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

Alimony Reform Efforts in New Jersey Are Unnecessary and Potentially Dangerous to Women (2013)

eaton80

June 1, 2015
26 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.nownj.org/news-x/press-releases/171-alimony-reform.html
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 Alimony Reform Efforts in New Jersey Are Unnecessary and Potentially Dangerous to Women (2013)
Author

eaton80

Upvotes 26
Comments 18
Date June 1, 2015 8:15 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/384iov/alimony_reform_efforts_in_new_jersey_are/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/alimony-reform-efforts-in-new-jersey-are.978731
https://theredarchive.com/post/978731
Red Pill terms in post
feminism
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

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

Representing the interests of those women who make up the vast majority of alimony recipients, NOW-NJ supports alimony laws already in place, which take into full consideration the economic circumstances of recipients. Women often invest years of unpaid homemaking and caregiving labor in marriages. This time out of the workforce has an impact on women’s ability to re-enter the labor market in well-paying jobs, and relegates many women to low-wage service sector jobs or underpaid “women’s work.” These factors have a collective impact on women’s lifetime earnings, robbing them of Social Security credits and limiting their access to company pension plans and security in retirement. The economic vulnerability of women who have invested years in the caring of households and the raising of children so that their spouses could work should not be ignored in the rush to overturn alimony payments for select groups.

This argument makes NOW seem traditionalist, LOL. It seems like they will basically say anything. Their only argument is vagina=good. Get a fucking job, ladies.

[–]eaton80[S] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah you reactionary right wing MRAs just want to go back to the 1950's and are on the wrong side of history, oh wait.

[–]ramot1 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why should alimony last a life time? The marriage didn't.

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

It doesn't last a lifetime, it lasts until the woman gets married again. But what sane woman would get married to lose such a benefit!?

Isn't it pretty fucking sexist and degrading to assume a woman won't ever be able to support herself without a husband?

If laws were to be consistent, I would want unemployment benefits to last as long as I don't get employed again. I'm sure that would never be abused. /s

[–]ramot1 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Laws don't make any exception as to income. If I make more than she does, then I pay her. Her remarriage would end alimony, but I have never known a woman to remarry if she was awarded alimony. I know of one guy who remarried, and because his new wife worked, his ex was awarded increased alimony. I have learned to hate the institution of marriage. Never Again.

[–]ramot1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"It doesn't last a lifetime"

Unfortunately,I have achieved what you said doesn't happen, lifetime alimony. FML. Oh wait, they already did. I have never known a woman to get married when they have alimony. She, and I are older than most Redditors, so there really isn't much hope that she will remarry.

And the amount is supposed to be based on income. So right now she is probably making me than I am, since I am unemployed.

[–]thrway_1000 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://archive.is/As4eB

[–]tiqr -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

OP - I take it you disagree with this argument. Can you tell us more about these proposed amendments? Can you explain why these concerns brought forward by NOW-NJ are incorrect?

Why shouldn't alimony laws consider the means and needs of the recipient?

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Because alimony is a flawed concept. Their argument centers on the work one puts in during a marriage, and deserved compensation. However, this makes no sense, that compensation was the financial support received from the primary earner during the marriage. If I'm fired from my job, they are not obligated to keep paying me, for years to come just because we had an arrangement in the past and I'd grown accustomed to the lifestyle it afforded. Why, if we're discussing alimony in terms of compensation for services rendered, should a divorce be any different?

[–]tiqr -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

In Canada, Spousal Support (alimony) servers two primary purposes.

The first purpose is simply based on "needs". If one spouse was a 'homemaker' with no income, we have the other pay them support to keep them on their feet so that they don't immediately become homeless. Usually they are paid support for a few years so that they have time to retrain/educate, and find decent employment. These awards are calculated based on needs only, and are designed to be short-lived awards. If the spouse was independently wealthy (eg. rich family), or had consider savings, then this type of support is available. No reasonable person should argue against this type of support.

The second type of support is "compensatory support." This type is designed to equal out disparity between income growth and income potential. Consider it this way: we already divide matrimonial property between spouses. We do this because it is presumed that they earned their collective wealth together. If we divide everything equally, then both spouses will start the separation on equal footing. However, because one spouse works while the other supported the family, the working spouse has earned many promotions, and has a much higher income. Very soon they be unequal again. The working spouse will keep earning lots of money, but will still have the benefit of children. The child-rearing parent will still have the benefit of children, but not the income.

Compensatory support aims to transfer some of the income benefits enjoyed by the working spouse to other. It's kinda like dividing a pension. One spouse worked more years and so is entitled to a bigger pension. We divide pensions because they are "assets" earned during the marriage. Compensatory Support does the same things. One spouse worked more years and so is entitled a bigger annual income.

Your example of being "fired from your job" is a really heartless comparison. Marriages aren't employment contracts, they are partnerships. If you and I start a business together, you handle sales and I handle operations, and then we decide to sell the business and go our separate ways, how do we divide it's worth? If we were partners, then one would assume that we'd split the business equally.

Does it still sound like a flawed concept?

[–]eaton80[S] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes alimony is a severely flawed concept. What kind of "partnership" lets one partner stop working and continue to reap dividends from past work for ever and ever, while the 2nd partner still has to show up at work 8am-6pm everyday at the point of a gun for the rest of his life? Doesn't sound like much of a partnership to me.

Alimony absolves one party to the now defunct marriage (the homemaker) from any further marital duties, while the other party (the breadwinner) is kept chained to their erstwhile maritial duties long after the marriage is over.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I agree marriages aren't employment contracts, but this co.parison is appropriate solely because it acts as a counterpoint to the arguments being made about alimony as compensation for labor. The benefits, at least in the long term, at being married to an individual should be reserved for those who actually are.

In your comparison, if one partner cashes out with their share of the stock (which represents the value of the company, particularly its assets, thus representing ones share of the collective assets of the marriage) they don't get to keep drawing dividends or a salary.

Marriage, like all other human interaction is, at it's core, a transaction. Alimony as it currently exists, allows for the gaming of this transaction. As the social stigma behind divorce evaporates, the social cost of exploiting this flaw has ceased to exceed the financial gain one can stand to gain from doing so.

Any attempt to award alimony based on the theoretical contribution of a spouse to their significant others career is an attempt to quantify an intangible element. There will never and can never be a fair sum awarded. In an equal world, individuals entering a marriage, would be aware that sustained support post divorce, in the absence of offspring, and would plan their careers accordingly. To do otherwise is to reinforce the outmoded idea of the breadwinner and the homemaker.

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

This is a good discussion, and I want to keep having it (without downvotes people!)

I understand your position about being able to "end" the relationship without ongoing financial obligation. I think this is a worthy point.

What you haven't addressed is my argument about "partnerships". You are assuming the non-working spouse's contributions to the marriage need to be quantified and paid out. I am saying that the contributions of the non-working spouse entitle them to an equitable share of the "property" acquired during the marriage (I don't think I'm hearing you saying that property division is a problem).

If property division isn't an issue for you, then why are you ok with one spouse being in a substantially better position 5 years later by virtue of the promotions they acquired during the marriage? If we are truly trying to divide the benefits acquired during the marriage, why are we excluding income earning capacity from that calculus?

If you and I marry, and we are both earning $50,000 at the time, and we separate 10 years later without kids, each earning $100,000 , then alimony is unnecessary. Neither of our incomes were prejudiced by our relationship.

Instead, imagine we marry, each earning $50,000, then we have kids and you take time off to raise them for 5 years. We divorce 10 years after marriage, I am earning $100,000, but you are earning only $75,000 because you missed some promotions. Is this fair? You sacrificed your career and future earning potential so that we could start a family, and I did not. Would it be unreasonable say that since I am going to earning $25,000 a year more than you for the rest of our lives, I should pay some of it to you?

And if your primary concern is long-term connections and dependence, we can always reach for a lump-sum payout. Instead of paying me $10,000 a year for the next 10 years as "compensation" for my sacrifice in our relationship, why not pay me $75,000 now? I could invest that money, earn interest, and use it to earn the equivalent of $10,000 for 10 years, and you wouldn't need to pay me anymore. This way you get your "clean slate" and I get compensated. Does that still seem unfair?

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

You sacrificed your career and future earning potential so that we could start a family, and I did not.

And if you were concerned about that, you should have dealt with it ahead of time in a pre-nup, not have the state sneakily enforce payment of some potential loss that you willingly chose to incur.

[–]eaton80[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's be honest. 90% of these "sacrificed her career" people never had a career to begin with. She only has career ambitions for the 15 minutes in front of the judge during the trial. Never before, or after.

It's one of those polite lies to justify alimony.

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

You sacrificed your career and future earning potential so that we could start a family, and I did not.

And the primary sacrificed time with their family to bond, and the primary caretaker did not.

Yet in this situation the primary caretaker is one credited more in custody hearings. There's no "compensatory custody" so the primary earner can make up for lost time.

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

The second type of support is "compensatory support." This type is designed to equal out disparity between income growth and income potential

I.e. Punishing the primary earner for earning more, and rewarding working less.

Your example of being "fired from your job" is a really heartless comparison. Marriages aren't employment contracts, they are partnerships.

Funny how divorces suddenly end that partnership.

If you and I start a business together, you handle sales and I handle operations, and then we decide to sell the business and go our separate ways, how do we divide it's worth? If we were partners, then one would assume that we'd split the business equally.

Only to someone not familiar with how businesses are conducted.

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

Why shouldn't alimony laws consider the means and needs of the recipient?

Because ending the marriage didn't for the soon to be obligor.

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