Since beginning of 2017, swiss men are forced to pay alimony even when not married. (german source)

[–]grundb[S] 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago* (59 children) | Copy Link

Short summary for non-germans:

Parliament has decided that children of unmarried couples "should not be discriminated against because their parents aren't married." Lawyers have criticized the decision because it does not mention how much men would have to pay.

Also, swiss family law is extremely lenient on women. After giving birth, they don't have to work for the first 10 years of the childs live and part time for the next 6 years, granting them an income for the next 16 years. As an example, a man who earns 14.000 dollars a month could pay up to 8.700 dollars a month, while a fulltime daycare costs a maximum of just 2200 dollars.

Not mentioned in the article is that the federal court has decided that women can ignore court orders should shared parenting risk the wellbeing of the child, basically eliminating the newly introduced law that grants shared custody.

Edit to the mentioned decision of the federal court: Feminist interest groups have called that a "huge victory for the wellbeing of the child"

[+][deleted] -19 points-18 points-17 points 9 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

The argument of Swiss law is that on having a child, it needs a full-time parent to provide proper rearing and care. If an unmarried couple breaks up after having a child, the caretaking parent will not have an income. Forcing a parent to give up the job of raising their child so that they can dump it into a daycare and let some state worker "raise" it sickens many parents of young children, especially when their intention was to be a stay-at-home parent.

As such, (just going to use "mother" for simplicity here), the mother will need a source of income in order to meet their needs. Yes, it's an expensive burden on the father. But if you don't think you're going to keep the oven, don't put a bun in it. Then it won't cost you anything. Unmarried couples without children will not have an alimony issue.

[–]thrway_1000 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -23 points-22 points-21 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

No, that's not my argument, dear.

If you're in a relationship and you both agree to have a child together, and then three years later with a family established, he decides he ain't in love, in most countries, he can leave her and pay a few hundred dollars a month in child support while mom has to give up the child she spent 3 years raising with someone who was, until the breakup, part of the mutual agreement to raise the child, now has to go it alone managing two jobs that used to be handled by two people - raising the child, and paying to have a roof and running water/electricity.

This is nothing like abortion. That's to say, it is nothing like a woman having unsafe sex with a partner despite the broad knowledge that unprotected sex can easily cause pregnancy, when she does not want children. You're conflating issues, quite clumsily.

[–]thrway_1000 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -18 points-17 points-16 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubyOrchid13 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You really believe family courts aren't biased against men and fathers?

The single biggest deciding factor of success in a person's life is if they had a father figure. If not, your chances of going to college and staying out of jail, are very slim. The current biased court system is doing more harm than good, and having good father's kicked to the curb. So, your argument of, prove it won't have a negative affect on children, is a moot point. As our current system is harming children, and you don't really seem to care that it does.

Source showing bias in family law. https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/22457-studies-show-judicial-bias-against-dads

Showing the damage our current system. https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/

My question to you is, why should we even consider continuing this, when so many children are being hurt and set up for a life of failure? All so mommy can live the way she wants. How about, prove the money is spent on the child? Currently, you don't have to spend child support, on said child. Not only do you want to continue a clearly broken system for personal benefit, you are showing you don't actually care about the children. If you did care about them, you would be outraged by our current family law system.

[–]galtthedestroyer 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubyOrchid13 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]galtthedestroyer -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_unseen_one 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConnorBurnsRed 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archibald_Andino 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grundb[S] 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

You are completely wrong about the intention of that law. Swiss legislation is working to eliminate full-time parents altogether, almost every major political party has stated this as a goal. (Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Familie)

There is absolutely no reason for a mother (or a father) to quit working entirely for ten years. At least parttime jobs would be possible.

I also doubt that you understood the difference between alimony and child benefit. Even in old law, fathers had to pay for the child, now they have to pay for the child AND the wife.

I personally know many (divorced) men who have to pay thousands of dollars so that the ex can buy expensive teak furniture for the living room. You had the possibility to protect yourself from being a wage slave, now you're doomed. You are also wrong about couples without children. It is possible that you have to pay for them as well.

The last part of your response really condescending, so allow me to answer in the same manner: If you don't want to be a single mom without income, don't leave your partner.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

You are completely wrong about the intention of that law.

I went to /r/askswitzerland because I can't read German, and I wanted more than just your word to go on. There is a disconsensus between your interpretation and theirs.

There is absolutely no reason for a mother (or a father) to quit working entirely for ten years. At least parttime jobs would be possible.

My mother had 4 kids, and was a stay-at-home mother for seventeen years. She worked for one year after that, to earn enough to put a down-payment on a new house, once she and my father had worked out the rest of the logistics. See, parents are supposed to share responsibilities of the family, not turn the home into a battleground. Separated families should not be addressed as individuals going their separate ways, but as a broken home.

I also doubt that you understood the difference between alimony and child benefit. Even in old law, fathers had to pay for the child, now they have to pay for the child AND the wife.

Ouch. How stupid would someone have to be not to know the difference between alimony (paying the wife) and child support (paying for the child's welfare)? My sister has been fighting to get child support from her estranged husband (who became a drug addict and beat her up while she was pregnant), and has lost hope in getting an alimony payment out of him once she finally gets her divorce. I know up-close-and-personal what the difference is, thank you very much.

I personally know many (divorced) men who have to pay thousands of dollars so that the ex can buy expensive teak furniture for the living room.

Relevance? If she misuses her money, that's her problem.

You are also wrong about couples without children. It is possible that you have to pay for them as well.

Source?

The last part of your response really condescending, so allow me to answer in the same manner: If you don't want to be a single mom without income, don't leave your partner.

Forgive my bluntness, but how ignorant, sir. What, do fathers not leave or become a threat to mother/child in your world? Because it's right alongside mothers bailing and taking the kids, where I'm from. It's not one-sided.

EDIT: Is it you that is downvoting me? If so, I am truly disappointed. Disagreement and downvotes aren't supposed to be synonymous gestures.

[–]grundb[S] 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Reading your answer, i have the feeling that you just try to be a dick.

What is it today? Can I get a response on this subreddit that doesn't start with a blunt unprovoked insult? I didn't insult you.

It's also ironic that you call my "anecdotal evidence" irrelevant and then you come up with anecdotes yourself.

I asked you to explain the relevance. I did not dismiss it.

So lets shorten this: I work in the field, i have economics/law degree. Last year, i filed more than 700 tax forms and worked as an advisor for more than 50 clients. I know a thing or two about swiss financial laws. If you want to look it up yourself, it can be found in the ZGB, Article 296ff.

Taking you at your word, your body of experience is probably sufficient. I don't know. Are you a tax advisor in Switzerland? Just looking to clarify.

Could you also comment on the other parts of my post? Are they valid points? You say you have more experience than I do, and you did make it a point to mention that so that I would defer to your judgment.

[–]grundb[S] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I checked your history, don't you think it's strange that you get into fights on the internet over and over again? If you truly want a debate, aks questions. I answered your initial post in a neutral way and you reacted with a quite condescending tone, so maybe try to avoid that?

Anyway, let's give this a second try: The aim of that law was explained by the parliament services. It aims to "reduce the discrimination of children from non-married couples". Why questioning that? Why should they not tell the truth?

Also, you are wrong about the whole alimony situation when no children are involved. The law states that the purpose of alimony is to "maintain a living standard that persisted the marriage", whereas child benefit seeks to "pay for the expense of a child". So let's make an example: A homeless woman (no income) marries a lawyer (200k a year). After 20 years, they break up. According to the law, the obtained money has to be split. (200k * 20 - money used during the marriage. Excluded are the earnings before they got married and inherited money). Since the formerly homeless women has no income, she can argue that without support, she can not maintain her living standard she had during the marriage. Now you're on the hook. Sounds fair?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I checked your history, don't you think it's strange that you get into fights on the internet over and over again?

Over and over again? How much are you looking at?

If you truly want a debate, aks questions.

That's not a debate though. Debating is when you compare your points of information with your counterpart. I don't have to ask you questions. Though, to be fair, I have asked you questions.

I answered your initial post in a neutral way and you reacted with a quite condescending tone

I'm going to quote you from your first response to me.

You are completely wrong about the intention of that law.

I also doubt that you understood the difference between alimony and child benefit.

The last part of your response really condescending, so allow me to answer in the same manner

That final remark was in response to this, from me: "But if you don't think you're going to keep the oven, don't put a bun in it. Then it won't cost you anything. Unmarried couples without children will not have an alimony issue."

Frankly, the common remark from proponents to abolishing child support and alimony argue "if you didn't want a kid, don't have sex" or "she should have kept her legs closed". It's cold and callous, but sadly carries a modicum of logic. As does my remark. It's not compassionate, but we're not talking about compassion here, are we. There is something compassionless about having to get a judge to force someone to support their own kid's welfare. So we're past the point of no return on that one.

It's not a good idea to high-road someone when you've played so dirty up until now.

Anyway, let's give this a second try: The aim of that law was explained by the parliament services. It aims to "reduce the discrimination of children from non-married couples". Why questioning that? Why should they not tell the truth?

Who's questioning that?

Also, you are wrong about the whole alimony situation when no children are involved.

Source?

Since the formerly homeless women has no income, she can argue that without support, she can not maintain her living standard she had during the marriage. Now you're on the hook. Sounds fair?

Yes. He married her without a prenuptial agreement. If he wanted to keep his money in the event of divorce, there are ways to stipulate that prior to marriage. He then married her and changed the standard of living for her from "homeless" to "living on a shared 200,000 dollar annual salary". These are decisions he made and consequences he knew about that resulted from those decisions.

I can't exude a ton of sympathy for someone who doesn't plan ahead when things exist to let you do so. I can feel bad for him for losing so much money, but it's not as though it would surprise or dismay me that he was duped or cheated. He either played knowing the rules, in which case, that's how the game works - or he played without knowing the rules, in which case who does that?

[–]grundb[S] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am certainly not having a fight with someone on the internet because of petty issues. I won't waste more time with that.

It's a bit hypocritical to wag your finger at me over those issues, and then call it petty once I show that you have misrepresented the facts.

Also, you have a really weird understanding of the word "debate".

Do I?

Debate (noun): a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

You will find the same definition through Google, and similarly worded definitions through Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com.

I have already given you the source, ZGB article 296 ff, the part mentioned in the first post about child custody is in article 311.

Something quite disenchanting about being told to go and fetch the proof on my own. I have absolutely no idea what ZGB article 296 ff means; I am not a lawyer. I understand law at a layman level. That's why I asked you - the self-purported legal expert.

It might also be interesting to you that prenuptial agreements are, as far is i know, from american civil law and therefore have no place in swiss legislation.

With one Google search, I have found that assertion to lack credibility. The Family Office Selection Services has an article on it, a legal expert outlines more info here, and even the Wikipedia entry on Prenuptials explains that the country considers Prenuptials to be valid contracts, along with several other European nations. In fact, the Prenuptial Agreement is not an American-originated phenomenon at all. Among the earliest prenups is reportedly that of Edward IV of England with his wife Elaine Butler in the 15th century.

[+]MagicTampon points 9 years ago* [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link

You female chauvinist sow.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[+]MagicTampon points 9 years ago* [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link

Plenty of people work, share custody and raise kids. Just because some damseling female cunt doesn't think it's what she should want, doesn't mean she shouldn't have to do it,

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]MagicTampon points 9 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Shared custody precludes child support.

This ought to be the case, but generally it's not, and it's not in Switzerland. Differences in income often mandate that the male still pay more. Females, not so much.

And it's impossible in most all states, and in Switzerland, to obtain a shared custody arrangement if the mother opposes it.

One supposes, because female chauvinist sows always assume that a female knows best.

As for women who unilaterally choose not to work on the pretense that may somehow adversely affect the child: tough crap. Plenty of people do it, and it works. In that case, I'd say the exact same thing people would generally tell a man in that situation: get a job, you unemployed fucking loser.

Additionally, when some "damseling [sic] female cunt" is forced to take custody of their 6 year old because Daddy decided he'd rather have the secretary, what then?

The same "what then" you'd tell a female who'd rather have her boss or her "best friend."

The same thing you'd tell a woman who leaves here her marriage because he's "boring", "never does nice things for her", or "doesn't anticipate her needs."

Makes no difference whatsoever.

An by the way, Daddy having the secretary is not incompatible with daddy continuing to raise his child.

Sure, parents who refuse to care for their child ought to owe child support.

But if a court or a female tells him he shouldn't have the opportunity to do so, then he ought to pay zip.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This ought to be the case, but generally it's not, and it's not in Switzerland. Differences in income often mandate that the male still pay more. Females, not so much. Courts being highly bigoted against males and such.

Source?

And it's impossible in most all states, and in Switzerland, to obtain a shared custody arrangement if the mother opposes it.

Source?

One supposes, because female chauvinist sows always assume that a female knows best.

Most of those statutes written into law in nations have existed for perhaps two centuries, possibly longer. They were written by pre-feminist era male legislators. I don't understand it either. But it wasn't a female-chauvinist sorta thing.

As for women who unilaterally choose not to work on the pretense that may somehow adversely affect the child: tough crap. Plenty of people do it, and it works. In that case, I'd say the exact same thing people would generally tell a man in that situation -- get a job, you unemployed fucking loser.

So you want men to get off the hook, consequence-free, and defer all the responsibility to the women. How is that balanced? It just shifts the bullshit from one person entirely onto the other. I'm having trouble pinning down where you stand, because at first glance, it seems like you're advocating the relief of financial burden into a more fair standing, but then you drop a bomb like "get a job" and "tough crap".

An by the way, Daddy having the secretary is not incompatible with daddy continuing to raise his child.

Tell that to the dads who fuck off with the mistress and never bother to see their kids again.

Sure, parents who refuse to care for their child ought to owe child support.

Okay, so we agree on something. That's good.

But if a court or a female tells him he shouldn't have the opportunity to do so, then he ought to pay zip.

So if the fella beats the shit out the lady (or heaven forbid, the children), he should be allowed near them just because he pays child support? Or should he be allowed to forego child support because the court judged him to be a safety risk to the woman or kids?

That screams so many levels of fucked-up that I'm not sure where to start.

[+]MagicTampon points 9 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Source?

It's everywhere more or less the same.

For example in New York:

https://www.berkbot.com/blog/laws-new-york-courts-consider-when-awarding-child-custody/

"The case Braiman v. Braiman established the precedent that if both parents agree to joint custody, the Court will respect that decision and award it. In cases where parties cannot agree to a joint custody arrangement, courts consistently do not award joint custody."

Feminist organizations have had their way using the usual damseling antics. Their position has been that, any degree of "disagreement" on child custody issues sufficient to bring a lawsuit for custody can be construed as incompatible with the court issuing a shared custody order. Therefore, whenever a parent (almost always the female) petitions a court for primary physical custody, the courts are forced to make a choice, and are often more or less obligated to choose the female. This is why the usual child custody order (barring a mutual agreement otherwise between parents) results in the woman receiving the bulk of the custodial time, and the father, even if receiving "joint" custody, is relegated to a once-every-other weekend presence in his children's lives.

So basically, "ladies first" women choose and men are (allegedly) supposed to suck it up.

You know, the usual damseling / chivalrous fuck holery.

The situation in Switzerland is much the same. I know because I've spent time there.

So if the fella beats the shit out the lady... he should be allowed near them just because he pays child support?

You bigoted world view is noted. Nothing of the sort was ever said here.

(or heaven forbid, the children)

Most serious child abuse and neglect are committed by women.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubyOrchid13 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]MagicTampon points 9 years ago* [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

What's not healthy is putting up with your lies.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because that's your answer to men not wanting to deal with the responsibilities and obligations of, and accountability after sex. He should ahve kept it in his pants, like most hypocritial womens opinion on the topic who hold double standards and want special treatment.

That still hinges upon whether you can justify the commonality issue.

They have the exact same foundation - sex - and share many commonalities... the most important being the responsibilities and obligations of, and accountability after sex.

Uh, okay. What you've done is conflate an apparent similarity with an actual commonality. See, if John gets Martha pregnant, and leaves her with the result, that's two people making a decision together, followed by him making a decision that affects her without her being able to have a say.

You are comparing it to a woman exercising her free right as a person to determine the biological development and progress of her body. You don't need a memorial for every napkin of spunk you toss in the wastebasket, so why does a woman need to carry a 2-week old lump of cells the size of a fingernail all the way to fruition just to satisfy your non-sequitur argument?

I would say it doesn't.

As such, I will say that I do not agree that a woman "must keep her legs closed" instead of having an abortion. She can have an abortion if she wants to. And that is not inconsistent, in my view.

You're welcome to disagree, but we'd have to kinda end there, because I doubt either of us will make a strong enough case to change the other's mind.

[–]EricAllonde 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YuenHsiaoTieng 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrway_1000 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrumpyDingo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]grundb[S] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrumpyDingo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]grundb[S] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Inoit -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]contractor808 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Since beginning of 2017, swiss men are forced to pay alimony even when not married. (german source)

Comments

So, to be consistent, you must agree that women should keep their legs closed instead of murdering their unwanted babies with an abortion.