A Case Against Alimony

I've been working on this article for a while now, and thought readers might like to see how it's going. To be honest, I need to do a lot more work on it, so think of it as a preview of great things to come. :) I'll keep adding to it on the go, so it can only get better. Feel free to point things out, such as how I could make it better, arguments I might have left out, etc. You can e-mail me at adam@mensactivism.org. Click "Read More" below to read it.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The intent of this article and/or essay is to persuade you, the reader, that Alimony is an outdated concept, no different from forced slavery in many respects and not necessary in an age of equality.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....)

NOTICE: This story was migrated from the old software that used to run Mensactivism.org. Unfortunately, user comments did not get included in the migration. However, you may view a copy of the original story, with comments, at the following link:

http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/01/12/18/0227212.shtml