If a woman has been in a long-term marriage, and she has either been out of the work force for decades or has an income that is substantially less than her husband’s, I believe she needs – and deserves – alimony in order to maintain a post-divorce lifestyle that’s at least somewhat comparable to the lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage.
That’s it. As far as I can tell, in the thousand-word article, that’s the only argument he gives. It’s pretty much follows the standard argument that I hear from alimony supporters. In fact, I’ve never heard any other argument, so let’s break it down...
So this woman has been out of the workforce? Why did she stay out of the workforce? Or more fittingly, why was she able to stay out of the workforce? Because her husband was supporting her financially. So the argument then, is that because her husband was generous to her at one time, he is required to be generous to her for the rest of your life. Can anyone name another aspect of life -- law, business, morality -- where an act of generosity morphs into an obligation in such a way? I doubt it.
So this woman's income that is substantially less than her husband’s? Is that her husband's fault? And why does it matter? When they get divorced, their relationship is over, why should her ex-husband be the one man in the world who is the benchmark for her career? And why should he owe her anything for a difference in their respective career successes?
Now let's take the implication that because she is used to something, that is equivalent to “needing “ or “deserving” it? To put it simply, that's just bullshit. Again, name any other realm of life where this is true. If I get fired from my job, my employer isn’t required to pay me for the rest of my life because I became accustomed to the income. If my girlfriend or wife dumps me, she doesn’t have to continue blowing me because I got used to cuming on her face a couple times a week, does she? Hey, come on, I deserve it!
Consider the fact that the ex-wife in this situation is no longer obligated to her ex-husband in any way, so she can use her assets as a woman -- her sexuality, tenderness, companionship, whatever -- to find a new mate to support her. Yet her ex-husband is still required to pay for those assets when he is no longer entitled to their benefit? Does that seem fair?
Another common argument for alimony is that women who “sacrificed” in order to raise children during a marriage deserve to be compensated. I’ll ignore the fact that many women who receive alimony never had children during the marriage, and I'll let one of my readers set this one straight:
I would like to add that it is INSULTING to suggest that a stay at home mom (or dad) "gave up " something. That parent never misses a chance to see a game, a dance class, a snuggle while the working parent misses more of those than they want. BOTH people get something and give up something in these scenarios...so the at home spouse gets lifetime alimony for her/his "sacrifice"...what does the working spouse get? NOTHING...usually not primary custody, and the gift of paying the ex forever. Outdated, insulting and just plain wrong.So it turns out alimony insults men too. Someone please remind me why we continue with such a system.
