You joke, but that's really apt. This case was posted here a month or so ago, and that's the best conclusion everyone could come up with. They didn't have children, so it wasn't an issue of child support. They weren't married, so it wasn't an issue of alimony as we know it. They didn't even live together, so even if you tried to stretch the notion of alimony to people who live together unmarried, that still doesn't apply. They simply dated, and he was very generous with her.
But the problem here is that they are setting a precedent where you are entitled to continue receiving the benefits of a relationship once the relationship is over. And that's bonkers insane. If you date someone with money, you are likely going to receive lavish gifts. When you break up, you don't receive those gifts anymore. If you date someone who is a chef, you are likely going to receive some amazing home-cooked meals. When you break up, you don't have a personal chef anymore. If you date someone who is a massage therapist, you are likely going to receive some massages from time to time. When you break up, you don't get free massages anymore.
And I could go on for a million other examples. You are not entitled to the benefits of a relationship once the relationship ends. It's absolutely absurd that the court ruled the way it did here. It's essentially saying that this woman grew accustomed to being pampered by a rich person while she dated him, so now that she's not dating him anymore, she deserves to continue being pampered by a rich person. This logic is so shitty.
Like you said, why aren't there court cases across the country, ruling that people must continue to have sex with their previous partner, because their previous partner grew accustomed to having regular sex, and so they need to continue receiving it for some reason?
I am okay with the concept of alimony if it's carried out the correct way. But it often is not, which is why I agree that in many cases, alimony is the same bullshit.
To me, it seems that the logic behind alimony is to compensate someone for the loss of career advancement they sustained while in a relationship. So you are earning X when you quit your job to be supported by your partner, and you remain out of your career for Y years before breaking up and going back into your career, at which point you are making Z. The idea here should be to project how much X would have grown in Y years, and then take the difference of that amount and Z to determine how much less you are making per year than you would have been making. That is how much you should be paid by alimony.
For an example, let's say I am making $25k/year at age 30. I quit my job to be supported by a partner for 10 years. Then we break up, and at age 40, I re-enter the same career path, possibly making $25k/year again, but possibly making less since I've been out of the game. So let's say $20k/year. The goal here should be to predict how much my career would have grown in 10 years if I had continued working. So to be very generous, let's say I would have doubled my salary in 10 years. So that means I would have been making $50k/year, but I am only making $20k/year. So in theory, it makes sense for me to be compensated in the amount of $30k/year, since that's the difference of what I would have been making, and what I am making.
But more often than not, alimony actually ends up being "you lived a wealthy lifestyle while you were married to a wealthy person, so now that you are divorced, you deserve to continue living a wealthy lifestyle". And that concept is absolute garbage. I would support alimony if it were just about the concept I laid out above. But instead, it's just about continuing to reap the benefits of a relationship long after the relationship has ended. And I'm with you that this concept is terrible.
Can you imagine if this precedent was universally applied? The notion that a person grows accustomed to their life in a relationship, and therefore is legally entitled to continue receiving all of the benefits of that relationship?
You date a professional chef for a few years, so you get amazing home-cooked meals. Once you break up, the court rules that your ex must come to your house a few times per week to cook you a home-cooked meal for dinner. Because hey, you once enjoyed that lifestyle, so now you are legally entitled to continue enjoying that lifestyle, right?
Don't ever do anything generous, because the courts might force you to continue being generous for a long time afterward. That's basically the essence here. This guy could have been stingy with his money. They could have dated for three years while he enjoys his wealth and doesn't share any of it with her. They break up, and all is normal. But because he was generous with his money while they dated, now he is being forced to continue being generous with his money by continuing to give it to his now ex-girlfriend? It just makes no sense.
The courts have spoken, and being generous is now something which can bite you in the ass. The courts are telling people to be more selfish, because if you are ever generous, you might be forced to continue being generous for a long time after you want to.
Yeah, and one time I dated this girl who gave amazing backrubs, so I stopped going to pay for professional massage therapists. But guess what? We broke up, and I started having to pay for my massages again. No judge ordered my ex to continue coming to my house to give me backrubs.
Turns out that once you stop being in a relationship, you stop receiving the benefits of being in that relationship, who knew?
I'm not disagreeing with the "benefits of a relationship" part, but your comparison does actively ignore the "being out of the workforce for almost 20 years" part. It's not the same and anyone who has ever been employed/job hunting knows that.
I've made a couple of other arguments about the legitimacy of alimony in this thread. And I will say that I agree there is some reason for alimony to exist. But what it should be is compensation for the difference between your current salary and the salary you would have been making by this point in your life if you had not left the workforce.
But that's almost never what alimony ends up being. Take this case. She's being paid $600,000 per year. That's completely unreasonable. If she goes back to work right now and is able to earn $X/year, then the settlement she is receiving implies that if she hadn't left the workforce, she would be making $(X + 600,000)/year right now. That's absolutely absurd.
Take this as a sign that you should drop that label, then. You don't have to change your beliefs one bit. But the label is toxic. It's feminism which is accomplishing more and more in our society, and moving us closer and closer to the world where situations like this are possible. Feminism is toxic. Gender equality is beautiful. If you call yourself a "tried and true feminist" because you believe in gender equality, then just believe in gender equality without the label. Calling yourself a feminist does nothing but associate you with terrible people.
But why do you care? This is what I mean. If you only use the label feminism to mean "I believe in gender equality", there are other words for that. Or you could drop labels altogether and just say you support gender equality when the topic comes up. Why is it important to you that you get to keep the label of feminism, and all the feminists who do damage to gender equality are shunned? Why is the label so important to you?
It's also not a good argument to claim that you are a real feminist, but all the feminists in high places are fake feminists. That's delusion. Even if you say, "I support feminism according to the dictionary definition, and they do not," that still isn't a good argument. Actions speak louder than words. People in places of influence matter more than random people in a reddit thread. There are feminists in high places in official feminist organizations, and they are doing damage to gender equality. So they represent feminism more than you do, because they have a tangible impact.
And again, why do you care enough to cling to the label?
Read the article, she wouldn’t sign premarital paperwork. I would have left her too. For any man getting married GET A PRENUP. My wife has more money than I do but I gladly signed one where I give up rights to her money and she gives up rights to my pension. Any woman that says if you love me we don’t need to sign this just wants your money.
This is not proportional to that goal, though. If the logic is "you quit your job and fell behind in your career by X years, therefore you are entitled to compensation for the loss in continued salary post-breakup", then this is still bullshit. The logic there should imply that the amount of money you are granted is proportional to the amount you are losing out on.
So say I am earning $25k per year at age 30 when I quit my job to be supported by a partner. We date for 10 years, and then we split up. The logic here should be to determine how much money I would be making in my career if I had continued working for 10 years, rather than quit. So in a job where I am earning $25k at age 30, how much would you reasonably expect I would be making by age 40? As it stands, I would have to start back at the bottom, possibly making $25k again, or possible making lower, let's say $20k. So if we determine that I could have grown my salary to $50k (and I think that's generous, doubling your salary in 10 years at your career?), then the amount I should be owed is $30k per year. Because that's the difference between what I would be making right now ($50k/year) and what I am making right now ($20k/year) due to my relationship.
So let's apply the same logic here. She is granted $6,000,000 over 10 years, or $600,000 per year. That logic suggests that if she goes back to work right now, she will be making $600,000 per year LESS than she would be making at this same point in her life, if she hadn't quit her job. And I think that's absolute bullshit. How much is she making right now if she goes back to work? How the hell much does the judge think she would be making if she had worked for a decade longer?
That's why it's bullshit to me. The concept of alimony makes sense if the goal is to compensate someone for the amount of career loss they sustained while in a relationship. But more often than not, the amount they are granted is more along the lines of "you were rich during the relationship, so you deserve to continue being rich". And that concept is absolute garbage.
[–]Big_Dick_No_Brain 845 points846 points847 points (45 children) | Copy Link
[–]djc_tech 316 points317 points318 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jack_N_Morty 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]masonmason22 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PE_AllG 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]YM1995 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hansson2 101 points102 points103 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BlackBoxInquiry 25 points26 points27 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]BlackBoxInquiry 20 points21 points22 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]randonumero 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rawdog4lifeho 19 points20 points21 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]BlackBoxInquiry 9 points10 points11 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rawdog4lifeho 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]BlackBoxInquiry 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]BlackBoxInquiry 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hansson2 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]BlackBoxInquiry 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hansson2 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]White_Mlungu_Capital 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]TheJetsKilledCarl -9 points-8 points-7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]randonumero 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TheJetsKilledCarl 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]tothecatmobile -73 points-72 points-71 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]djc_tech 62 points63 points64 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]dejour 9 points10 points11 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]djc_tech 19 points20 points21 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]dejour 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kequilla 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Solace2010 -28 points-27 points-26 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Azurenightsky 23 points24 points25 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]djc_tech 12 points13 points14 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+]Solace2010 -31 points-30 points-29 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]djc_tech 17 points18 points19 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]TehReedster891 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
"We are displeased that a man is being forced to pay money after a break up for no good reason."
"Ugh, you people just want to hate on women."
How do you even convince yourself you are in the right on this one?
[+]Solace2010 -11 points-10 points-9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Elijah00 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jmcsquared 10 points11 points12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Solace2010 -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jmcsquared 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Big_Dick_No_Brain 33 points34 points35 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Oishiio42 244 points245 points246 points (34 children) | Copy Link
[–]xdzgor 259 points260 points261 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–]destarolat 192 points193 points194 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[+]TehReedster891 points [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link
You joke, but that's really apt. This case was posted here a month or so ago, and that's the best conclusion everyone could come up with. They didn't have children, so it wasn't an issue of child support. They weren't married, so it wasn't an issue of alimony as we know it. They didn't even live together, so even if you tried to stretch the notion of alimony to people who live together unmarried, that still doesn't apply. They simply dated, and he was very generous with her.
But the problem here is that they are setting a precedent where you are entitled to continue receiving the benefits of a relationship once the relationship is over. And that's bonkers insane. If you date someone with money, you are likely going to receive lavish gifts. When you break up, you don't receive those gifts anymore. If you date someone who is a chef, you are likely going to receive some amazing home-cooked meals. When you break up, you don't have a personal chef anymore. If you date someone who is a massage therapist, you are likely going to receive some massages from time to time. When you break up, you don't get free massages anymore.
And I could go on for a million other examples. You are not entitled to the benefits of a relationship once the relationship ends. It's absolutely absurd that the court ruled the way it did here. It's essentially saying that this woman grew accustomed to being pampered by a rich person while she dated him, so now that she's not dating him anymore, she deserves to continue being pampered by a rich person. This logic is so shitty.
Like you said, why aren't there court cases across the country, ruling that people must continue to have sex with their previous partner, because their previous partner grew accustomed to having regular sex, and so they need to continue receiving it for some reason?
[–]sexytimeinseattle 24 points25 points26 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tramm 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BrFrancis 4 points5 points6 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Amazing_Rope_Police 20 points21 points22 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Tramm 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]TehReedster891 points [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
I am okay with the concept of alimony if it's carried out the correct way. But it often is not, which is why I agree that in many cases, alimony is the same bullshit.
To me, it seems that the logic behind alimony is to compensate someone for the loss of career advancement they sustained while in a relationship. So you are earning X when you quit your job to be supported by your partner, and you remain out of your career for Y years before breaking up and going back into your career, at which point you are making Z. The idea here should be to project how much X would have grown in Y years, and then take the difference of that amount and Z to determine how much less you are making per year than you would have been making. That is how much you should be paid by alimony.
For an example, let's say I am making $25k/year at age 30. I quit my job to be supported by a partner for 10 years. Then we break up, and at age 40, I re-enter the same career path, possibly making $25k/year again, but possibly making less since I've been out of the game. So let's say $20k/year. The goal here should be to predict how much my career would have grown in 10 years if I had continued working. So to be very generous, let's say I would have doubled my salary in 10 years. So that means I would have been making $50k/year, but I am only making $20k/year. So in theory, it makes sense for me to be compensated in the amount of $30k/year, since that's the difference of what I would have been making, and what I am making.
But more often than not, alimony actually ends up being "you lived a wealthy lifestyle while you were married to a wealthy person, so now that you are divorced, you deserve to continue living a wealthy lifestyle". And that concept is absolute garbage. I would support alimony if it were just about the concept I laid out above. But instead, it's just about continuing to reap the benefits of a relationship long after the relationship has ended. And I'm with you that this concept is terrible.
[–]BrFrancis 8 points9 points10 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]LieutenantLawyer 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Oishiio42 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]LieutenantLawyer 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Oishiio42 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tramm 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jacksleepshere 31 points32 points33 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xdzgor 44 points45 points46 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mad_Hatter_92 46 points47 points48 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]TehReedster891 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
Can you imagine if this precedent was universally applied? The notion that a person grows accustomed to their life in a relationship, and therefore is legally entitled to continue receiving all of the benefits of that relationship?
You date a professional chef for a few years, so you get amazing home-cooked meals. Once you break up, the court rules that your ex must come to your house a few times per week to cook you a home-cooked meal for dinner. Because hey, you once enjoyed that lifestyle, so now you are legally entitled to continue enjoying that lifestyle, right?
[–]BrFrancis 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Systemofwar 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xdzgor 25 points26 points27 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Azurenightsky 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TC1851 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]NibblyPig1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Our welfare system is really messed up then isn't it?
I lose my $100,000/year job the state should be providing me with welfare to maintain my standard of living
[–]xdzgor 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Terminal-Psychosis 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AFuddyDuddy 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nemodigital 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]TehReedster891 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Don't ever do anything generous, because the courts might force you to continue being generous for a long time afterward. That's basically the essence here. This guy could have been stingy with his money. They could have dated for three years while he enjoys his wealth and doesn't share any of it with her. They break up, and all is normal. But because he was generous with his money while they dated, now he is being forced to continue being generous with his money by continuing to give it to his now ex-girlfriend? It just makes no sense.
The courts have spoken, and being generous is now something which can bite you in the ass. The courts are telling people to be more selfish, because if you are ever generous, you might be forced to continue being generous for a long time after you want to.
[–]BrFrancis 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]XxPiranavxX 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Akhi11eus 19 points20 points21 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GTFonMF 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]neverXmiss 378 points379 points380 points (38 children) | Copy Link
[–]OH-Kelly-DOH-Kelly 163 points164 points165 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 84 points85 points86 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]neverXmiss 34 points35 points36 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThingYea 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mcavvacm 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SnooCheesecakes4786 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BurningOrangeHeaven 14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]neverXmiss -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MarinTaranu 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]neverXmiss 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MarinTaranu 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]neverXmiss 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ozie12020 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]west_pac 4 points5 points6 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]healious 7 points8 points9 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]west_pac -4 points-3 points-2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]healious 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]west_pac 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]healious 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]throwaway123321412 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WitBeer 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]west_pac 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WitBeer 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]neverXmiss 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]White_Mlungu_Capital 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]neverXmiss 1 point2 points3 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]White_Mlungu_Capital 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]neverXmiss 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]White_Mlungu_Capital -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]neverXmiss 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]White_Mlungu_Capital -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]neverXmiss 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]White_Mlungu_Capital -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]themainingredient420 256 points257 points258 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Warod0 39 points40 points41 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]crafty_alias 17 points18 points19 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Tramm 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jmcsquared 175 points176 points177 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]MisPlacedNeuroBlue 121 points122 points123 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BruhKinetic 48 points49 points50 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jostler57 83 points84 points85 points
(9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Yoxs84 41 points42 points43 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Inconsequential94 39 points40 points41 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Yoxs84 8 points9 points10 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedRedneck 11 points12 points13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SnooCheesecakes4786 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Azurenightsky -8 points-7 points-6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Azurenightsky 11 points12 points13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jmcsquared 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MuntedMunyak 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nanan00 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]qtyapa 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fluffyshuffle 47 points48 points49 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LotBuilder 49 points50 points51 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KorvisKhan 38 points39 points40 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SimpleCanadianFella -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]woopwoopgiraffe 41 points42 points43 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 41 points42 points43 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+]HeroGothamKneads -22 points-21 points-20 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+]TehReedster891 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, and one time I dated this girl who gave amazing backrubs, so I stopped going to pay for professional massage therapists. But guess what? We broke up, and I started having to pay for my massages again. No judge ordered my ex to continue coming to my house to give me backrubs.
Turns out that once you stop being in a relationship, you stop receiving the benefits of being in that relationship, who knew?
[+]HeroGothamKneads1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm not disagreeing with the "benefits of a relationship" part, but your comparison does actively ignore the "being out of the workforce for almost 20 years" part. It's not the same and anyone who has ever been employed/job hunting knows that.
[+]TehReedster891 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
I've made a couple of other arguments about the legitimacy of alimony in this thread. And I will say that I agree there is some reason for alimony to exist. But what it should be is compensation for the difference between your current salary and the salary you would have been making by this point in your life if you had not left the workforce.
But that's almost never what alimony ends up being. Take this case. She's being paid $600,000 per year. That's completely unreasonable. If she goes back to work right now and is able to earn $X/year, then the settlement she is receiving implies that if she hadn't left the workforce, she would be making $(X + 600,000)/year right now. That's absolutely absurd.
[–]PM_SHORT_STORY_IDEAS 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]HeroGothamKneads 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]themainingredient420 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AdvocatusDiabli 40 points41 points42 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Azurenightsky 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]AdvocatusDiabli -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kequilla 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Archivist_of_Lewds -9 points-8 points-7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]AdvocatusDiabli 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sweatyhole 23 points24 points25 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JustJamie- 25 points26 points27 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jacksleepshere 25 points26 points27 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]xigoi 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]jacksleepshere 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jakeybaby125 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jacksleepshere 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GNU_Yorker 9 points10 points11 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]GNU_Yorker 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mr-Cali 31 points32 points33 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]MattyK414 18 points19 points20 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedRedneck 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MattyK414 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GltyUntlPrvnInncnt 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dragotiger 18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mrkeifer86 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CrossfadeAMV 53 points54 points55 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeroGothamKneads 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KnightofNarg 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sake23456 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]travelling_chap 21 points22 points23 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Azurenightsky 22 points23 points24 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]travelling_chap 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]travelling_chap 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]michaelpaoli 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bigred9310 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lesbefriendly 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]djc_tech 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SnkNZ77 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sake23456 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thetruemask 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thetruemask 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwanapple2 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZimbaZumba 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nukeyocouch 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ChilledHopPanda 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]2facedkaro 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]faith_crusader 10 points11 points12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]djc_tech 19 points20 points21 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]faith_crusader 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]troubledtimez 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jbslol 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BillsBayou 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ItalianDudee 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MsMeself 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]malialipali 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JustAnotherPersonToo 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xsnyder 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dr_soiledpants 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WhatRemainsAfter 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TipToeThruLife 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hellraisinhardass 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tramm 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Wisemanner 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bford_som 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]flyredditguy 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rageth 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ginozilla1985 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]daddymooch 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sausage4mash 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LEGALinSCCCA 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Other_Lingonberry234 2 points3 points4 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+]TehReedster891 points [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link
Take this as a sign that you should drop that label, then. You don't have to change your beliefs one bit. But the label is toxic. It's feminism which is accomplishing more and more in our society, and moving us closer and closer to the world where situations like this are possible. Feminism is toxic. Gender equality is beautiful. If you call yourself a "tried and true feminist" because you believe in gender equality, then just believe in gender equality without the label. Calling yourself a feminist does nothing but associate you with terrible people.
[–]Other_Lingonberry234 -3 points-2 points-1 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]FrogTrainer 6 points7 points8 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Other_Lingonberry234 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]FrogTrainer 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Other_Lingonberry234 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]FrogTrainer 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Other_Lingonberry234 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]TehReedster891 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
But why do you care? This is what I mean. If you only use the label feminism to mean "I believe in gender equality", there are other words for that. Or you could drop labels altogether and just say you support gender equality when the topic comes up. Why is it important to you that you get to keep the label of feminism, and all the feminists who do damage to gender equality are shunned? Why is the label so important to you?
It's also not a good argument to claim that you are a real feminist, but all the feminists in high places are fake feminists. That's delusion. Even if you say, "I support feminism according to the dictionary definition, and they do not," that still isn't a good argument. Actions speak louder than words. People in places of influence matter more than random people in a reddit thread. There are feminists in high places in official feminist organizations, and they are doing damage to gender equality. So they represent feminism more than you do, because they have a tangible impact.
And again, why do you care enough to cling to the label?
[–]Other_Lingonberry234 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]boron321 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
Read the article, she wouldn’t sign premarital paperwork. I would have left her too. For any man getting married GET A PRENUP. My wife has more money than I do but I gladly signed one where I give up rights to her money and she gives up rights to my pension. Any woman that says if you love me we don’t need to sign this just wants your money.
[–]bluesydragon 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]boron321 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
So you’re saying I could sue my wife then? Because she definitely has more than I do.
[–]bluesydragon 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]SpeedyCafe1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
Wtf. Shame on her. She is a good digger
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Beard_Rauun 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BlackBoxInquiry 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]porkopolis 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AngryCockOfJustice 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FactsAngerLiars 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]randonumero 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dantebrowsing 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]martellthacool 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]foxleader81 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]martellthacool 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]throwaway123321412 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatSwim 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lui_Le_Diamond 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BaconCatBug 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwaway123321412 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]behrpaints03 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xAlphaKat -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]JergenMyTergen -14 points-13 points-12 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Azurenightsky 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]JergenMyTergen -10 points-9 points-8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]anfocalscoir -14 points-13 points-12 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]TehReedster891 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
This is not proportional to that goal, though. If the logic is "you quit your job and fell behind in your career by X years, therefore you are entitled to compensation for the loss in continued salary post-breakup", then this is still bullshit. The logic there should imply that the amount of money you are granted is proportional to the amount you are losing out on.
So say I am earning $25k per year at age 30 when I quit my job to be supported by a partner. We date for 10 years, and then we split up. The logic here should be to determine how much money I would be making in my career if I had continued working for 10 years, rather than quit. So in a job where I am earning $25k at age 30, how much would you reasonably expect I would be making by age 40? As it stands, I would have to start back at the bottom, possibly making $25k again, or possible making lower, let's say $20k. So if we determine that I could have grown my salary to $50k (and I think that's generous, doubling your salary in 10 years at your career?), then the amount I should be owed is $30k per year. Because that's the difference between what I would be making right now ($50k/year) and what I am making right now ($20k/year) due to my relationship.
So let's apply the same logic here. She is granted $6,000,000 over 10 years, or $600,000 per year. That logic suggests that if she goes back to work right now, she will be making $600,000 per year LESS than she would be making at this same point in her life, if she hadn't quit her job. And I think that's absolute bullshit. How much is she making right now if she goes back to work? How the hell much does the judge think she would be making if she had worked for a decade longer?
That's why it's bullshit to me. The concept of alimony makes sense if the goal is to compensate someone for the amount of career loss they sustained while in a relationship. But more often than not, the amount they are granted is more along the lines of "you were rich during the relationship, so you deserve to continue being rich". And that concept is absolute garbage.
[–]anfocalscoir -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]JergenMyTergen -8 points-7 points-6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HotWater25 -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]MakeGoodBetter -7 points-6 points-5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]shazamishod -32 points-31 points-30 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Azurenightsky 10 points11 points12 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]shazamishod -12 points-11 points-10 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]shazamishod -2 points-1 points0 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]shazamishod -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]shazamishod -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Looking4Maria -23 points-22 points-21 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]Joker741776 12 points13 points14 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[+]Looking4Maria -15 points-14 points-13 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]Joker741776 11 points12 points13 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+]Looking4Maria -11 points-10 points-9 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Joker741776 9 points10 points11 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Looking4Maria -3 points-2 points-1 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Joker741776 9 points10 points11 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Looking4Maria 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Joker741776 6 points7 points8 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jakeybaby125 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]69_Watermelon_420 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]Looking4Maria -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link