Posted on 12/19/2007 9:56:44 AM PST by PurpleMan
"...in today’s world, in which women have fought for the right to equality, alimony seems more like a kid getting an allowance from daddy and I believe it should be abolished altogether except for extremely dire circumstances where a spouse is older, cannot work at all, and for only a short term period. No man or woman should be held to being a slave to an ex-spouse after a marriage ends. That said, if we are going to have alimony laws, I believe that men and women should be held to an equal standard under the law."
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
Sorry, not a feminist, if you bother to read anything I’ve ever written. I just like to hold people to what they say - which is as conservative a value as you will ever find. He said his sister in law has been certified insane, whatever that means, and he argues that 1). she is lying when she says she can’t work & that 2) his brother should be able to leave her with nothing. So she’s insane, but she can work, right? Uh-huh.
Are you saying that abandoning one’s spouse when they are ill and unable to work is a conservative value?
Marriage is not slavery, nor is alimony. No one makes anyone get married. The fact that you throw around words like “nazi” and “slavery” clues me to the fact that you have no other tools in your arsenal other than name calling and throwing mud to see what sticks, so understand that this is the end of the conversation from my end.
How are my comments hateful?
I only proposed that the standard be reversed in divorce cases, so that instead of handing children and child support to every woman who shows up in court, they should consider doing so to men. That's all.
With regard to women doing jobs requiring great physical strength, it is preposterous and dangerous to pretend that they can do the job of men.
Police and Fire are two of the jobs that immediately come to mind.
Women are simply not up to the task.
Wow. That’s really profound, and something I never thought about.
It's also a little piggy board sometimes, but we conservative women try to overlook that. Most of the time.
Going back to Mark Levin, a true conservative man and far from a little piggy.
I will bow to superior knowledge, since mine is only second-hand. I’m sorry for your loss.
What about kids who are too young to remember ? Any insight there ?
Thank you for posting this.
I’m going to be weird now and read every one of the replies before posting my thoughts.
It might take a bit of time, being a full time Father and all...
I adopted Nigel as an 11 yo, 2 years ago, from a situation pertinent to this thread-his “parents” got a divorce, “Mom” moved to an apartment, and he was too noisy for that lifestyle. Not to mention he is a little difficult to handle if you are afraid of big beaks. So, she turned him over to a rescue and that’s where I found him.
I know her name is Barbara and a daughter’s name is Martha - Nigel occasionally calls to them. I also know they had him all his life, so I can only assume the cage was inadequate and he was never allowed to flap his wings.
I will put him on my arm, hold his feet so he doesn’t fall off, and move my arm up and down to make him unfurl his wings. He has very bad balance, most likely due to his non-flying issues.
He has a very sweet disposition, but he is cage bound and will pretend to attack you if you ask him to leave the cage. Several times a week I pluck him off and move him to other rooms and perches just to get him more acclimated. In 2 years he hasn’t changed much, but he is a dear, sweet, large goofy-looking bird who has a solid place in my heart. He now will move onto a swing in his cage and make it move himself-a vast improvement over only a year ago. I still have hope he will get even better over time if I keep trying.
The cockatoo I almost adopted had a friend who was like your Lulu - beaked a hole in his chest and wore an Elisabethan collar for months until it healed. He came from a situation where his owner got to dislike him so much he put the bird’s cage in a closet and ignored the bird. Can you imagine ? He’s in a good home like yours, now, and seems to be doing as well as he can.
I concur.
I can’t think of any other US court system where you get to take half of everything someone owns (not to mention their kids) based on the other pary often not having done anything wrong.
Great for the “family law” business, bad for families.
I’d rather be waterboarded for days than go through the “family” courts under MN “no-fault” laws.It’s truly ridiculous.
“A lawyer is never entirely comfortable with a friendly divorce, anymore than a good mortician wants to finish his job and then have the patient sit up on the table.”
I never said marriage was slavery. Having to support some insolvent female after a divorce IS slavery. There is no reason whatsoever for a man to support some woman once they have divorced (child support is a different matter).
Her poverty is her concern. No skills? Develop them. No money? Go out and earn it. Time for women to "woman up", support themselves and quit depending on men.
It's OK, cinives.
My Dad was the smartest man in the world. :-)
What about kids who are too young to remember ? Any insight there ?
I suspect those kids would feel the same way from the stories they were told.
I'm having trouble finding the grace and mercy in this (177) post, Glen.
After the children are in school the Mom would do better for herself and the country if she would gain marketable skills. After all,do you want her to be dependent on a man for the rest of her life.
If the Mom is a little more savy she might not lose the Father to someone else. Also she would be better prepared should the Father work himself to death, become disable or fired.
Sounds like a good family plan to me.
I disagree. Marriage is very much like a contract. In fact, some would say that at the root it IS a contract. When one party breaks a contract, it is only fair that they be required to pay the other party a fair amount to make up for the losses (including opportunity costs) that result from the breach. So far as I know, this is generally acceptable to the libertarian viewpoint.
So, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS, I believe alimony can be very appropriate. If one spouse passes up valuable opportunities for the benefit of another spouse, and then gets dumped before those benefits can be repaid, I think it's only fair that the guilty party be required to pay a REASONABLE amount. I don't think any of us would object to this in a business setting, and I don't see why marriage should be any different.
That being said, I think alimony should only be required when the payer was at fault, and the payee was relatively blameless. Likewise, I think there should have been a substantial loss by the payee to justify payment. If there are no kids and one spouse stays at home for a few years I don't think that justifies anything beyond a nominal one-time payment.
Her poverty is her concern. No skills? Develop them. No money? Go out and earn it. Time for women to "woman up", support themselves and quit depending on men.
While that's possible, it may not be fair. Suppose a woman could have developed the skills and savings she needed, but chose not to for the good of the family? Suppose she was relying on her husband to remain faithful to their agreement and to continue to work cooperatively with her, and then he leaves for no good reason? You can't say she is at fault for her predicament, while the husband clearly is. Why shouldn't he be required to pay a just amount?
That says it all.
Well, isn't that an interesting question. One to which I have never seen a satisfactory answer. Nor am I able to answer this empirically.
Children are add-on costs to my current living expenses, if they were living with me. The decider in their living arrangements would be me. As my circumstance improves the children's improves proportionatly. If it were to decrease their fortunes would be directly tied to mine.
Since they don't live with me, I have no control over what the actual cost of the children are. That cost to me has been determined by a third party. I have no accounting for cost over-runs, nor am I credited with any surpluses. I am extorted by an ever more expensive and insidious protection racket.
What do I get for the money I spend? Children I see for two days (Sat @ 9am back by 5pm Sun.), twice a month, every other holiday, and two consecutive weeks in the summer.
Agreed. I think no-fault divorce is an abomination.
Oh please,
It was a sincere question and just a “well I wonder” kind of remark.
the “Now” remark is silly and needlessly rude and bitter.
Get over yourself before have to pay alimony to the picture in your attic.
I know, I know. It's hard. You get caught up in the boards sometimes and start thinking (fearing) that maybe most men are like that -- chip on the shoulder, posting endless "boobie" photos, unable to discuss a woman unless they first mention her weight or looks -- and then having the nerve to say women are obsessed with their looks (I actually read that on a thread tonight. I'd laugh but I'm too tired). And hey, men have their justifiable complaints too, let's face it. But it's Christmastime and I'm going to have faith that there are decent conservative men out there. I'm taking a break.
Stories like Nigels break my heart. I had a cage bound ‘too many years ago. Something I realized is flying takes strength and muscles....so I’d do like you....
Make him flap.
Eventually I’d ‘make’ him fly from one side of the room to the other.
Diva is the same way...she can fly Ok but her landings are embarrassing.
Right now she’s pulling at my fingers while I type.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.