Should alimony be abolished?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm conflicted because on one hand I think Alimony is bad, but I also think divorce shouldn't really be a thing.

What if we turned all of humanity into one 7-billion-strong polycule...?

No.

[Liriena]

What if we turned all of humanity into one 7-billion-strong polycule...?

No.

Can't get divorced if everyone is married to everyone! And no need to worry about alimony when everyone is everyone's parent! [taps forehead]

[United Muscovite Nations]

No.

Can't get divorced if everyone is married to everyone! And no need to worry about alimony when everyone is everyone's parent! [taps forehead]

Polyamory is legitimately disgusting, so no. I'd rather not get into this futile discussion though.

[Page]

I say abolish it but I am for abolition in the context that we ought to all have universal basic income.

[Estanglia]

Either reform it or, if that is not possible (somehow) replace it.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH-i8IvYIcg

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Abolished. This would be DETRIMENTAL to people with low salaries.

What of "people with low salaries" who never got married in the first place? Should they just be left to wallow in poverty?

[Ostroeuropa]

Hrmmm, shouldn't the reverse hold true too?

I.e. the bread-winning spouse shouldn't be stuck in a marriage due to fear of an alimony hit?

Yes, it should. But absent some not-alimony system to make that happen, which is the bigger harm? Making someone pay alimony to support their ex-spouse, or putting someone out on the street with only the clothes on their back to spare their ex-spouse alimony payments?

What's the greater harm, constantly viewing all these "Little harms" in isolation such that they only travel one way and amount to a greater harm, or an actually equitable system?

We already have systems for people to receive benefits and so on. There is no need for alimony, the system you want is already here. In fact there was NEVER a need for alimony, because a woman can in fact just get a fucking job, and that has ALWAYS been the case. (Working class women.). It was a system put in place to ensure that rich women could keep on being rich at the expense of their husbands, without the work, because god forbid they actually have to live like the majority of the population. For all feminists bitch and moan and cry about being kept out of the workplace, that's simply not the case. They could have worked, easily, they just have to give up being rich to do it. But then they wouldn't be rich, and know what actually is a problem? People being robbed by capitalists.

So we get this tortured explanation from a recipient of extortion money about how they are the real victim here because if they don't get their cut of the robbery (for doing nothing) then that's just not fair. I thought we typically noticed that the less the owner of capital worked, the more of a problem it was? Or does that just fly out the window when a woman cries about it.

I've got news for you. Alimony recipients are capitalists, that's what they're doing. Like those shenanigans where a poor farmer """Owns""" the land, but all the profit goes to someone else. Obfuscated capitalism, that's all. It's still profiteering from the alienation of labour.

I say abolish it but I am for abolition in the context that we ought to all have universal basic income.

"Every single white person needs to be happy and comfortable before we can begin to address systemic inequality minorities face."

Doing injustice to people isn't acceptable merely because you haven't managed to find someone to actually pay to pick your cotton for you instead yet, but will totally get around to that injustice thing. We constantly see this kind of "logic" on behalf of women, and never anywhere else.

It's a clear example of people being fine with women offloading potential injustice they face onto men "Until we figure out a solution." for the injustice. Fuck that, and fuck feminism for making people think that is an acceptable way to behave, it's an epidemic by this point.

More than that, i'd expect you to have a negative take on alienating someone from their labour, but I guess the "Muh wimminz" applies here too.

[Ifreann]

Yes, it should. But absent some not-alimony system to make that happen, which is the bigger harm? Making someone pay alimony to support their ex-spouse, or putting someone out on the street with only the clothes on their back to spare their ex-spouse alimony payments?

What's the greater harm, constantly viewing all these "Little harms" in isolation such that they only travel one way and amount to a greater harm, or an actually equitable system?

You're right, those who are richer shouldn't have to pay more to support those with less. The poor should just get jobs. I am very anti-capitalist.

[Ostroeuropa]

What's the greater harm, constantly viewing all these "Little harms" in isolation such that they only travel one way and amount to a greater harm, or an actually equitable system?

You're right, those who are richer shouldn't have to pay more to support those with less. The poor should just get jobs. I am very anti-capitalist.

It's privatized welfare given that it's not that the rich are taxed, but that the rich are forced to share the wealth they exploited with other people in the upper class under some circumstances.

[Galloism]

People shouldn't fear to end a marriage because of the financial consequences they would face. So keep alimony until and unless some other system is in place to support people recently out of a marriage who cannot support themselves.

Um, a lot of men fear an end to marriage because of the financial consequences they would face, alimony being a part of those consequences. It's one of the reasons women actually initiate a significant majority of divorces - they are less likely to fear the financial consequences than men are because of the way the system is currently setup.

If you want people to not fear and end to marriage because of financial consequences they would face, you would need to reduce or eliminate the financial consequences of divorce, which would start with reducing alimony.

[Galloism]

Hrmmm, shouldn't the reverse hold true too?

I.e. the bread-winning spouse shouldn't be stuck in a marriage due to fear of an alimony hit?

Yes, it should. But absent some not-alimony system to make that happen, which is the bigger harm? Making someone pay alimony to support their ex-spouse, or putting someone out on the street with only the clothes on their back to spare their ex-spouse alimony payments?

I'd say there's probably something in the middle to be done.

Lifetime alimony is inherently unjust. A temporary alimony for the other party to get on their feet might be acceptable. The doctrine of "life to which they are accustomed" is probably morally bankrupt. After all, the other spouse is losing the life to which they are accustomed, and that's not remediable by the court (well it is, it would just be terrible).

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Can't get divorced if everyone is married to everyone! And no need to worry about alimony when everyone is everyone's parent! [taps forehead]

Polyamory is legitimately disgusting, so no. I'd rather not get into this futile discussion though.

Polyamory is actually more natural than monogamy, and usually results in better outcomes. Statistics show that polyamorous groups often have better sexual health than monogamous couples, because they get checked for STDs often and use safer methods of sex. People cheat for a reason. Nobody really wants a monogamous relationship apart from moral reasons.

[Ifreann]

You're right, those who are richer shouldn't have to pay more to support those with less. The poor should just get jobs. I am very anti-capitalist.

It's privatized welfare given that it's not that the rich are taxed, but that the rich are forced to share the wealth they exploited with other people in the upper class under some circumstances.

And that's bad. The rich should get to keep all their wealth and the poor should just get jobs.

---

People shouldn't fear to end a marriage because of the financial consequences they would face. So keep alimony until and unless some other system is in place to support people recently out of a marriage who cannot support themselves.

Um, a lot of men fear an end to marriage because of the financial consequences they would face, alimony being a part of those consequences. It's one of the reasons women actually initiate a significant majority of divorces - they are less likely to fear the financial consequences than men are because of the way the system is currently setup.

If you want people to not fear and end to marriage because of financial consequences they would face, you would need to reduce or eliminate the financial consequences of divorce, which would start with reducing alimony.

That's what the second sentence says.

[Galloism]

Um, a lot of men fear an end to marriage because of the financial consequences they would face, alimony being a part of those consequences. It's one of the reasons women actually initiate a significant majority of divorces - they are less likely to fear the financial consequences than men are because of the way the system is currently setup.

If you want people to not fear and end to marriage because of financial consequences they would face, you would need to reduce or eliminate the financial consequences of divorce, which would start with reducing alimony.

That's what the second sentence says.

That's implying setup of a government divorce-assist system, not taking an action now.

In essence, it's a punt to keep the current system in place until something that will never pass passes.

[Ifreann]

That's what the second sentence says.

That's implying setup of a government divorce-assist system, not taking an action now.

In essence, it's a punt to keep the current system in place until something that will never pass passes.

Yes, clearly I'm just putting the issue off so that I can stay in office without having to actually deal with it. Because I am an elected official in America. Definitely the correct way to read my posts.

[Galloism]

That's implying setup of a government divorce-assist system, not taking an action now.

In essence, it's a punt to keep the current system in place until something that will never pass passes.

Yes, clearly I'm just putting the issue off so that I can stay in office without having to actually deal with it. Because I am an elected official in America. Definitely the correct way to read my posts.

It really is on issues like these.

We could reduce alimony now, make it temporary, and under the current system it would be equitable to both parties, or at least more equitable than the status quo - with or without any kind of additional government assist system.

[Arcturus Novus]

Reformed, yes. Abolished, no.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's privatized welfare given that it's not that the rich are taxed, but that the rich are forced to share the wealth they exploited with other people in the upper class under some circumstances.

And that's bad. The rich should get to keep all their wealth and the poor should just get jobs.

---

Um, a lot of men fear an end to marriage because of the financial consequences they would face, alimony being a part of those consequences. It's one of the reasons women actually initiate a significant majority of divorces - they are less likely to fear the financial consequences than men are because of the way the system is currently setup.

If you want people to not fear and end to marriage because of financial consequences they would face, you would need to reduce or eliminate the financial consequences of divorce, which would start with reducing alimony.

That's what the second sentence says.

Deliberate bad faith arguments from a anti-MRA feminist, who could have seen that coming!

Are you really that unable to sincerely grapple with the observation that women were, in fact, not excluded from the workplace and could get jobs? That the function of alimony is to expand exploitation of labor?

[Ostroeuropa]

That's implying setup of a government divorce-assist system, not taking an action now.

In essence, it's a punt to keep the current system in place until something that will never pass passes.

Yes, clearly I'm just putting the issue off so that I can stay in office without having to actually deal with it. Because I am an elected official in America. Definitely the correct way to read my posts.

Why are you comfortable which artificially shifting the harm from women to men until there is a solution?

Putting off releasing slaves until you find someone willing to work for wages to pick your cotton isn't okay, your realize? Or is it, provided you release the women slaves immediately?

[Ostroeuropa]

Polyamory is legitimately disgusting, so no. I'd rather not get into this futile discussion though.

Polyamory is actually more natural than monogamy, and usually results in better outcomes. Statistics show that polyamorous groups often have better sexual health than monogamous couples, because they get checked for STDs often and use safer methods of sex. People cheat for a reason. Nobody really wants a monogamous relationship apart from moral reasons.

The reason monogamy came about was STD's in the first place. You can't exactly argue it's "More natural" if you have to use medical science to make polyamory viable. Not that that would matter in the first place.

[Ostroeuropa]

Reformed, yes. Abolished, no.

Why not abolish it?

[Katganistan]

I think it's largely outdated, from a time when women were expected to be homemakers only.

I think if both spouses have equal or roughly jobs, neither should be awarded alimony.

I think if one has been expected to stay home and be homemaker/raised the kids without a job, regardless of gender, they should get it fully because they will need to support themselves/get career training to go into the workforce.

If one makes vastly more than they other, and the other makes a pittance, then the better paid spouse should help subsidize living expenses until their partner gets a better job or is remarried.

This is all separate from any child support question.

[Ifreann]

Yes, clearly I'm just putting the issue off so that I can stay in office without having to actually deal with it. Because I am an elected official in America. Definitely the correct way to read my posts.

It really is on issues like these.

I suppose if I was taken at my word then it would be hard to frame my position as marriage as feminist misandry.

We could reduce alimony now, make it temporary, and under the current system it would be equitable to both parties, or at least more equitable than the status quo - with or without any kind of additional government assist system.

Or instead of cutting people's income now and hoping it will just work out and be equitable and no one will end up homeless, actually make sure people will be supported and then do away with alimony entirely.

[Katganistan]

I'm conflicted because on one hand I think Alimony is bad, but I also think divorce shouldn't really be a thing.

Divorce should absolutely be a thing. Being forced to stay with an abusive ex, no matter the gender, is horrific. Being forced to stay with someone when neither of you can get along does no one any good either.

People should carefully consider what they are getting into when they marry, but one shouldn't be forced to live forever in a partnership that is hostile.