Alimony Reform Coming?

by W.F. Price on March 5, 2012

The forced servitude to ex-wives known as alimony is coming under increasing scrutiny in a number of states as reality is finally catching up to the courts. Alimony was originally based on the idea that women were dependent on men to survive, and that a husband had an obligation to support a woman he had married. It was also based at least in part on fault; if a man broke his vows the sentiment was that he should pay for it somehow.

Since the introduction of no-fault divorce and laws guaranteeing women’s equality on the workforce, there is no justification for it whatsoever. A woman who leaves her husband without demonstrating fault should have no right to claim any of his subsequent earnings. However, in a number of states women may still receive lifetime alimony awards despite obtaining a “no-fault” divorce so long as the marriage lasted sufficiently long.

A NY Times article highlight efforts in Florida to change the law to address some of the egregious injustices that result, such as professional women with six-figure incomes receiving $50,000 annual alimony awards:

Dr. Jose A. Aleman-Gomez, a Cape Coral cardiologist who was married for 21 years, said he must pay $50,000 a year, or about 25 percent of his salary, to his ex-wife, a practicing dentist with a solid income. And Dr. Bernard R. Perez, a Tampa eye surgeon with throat cancer who was married for 20 years, said he had been ordered to pay his former wife 85 percent of his income; for the last three years, he has lived in his brother’s garage and is near bankruptcy, he said.

However, some people are fighting changes, most notably family law attorneys and their representatives.

David L. Manz, the chairman of the Florida Bar Family Law Section, said his organization opposed the House bill because it was too loosely written and would remove too much judicial discretion. In remedying the plight of a small number of men, Mr. Manz said, the bill could leave more divorced women vulnerable. He said he was negotiating to change parts of the bill.

Even today, Mr. Manz said, divorce is more likely to hurt women. They are still the ones who typically give up their jobs to focus on raising children. Even when they do not give up jobs, their child-rearing responsibilities can sidetrack their careers. Returning to jobs after long absences is difficult.

“For every guy, there is a wife or former wife who got the short end of the stick,” Mr. Manz said. “Look at the standard of living of most people in a long-term marriage: divorced men’s standard of living goes up, and the women’s goes down. That happens every day.”

“We are not in favor of disenfranchising someone who has given up her career,” he added. “What you are hearing about is a very vocal, persuasive minority.”

How thoughtful of Mr. Manz to stick up for the poor, downtrodden wives of the upper middle class. I wonder whether he’d spend any time demanding alimony for the girls working at WalMart or the local fast food joint? Of course not. Attorneys defend alimony because it allows them to jack up fees, plain and simple. If they can put in the extra hours to stick it to a high-earning guy, then their clients (wives of the professionals) will be perfectly happy and able to pay off the excess fees with the alimony that’s coming in.

Alimony, like so much of family law, is a racket. It does little more than pad the pockets of high-stakes divorce lawyers, who contribute exactly zero added value to the economy. If it weren’t part of our court system, it would surely be considered organized crime.

{ 91 comments… read them below or add one }

nate w March 5, 2012 at 10:02

Since the inception of no-fault fault divorce, alimony has been nothing but lemon juice in the wounds of good husbands with wives gone wild. I was lucky, my ex got pregnant then married within months of her divorce. My alimony was terminated early. I’m still disgusted by her.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 70 Thumb down 0
Opus March 5, 2012 at 10:17

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 112
dragnet March 5, 2012 at 10:29

I’m of the opinion that alimony reform is still quite a ways off, if only because there aren’t enough women who are feeling the pain just yet. When women are increasingly the ones robbed blind by alimony, it is then you will see a true sea change.

The is also the situation behind the even slower progress on shared custody laws. Even more than alimony, it is overwhelmingly fathers that are victimized by the way current child custody laws are applied in practice, and so nothing at all is done.

“It does little more than pad the pockets of high-stakes divorce lawyers, who contribute exactly zero added value to the economy.”

This is true of so much in our economy. From bankster driven financial “innovation”, to lobbyists, a sizable portion of the public sector, to nearly the entire tax industry—so much of our economy is comprised of parasitic industries that little or no value. And the solution is simple but will never, ever, EVER be implemented: simplify the tax code. Have either one flat rate or three progressive rates (10, 20, 25 percent) with NO deductions or anything else. You simplify the tax code in this manner and you eliminate a lot of these parasites at one blow.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
keyster March 5, 2012 at 10:57

Makes for great PR for his firm.

How it works –
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/gloria-allred-accidentally-reveals-her-380-person-press-033648482.html

There are more and more law firms advertising themselves as “men’s rights” lawyers. The market for “wife centric” law firms is tapped out I suppose. Be aware Florida is land of old rich guys and hot young gold diggers. If you can get the woman to fight, the billable hours really add up. And they almost always want to fight, especially if there’s children involved to be used as pawns to bargian with and illicit sympathy from the court.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 5
Mike Brentnall March 5, 2012 at 11:34

If little progress to alimony reform, plus a multitude of other man oriented issues, has been made, men have themselves to look at first for why it hasn’t occured.
Nevermind the ‘PTB’ or politicians or that ‘women’ wouldn’t allow it to happen. What on earth is stopping any one particular man reading or contributing to mens’ blogs from making some serious motions toward becoming that process for change? Hundreds or thousands of properly informed and informal lobbyists are difficult to stop. But easier to stop when only only one person is actually doing something.
I’ve participated in some locally based change based initiatives. I may not have had 100% success in making a huge difference but did so despite fear based concerns. One factor in creating more momentum in any one direction was the lack of involvement from most other men. We get what we get from our input or lack thereof.

This was aimed at no-one in particular in this site. In fact, at times I silently lament at not doing enough so this little diatribe could be more aimed at myself.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2
Rebel March 5, 2012 at 11:50

No matter how or when the laws may be changed, the fact remains that the only protection men can get is NOT to marry.

In some regions of the world (and the includes Quebec, where I reside), marriage has become some kind of quaint little thing that some “old fashioned” people still practice.

In the city where I live (60 000 souls), there used to exist about three or four stores specializing in wedding gear: they ALL closed down because marriages are so few and far between.

Truly, the end of marriage is the only solution. Take a look at Russia where no one marries because the government (Stalin) decided to kill marriage. Once dead, marriage does not come back to life, like Lazarus…

All the problems you guys are having with feminism end miraculously when marriage dies.

Doesn’t that tell you something?

The best example I can think of is my own son: he married once and divorced. The headaches…OMG! And the aggravation…Sh*t!!.
The crap he had to go through…

Then he was involved in serial monogamy with no marriage, followed by “divorce”:….piece of cake!! No problemo at all senor! All his break ups went smoothly like a gentle breeze.

Why are there still so many marriages in the Anglosphere?

What’s so hard to understand?

Who gives a shit if alimoney gets smoother, if you don’t commit the crime of marrying???

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 63 Thumb down 4
MRA March 5, 2012 at 12:10

Divorce hurt women? women initiated 75% of divorces, so they are doing something they enjoy and are pleasant doing it, hurt motherfucker? what woman have been sent to prison for not receiving her monthly check? men are.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rma/lowres/rman2347l.jpg

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 0
Bizzman662 March 5, 2012 at 12:11

“For every guy, there is a wife or former wife who got the short end of the stick,” Mr. Manz said. “Look at the standard of living of most people in a long-term marriage: divorced men’s standard of living goes up, and the women’s goes down. That happens every day.”……………….

Is this guy out of his fucking mind? That spoon fed shit is outdated, wrong and flies in the face of “equality”

How many men after divorce do you know that after losing the house to the ex wife end up spending years on the couch of friends and family after divorce?

How many women after divorce do you know that shake that Va J J around and capture yet another man to bang the shit out of her in the bed and house her first husband paid for.

Go fuck yourself David of the Florida family law section. You can suck a dick.

My fault………with statements like the above he made……….I bet he enjoys sucking on big cocks while his mama hen feminist bitches applaud from the backround.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 62 Thumb down 5
HeligKo March 5, 2012 at 12:27

My arm chair analysis of why men do better long term after divorce than women do, is simply men are better with money. They don’t get $150 hair cuts and die jobs unless they are rich. They don’t get their nails done at $30+ a week, and they don’t buy clothes that they will never wear, or wear only once. They don’t do shopping therapy of any kind. In the 8 months I have been a part from my wife, I have had more disposable income than I have ever had, and my expenses compared to my income have had a severe downward shift.

Now it is time to also attack child support. When a man and woman split in a no fault situation there is no excuse for child support either. There should be default 50/50 custody and time. You pay for the kids when they are with you. Activities, medical, and school expenses can be split 50/50 not some income derived formula. That should be the law. Anything the couple agrees to beyond that, can be handled between them, and put in writing as a contract if necessary. It should not be decreed by a court. With no fault divorce, there should be no court unless there is a disagreement. Split the assets. Mediate the disagreements, and only require a judge if you can’t get a contract written that nullifies the divorce and separates the assets. The kids are best off having as much time with both parents that they can get, so it shouldn’t be an argument unless one parent is incapable of parenting. It didn’t matter who was best at parenting when the couple was married, so it shouldn’t matter now.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 0
American March 5, 2012 at 12:28

Alimony Reform coming??? maybe. But what is most certainly coming, as more and more stories in the media are reporting on, is lesbian custody battles.
While many men will not use children as weapons in a divorce, and will be broken and abused by “Pervert courts”, just so the children will not have to witness the barbaric lies and battles of fammily courts, Lesbians will defer to no-one. We are witnessing the tip of the iceburg folks, of lesbian custody battles that will shock the public with its barbarity.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 3
American March 5, 2012 at 12:35

Keyster, totally agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Art Vandelay March 5, 2012 at 12:48

Of course the woman does worse after the divorce, she only gets to spend half his money instead of all of it + credit…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 0
Lethargic Pessimist March 5, 2012 at 12:59

You are wasting your time and imaginattion welmer.

Any reform, even if possible is only a prolongation of the pain of this hell.

The only optimisim is to be found in the knowledge that this evil must at some point collapse in its entirety. You cannot reform communism, nazism or genderism. It has to collapse from the excessive weight of over-bloating and its own inherent contradictions.

There is no reforming a system that charges a man the costs of his and his childrens social and familial isolation and destruction.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1
Jiu Jitsu Maniac March 5, 2012 at 13:13

If women are the ones who suffer in divorce then why does suicide only go up for men after divorce? Oh right cause dead guys are no longer suffering if they committed suicide and cupcake is now suffering without her alimony from the selfish guy who killed himself. Perhaps he should harlem thought of the well being of his ex before taking the easy wast out. [/sarcasm]

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
Boxer March 5, 2012 at 13:14

Too little, too late.

Over on Dalrock’s great blog a few months ago, there was an article with published stats about the alimony scam. Something like 95% of alimony is male to female payoffs. If they were concerned about equality, they oughta set a corrective course and pay back men (as a class *and* those individual brothers who got the shaft) with a series of government grants and set targets for individual judgments at a minimum of 95% female to male for the next five decades.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1
Doug1 March 5, 2012 at 13:21

Good post.

Alimony isn’t being paired back enough. It should be eliminated, unless wife’s get it agreed to in a prenup. Damn the NY Times for not having a comment section on the article. The comments would very likely not go the way they want.

The aggrieved men say they are not opposed to alimony. They are opposed to alimony payments with no end in sight.

Well I’m opposed to alimony, and would never remarry without a prenup waiving it completely.

“For every guy, there is a wife or former wife who got the short end of the stick,” Mr. Manz said. “Look at the standard of living of most people in a long-term marriage: divorced men’s standard of living goes up, and the women’s goes down. That happens every day.”

That is a feminist lie. Typically the standard of living of both go down until and unless the wife remarries, but the man’s goes down more. That considers income before transfer payments such as child support=also stealth alimony for especially for strongly earning men in high tax states and or alimony. The higher earning spouse should have a higher standard of living – ex wives are doing nothing for their ex husbands post divorce – why should he have to go on supporting him.

Further contrary to what’s implied in American entertainment media and often other media, wife’s are far more often the one’s behind divorce. Women file for divorce 2.5x as often as men do, and many divorce attorneys say that among the college educated with children, women are behind divorce about 90% of the time.

Doing away with alimony would decrease the divorce rate which would be good for children. When her kids are under 18 a divorced woman will receive very high levels as a percentage of his after tax earnings of child support =also stealth alimony (which isn’t deductible for him or taxable to her). Once a woman is no longer raising living at home school age children, and for that matter when they’re in school full time, why shouldn’t she go back to work? Isn’t it rather lazy and unfair for her to remain a stay at home wife? If she makes that choice and then divorces her husband, why should he have to go on supporting her even after his kids are all over 18???

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
James March 5, 2012 at 13:27

Well, the reason reform doesn’t happen is because most American men are manginas. They are such fools that they will DEFEND these criminal psychopath women.

Therefore, I say they get exactly what they deserve. The more men that women screw over in divorce, the better. Why? Because it FORCES these men to wake up.

At this point, the only hope is that feminism gets more and more extreme. The more extreme feminism gets, the more men will wake up and start boycotting women.

Any man dumb enough to get married in America deserves what is coming to them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 1
td9red March 5, 2012 at 13:38

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 48
Zorro March 5, 2012 at 13:44

If it weren’t part of our court system, it would surely be considered organized crime.

Fuck me, but that’s poetic!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1
slwerner March 5, 2012 at 14:31

MRA – ”Divorce hurt women?”

This canard of divorced men’s standard of living going up, while women’s goes down after divorce is derived by disingenuously imputing “standard of living” from the taxable incomes of both parties, knowing full well that everything a man pays – alimony, child-support, healthcare coverage, etc – to his ex is NOT tax deductible (on his side of the ledger), while that same money she receives is TAX EXEMPT (in other words, he pays all the taxes on the portion of his income which is confiscated from him, and given to her).

On paper, the man will typically make more than half of what they had as a combined family income, but since support payments can be a rather high percentage of his income, the net amount he has left over versus the amount she has from combining her income with his support is typically much more.

Yet, they still drag that stupid comparison out as if it were actually indicative of anything. If you hear someone say it, call BS! On them. It’s even more dishonest than the 70-cents-on-the –dollar-wage gap myth.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel March 5, 2012 at 14:44

td9red
Both should be expected to alternate taking off from work to take the kids to doctor’s appointments. Alternate getting up at night to care for a crying kid; alternate changing diapers, cooking dinner, washing dishes, ironing the clothes, cleaning the bathroom, mowing the lawn, running the snowblower, the whole works. No more of the, “he can do all that b/c he has a wife at home who does everyhting else.”

Heterosexual lesbianism. That kind of marriage is living death for a man.

You must be Swedish.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 4
Jean Valjean March 5, 2012 at 15:32

One more reason for people to get a pre-nup when they marry or to simple not get married at all.

The profit motive is a virtue in the U.S.. The profit motive supported by “best interests of women” is an institution.

No wonder more men are opting out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
td9red March 5, 2012 at 16:28

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 32
Idea Man March 5, 2012 at 16:31

“Look at the standard of living of most people in a long-term marriage: divorced men’s standard of living goes up, and the women’s goes down. That happens every day.”

How about women stop initiating most divorces, which also happens every day?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
3DShooter March 5, 2012 at 16:32

@Welmer

“The forced servitude to ex-wives known as alimony”

Words have meaning, the phrase you are looking for is ‘indentured servitude’.

Not surprised Opus is defending his parasitic predatory profession. He never has answered the question of exactly how many men he forced into such circumstances representing women.

A few years back when I corresponded briefly with the organizer of the North Dakota ballot initiative for equal shared parenting I found that the two groups most vocally fighting it were the Bar Association and the state family services groups. Opus can spout until his mythical Apollo sound stage is uncovered, but nobody can tell me that these parasitic predators aren’t lining their pockets on issues like this and Child $upport.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0
Rebel March 5, 2012 at 16:52

@td9red
“Alimony reform is a good first step. Clearly, marriage needs a lot of reform. Marriage must be saved. If not, it will lead to MGTOW and WGTOW. All children will be raised in single family homes and not know their sperm donor/surrogate parent. This would be bad for society.”

How do you know it would be bad for society?

Perhaps in its present state? But who says this society is working well?
Who says it should be saved?

You would sacrifice personal freedom just to save this sick society?
And why should marriage be saved? Who benefits from it? The kids? Bullshit!
Marriage is bondage to the state. Fuck the state! Statism is slavery.
Viva la libertad!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Anonymous March 5, 2012 at 17:11

@td9red

“I never see MRAs comment on what the perfect mix b/t the sexes in a marriage would be.”

I think that most MRAs believe that marriage, as it existed, before the current Feminist stupidity took hold was equal. If you hold that women are the nurturers, then the best place for them would be in the home looking after house and children. If you hold than men are the protectors and providers, then their place should be at work earning enough to support the family.

In that arrangement, both mother and father have an important role to play in the raising of children and in making a stable home.

I make no apology here, but who gives a shit about doing housework? That’s not “oppression”. That’s a bunch of whiny children that don’t understand what real work is.

As an aside, I really doubt that men don’t do their share of housework. Men will generally keep things from falling into a BIOHAZARD state of filth. But they also don’t care about some dust or the odd paper that’s laying around. If women want an immaculate house with no dust, papers or ANYTHING laying around, then they can clean it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
td9red March 5, 2012 at 17:25

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 30
JFinn March 5, 2012 at 17:45

Men and women do the same amount of work around the house. Much like the gender pay gap myth, repeating a lie numerous times doesn’t make it true.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/21/time-cover-story-why-men-and-women-should-end-the-chore-wars/

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
td9red March 5, 2012 at 18:08

@JFinn

That article and other similar articles I have read suggest that when totaling work outside the home and work in the home, men and women do about the same b/c men do more work outside the home, while women do less more outside the home and more work in the home.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14
Anon March 5, 2012 at 18:30

Nothing advertises the failure of ‘Social Conservatives’ more than the fact that the US has a huge industry that profits from the breakup of families, and providing incentives to the more gullible and less intelligent gender to do so.

That ‘Social Conservatives’ are not fighting this pretty much invalidates any claim they have that they ‘support marriage’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Anon March 5, 2012 at 18:33

dragnet,

Have either one flat rate or three progressive rates (10, 20, 25 percent) with NO deductions or anything else. You simplify the tax code in this manner and you eliminate a lot of these parasites at one blow.

Wow, that is downright libertarian, coming from dragnet.

Aren’t you a guy who is pro-Obama? Obama benefits heavily from the status quo that you correctly described as parasitic and inefficient.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Brian March 5, 2012 at 18:36

OT

Are anti-man laws and toxic women about the same in proportions all over the U.S. or do some states or municipalities have it better than others? I would imagine the very conservative or religious places like the Bible Belt to be friendlier toward men, but a previous post showed that even feminism is even in Georgia’s government (can’t remember the name now, but she’s a democratic representative).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Leone March 5, 2012 at 18:57

“Look at the standard of living of most people in a long-term marriage: divorced men’s standard of living goes up, and the women’s goes down. That happens every day”.

I’m always amazed at how many people ape this, without realizing they are arguing against themselves. One’s standard of living can only go up in one of two ways: Your income increases, or your expenses decrease. Now, i don’t know any guys – not a single one – who went into their boss and said “Boss, I’m gonna need a raise. I no longer have a family to support. Yep, i’m single again – gonna be spending a lot more time chasing tail! Let’s say a 10% raise?”. Not gonna happen. That leaves: expenses going down. And if a man’s expenses decline after he is divorced, and her expenses simultaneously go up, that means that for the duration of the marriage HE WAS PAYING FOR HER SHIT! Doesn’t get any more simple than that. She’ll have to buy her own shoes, pay her own cell phone bill, make her own car payment. THAT’S why her standard of living goes down – some sucker was subsidizing her poor spending habits.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
Rebel March 5, 2012 at 19:15

@td9red

“Marriage is the backbone of society. With repair everyone would benefit from marriage. People who are married live longer, they are healthier… ”

This is true when spoken in the past tense. That was before women were “toxicified”, or became toxic.

With repair, as you say, friend, everyone would benefit. And that’s where it hurts: marriage is broken beyond repairs.

The Russian govt. is doing its best to resurrect the institution… to no avail. The patient lies dead in plain sight.

Maybe in a few centuries, when humanity tries to emerge from barbarism, there might be a rebirth of the institution of marriage.
But for now, we can only go our own way or be carried away like straw.

The major stumbling block is the fact that our governments make tons and tons of money on broken homes, broken children. Also, kids from broken homes are very obedient to the state: they make perfect slaves.

Before any improvement takes places, democracy and freedom must make a come back in our democratic totalitarian regimes..

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
Mammone March 5, 2012 at 19:16

The feministas have been curiously silent about alimony reform. Why? It’s the rare woman that gets shafted as men still pay 97% of alimony.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Boxer March 5, 2012 at 19:41

I would imagine the very conservative or religious places like the Bible Belt to be friendlier toward men.

You’d imagine it, but it isn’t so. Social conservatives and neocons are both wedded to the established order, and have vested interests in keeping the sham running. This is why you see conservative republican fatsos like Limbaugh and Bill Bennett writing articles and getting on the radio screaming at men, insulting men, and excusing all the worst excesses of the system.

When was the last time you heard a Republican talk about the rights of fathers like Bill Price to share equal time with his kids? The answer, of course, is never. In a saner society, men would be given equal rights and women would have equal responsibilities. The Republicans and especially the Christian right don’t want that. They thrive on a sick society, and it’s in their interest to keep society sick.

There is no real difference in the way liberals and conservatives see men. Men are slaves and are seen as such. They just make a game out of tickling your ears from time to time with half-hearted promises of freedom, so you dudes will vote for them, and then they laugh at you on election day.

Regards, Boxer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Boxer March 5, 2012 at 19:45

Marriage is the backbone of society. With repair everyone would benefit from marriage. People who are married live longer, they are healthier. They’re more prosperous. Their happier. Married men have a lower suicide rate than single men. Marriage is the best situation for children. Study after study shows that children born to married parents do better than in all other situations, even better than when their parents cohabitate. The main reason IMO that society is falling appart is b/c marriage is failing. Unfortunately, IMO for marriage to work and for society to prosper again we have to go back to more traditional roles.

Traditional roles and marriage was a horrible bargain for all but the most domesticated of men.

There seems to be a faction in here who wants to go back to working and slaving all day to support a parasitic bitch, while she sits around, pops out kids (not all of whom are likely to be the biological progeny of the husband), fucks other dudes, spends said husband’s money on new clothes, and watches tee-vee.

I, for one, will have none of it. Women need to start pulling their own weight, and I support all brothers who don’t want to go back to the bad old days of marriage. I love my life and most single men like me do. Men deserve better than living as slaves to entitled skanks.

Regards, Boxer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1
Rebel March 5, 2012 at 19:49

@Mammone March 5, 2012 at 19:16
The feministas have been curiously silent about alimony reform. Why? It’s the rare woman that gets shafted as men still pay 97% of alimony.

Maybe they know something we don’t know…?

Maybe the reform is meant to benefit women even more?

To “reform” does not mean to make it better for men…

The Author says: “Alimony, like so much of family law, is a racket. ”

Therefore, we may very well conclude that a racket it will remain, but with more “muscles”.

I would wait a little while before rejoicing….
Does anybody trust the government anymore? Or Justice?
Wanna buy some land on the Moon?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Eric J Schlegel March 5, 2012 at 20:37

Of COURSE a man’s standard of living increases after divorce; same reason a person’s blood supply increases after the exisement of a 5-ft leech from his skin. Of COURSE a woman’s standard of living decreases; she has to pay for herself for a change.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
American March 5, 2012 at 20:41

Brian, i beleive the Gender-Raunch domianted North Eastern states has a more “Perverse” law enforcement system than other states.
Mary Kellet is the epitome of the North East Gender-Raunch establishment, who “Empower” themselves by persecuting the innocent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7
Anonymous March 5, 2012 at 20:51

@Boxer

You can’t judge how marriage and women used to be by the standards of what it is (and they are) today.

Way back when, running a household successfully actually took skill. There were no modern appliances, so cleaning, cooking, etc. meant having to actually learn how to perform those skills. Plus, the husband was the king of the house. He could leave, slave away at work, but when he got home, his family was waiting for him. There was (usually) a hot meal waiting for him to eat. The wife appreciated his efforts. A good wife would contribute to the house by running it correctly.

That was the ideal situation. Yes, there were problems. Yes, it didn’t always measure up to the ideal. But to say that women were the same skanks back then that they are now is disingenuous. There were many more controls on the darker sides of a woman’s nature and they were usually brought up in a much more disciplined, healthier manner.

I don’t know if you’re religious or not, but read Proverbs 31:10-31. It gives a very good description of what a good wife is.

Marriage, in it’s non-corrupted form, is good. It benefited both men and women. Feminism wrecked it. Don’t judge a good thing by the twisted perversion that it’s become.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Somehow Somewhat March 5, 2012 at 21:42

td9red is a feminist troll. The best thing to do is ignore her. That way, she cannot derail the topic of the day to the feminist dystopia brouhaha.

Speaking of marriage, there was a comment in the Internet that went on this way:
“Any man who get married in North America is insane, and can plead insanity to the court of law”.

Too little, too late to put some cosmetic dressings to stinking wounds on the marriage institution. It is not that the PTB are not rejoicing and toasting to their success!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Professor Woland March 5, 2012 at 22:01

Dragnet,

You are absolutely spot on with your comment:
I’m of the opinion that alimony reform is still quite a ways off, if only because there aren’t enough women who are feeling the pain just yet. When women are increasingly the ones robbed blind by alimony, it is then you will see a true sea change.
No fault divorce is a double edged weapon. The laws are written in a gender neutral way but end up only applying to men because women do not marry down. Hypergamy protects women because they are rarely in a position where they have to pay when things go south. Once women have to start paying men in significant numbers all hell will break loose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Fubsy March 5, 2012 at 23:22

I remember when Joan Lunden, the host of Good Morning America was getting a divorce. Her husband was asking for alimony, and she didn’t hesitate to cry foul, with quotes of her saying stuff like “get a job”
There was no criticism of her for that, only nods of agreement.

Imagine if say, Matt Laurer were getting a divorce, and objected to paying a dime of alimony, saying “get a job.” We’d be talking about the “ex-host” of the Today Show, lol…

Here is a comment printed in a 1992 People Magazine:
———-
The idea of awarding Joan Lunden’s husband $18,000 a month alimony is preposterous. Michael Krauss is 52 years old and able-bodied. Why can’t he go out and find a job?
NANCY ALESHIRE, Millbourne, Pa.
———-

I think we all can agree with the above, but if the genders were reversed, would Nancy have still been outraged?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Emma the Emo March 5, 2012 at 23:29

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 28
Art Vandelay March 5, 2012 at 23:34

Marriage is the backbone of society. With repair everyone would benefit from marriage. People who are married live longer, they are healthier. They’re more prosperous. Their happier. Married men have a lower suicide rate than single men.

Well one of the things is that divorced men are unfairly lumped in the single category. Although I must say I know a lot of singles who are unhappy, that’s of course more an issue about being lonely and a feeling of inadequacy than about being legally married.

Assuming I’m in a relationship. What benefit would getting married have?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay March 5, 2012 at 23:46

One argument for alimony that I’ve heard (despite no-fault divorce) was that a woman who takes care of your house and kids and makes you food all this time, and if you hired professionals to do it, you’d have to pay way more. So alimony is more like holiday money you give to the worker who’s been working for you for a long time and then decide to quit.

That is an absurd analogy because employment is based on a contract that can be enforced. If the employee refuses to work you can legally refuse to pay them and fire them. In some cases you might have to pay severance, usually that wouldn’t be the case if the employee decides to quit. However, If you decide to quit your job you are not entitled to the lifestyle you had when you were still working.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
Emma the Emo March 6, 2012 at 00:21

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 25
evilwhitemalempire March 6, 2012 at 00:37

The forced servitude to ex-wives known as alimony is coming under increasing scrutiny in a number of states as reality is finally catching up to the courts.
********

yeah, the reality that men don’t have any money anymore

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Zorro March 6, 2012 at 00:47

@Emma: “I read Esther Vilar’s Manipulated Man. I don’t know if she was being serious or just making fun of feminism. ”

I read it, too, and I am convinced she was being serious, but wrote in a sardonic tone to give the impression she was being ironic or satirical.

Seriously, that book lays out precisely how kennel-trained western men have become and how masterly most women can manipulate us. It was a slap in the face for men, and a needed one.

I’m sure Vilar intended to mock feminism, but men’s historical thinking-with-our-dicks mentality is just as responsible for our misery at the feet of women. White knights like Joe Biden are just as responsible for men’s misery as Gloria Steinem.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
Dan March 6, 2012 at 00:57

As long as courts, lawyers, judges and politicians exist there will be
institutionalized theft from party A to give to party B…..plus the usual
fees and taxes to cover the costs of the legal robbery scheme.

I fully expect that if marriage rates drop to zero a new, different and equally onerous system will be created and instituted to allow the havenots and willnots to continue stealing from those who produce.

Humans don’t change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Opus March 6, 2012 at 01:59

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 23
E March 6, 2012 at 02:28

Mr. Manz said. “Look at the standard of living of most people in a long-term marriage: divorced men’s standard of living goes up, and the women’s goes down. That happens every day.”

If a man’s standard of living goes up after a divorce then isn’t that an admission that men would of been better off never getting married to begin with?

oops I don’t think this is what TPTB wanted to point out, but they just inadvertently admitted to it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
bruno March 6, 2012 at 03:38

The whole of divorce is law is written in favour of women so clearly.
It’s a total scam, a racquet, it’s organised crime.
Why on earth should a man pay alimony?
The excuse is: if the man took responsibility of her during the marriage, he should continue to do so afterwards.
But that is total nonsense.
There is no logic in that.
If the wife lived financially off the man during the marriage (as it is in 90% of the cases), she should REPAY all the money after divorce, instead of getting alimony.

All of marriage is so clearly a total money-grab by women.

Like they write always on the dating sites:
“I’m not interested in flirters or players, I’m here for serious relationship and marriage.”

It means: “I”m not here searching for love, i’m here searching for MONEY.”

Can they put it any more clearly?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
bruno March 6, 2012 at 03:38

The whole of divorce is law is written in favour of women so clearly.
It’s a total scam, a racquet, it’s organised crime.
Why on earth should a man pay alimony?
The excuse is: if the man took responsibility of her during the marriage, he should continue to do so afterwards.
But that is total nonsense.
There is no logic in that.
If the wife lived financially off the man during the marriage (as it is in 90% of the cases), she should REPAY all the money after divorce, instead of getting alimony.

All of marriage is so clearly a total money-grab by women.

Like they write always on the dating sites:
“I’m not interested in flirters or players, I’m here for serious relationship and marriage.”

It means: “I”m not here searching for love, i’m here searching for MONEY.”

Can they put it any more clearly?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
td9red March 6, 2012 at 04:51

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18
Ethical March 6, 2012 at 05:01

Depending on the whim of the judge it can go past indentured servitude and approach slavery. Only in slavery do you essentially lack meaningful property rights and only in slavery can you be stripped of your children, AND your property, and AND your future labor.

I knew about pre-nups, but I just learned there are post-nups too. I’m bound and determined to figure out a way for my son not to suffer this same slavery at the hands of a selfish woman who would punish the children by minimizing their father’s access in order to unjustly enrich herself.

Learning about what can invalidate a pre-nup or a post-nup seems an excellent start in creating bullet proof legal protection. Having spoken to a great many women about women using kids as pawns for financial gain, the unfortunate truth is that most women (although they would put it in terms like “children need their mother more”) would do exactly that. No matter how sweet cupcake is when you marry her, be prepared for a scene from The Exorcist when you divorce.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
WRB March 6, 2012 at 06:32

@td9red

“People who are married live longer, they are healthier”

You have cause and effect mixed up.
Married men live longer then average because people who live unhealthy lifestyles (e.g. homosexuals, drug addicts) can’t find wives or don’t even try to.

On a related note, I know several people who were in unhappy marriages and died before they were old enough to retire. It is likely that unhappy marriage leads to early death (based on anecdotal evidence so far, but it would be interesting to find research on this.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
T-3 March 6, 2012 at 07:07

oh yes and men committing suicide after ugly divorces and being stripped of their children shortens the single males lifespan as well.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Oddsock March 6, 2012 at 07:16

“People who are married live longer, they are healthier”

Bollocks!

It just seems longer because they are so miserable. Healthier ? My hairy feckin arse. It means the same as miserable when related to marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Rocco March 6, 2012 at 07:29

@ td9red

I did all those things you say, the late night feedings, helped with half the chores.

It did baboosal that family court so I got 50/50 but the entire culture teaches men, women and children that men are beasts of burden.

I eventually got shat on by everyone because, as the readers here say, I was a pussy. And you area a feminist as is our dim witted Ema.

At this point to me, as men are a means to income, no matter how annoying to women, women are moist places to put my struddle and nothing more. Because that’s the inverse of how men are characterized by the slowley growing nazi Feminist Party of Sweden, who’s world order is nearly in place and to whom every world leader listens for fear of losing the female vote.

This is tyranny of the majority and if us, the minority do not react with vigour things will get worse very fast.

I know it’s hard to understand what the skyrocketing single mother by choice numbers mean, but we never thought about no fault.

One hint, in the black community single mother rate is now 80% and due to the “housing crisis” which was really a divorce crisis, because husband and wife fought over the house, because fighting is all women do…..we know have suburban slums. If you don’t believe me go to Florida.

So, get ready for teen gangland America.

It won’t be safe to go out for milk as it isn’t safe in inner cities today.

Maybe like Britian we’ll say we were a great empire for 100 years or more before we become a subsidiary of China ™.

Here is what a feminist looks like, Margeret Sanger and her “liberal” lets stop the black animals from breading:

“On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

That’s feminism……Emma your an idiot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Ray March 6, 2012 at 07:32

I will not willingly serve on jury duty in this corrupt, American legal system. When I am sworn in to a panel, everyone must stand and answer “yes,” to the judge’s swearing in instructions, or be held in contempt, but I remain standing after everyone else sits down and add, “under duress” (not of my own free will – but because I’m forced to by physical and monetary threats from the corrupt legal system).

I later explain in voir dire, that the Constitution does not say “We the judges,” but instead, “We the people,” and as a jury nullificationist I will not willingly follow a judges instructions on law in the case to be presented. Rather, as a jury nullificationist, I will sit in judgment of the law as well as the facts in evidence in the case, or follow a judge’s instructions under duress.

I further add that it IS NOT my duty to serve on any jury, then cite the instructions of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence, telling us it is every free citizen’s right and duty to oppose corrupt government like that which exists today because of vile, corrupt feminist influence on America’s legal system:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ”

I only serve the vile, corrupt feminist influenced, legal system of American government, when I am forced to because of the gun held to my head by the black robed Stalinist, judicial tyrants and prosecutors, and their brown shirt toadies in law enforcement. Many of the aforementioned “unholy trinity” should stand before Nuremberg like tribunals for crimes against humanity for their enforcement of vile, corrupt, feminist influenced laws. Feminist influenced laws comprise a very significant portion of America’s body of laws. As established at Nuremberg, “There is a law above the law,” and even corrupt judges and law enforcement (if they had a conscience) would not follow them. Feminist influenced laws hugely fall into the category of vile, corrupt laws that should not be followed. Judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement (the unholy trinity) are responsible for the witch-hunting of males as shown in “Witch-Hunting Males” at Youtube. http://tinyurl.com/65dpzwu And as also shown in “Los Misandry” at Youtube. http://tinyurl.com/27oh7cp Shame on all those who follow (enforce) any feminist influenced law.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Ray March 6, 2012 at 07:48

An item of food that is as rotten as America’s vile, corrupt, feminist influenced legal system has the taint of that vile corruption permeating the entire substance and being of that item. I don’t eat rotten fruit, and I don’t willingly support such a vile, corrupt legal system as America’s vile, corrupt, feminist influenced legal/court system. Why should I willingly trust, or serve, any aspect, or area, of a vile, corrupt feminist influenced, American legal system that enshrines so much tyrannical, misandirst, injustice against males? :-/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Kyo March 6, 2012 at 07:48

a woman who takes care of your house and kids and makes you food all this time, and if you hired professionals to do it, you’d have to pay way more

That’s if you hired a professional. These days, with most people living single for several years before finding a partner, guys know that there’s no point in paying big money to hire a professional to do mundane things that they can do themselves for free.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Ray March 6, 2012 at 07:54

And this just in from the tornado aftermath in Kentucky,

““I’m a single dad and now I have to deal with this sh-t”’
http://tinyurl.com/7c9g994

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
slwerner March 6, 2012 at 07:57

td9red – ”Well, presuming that there will be legislative repairs which will support marriage, such as”

The problem with your line of argumentation is that you seem to be (and I’m going back to some of your earlier comments as well, such as those regarding perceived benefits to men’s health owing to marriage) young men should continue to marry for the sake of society without FIRST gaining the protections (via the reform you indicate you’d support) that would make marriage a more suitable risk to them.

The issue that I would have is that if men do continue to subject themselves to the risk of Marriage 2.0, then they will effectively blunt the impetus that might otherwise drive such reforms forward.

There will never be a “critical mass” of red pill men to get legislative reforms accomplished. Those reforms will only come about when women get behind them – and that ain’t happin’ till most of them cannot find men willing to marry them.

Woman tend to be less adept than men at discerning cause and effect, so it will require that a very significant portion of women who wish to be married who cannot get a man to stick his head in that noose in order for to get them to seriously consider and discuss the underlying reasons (beyond the “peter pan” and “living in mom’s basement” shaming they’ve been trying to rely on up to this point).

If women can be finally forced to confront the reality that men don’t want to get married primarily because of the huge risks accruing to them (alone), then they might be able to understand that if they don’t help get some reforms passed, then they will likely never be married.

It’s not a knock against your desire to see marriage continue, as it would be better for society as a whole; but you are underestimating both the risks to and reluctance of young men to marry, while over-stating the benefits to health and life expectancy.

Both of those latter two measures are badly skewed by the fact that in order to do long-term studies, men who have been married for a long time need to be considered (you have to have enough of them who lived married until they died to assess life-expectancy, for instance). This necessarily means that a significant, and probably majority, proportion of the male population considered are going to be those who married under an entirely different social paradigm regarding marriage, and to women who were mostly nothing like the sluts who predominate today.

I’d bet that if a study were only to consider the health (and wealth) measures of men under 40, the results would come out much different – with married men being both less healthy and less wealthy. Why, the stress of being married to and entitlement-mind, personally-empowered, EPL-watchin’, ex-carousel-rider (a.k.a the average young woman under 38) alone would kill most men after just a couple of decades. The life expectancy of a young man marrying today cannot be very good.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Art Vandelay March 6, 2012 at 08:16

With the types of reforms mentioned above marriage would be beneficial to all. These changes would remove the benefits for seeking divorce /bc one is bored, for being unfaithful in a marriage, and for having children out of wedlock.

Your reforms would remove a lot of the risks, but I still don’t really see any personal, immediate benefits.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
dragnet March 6, 2012 at 08:29

@ Anon

“Wow, that is downright libertarian, coming from dragnet.”

A flat or simplified tax structure is libertarian coming from anyone.

“Aren’t you a guy who is pro-Obama? Obama benefits heavily from the status quo that you correctly described as parasitic and inefficient.”

I voted for Obama in 2008 because he was the only anti-war/pro-civil liberties candidate in the race. I’m writing in Ron Paul this year because he is the only anti-war/pro-civil liberties candidate in the race.

And Obama isn’t the only beneficiary of our wasteful and bloated status quo. The benefeciaries are vested elites, no matter their party or clique.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Andrew March 6, 2012 at 08:53
Anon March 6, 2012 at 10:46

I voted for Obama in 2008 because he was the only anti-war/pro-civil liberties candidate in the race.

Too bad that he was not just pro-war, but even more against civil liberties than GWB.

I’m writing in Ron Paul this year because he is the only anti-war/pro-civil liberties candidate in the race.

Good. For an African American to reject Obama itself is a miracle, and to write in Ron Paul is a second miracle.

Lest you think the last sentence harsh, surely you know that 95% of blacks will vote for Obama, even though their self-interest in doing so is highly questionable. Who has lost more to feminism than black men?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Anon March 6, 2012 at 10:53

dragnet,

I think part of the 180-degree change in at least your perception of which candidate meets your core values is something much simpler than that.

…….in 2008, you probably were making a lot less money than you are now. Obama’s ‘tax the rich’ sloganeering is now a turnoff to your personal situation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5
3DShooter March 6, 2012 at 16:33

@Opus

You are such a Munt, I have a hard time fathoming how you might feel you contribute to any discussion of ‘men’s issues’, you are obviously not one of us. You give a typical predator/parasite answer:

“You enquire of me exactly how many men I have, as you put it, forced into ‘indentured servitude’ and I am more than happy to answer, with the exact number. The number happens to be exactly equal to the number of divorced wives, who feel that following divorce they have been placed in straightened financial circumstances – and thus blamed me for their woes.”

Now maybe you can tell us what the meaning of ‘is’ is (you are in good company with another of your creed “BJ” Bill Clintoon – another attorney). As for your “appeal to authority” – I’m not inclined to indulge your logical fallacies. Bottom line is you lined your pockets on the backs of men and fathers – now live with it . . .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Buck Swamp March 6, 2012 at 19:22

Most of the women feeling the pain of alimony are second wives whose husband is getting shafted by his first wife.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
dragnet March 6, 2012 at 19:56

@ Anon

“….in 2008, you probably were making a lot less money than you are now. Obama’s ‘tax the rich’ sloganeering is now a turnoff to your personal situation.”

Is this a serious comment? I’m pretty sure you know absolutely nothing about my financial situation.

I’ll say again: in 2008 Obama was the anti-war/pro-civil liberties candidate. Obama was promising to withdraw from Iraq, avoid war with Iran and finish up in Afghanistan. He also promised to close Gitmo, bring the torturers and war criminals in our last administration to justice and stop ignoring the fourth amendment & habeus corpus. Since then, he has assassinated US citizens without charges or trial, threatened Iran with war, gone to war in Libya without Congressional approval, cracked down on whistleblowers, and hasn’t held anyone on Wall Street accountable for the rampant fraud that accompanied the global economic meltdown. Ron Paul is only candidate who can still credibly claim to be anti-war & pro-civil liberties and since these are the two most important issues to me personally, he has my vote.

Really, it’s not complicated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
dragnet March 6, 2012 at 20:10

@ Anon

“Good. For an African American to reject Obama itself is a miracle, and to write in Ron Paul is a second miracle.”

It’s funny—in the manosphere I have come across many claims of lockstep electoral tribalism among us black people….but these claims aren’t really backed up by reality, even with regards to Obama.

Remember, in Oct 2007 Clinton led Obama among black voters by 24 percent. She maintained a hefty lead among black voters…until Obama won the Iowa caucuses, after which black (and other core Democratic constituencies) began switching to Obama. Black voters only switched when other core constituencies began to move—when Obama showed he could actually win.

Even if you move outside the presidential race, claims of black people just blindly voting for black candidates don’t really pass the smell test. In Tennessee, the very white Steven Cohen won 80 percent of the black vote against black pols Nikki Tinker & Willie Herenton. In Alabama, black voters overwhelming voted for the white Ron Sparks over a prominent black politician, Artur Davis.

The simple truth is that black people for white candidates a lot—even when they are facing off against other black candidates. Go ahead and do a little research, you’ll be better off for it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Michael Parrotte March 6, 2012 at 20:32

Maybe Mr.Manz should get behind some program to educate wives since they initiate 2/3 of divorce proceedings. His whining about the come out on the short end of the stick seems disingenuous and illogical. Further he fails to acknowledge that it is women overwhelming who push for marriage in the first place. The their little fantasy is not what they dreamed, they bail, and now complain they are not doing better then there ex-husbands?? Give me a break!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Opus March 7, 2012 at 03:36

@3D Shooter

I am sorry that my answer to your question did not satisfy you. I do not propose talking up your kind invitation to define ‘is’, although rest assured that I would surely deduce that ‘is’, is not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
bruno March 7, 2012 at 04:22

“Marriage is the backbone of society”

No, it’s not.

Men’s labour and creativity, THAT’s the backbone of society.

But marriage is certainly the backbone of something: it’s the backbone of women’s money-grabbing organized crime system for stealing men’s wealth.
And it has nothing to do with feminism: it exists already thousands of years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
American March 7, 2012 at 05:52

American Gender-Raunch will keep perverting our law enforcement to the point where hetero-relations with women are an extreme legal liability. Letting women scratch themselves in the face, and claim domestic violence is not only “Perverse”, its un-constitutional.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
nigeles175d March 7, 2012 at 10:51

Just as the feminist education system and HR departments and affirmative action for women produce high-earning women, the alimony laws are being reviewed. I’m cynical.

It’s also the woman’s choice, and her choice alone to give up her “career” and dump the financial responsibility on the man she has pushed into giving her a baby.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Taank March 7, 2012 at 11:59

WRB hit it right on the head with cause and effect being confused regarding the benefits of marriage for men.

“Married Men are Healthier”
-because men with obvious medical problems are generally considered less fit for marriage. Also, undergoing divorce puts a man back onto the single side of the equation, along with (usually) a (not-so-)healthy helping of stress.

“Married Men are Wealthier”
-because men who are broke, riddled with debt, and/or working minimum wage jobs are also considered less fit for marriage. Also, again, undergoing divorce puts a man back onto the single side of the equation, immediately after probably losing a significant portion of his assets and being assessed with alimony and possibly child support.

“Married Men are Happier”
-because studies like this lie. They lie blatantly. Make friends with a bunch of married guys. Then make friends with a bunch of single guys. Judge for yourself who is happier. Not to say that no married men are happy, but in this day and age, I call that the rare exception.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
AAvictim March 7, 2012 at 17:40

@ dragnet

Obama was not an anti-war candidate. He claimed he just wanted to shift troops from Iraq into other wars. The only real anti-war candidates were Kucinich and Paul. I was doing better financially in 2008. I was self-employed and doing quite well. Corporations did not like me competiting with them so they pushed for legislation to effectively push me out of business. So I went from a booming business to out of business not from a lack of demand, far from it, but from anti-free market corporatism. As you probably guess Paul is one of the few that stood up against all of this. I knew it was a matter of time before the government needed to bring the recession over to me. It is crazy how many people think all of this is because we have a free market. It is quite clear that we are moving farther and farther away. Now I get to decide between being innovative again to get it stolen from me or fighting through the AA crap to work for some company that probably gets more from government favors.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
dragnet March 9, 2012 at 20:46

Looks like I spoke too soon about alimony reform being far off—the Alimony Reform Act was recently passed in Massachusetts:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/opinion/hitner-alimony-overhaul-pro/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

It’s still ridiculously generous to non-paying spouses, but it’s clearly better than before.

And notice, this only happened after the new wives of the alimony paying men were forced to chip in to help him meet his payments. That’s right—only when women were hurt under the laws did they change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
disenchant-ed March 22, 2012 at 06:35

Remember this statement: “When women become the majority breadwinners in the US, feminists will lobby to abolish alimony.” ….and they will succeed. God will have to even out the playing field…and He will.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Elvina Bergmann March 25, 2012 at 22:19

It is unfortunate that alimony reform has been stalled. The alimony guidelines and laws currently in effect are unfair and outdated at best and in many cases punitive to the payer.

My fiance pays lifetime permanent support to an ex-spouse who came out of the closet and declared herself a lesbian after 20 years of marriage. She is perfectly capable of supporting herself yet chooses not to. She is college educated, worked as a human resources executive and voluntarily left that to pursue artistic and writing interests. She is now an activist and journalist for gay and lesbian causes and publications. The alimony amount my fiance is required to pay is based on his gross income in 2005, an amount he hasn’t come close to matching in any of the ensuing seven years. The alimony his ex-wife receives equals more than 50% of his net income. Because the court awarded her permanent and lifetime alimony, he is compelled to work and pay her until the day he dies.

The Hillsborough County Court was not allowed to consider her change in sexual orientation when it ended their marriage. Consequently, he is now forced to support her and her new lifestyle. The Court was also not allowed to consider several same sex (adulterous) relationships in the marital home while the minor children were in the home and during the marriage. Why must he pay a declared lesbian for the rest of his life? Why does her decision to end the marriage to pursue her lesbian sexual desires have to punish him financially?
The current laws render him (and me) indentured servants. Actually, it allows her to be a parasite upon him, the host.

The current laws also impacts our decision of whether or not we marry. Should we wed, my assets could be considered along with his if the lesbian ex-wife were to petition the court for an upward modification to the alimony she already receives. She has already indicated her intent to do so. Thus, we have delayed our legal and moral union and have sought legal advice to insure that not happen. My investments that allow me not to ever be employed are for my and my future husband’s enjoyment and benefit-certainly not hers.

The current alimony laws are anti-family and appear to favor the gay agenda in this case. This is reprehensible and sinful. It also demonstrates that she, the very vocal and avowed feminist is actually avaricious and hypocritical. We believe that someday when the children realize the hypocrisy of their mother and the extreme unfairness to their father, they will be disappointed in her lack of character and moral fiber as demonstrated by her expectation to be supported forever by him–after she was the one who left the marriage!

Clearly the alimony laws need changing and the changes must be retroactive to address the injustices dealt my fiance and thousands of others. Why should anyone be forced to pay alimony for longer than they were married or into their retirement years? Why should anyone be forced to pay lifetime alimony to the person who went down a path (homosexual) a heterosexual spouse could not go on anymore? Was this fraud? He believes so after reflection.

In this particular case, why should anything other than temporary-short term rehabilitative alimony be awarded? He believed his ex would demonstrate the honorable and moral path to be self sufficient, independent of him and employed full-time with health benefits. It’s now been eight years since he moved from the marital home and she hasn’t done anything but provide excuses and complain. She has no incentive to truly work for a living since she receives a large amount of money from him indefinitely.

He had abided by all her requests and not physically moved from the home due to a religious event a child was preparing for. He did not want to disrupt this. Little did he know, the judicial clock was ticking and although they remained married on paper, it was a facade. There was no real marriage for several years before he moved out and she maintained her extracurricular lesbian relationships. With the time ticking away, the marriage progressed to be categorized as “long term” and therefore, he was ordered to pay permanent and lifetime alimony.

Nowadays, there is nothing but excuses given about her lack of earnings. Parental alienation has been employed to garner support for herself. To quote Shakespeare, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

Legislation should include guidelines for the amount and duration of alimony and include special provisions for normal heterosexual people in situations like this. I am counting on legislation that will address the complete removal of permanent and lifetime alimony as well as additional amendments that address this special circumstance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 March 27, 2012 at 12:25

“Ray March 6, 2012 at 07:32

I will not willingly serve on jury duty in this corrupt, American legal system. When I am sworn in to a panel, everyone must stand and answer “yes,” to the judge’s swearing in instructions, or be held in contempt, but I remain standing after everyone else sits down and add, “under duress” (not of my own free will – but because I’m forced to by physical and monetary threats from the corrupt legal system).”

Not sure if anyone is still reading this: I’ve been away for a while. Ray: yesterday I presented myself for jury duty. When the prosecutor asked me that question during voir dire answered that I supported the concept of jury nullification, but couldn’t see how that would be relevant in the case before the court (theft). I was pretty sure I would be dismissed. My plan backfired: not only was I selected to sit on the jury (picked from a very large pool of potential jurors), but the other jurors picked me as the foreman!

Long story short: the state put on a extremely weak case. So much so that I was genuinely offended that the prosecutor would think that any group of normal adults would believe he had proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt. I figured maybe 10 minutes to declare acquittal and fill out the paperwork. The defense hadn’t even bothered to call any witnesses, since the state had not even come close to overcoming reasonable doubt. I was shocked to find that 10 jurors were prepared to lower the boom on the defendant because of how they felt about the defendant, despite the fact that the prosecutor didn’t even really try to prove intent (which was the key to this particular case). The jury was about evenly split between men and women, and the only “ethnics” were me (half Latino although I look completely white) and a black woman. The defendant was a white guy. The ONLY juror to stand with me was the black woman – although she didn’t help me try to persuade the other jurors until we’d been at it for a few hours.

I ended up having to explain the concept of mens rea and the different standards of proof required in various cases. At that point one of the guys had an epiphany and switched his vote. A woman (pretty bright and married to a retired military officer), flipped on one charge based on a stricter reading of the instructions (I’m not sure her stricter reading was correct, but she and I were able to convince the rest to change their votes). So we voted for acquittal on the first charge and hopelessly deadlocked on the second one.

If it had been a “preponderance of the evidence” case I would have gone against him. In my estimation the strength of the state’s case was bordering on “clear and convincing.” But “beyond a reasonable doubt?” No friggin’ way. Not. Even. Close.

I have no idea if the guy was guilty or not – but I KNOW that state didn’t prove it, so he walked away a free man. But considering the initial poll I took at the start of the deliberations I’m fairly confident he would have been convicted on both counts if I hadn’t gone to the mat for “beyond a reasonable doubt” from the get-go.

Frankly that scared the crap out of me. The prosecutor put on a case that I considered an insult to my intelligence, and almost all my fellow jurors eagerly bought that line of crap. I almost asked him later why he didn’t make more of an attempt to show intent, but I already knew the answer: jurors usually don’t require the state to really prove its case.

Such is the sad state of American jurisprudence. No wonder men get screwed by the system. There’s a lesson there somewhere.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kathi Bender April 3, 2012 at 09:11

Reform IS on it’s way!! Open your eyes to see that the same laws enforced to protect the non-working ex spouse have also damned the paying spouse. Enabling one to a life time of free income forced the other into slavery. Why can’t we expect the dependent person to make their own way in this world? Why does the archaic divorce law encourage and endorse continued dependency? It is not fair. Children grown up and become emancipated. They are provided for until they do. Any grown person can also become emancipated from an ex spouse. Alimony should urge and assist that dependent spouse to become financially independent and only if it is needed. Working ex partners should not be endowed with income that sets them in a lifestyle above the paying party. Reform is needed for the greedy people who feel the entitlement of money without having to feel the sweat of earning it. Long term marriages are no exception. Asssets and 401K retirement plans are divided equally in divorce. How do you expect someone to retire and sustain alimony payments and call that an equitable, fair and just divorce?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
William Heino Sr. June 13, 2013 at 19:26

Much talked about alimony reform, such are the dreams of the disabled veteran. When is that going to happen? However, any proposed legislation is discriminatory which does not include alimony reform for disabled veterans. As made obvious, both in states where attempts where made, and where passage was successful. Proposed and passed into law without thought or consideration for the disabled veteran wanting, under similar circumstances. However, actions by state courts are not as thoughtless when it involves veteran’s disability compensation.
=
“It is well established that disability benefits are a protected property interest and may not be discontinued without due process of law. See Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, 128 (1985); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976)”
=
38 USC 5301 Nonassignability and exempt status of benefits. “Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law,.. a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.
=
The question being, how is it, that state court judges can arbitrarily and capriciously award as alimony, with the mere wave of a hand, waive away a portion of a veteran’s VA disability rated compensation? Moneys in the form of disability compensation, the disability rights of a veteran, whose disability rating that maybe determined and factored in as critical? Judgment as if all disabilities are exactly the same. A disabled veteran’s plead to the judge, “I have a severe serious back injury, I need all of my VA disability compensation.” The judge would reply, “Are you a doctor?”
=
But yet, state court judges, are in reality playing doctor, without medical license or knowledge .. a practice forbidden, providing penalties by law, and border on medical negligence. All without any input, or approval from the Veterans Administration. Overstepping those whose authority it belongs, the dedicated VA medical professionals, in the practice of medicine, re-evaluation, and rehabilitation of the veteran. While at the same time violating federal law, 38 USC 5301, 42 USC 1408, and the 14th Amendment.
=
Ninth Circuit Says Congress, Not Courts, Have Say Over VA Health Care.
VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE v. SHINSEKI December 13, 2011
=
Continually, State court judges disregard the law, as reduction in disability compensation cannot be “reduced unless an improvement in the veteran’s disability is shown to have occurred.” USC 1155 Authority for schedule for rating disabilities.
=
How are judges allowed the non-life threatening discretion to award as alimony disability compensation based on ‘statutory’ awards? Which are not predicated directly on the average reduction in earning capacity, but primarily upon consideration of noneconomic factors such as personal inconvenience, social inadaptability, or the profound nature of the disability. The purpose of the statutory award for loss or loss of use of a creative organ is to account for psychological factors.
=
“Clear and substantial” major damage to federal interests occurs when state court judges make lasting decisions, that seriously impact disabled veterans’ rated compensation and complicate Veterans Administration goals, and responsibilities. Upsetting, and overruling VA medical compensation decisions, which involve many hours of work that VA medical professionals have invested in the medical care, control, follow-up, and rehabilitation of disabled veterans. All this happens with VA complicity, when a state court, arbitrarily is allowed to take away a veterans VA disability compensation in third party alimony awards in violation of….. 38 USC 5301. 42 USC § 407 – Assignment of benefits, carries similar language.
=
Where is it written, the VA authority, when a state judge can overrule the VA, the VA medical doctors and other medical professionals’ that determine a veterans’ medical rating compensation? His future now without the compensation that was by law assured? Tax payer monies mandated by Congress purposely, as veterans service compensation for injuries received, life altering as they are, now being diverted purposely by state courts to healthy third parties in many cases, in a determined and engaging violation of the law. To allow what has been happening, arbitrary exercise of government power, was it the intent of Congress that state court judges substitute their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals? I don’t think so!
=
Perhaps, state legislators will or have proposed alimony reform legislation such as Massachusetts, West Virginia, California, as well as other states, due to the changing realities of family life, either proposed or passed that ‘permanent current alimony’ obligations be eliminated in alimony reform legislation? Legislation having broad appeal, proposed, and as happened, passed into law without thought or consideration of the disabled veteran wanting, under similar circumstances.
=
To this day, there is no eagerness of state legislators to extend this, or any proposal to eliminate veterans disability compensation awards from alimony, despite the law, or any reform measures. The laws protecting disability compensation are very clear. What is needed is reform in the court system, and legislative re-thinking, that for whatever reason, due process and property rights do not apply to disabled veterans? This is something disabled veterans’, despite all efforts at law, over many years have tried to accomplish. Passing alimony reform legislation without disabled veterans would be just another insult. Brushed aside for more important things.
=
The law is clear as to a veteran’s rights and a state court judge’s improper judicial authority in denying protections that are guaranteed, if not for the unjust rulings and hostility experienced by disabled veteran’s for wanting equal justice.
=
Disabled veteran’s have had the exact same alimony issue as everybody else. However, correcting clearly improper and illegal court rulings imposed on disabled veteran‘s is the issue, as much as it is any reform proposal.
=
It is up to State legislators to honor them, with court clarifying legislation supporting the property rights of the disabled veteran Thereby, setting an example for the rest of the nation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Free but poorer August 2, 2014 at 13:00

The Comedian, Chris Rock, said it best: (to paraphrase)… When the judge is reviewing a divorce case, she/he listens to testimony from the woman about maintaining the same “standard of living” pre/post divorce. However, they never inquire about the man maintaining that “standard of living to which HE has become accustomed”…

So, your honor, since my client has to make the alimony payments you and the courts feel necessary, and in order to be fair to both parties, my client requests the court awards a quid-pro-quo of weekly “pussy payments” because he has become accustomed to getting laid once a week. Therefore, the parties involved will each maintain equitable pre/post dissolution standards of living.

Put THAT (concept) into the “reform efforts” and see how the crusading man-hating, women with “Daddy issues” (another Chris Rock topic) will respond.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Free but poorer August 2, 2014 at 13:24

Further, it has come out in the press (“60 Minutes”?) that the NBA includes in it’s preliminary/introductory briefing of “Rookies” (players new to the NBA) several lectures on “life topics”.

Among these are included “how to deal with new wealth” and so forth.

One of the more interesting lectures involves “predatory women”. Basically, these are women whose objective in life is to “hook up” with star athletes and become “baby mommas” for the sole purpose of being financially supported by the unsuspecting wealthy athlete.

Say it isn’t so. Women deceiving men for financial gain?!

What hath this society wrought?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: