TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Feminist urges Gov. Rick Scott to veto Alimony Reform: "Grandma deserves better" --> But fuck Grandpa, the lifetime alimony paying cuckold, amirite?

eaton80

March 3, 2016
226 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://m.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/opinion/point-of-view-scott-should-veto-bills-to-reform-al/nqcL6/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Feminist urges Gov. Rick Scott to veto Alimony Reform: "Grandma deserves better" --> But fuck Grandpa, the lifetime alimony paying cuckold, amirite?
Author

eaton80

Upvotes 226
Comments 50
Date March 3, 2016 2:23 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/48s657/feminist_urges_gov_rick_scott_to_veto_alimony/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminist-urges-gov-rick-scott-to-veto-alimony.954804
https://theredarchive.com/post/954804
Red Pill terms in post
cuckfeminismfeminist
Top posts by eaton80

Pre-nup survives wife's challenge, female journalist reports it as "man stiffs wife out of alimony and wins right to throw her out" --> Are you telling us that a contract isn't a contract when a woman signs it?

2043 upvotes
January 31, 2016
/r/MensRights

Women's rights groups to rally against equal custody bill. #Equality

1876 upvotes
April 8, 2016
/r/MensRights

Yeah we definitely have a SJW down vote brigade problem

1655 upvotes
July 9, 2015
/r/MensRights

Teen Boy Will Be Charged As Adult For Having Naked Pics of a Minor: Himself

1392 upvotes
September 3, 2015
/r/MensRights

Florida Considers Ending Lifetime Alimony

1119 upvotes
February 6, 2016
/r/MensRights

Veteran chooses jail over giving his disability money to ex-wife

1106 upvotes
March 1, 2016
/r/MensRights

Connecticut Supreme Court: "A court cannot order someone to provide their former spouse with a better standard of living than they enjoyed during the marriage." ---> Wow how kind of them.

1035 upvotes
October 13, 2015
/r/MensRights

Alimony is a relic from the dark days of the patriarchy. It should be ended completely ... said no Feminist ever.

719 upvotes
April 17, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]blueoak9 70 points71 points72 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

"Contemporary alimony is not about dependency; it is about partnership."

There is no partnership after divorce. That's the definition of divorce. If women don't like that, they can stop being so ready to initiate divorces at the rate they do. So obviousy it's not a real problem, right? Or is it not a problem because the state will get the ex to subsidize it?

[–]eaton80[S] 40 points41 points42 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The fact that 75% of divorces are initiated by women makes this "partnership" talk very insincere. Source:

https://www.unc.edu/courses/2010fall/econ/586/001/Readings/Brinig.pdf

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Holy fuck did you read that bullshit?

As a custodial parent, she will be able to spend the money the husband pays in child support exactly as she pleases.

Not for the children mind you, AS SHE PLEASES.

Even more, that entire PDF pretty much blames MEN for the higher divorce rates initiated by women.

DON'T YOU KNOW MEN? IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT YOUR WIFE WANTS TO LEAVE YOU!!!

edit: I would copy/paste more quotes but I can't copy from the article.

[–]Lhtfoot 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As soon as I started paying child-support, my ex stopped making payments on the car I co-signed for her on, destroying my credit as I was about to buy a home for my daughter and I. Then, she goes out and buys a brand-new vehicle. The state, basically says, "Sorry", she can spend it how she sees fit...

Of course, they are "looking out for the best interests of my child", right? Pssshhhhh

[–]bittoxic00 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You couldn't force a repo?

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

I was the co-signer. So kinda... My finance guy knows me and knows I don't walk on my bills. I suggested getting the car from her and allowing me to take over payments, but we put her on as primary and the title was in her name. (I know, I was an idiot). It ended up getting repo'd but whether it was earlier or later, it still fucked my credit up BAD. Like tanked over 150 pts. bad.

[–]MrAnalog 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From the linked article, emphasis mine:

Case 1: Wife married at 19, husband at 26. They have been married 20 years, and have three kids. The husband gets custody. Husband has 7 years more education than the wife, and they live in a fault state. Wife is white. Probability that wife files = .095.

However, if the wife got custody, the probability that she would file increases to .69.

Case 2: They married when they were both 26, and have been married 5 years. They have two children, and the wife will get custody. The husband finished college and the wife a law degree (three more years of education.) They live in a no-fault state and the wife is white. Probability that wife files = .79.

However, if the husband got custody, the probability that the wife files would decrease to .32.

In short, the presumption that custody - and the money that comes with it - is awarded to the mother enables a woman to contribute nothing to the marriage and then initiate divorce at the drop of a hat because there is absolutely no downside to doing so.

Until the bias against men in the family courts is addressed, marriage is a sucker's bet for men and a jackpot for women.

[+]tiqr -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Divorce initiation is not about "who wants out of the relationship", it's about "who needs help from the court".

Starting divorce proceedings allows you to seek corollary relief like child support, alimony, and property division. People rarely start a divorce proceeding simply to "get divorced", rather they do it because they need corollary relief.

Statistically speaking, women tend more often to be stay-at-home caregivers, and men tend to be the higher wage earners. The man has no incentive to file for divorce other than to get access to the children. The woman's incentive is more immediate: if she doesn't have enough money for rent/mortgage, she needs to file for divorce.

The 75% often gets trotted out as evidence that women are the ones who initiate separations, or the ones "at fault" for the divorce. By this logic, if a husband consistently abuses his wife, and she files for a divorce in order to get exclusive possession of the house (where the kids live), she's "at fault" for the divorce.

[–]TacoNinjaSkills 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You had me until the last paragraph as you just can't help but bring in the "abusive husband" trope.

Part of the reason to reform alimony is to remove some of those perverse incentives for women to file.

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

Gimme a break. If a parent can't get money, go earn it. If a parent is denied his/her kids, that takes a huge toll on his/her mental well being, and there is no way to remedy that.

If that's how you weigh importance. Then someone being emotionally abused but not having to pay rent is a good deal? Or someone whose kid is kidnapped but get free rent and food is a good deal?

The reason wives file first is to ambush their husbands with TRO and kidnap kids for extortion. It's almost standard procedure nowadays. That's the real world. Not your made up excuses you heard elsewhere.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Reminds me of Family Courts that still refer to the "husband" and "wife" even after divorce. Crazy.

[–]eaton80[S] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah especially since "wife" has no more duties the day she files, but "husband" is held to his old role of provider for years on end sometimes decades.

Feminism != Equality

[–]TacoNinjaSkills 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Marriage in the context of a divorce should be treated like a high value job.

You quit? Goodbye.

You are getting laid off or fired? Here is some sort of one-time severance.

[–]RaptorFalcon 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Or they can actually think hard before getting married

[–]blueoak9 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. The husband-as-fashion-accessory model is going to have to die for that to have any chance of happening.

[–]mochacola -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What is there to think? Just don't.

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

Alimony is about partnership, custody is about ownership.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Web Version

Meanwhile, the primary caregiver...incurs invisible costs.

Like the invisible cost of not seeing your kids as much as the other parent. No seeing Billy's soccer game, you're working the evening shift. Can't go to the beach this weekend, you're working overtime. It would be nice to take your kid to the first day of school, but you'll be commuting to work in the morning. Want to hear your kid's first words or see them walk the first time? Too bad, doing a mundane task at work is just as good.

This means that if the alimony recipient cannot come up with the funds to hire an attorney and finance a defense, she will lose her alimony, or at least a chunk of it.

Compared to payees who have to fund a legal solution to exorbitant payments while already being forced to make those payments under penalty of incarceration.

Some charge that the guideline formulae are stingy and will produce awards that are significantly lower than current awards.

Stingy? Somehow people are entitled to more just because and can't fathom the idea that current amounts are overpaid to begin with.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This means that if the alimony recipient cannot come up with the funds to hire an attorney and finance a defense, she will lose her alimony, or at least a chunk of it.

there seems to be an assumption that the alimony payER has an endless supply of money to hire lawyers with. In reality, men frequently end up having to pay for the attorney of their ex as well as their own...you get the privilege of paying the salary of the guy who is trying to screw you as much as possible.

[–]GeeseLivesMatter 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

I say Alimony and child support should be completely abolished in its many forms.

[–]DoItLive247 40 points41 points42 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Alimony should be eliminated entirely. Child Support should be like WIC where can only buy approved items from a pre funded account. The family court system has this belief that you have to have the same style of living at each parent's house for the kids. You can't take one apple, cut it in half and end up with two whole apples in the end. It is bullshit. Both parents households will change and the kids will adjust.

[–]dungone 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a relic of the Tender Years doctrine. They are still in denial that the child will fare better with the parent who can both provide for them and raise them to be able to provide for themselves. They believe the opposite - that regardless of money, the child is better off with the parent who got to spend more time with them in the past. Because "reasons", as if the dad isn't really the dad because he went to work every morning. And so the least financially secure, non-breadwinner parent typically gets to be the one who we entrust to raise the next generation. There is a very good reason why children of single mothers are more likely to fall into poverty and crime, and it comes down to professional housewives being less capable of instilling the values of discipline and provider-ship.

[–]carchamp1 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So-called "child" support should be rare to completely abolished. The truth is it's completely unnecessary. 50/50 shared parenting with no "child" support works. Otherwise simply give custody to the parent who can actually afford to raise the child. Problem solved.

"Child" support isn't for children folks. It has always been meant to subsidize a woman's lifestyle. It's just husband support or alimony with a different name.

[–]GeeseLivesMatter 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Family courts make a lot of dated assumptions, but in practice its half assed socialism when it comes to child support dependent on someone else's money and jails to enforce.

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

Child support should be rare IMO and mostly in cases where the father has basically physically deserted his child.

Look at it this way: You're a married guy who's taken good care of his kids - in a practical and financial way - consistently for several years. Upon divorce, the government and your former wife completely redefine your relationship, making it now impossible for you to care for your children in the practical hands on way you did before.

Since your practical care is now limited (by them), they deem it as fair that you pay them a fixed amount based on an income you once had, because mom has to do the lion's share of practical care now that they've demanded that you can't.

That's a scam, it's totally unethical and it's about the only place in American law where a person can have their basic human rights completely stripped away without having committed a crime.

[–]Rockonfreakybro 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think child support is very necessary. Whichever parent takes care of the child should get help from the parent who is not, but it should be limited to food purchases, education, etc.

[–]GeeseLivesMatter 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

As a Goose I tend to disagree. Life and circumstances aren't guaranteed and taking away support at gunpoint means parents who would normally wind up with a fat money check for having custody would think twice about leaving or bringing kids into the world.

[–]Solesaver 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Ehhh, alimony serves a purpose; infinite alimony that scales 'maintains lifestyle' in no-fault divorces is bs.

I mean, if two people get married they may make sacrifices for each other on the expectation of long-term returns. If you leave your field of work because you agreed with your SO that it was best for your family, then later find out that your SO is cheating on you and spending a lot of your family's money on a mistress/mister, I'd say you could have a reasonable expectation of getting a divorce and enough money to kick-start you back into a career.

[–]TacoNinjaSkills 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree completely. Short term alimony is reasonable, as it is presumed that the other party gave up a career of their own to help at home, which strengthened working spouse's career. It is this "lifestyle of which they are accustomed", indefinite alimony, and alimony regardless of career status that needs to end.

[–]MrAnalog 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I disagree that having all of your expenses paid by someone else is a sacrifice.

Something feminists - and many women - tend to overlook while bleating that they haven't been compensated for things like housework and childcare is that they have indeed been paid for that. Rent, utilities, internet, cell phones, clothing, food, transportation, insurance, entertainment... None of that is free, and having someone else foot the bill is actually a massive benefit. Calling it a sacrifice is disingenuous, at best.

[–]Solesaver 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying that they have or have not been compensated. I'm saying, if you give up your career for your family, and then your spouse breaks their vows that you were counting on, it is fair that your spouse continue supporting you while you get your career back on track.

Alimony isn't supposed to be about recompense, it is supposed to be, 'hey, we agreed that it would be best for us if I took on the career of "taking care of a family full time", now you've gone and blown that up, the least you can do is cover me while I go through a career transition.'

[–]mochacola -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So, should my ex spouse come over to provide sex and housework until I find a way to move forward because I was depending on her vow and she broke that vow?

[–]Solesaver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The immaturity here is overwhelming. I'm not even sure exactly how to respond...

Just curious. Do you, or have you ever worked in a career? It's just that I feel like you are downplaying the difficulty of entering the workforce at 30+ after 10+ year employment gap.

You also seem very determined to tear down a strawman. I'm not saying there aren't alimony abuses, or that we don't need alimony reform. I just think that inane comments like your evidence a fundamental lack understanding of its purpose. You seem less interested in solving problems and more interested in punishing all those 'bitches' that screwed you over or something.

[–]mochacola 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

No, I'm questioning your logic, in the opposite direction. That law is there, and there's a legal "explanation" for it which everyone parrots, but that does not make that explanation valid.

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

Logic:

1) Two people enter into a marriage contract. If they had not they both would have progressed in moderately successful careers doing whatever they did.

2) The both of them agree that for the betterment of their union one of them should do a career change to "take care of the family". The individual who takes on the new career of "take care of the family" no longer progresses in their old career; this is OK because within the context of the marriage context they are depending on their career is set for life.

3) The individual still on their original career path does something to make the original arrangement untenable (cheating, becomes abusive, abandons the family). The "take care of the family" individual just got "fired" through no fault of their own, and are essentially disqualified for a new job in the same field as their past experience in this field actually tends to work against them.

4) The individual still on their original career path pays a severance to their former partner called "alimony" so that they have the stability to acquire new skills and break into a new industry.

Conclusion: The explanation for the existence of alimony is valid, but I'm sure you already knew all of this. I'm not exactly sure in what worldview this doesn't make sense.

[–]Frobenioid 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol, "sacrifice". Getting to sit on your ass all day while someone else provides for you sure is a sacrifice.

Women are great at making out that things they WANT to do are sacrifices.

[–]Solesaver -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dude, really? Grow up. I'm not saying being a stay-at-home parent is some overwhelming burden. I'm saying it is a career sacrifice. Even regular jobs give you some degree of severance when you get fired. Getting divorced as a homemaker is like losing your job and being blacklisted in your industry (often through no fault of your own). The least your former 'employer' could do is help you get back on your feet.

[–]Ultramegasaurus 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Alimony needs to be a 1-2 year loan free of interest. An ex-spouse is only eligible for alimony if he/she has no assets on his/her own and has been out of the workforce for a considerable amount of time. The money should enable a basic living until he/she found a job. After that, it should be paid back in appropriate rates.

Child support needs to be based on the actual amount of time a child spends at his/her father or mother. However, when it comes to children, it's more important that men need more rights before child support becomes a topic:

  • The process of assigning custody must be more just. 50/50 should be the default. Only solid evidence of a parent's incapacity to care for a child and explicit wishes against custody should influence that state.

  • Men need the right to financially opt out of unwanted parenthood. Men need to be protected against sperm jacking, pill fraud and the like.

  • Men should have a right to paternity tests. A man must never be forced to pay a child that's not biologically his.

[–]Endless_Summer 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Also, financial abortion needs to be adopted.

[–]GeeseLivesMatter 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most definitely. We need to stop giving handouts to women with no education, no career when the baby daddy very clearly did not want a kid. Abortion or adoption are viable options and should be pursued instead of forcing a man to pay for a woman to bring an unplanned and unwanted child into the world at the expense of everyone else. In fact No child support should be awarded in those cases. Eventually people will get the hint popping out kids for $$ is a bad life choice, but only if the system stops enabling them. Sterilization programs would also go a long way in reducing poverty and unplanned parenthood.

[–]AlwaysABride 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hashtag Equality!

[–]craigske 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In the days where we are basically facing the end of retirement, it's laughable that any group wants to retire on the efforts of another.

[–]gsettle 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

With all-the-money laws the way they are I recommend skipping out on it altogether. OR coming to a reasonable settlement outside of the stupid, sexist court system.

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OR coming to a reasonable settlement outside of the stupid, sexist court system.

Any settlement outside the court system is legally void, and can have a court settlement of alimony leveled anyways.

[–]qdobe 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You know what I love? Feminists are big on the "NO GENDER ROLES" thing with families, but as soon as money is involved "It's the man's job." Feminists hate family gender roles, but this quote proves they don't care what they say, they just want it better than men, not the same.

One parent prioritizes paid labor while the other (typically a mother) prioritizes family labor. This sharing enables the couple to enjoy a home and family; it also benefits the primary wage earner by allowing him to maximize his investment in paid labor.

So what is it? Both should have jobs? Only men should have jobs and support the family? Who should be working and who should be earning? Who should do chores and who takes care of the kids?

Cake and Eat it

Grass is always greener

Their arguments are becoming less rational than a 5 year old's...

edit: formatting

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Whats the problem? MAN UP buddy. You are the one that impregnated her and ruined her life.

[–]ashlaaaaay 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

what's the timeline for this to be signed?

[–]tramareddit111 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"But fuck grandpa" missing the second 'T' before the 'F'.

[–]6456dgffd54645 -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One day I realized that many women expect men to push too far, then for the woman to enjoy it, then for the woman to eventually decide she didn't like it and somehow harm the man.

This is a plan they actually set into motion, because, and here is the fatal flaw /r/mensrights, they see you as interchangeable cogs and thus your fate doesn't matter unless it's fucking or schadenfreude on your behalf. You give them too much credit insofar as you believe they see other people as people, they do not.

They don't give a fuck about you, especially if you had the gall to be born white (which means you own the planet and your ancestors were all kings and queens, or at least kings and queens were people who looked like you, had the same skin color, so basically you, and the women were not descended from them but some far off tribe of only women which was oppressed while being so advanced they were able to reproduce without men).

[–]thetinguy -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Downvoted for linking to mobile site.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter