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

Petition to end alimony in LA

TitanXD

May 9, 2015
856 upvotes
/r/PussyPassDenied
http://mynewsla.com/orange-county/2015/05/08/signature-gathering-approved-for-initiative-to-end-alimony/
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 Petition to end alimony in LA
Author

TitanXD

Upvotes 856
Comments 152
Date May 9, 2015 12:01 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/35dyi6/petition_to_end_alimony_in_la/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/petition-to-end-alimony-in-la.960757
https://theredarchive.com/post/960757

Comments

[–]dgillz 115 points116 points117 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

It isn't LA. It is the entire fucking state of California.

[–]whitegangster400 27 points28 points29 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I thought LA stood for Louisiana......

[–]dreamisle 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I thought LA stood for lower Arkansas...

[–]JBrad0322 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Leftern Alaska?

[–]Nehalem25 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

littoral aleutians?

[–]redgreenyellowblu -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought it was a sound that followed DOH

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Little Albania?

[–]MrRedditUser420 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

How do I sign, can I do it online? Or if necessary mail in my signature?

[–]dgillz 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Read the article. The website is in the article. You must be a registered voter in CA to sign.

[–]MrRedditUser420 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I am a registered California voter, I checked out the site, I'm still not sure.

[–]dgillz 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Call them.

[–]Maxxxz1994 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You call them.

[–]dgillz 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Useless as I am not a CA resident. /u/MrRedditUser420 is a CA resident and registered voter and needs to call them if the info on the website is not clear on how to sign the ballot initiative.

[–]Maxxxz1994 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was kidding

[–]Mavee 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ooooooh

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, Los Angeles is in California.

[–]dgillz 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To be fair, the headline is misleading at best.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying that it would end alimony in LA. The mods could always flair this with "All of California"(I'll be messaging them after this to see if they'll flair it) and that would fix that problem.

[–]Druue 105 points106 points107 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But, the gold diggers. Won't somebody think of the gold diggers?...

[–]TheKyFireman 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks. Now I'm singing Jamie Foxx...!

[–]Cosmic_Pumpkin 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And now I look like a fucking idiot laughing at work, thanks.

[–]AtticusWarhol 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Now they messing with them broke niggas

[–]taidana -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol, more importantly the suckers that marry them. If there weren't ridiculous laws to motivate whores to sleep with them these dudes would never get laid.

[–]Toffeemanstan 75 points76 points77 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's hope this is a trend that catches on.

[–]Artistskater 44 points45 points46 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

I payed my ex for three years. She had a job and no kids. She just wanted a really nice apartment and extra money. I payed it and moved on, but I don't get the law.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Artistskater 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I was a little shocked when I found out how much I had to pay. I was thinking I was going to run off free! But, even with paying her $419/ wk I was able to get out of 20k in debt within a year, and then finally start saving. I was living paycheck to paycheck with her. She was sucking me dry and dragging me deeper and deeper in debt.

[–]Teelo888 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Holy shit man, $419 a week? That's more than I make.

[–]Artistskater 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm pretty lucky. Drawing cartoons pays well.

[–]MustakaThinks breakfast food is gay sex 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well we are going to need a cartoon.

I will pay well.

[–]youdonotnome 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's disgusting that a woman will so quickly go from loving you and wanting to spend her life with you, to actually trying to ruin you

[–]Artistskater 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha, it went from loving me to wanting to ruin me about a month before the wedding. The wedding night was a nightmare. Went through 6 years of torture before finally realizing this was never getting better.

[–]taidana 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No offense, but how does it get like that? I never understood how guys get sucked into these relationships with women that are so useless and dependent on other people to support them. Was it not a red flag when you were dating and noticed that she was unable to support herself? How did she eat before she met you?

Again, I mean no offense to you or your ex, I just have always been interested in how these relationships happen where one person has to carry the other through life.

[–]Artistskater 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No problem. She was my first serious girlfriend from college. We were totally broke when we got married barely scraping by. I started getting better and better jobs. But, as I made more and more money, the money just kept disappearing. Looking back now, I was young and naive. I didn't realize how much I could save eating at home and finding cheap rent. I also didn't realize how she was spending the money on clothes, hair, etc. Didn't track spending. More and more credit card debt every month. After I got divorced, I went over my spending with my accountant. He was shocked. He said, "Wow, you don't spend any money." That's when I realized why I had been in debt. It was the greatest feeling in the world to finally be in control of my finances.

[–]TheDranx 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Sometimes you just don't know how someone is money wise, or you think you love them (and visa versa) and then they turn around and make things hard for you. My mom, for instance, used my dad's retirement funds (a good 20,000) while he was off at basic to pay for whatever instead of the money she was making at her job to help raise me (and my brother when he was born). I don't know how she did it, but she did it. He thought his money was safe so he didn't know until it was too late.

It's not the first time she's done things like this. One time she sold my dad's new used car that he bought a month prior (while he was deployed) so that she could buy a brand new car (despite already having two functioning vehicles) and they only just recently paid off.

Now she complains about dad spending money on a case of beer once a month, or when he hangs out with his friends on the weekend (which only happens once or twice a month). Meanwhileshe was spending $400-500 a month on cigarettes (she quit off and on) alone, not to mention on things she doesn't need.

I think she just loves to spend money on things like that and she doesn't care who she hurts to do it.

[–]StrikingEarth 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've got a similar story: got divorced after one year and had to pay one year of alimony.

She was the woman I lost my virginity to and I didn't know what love felt like. I thought she was the one. I realize now that this is a stupid mindset after having given literally 0 other women even one chance. Anyway she wound up pregnant while I was in the Army and decided to marry her so we could raise our child as a family unit. I also realize this too was stupid thinking.

[–]taidana 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why is the system in place? I honestly cannot think of an example that isn't ridiculous.

[–]shaunsanders 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

If you're genuinely curious, risking downvotes, I'll explain:

Spousal support recognizes opportunity costs that often occur in a marriage between partners. If you have two people out in the work force who are married, they are both generating marketable skills, connections, raises, etc. Etc. But when one of them then leaves the workforce to stay home in a relationship, or reduces their work load, then they lose the economic inertia they once had.

So while people often bash the idea as a former spouse "leaching off their ex," society views it as, "you two entered into a marriage agreement, which substantially reduced the market value of one partner for the benefit of _______ (fill in the blank... Family stability? Household support? Other?) and now that you don't want to be in a marriage anymore, your spouse has been disadvantaged to the point that they will require help to make up for the time lost... Rather than rely on taxpayers to provide that help, the spouse who benefited most from the marriage should offset the losses incurred."

Like any system, it is abused... But the system itself is intended to prevent an ex-spouse from being punished for essentially going "all-in" with a marriage. The lesson to be learned for people:

  1. Marriage is serious, and should be taken seriously.
  2. When your spouse becomes dependent on you, that dependence doesn't stop once you stop loving them... And that is a part of your responsibility to your spouse and your society that recognized your marriage, so you will be held accountable.

It would be unfair to allow someone all the benefit of a spouse and career inertia without acknowledging the value that the spouse contributes to the marriage.

Tl;dr: marriage is not dating. Those who believe alimony is without any value are under a false assumption that both parties leave the marriage with as much opportunity as they came in with. This is often not the case. For example, a stay at home mom contributes greatly to the marriage, but once divorced, that value is hardly marketable or a capital benefit.

[–]PM-ME-SMILES-PLZ 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good explanation. The idea on it's own merit is a good one, but the rampant and persistent abuse makes everyone hate the way it operates.

[–]Dayman_ah-ah-ah 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Doesn't all that go out the window when there's no children involved? Unless a dude let's the woman quit her job to fuck off at home... then it's his fault.

[–]StrikingEarth 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, alimony is calculated based on each spouse's income and expenses. If children are involved then child support is used as well. Alimony is strictly (in my state at least) support for the spouse.

There are few but growing numbers of male recipients of alimony. However, alimony was designed for women, so the vast majority of recipients are women.

[–]Deadonstick 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I never understood the concept of alimony. Way back in the day it was something introduced to prevent women being fully dependant on a man for income after having children.

In return for free shelter and money and such the woman would have to do a different type of labour. She'd take care of the kids, emotionally support the husband, do the housekeeping, groceries, cooking, etc.

How come when this agreement is considered voided (a divorce) the man is still required to provide his end of the bargain (money) but the woman is somehow free from all obligations she had with the man.

Unless ofcourse you're saying that the woman's responsibilities were insignificant. Because that would mean the man lost a lot less in the divorce than the woman, which would be unfair. But personally I think being a good housewife is just as important as being a good financial provider.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Being out of work force for so long has a detrimental effect on your ability to get a job and your skills for said job. When they decide that she should be an at home mom, and him support her and the family, I certainly think you should provide alimony for a while (up to a year) until she can get an adequate job

[–]Deadonstick 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then again being out of the dating game for so long has a detrimental effect on your ability to get another wife. I mean in the 50s (the era I'm more or less on about when alimony was really a thing to protect women) the man at this point would be dependant on the woman for a clean house, clean clothes, food and emotional support. He probably never lived on his own without a wife and works a physically demanding job making cleaning more than just "a chore".

But like I said, the moment that agreement ends, the man is expected to keep his side of the bargain until the woman finds a job (and normally longer) but the woman isn't required to continue doing housework until the man has another wife.

Nor is the man allowed to give the wife half his income minus all the money is costs to hire the nessecary people (babysitter, cook and housekeeper) to perform the former wife's duties.

[–]drunkencosmonaut 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What woman would vote for ending alimony? Seriously.

[–]Ragnar09 41 points42 points43 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Good. Bitches don't deserve a dime of a mans labor.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gaYyNk7QA

[–]Slight0 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for showing me this.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure exactly how it works, but my parents were divorced (dad was cheating) and it was really hard for my stay-at-home mom to get back into the workforce. The alimony helped her pay to go back to school and overall I think it was really fair.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]easypeasy6 29 points30 points31 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Maybe he had an equally venomous wife that sucked him dry. I would be bitter as well.

[+]LiquidAsylum -25 points-24 points-23 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You have no idea about his personal life but you know you would be mad if you were him? lol

[–]McGuirk808 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sentence 2 implied that he would be bitter if hypothetical sentence 1 were true.

[–]D_Ciaran15 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

You wouldn't?

[+]LiquidAsylum -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You and I know nothing about his personal life so how could I know how I would feel?

[–]Teelo888 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So you think someone who is divorced deserves the future earnings of the other spouse? That just doesn't make any sense unless in very specific contexts where the couple started a business together and only one is retaining ownership after the divorce is finalized.

That is, by definition, a sense of entitlement

[–]_RAWFFLES_ 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Found the leech.

[–]Dark_Ronald_McDonald 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't make it any less true.

[–]okuma 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it should be ended, but it should be severely limited. I mean, there are situations where it's somewhat warranted, but only for a short time, not the whole rest of her life.

[–]Humankeg 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Lot of guys don't understand this and think alimony is all bad. While in many (most?) Cases it certainly is unjust, there are still many cases in which alimony is fair, both when the man or woman is paying or receiving.

No house body (the spouse that chooses to stay home and raise children) should be cast out onto the street when things go sour. It is a joint decision for that person (in most cases) to be the stay at home parent. They are entitled to some financial support so they can get a job and support them self.

[–]Teelo888 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Isn't that what all of our social welfare programs are for? After a divorce, why does the other spouse have to be the one to take on this responsibility? We have unemployment benefits, disability, food stamps, and probably a slew of others that are state-specific. Why can a spouse (man or woman) not just apply for the ones applicable to their situation?

[–]Humankeg 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Both adults made a joint decision to have a stay at home body. So they are responsible for that course of action, not taxpayers.

[–]Teelo888 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I was going to argue, but you actually kind of have a point. So then I'll concede that some of that burden should be on the spouse to give the other a fair amount of money- but there should be much more of an emphasis on it being very temporary. Seems like you hear* pretty often of someone having to give alimony for years, and that feels wrong to me. But this is all anecdotal, and I'd really like to see some statistics on the average length of time alimony is paid.

[–]Humankeg 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I posted a while back outline alimony. I stated that it should be treated as unemployment: temporary financial support from the spouse with a job. enough to support the spouse enough to get a moderate place to live, buy food, ect, and not to exceed 50% of what the working arouse makes.

What alimony should not be is a get out of work free for life card. It should not be in the millions Or even hundreds of thousands. It should not last year's and years. It should not be adjusted in the future when the one getting paid falls into more financial trouble. It should not force the one paying it to go back to work or find a second job when the one getting paid isn't working at all.

[–]PM-ME-SMILES-PLZ 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ya. It also is really tough to oversee/regulate. I've never been married, but if I were paying alimony I'd want to be sure it's going toward rent or car payments, but not alcohol or luxury goods, but you can't really enforce that.

[–]StrikingEarth 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are lots of statistics out there, and they are just as one-sided as you would think.

[–]PM-ME-SMILES-PLZ 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because you don't get to "choose" when you're disabled. One person can decide to dissolve the marriage. Some rich guy decides he wants to divorce his stay-at-home wife so he can get with some 22 year old and the taxpayers should pay for that? No.

[–]TheDranx 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It should be treated like if the person was recently widowed or something. The time limit to claim widowship is about 2 years right? If he/she won't find a job and care for themselves in 2 years then the alimony stops and they're on their own.

This isn't taking into account if the job economy is so bad that being hired is slim to none for two years or the person physically can't get a job, but these days you could be wheelchair bound and find a person that would be willing to hire you. It may take a while, but it's not impossible.

[–]thelordofcheese 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a farce. The reason this is happening is that - like New Hrrsey - LA has more money going to males in alimony, even though more males pay alimony, because the females who pay alimony are rich as fuck.

[–]youdonotnome 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unless you provide a source, that's a load of crap.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Implying the Democrats would let this happen. Haha not in California it wont.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If this ever passed, (haha), suddenly millions of women would decide they weren't in "love", and didn't want to get married after all. No payday after they put in their time.

[–]EdgeReborn 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it should be gone but it should be limited. For example my stepdad has been divorced from his first wife for over 10 years but she still receives 1/3rd of his income totaling to about 50k/yr. She hasn't worked since then and just lives off of it. I think this is a bit silly considering how long its been.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Mr--Beefy 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It was implemented for GOOD reason

It was implemented because women at the time weren't expected to work, and often couldn't work because they had to care for the children.

This is no longer the case. At all.

A few more of these types of posts filled with hate-speech oriented comments and I'm fuckin outa here.

Why wait?

[–]Humankeg 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Red pill isn't a hate sub either, so get off your ignorant high horse about it.

Your thoughts on alimony are correct though

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]thelordofcheese 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And feminism is nothing but hipocritucal sexism.

[–]Rispetto 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Trying to justify your poor behaviour by referencing another poor behaviour is not an excuse.

[–]Humankeg 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You're 100% ignorant.

[–]Rispetto1 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah? That so? I went to the red pill and clicked on the first thread I found.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/35euve/why_i_dont_allow_women_in_my_group/

Damn straight. Create male spaces and avoid incorporating them or being too visible. This damn need to include women in everything is killing me.

And I'm ignorant?

The fact that you people are defending this type of behaviour sickens me.

I've already unsubbed and I'm outa here. Enjoy your pool of hate. You're going nowhere in life.

[–]DumpyLips 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Would you fall feminism a sickening behavior? What if I showed you comments of "feminists" saying men should be castrated?

[–]Rispetto 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

The fuck do you people keep bringing up feminists for? Do you honestly believe that because group A has a shitty behaviour, that you should too?

You're the god damn definition of stooping to the low level of your enemy. Do you think you'll combat their actions by acting like them?

Take a big step back and ponder what exactly you're accomplishing by doing what you're doing. If after awhile you come to the conclusion that the answer to that question is "nothing", then you've come to a place of higher understanding.

There are plenty of ways to combat hardcore feminism, which is a fucking plague. Duplicating them is not the answer, and it doesn't take much existential thought to realize that.

Snap the fuck out of this nonsense. You're a god damn adult and respectable member of society. You have a fucking duty to not only yourself, but the rest of humanity to not act like a bunch of fucking apes beating one another over the tree with the most bananas.

Godday, sir.

[–]DumpyLips -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The point is that you can't take one persons opinion as a representation of an entire group

[–]Humankeg 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OK... Where is the woman hate? He understands the type of people he is associated with, and took necessary actions so that his education isn't jepordized. Don't see where the misogyny is. Rp is about self improvement. Improving ones' education is self improvement.

Sounds like you are ignorant

[+]automirage04 -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Prepare yourself for an avalanche of down-votes. The neckbeards are out in force today.

[+]automirage04 -37 points-36 points-35 points 11 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

At the risk of having an unpopular opinion, I gotta say, I hope this doesn't catch on. Alimony exists for a better reason than making sure lazy women don't have to work. In fact, I'm not really sure this is the right subreddit for the post, since a lot of men collect alimony too.

In many marriages, the couple will decided that one of them will stay at home and take care of the kid/s or provide other services to the family unit. Fast forward 10-20 years, and the working spouse has been getting promotions/pay raises, but the at-home spouse hasn't.

Well, now they decide to get divorced. The working spouse has seen a lasting benefit from the other spouse agreeing to stay home. Alimony exists because it's not really fair that the working spouse gets to retain those 10-20 years of benefits, but the at-home spouse just has to swallow two decades of sacrificing their career for their family, and re-start a new career from scratch.

[–]Iorith 44 points45 points46 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Except homemakers are a tiny minority now, and many women want alimony even if they make just as much as the man. In theory alimony should only be temporary until they find work, but too many just use it as a free paycheck.

[–]automirage04 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Those are great arguments for reform, not abolition.

[+]okuma -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Looks like the neckbeard patrol is out in force downvoting you for DARING to dissent. How...womanly of them. Your reasoning is completely valid, and is basically the same as my post, which I see now will get downvoted into oblivion because how dare anyone suggest that there's a difference of opinion. Better get rid of it, based on emotional knee-jerk reactions rather than discuss it and examine it logically. Fucking hypocrites.

[–]bartallen4790 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

  1. If you read the whole article he's changing the alimony law to make it so that after 10 years of marriage there will be a 20% alimony for 5 years until they get back on their feet, that is plenty of time and no one should argue that it will take longer than 5 years to build a new career for yourself.

  2. A lot of men don't collect alimony also, only 3% of people on alimony right now are men. That is not a lot.

[+]automirage04 -15 points-14 points-13 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

  1. I actually misread that part, but I still don't like the numbers, honestly. Granted, its better than complete abolition across the board, but 10 is a bit too long, imo. You can still miss a lot of opportunities in 9.5 years.

  2. 3% of a big number is still a big number. Lets not get bogged down in semantics. My point was that this subreddit is for situations where women are trying to get away with shit that they would not expect men to get away with. The fact that alimony can and does get awarded to men sort of disqualifies the topic, in my opinion. Now if you want to post a video of Judge Judy smacking down a bitch asking for alimony when she doesn't need it, that belongs in r/pussypassdenied.

[–]bartallen4790 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Understood, but most people that get married don't just became stay at home spouses right off the bat. Usually wait a few years until kids or even a few years after that. Married for 10 years doesn't mean out of work for 10 years.

[–]automirage04 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair point.

[–]AlbinoRhino838 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You realize that by comparison, its fuck all. If 3% of the people on alimony are men, that mean that there are 32.3 times as many women on it as men. So no, there are not a lot of men on alimony.

[–]365Triggers4 points 11 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The issue a lot of people have with homemakers is its absolute job security. While it's true that it's extremely difficult to be a perfect mom and homemaker, the fact is you can be a shitty mom and half-ass your way through domestic duties and still get exactly the same legal benefits. In a real job, doing so would get you fired. There is no objective way to separate the good ones from the bad ones, so there's no real incentive for them to put effort into it. There's no reason why people can't set aside an alimony "agreement" without it being legally mandatory. This way, the breadwinner has a boss, and the homemaker has a boss, and they're now both accountable for their shitty work. Don't like it? Double breadwinner.

[–]MustakaThinks breakfast food is gay sex 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

or you could come from a family like mine where both parents had to work to in order for the family to eat and have a roof over our heads.

The concept behind the petition is simple and equal to both sexes. Feminists want equality then they should face the facts of what equality is. Having a child does not mean you can sit on your ass for the rest of your life and have a man pay for it. get up of your ass and work.

[–]automirage04 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Both my parents worked, and still do. My wife and I both work. But that doesn't mean what's right for my family, or your family, is right for every family. Taking alimony off the table as a possibility discourages a completely valid choice for families to make.

Granted, there are a lot of dumb bitches who abuse the tradition, but the idea behind alimony is about making sure one spouse can't take unfair advantage of the other. Poor implementation is a separate issue that should be dealt with separately.

Saying alimony should be done away with because some women collect it and don't really need it is like saying we should do away with social security, because some seniors collect it and don't need it. If you want to add a few more precautions to prevent abuse, that's one thing. I'd rather give it to a few people who don't need it, than take it away from everyone who genuinely deserves it and needs it.

[–]youdonotnome 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes but choosing to stay at home and raise a kid is an easy fucking life, that anyone would choose over having to go to work every morning. It's not 'sacrificing a career' it's winning the fucking lottery.

You want the easy life of cleaning a man's house and raising a child, but you still want the benefits of busting your ass at work everyday. Fuck off.

[+]automirage04 -22 points-21 points-20 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Fucking spoken like a fucking man with a dirty fucking house, and no fucking kids. Fuck.

Edit: Fucking fuck.

[–]noogai131 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm just going to say this, as a 21 year old man who is doing it rough at the moment in terms of jobs and money.

If I could share in roughly 50% of somebody's money and property/life, be the main spender for the household (this is what happens with the homemaker, they spend the majority of the money that goes into the household), and have a nice house to sleep in, and all I had to do was look after kids and clean the house, i'd consider it a fucking bargain. I'm great with kids and know how to set up shit for them to have fun with, while doing my own stuff and at the same time still keep an eye on them, and cleaning can be relegated to small jobs each day.

I'd prefer to work, but being able to sit on my ass for around 60% of the day and still have the shit I want would be pretty damn good.

[–]AlbinoRhino838 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol I had sympathy for you throughout this entire thread until I read this. I now understand why you're getting downvoted.

22 year old man working 55-70 hours a week in a bullshit job to not even be able to afford my own place to live (alone) I would also consider it a bargain to have the opportunity to get my home paid for, food paid for, entertainment paid for and get shit I wanted bought for me every now and then in exchange for making meals, taking care of kids and cleaning a house. You sound like some one who hasn't worked a real job in your life.

[–]boyfantasy11 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I would love for someone to pay for me to stay home and take care of any kids I have. I think it's far more of a sacrifice to have to toil away at a job and consequently spend minimal time with your children.

[–]motsanciens 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Great point. The homemaker can theoretically get up to the same career level as the former spouse, even without the extra years of work history. The one who supported the homemaker, however, can NEVER get back the time they missed out on with their children.

[–]automirage04 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In theory, the homemaker could win the lottery, or stumble onto big bag of cash. In reality, though, 10 years worth of pay raises and promotions takes 10 years to achieve. That's not even taking into account that employers tend to shy away from hiring folks with long periods of unemployment on their resumes.

[–]motsanciens 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You sort of missed my point.

[–]automirage04 -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

EDIT: Sounded ruder than I meant it to. I saw your point, but I disagree with how you arrived at it.

[–]blizzardice -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought it was Louisiana before I read the article. Punctuation is everything.

[+]bryanrobh -14 points-13 points-12 points 11 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

In the article it says about 47% of the women work now what about the other 53% of women who actually stayed home to raise the children? Do they get tossed out ? How would that work?

[–]KoKauH6 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (31 children) | Copy Link

They probably didn't stay home to raise the children, they stayed home because free money. I mean if the kid is 10 or above it's perfectly good to leave it alone for a few hours, but if your kid is retarded just leave it to natural selection we won't need it anyway.

[+]bryanrobh -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

Well a couple of couples I know have that exact setup. The woman would have the kid and stay home to raise the kid from birth. And the kids is still under 10 years old. So you aren't able to leave them alone

Edit: there is definitely merit to having the mother stay home to raise the kid as opposed to a stranger who could molest or beat the kid

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Parents have been known to do both those things.

[–]bryanrobh -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Not to change the discussion but I will ask you what do you think has a better chance to happen. A caring parent beating and molesting their kids or a non caring stranger beating and molesting a baby

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I suppose I could ask you the same loaded question about what you think would be more likely to happen. A non caring parent beating and molesting their kids or a caring stranger molesting and beating a baby.

[–]bryanrobh -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

In all honesty do you really believe a stranger would care about a kid they are just taking care of as a job? Be honest. Then again asking someone to be honest on here is a joke

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Uhh, yeah. Not everyone in the world is a sociopath that doesn't understand the value of someone elses children. And have you ever heard of a day care r baby sitter? How many people molested you to make you think nobody cares about other peoples children?

[–]bryanrobh -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No one I just have seen too much news to trust people that I don't know. Besides it is just lazy to pass your kids off.

[–]AlbinoRhino838 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's not lazy if you're out working and you need some one to take care of them... Which is why 90% of kids are in day care... Are you daft or just a really bad troll?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

How about neither of them are in any way likely to happen so don't fucking worry about it you puss

[–]bryanrobh -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Why are you salty? Sound like a sorry guy who got took

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

And you sound like a overprotective pussy

[+]bryanrobh -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Not over protective. I am asking a serious adult question. You are just a woman hating bitch.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

hahahahahahahaha

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You're subscribed to /r/rpussypassdenied let's not point fingers as to who hates women because while you may be pointing one at someone else you have three more pointed right back at yourself.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]bryanrobh -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That's fine we can use stats from 10 years ago.

Neglect 62.8% Physical abuse 16.6% Sexual abuse 9.3% Emotional/psychological abuse 7.1% Medical neglect 2.0% Other 14.3%

Is how they define maltreatment. Neglect is what not paying attention to the kid? Ok. When I say abuse I mean beating at molesting as I said previously.

Also most of these cases of parents maltreatment of kids comes from homes where the parenting are alcoholics or drug abusers. According to your 10 year old stats. So there goes the caring parent idea out of the window.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]bryanrobh -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I never said parents could do no harm. I said caring parents. I also never caregivers were bad people. I just don't trust people I don't know. Trust is like respect it has to be earned. But this has nothing to do with the thread.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]bryanrobh -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh no I don't give a shit what you do with your kids. I would just like to be a good parent and raise my own kid not have someone else do it. That's all.

[+]bryanrobh -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Why the down votes for a valid question? Don't be a bunch of pussies.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Don't be a pussy, or whine about downvotes? You can't have both

[+]bryanrobh -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I am not whining I am just calling out pussies and of course none of them man enough to own it.

[–]BrownBoognish 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

No, you're whining about fake internet points like a little pussy even though several people have engaged you in conversation over your 'valid' question.

The downvotes on the original question stem from the fact that it is not a valid question because the article answers the question.

Understand, I haven't upvoted or downvoted because fuck if I care, but /u/riiiiggs made a good point, you can't have it both ways.

[–]bryanrobh -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Again not whining kid but ok

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

notice how literally no one likes you?

[–]bryanrobh -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Oh no my feefees are hurt because you neck beards don't like me

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't give a shit about your feelings, but it should be obvious to you at this point you are not correct.

[–]bryanrobh -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You tell me exactly what I am not correct.

[–]BrownBoognish 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

K

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Iramohs19 points 11 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

Rarely. Getting rid of the system all together would be a good thing.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MannoSlimminsI am into Beavers 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No men get alimony just as often as women.

Really? So between 2006 and 2015 the rate of men receiving alimony rose from 3.6% to 50%? [source] (Oh, and look at this part: (In 2005 (the latest year for which data are available), wives outearned their husbands in 33% of all families, up from 28.2% a decade earlier.)

Also, notice how alimony was fine for years when it was women receiving it, but as soon as men started to get it... Oh look, alimony reform! [Article]

[–]MustakaThinks breakfast food is gay sex 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Either back up your statement with some actual evidence or gtfo.

[–]Vargasa871 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No men get alimony just as often as women.

Men just make more money than women usually.

So then women get more alimony since they usually make less money.

[–]YouHaveSeenMe 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The less money thing is over a lifetime, not paycheck to paycheck.

[–]AmaroqOkami 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not entirely true. It is based on the average income of all women versus all men, not taking into account hours worked, degree, choice of profession, etc.

Basically, it ignores context completely and measures average income for both genders. So technically, it is paycheck to paycheck, just not for the same job. Or hours worked. Or level of education. Or any other variable that could influence those numbers.

[–]YouHaveSeenMe 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All of that is probably a bigger factor than the over a lifetime thing. The lifetime thing just hits home for me because i am a stay at home Dad and have been for 3 years, with a few more years to go. And i can for sure see how it is setting me back. I imagine it is going to affect my overall pay more than just a little bit, the big thing i see is i am not working my way up on any pay chain, where i would have 6-7 more years to do that if i didnt choose to stay at home.

[–]MP-The-Law 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just as often, horseshit

[–]bartallen4790 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-e-cordell/why-dont-more-men-ask-for_b_3503742.html

Not sure where you got your facts from dude.

[–]automirage04 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your karma on this comment leads me to believe that the answer to your question is "no"... most of the people in this thread do not realize that.

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