity to bring out strong feelings in the reader; in these cases, simply mentioning them (abortion, execution, child abuse, rape) is enough to get people agitated or pissed off, or at least give them a good start to feeling that way. The problem can be that when the reader finally gets to the part where you want to "get them going", motivate them to care about what you say, they are so far gone, that they just go over the top and stop reading, or worse get what you wrote all messed up in their heads.
The choice is yours of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL
I thought I was responding to Adam, when it was Claire's post.
ROFL.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW
That is complex !
"…
But isn't that reducing men to the level of wallets? Isn't it saying that a man has to have gobs of money or he's not a suitable mate?
…
If she couldn't afford to pay a nanny and keep working full-time, she shouldn't have had kids.
…"
I think money just isolates one attribute of the abstraction "suitability". Your complaints above, IMHO, really apply to attributes, either missing or extant, of this abstraction.
To the extent that the abstraction, suitability, can be modeled I maintain that marriage law needs to be redefined with very explicit reference to some legal model that defines the suitability abstraction.
If we sincerely care about the future of the family and children, then we must demonstrate that care by creating models of what we legally define as family.
There may very well be some "primitive" entity that we can all universally agree constitutes family (as it exists through marriage) in its simplest state. Once defined, then any group that has particular extra other values just enhance or augment the primitive. It would be contrived, yes, but it would be something we can begin again to pass onto our children with coherence and do so quite deliberately. Currently marriage law is a civilized war between interest groups. Interest groups by definition cannot create abstractions that reflect reality in its most generally apprehensible state. The most they can do in and of themselves is define an entity in terms of what it isn't
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest groups by definition cannot create abstractions that reflect reality in its most generally apprehensible state. The most they can do in and of themselves is define the primitve entity in terms of what it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it just she who is irresponsible? Why do men diliberately choose a woman who has no career or who want a woman who WILL give up her career to be a SAHM? He has responsibility in this decision as well.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not wholesale for alimony, but there are some situations where it makes sense. If a man marries a women with the deliberate intent that he will support her, and then HE causes the marriage to break up, this is breach of contract. Of course in the world of no-fault divorce, this doesn't pan out.
As one poster said you can't have it both ways. That goes for the man as well. You cannot have a wife and expect her to give up a career/prospects to be a full time SAHM and then expect to get out of the deal with zero costs.
I think men and women should sign pre-nuptial agreements. However in lieu of that I think BOTH parties, not just one, have a responsibility to think through the consequences of their decisions and be prepared. This includes choosing to give up education/career and choosing to marry someone who has substantially less earning potential than you. With out protections for the lesser wage earner can become an indentured servant while married, coerced with the threat of no support and few financial prospects if he/she leaves regardless of the conduct of the other partner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorriane, if a man who agreed to financially support a woman in marriage is the cause of the divorce, by your logic(if I understand you correctly), he should be responsible for continuing to do so after marriage. I imagine that in many cases such as that the woman married her husband with the intention of being a SAHM and taking care of the domestic duties. That is then HER marital responsibility. If she initiates the divorce, should she then be required, by law, to stop by every week or so to do his housework while he financially supports her? I don't think she should. But then again, I don't think he should be financially responsible for her either. Were discussing adults here, not children. The arrangement within the marriage, in my opinion, cannot and should not continue beyond it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a marriage is dissolved, it is dissolved. Neither party should have any responsibility for the other. Women these days, especially, have a wide-open range of choices by which they may support themselves. It is unreasonable for anyone to be financially enslaved by another simply because they were, at one time in their lives, together.
If women are not bound to the same agreements after a divorce, why should men be? If I'm going to keep supporting a woman after I've divorced her, as bledso said, shouldn't she continue to live up to her end of the bargain as well? Why get divorced at all, then?
Good thing no one believes men should keep paying for their ex-girlfriends' dinners after break-ups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What part should the courts play?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm anti-alimony too - especially where there are no children and the non-working spouse has more business skills than the supporting spouse bringing in the earnings, as in the case of my longshoreman friend, whose spouse is divorcing him after 33 years of marriage. This wife chose to be laid off instead of returnung to the computer programming aspect of her banking job, and hasn't worked in 13 years. She now has bought two new cars, one for herself and one for her sister, and has a worry-free future, while he must work overtime to pay his own expenses. His lawyers - he's gone through 4 looking for good representation - couldn't care less about his fate, it seems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn! Cheers Anonymous, I knew I left something out and that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alimony was not originally about paying for services received in marriage. What happened was that when a couple married the union was considered a single person represented by the husband. As part of that union the woman enjoyed a certain social status and life style that she could not be expected to continue on her own, so the husband, as head of the former household, continued support – assuming the husband was the cause of the divorce, or was in agreement with divorce after prolonged separation. Remember this was long before there was any such thing as “no fault” divorce. If there was divorce it was because of some sort of breach of contract. If the breach was on the woman’s part, she probably could not count of the former household to continue her such support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaaaargh. I forgot to note that the original purpose for alimony obviously no longer exists since women can be expected to support themselves and compete with men on equal economic footing in today's society.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
