~ archived since 2018 ~

Florida Legislature updates outdated alimony law; one new provision requires judges to ensure that those paying alimony do not wind up with significantly less income than those who receive it.

AyeMatey

June 9, 2011

44 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/26/2237315/legislature-updates-archaic-alimony.html

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Florida Legislature updates outdated alimony law; one new provision requires judges to ensure that those paying alimony do not wind up with significantly less income than those who receive it.
Author	AyeMatey
Upvotes	44
Comments	44
Date	June 9, 2011 2:23 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/hvisw/florida_legislature_updates_outdated_alimony_law/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/florida-legislature-updates-outdated-alimony-law.1038894 https://theredarchive.com/post/1038894

Comments

[–]AyeMatey[S] 12 points13 points14 points 15 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

This is pretty "weak tea" for those in favor of reform of family law** courts. How tepid is it to say that a giver of alimony shouldn't end up with "significantly less" money that the receiver of alimony?

Significantly less??? I suppose that means "somewhat less" is OK?

If we are satisfied with this kind of "reform", we deserve what we get.

Alimony should be rescinded, tossed out. In 2011 America, there is no rational legal justification for it. Everyone has the right to get a job. Fair wage laws say that everyone will be fairly compensated. There are publicly-funded career training resources available for everyone. Women do not need special support. If the marriage dissolves, they need to get a job to support themselves.

How difficult is THAT to accept?

How retarded is it that we are still even talking about this?

[–]carchamp1 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not satisfied here. Every time men and fathers get a "victory" in "family law" it's really an absolute failure to get anything meaningful done.

There are a few fathers out their benefitting from shared parenting yet many are still paying so-called "child" support to their ex. Reductions in alimony are often met with draconian "community" property divisions that leave breadwinners, usually men, with little. And now this - how about we give these dependents significantly less - as in nothing.

I agree with everything you wrote. The problem is organizations like Fathers and Families are often just as big an obstacle for real reform as NOW. Look at their website; they believe in alimony and they believe in "child" support (despite promoting shared parenting). When your friend is your enemy you have no friends.

I'm reminded of this...

“ We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary. ” — Malcolm X, 1965

When do we men stop taking this shit and really fight back. I wonder.

[+]breakneckridge -6 points-5 points-4 points 15 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link

"Alimony should be rescinded, tossed out."

I don't agree with you on this point. I DO think that alimony that gives the ex-souse more than 50% of the income that the earner actually makes in the workforce is ridiculous and should be illegal. But I think that alimony in some cases is legal and justified.

Like let's say a young couple get married. Both are well situated on the high-power law school track. Then the couple decide together that they should have more of a traditional marriage, so they agree that she'll stop going to school in order to have their babies and take care of the kids that they are hoping to have, while they also agree that he'll continue to go to law school and then be the sole bread winner supporting the household. They're both overjoyed with this agreement. She takes care of their house and kids and supports him emotionally to help him get through law school. Their plan was working great through his law school years and through his early career, but a decade later the relationship goes south and they get a divorce. I think it's pretty clear that in that situation she rightfully legally is due a significant portion of the income that he earns.

She shouldn't get as much as she would've earned if she became a lawyer herself, and she shouldn't get as much as she would've received had they continued to stay married, but it should be some substantial amount above zero.

[–]erok81 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]KronktheKronk 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]alanwj 15 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

There might not be, but I don't think that was the point. The wife, in this hypothetical situation, gave up her opportunities to advance her education/career/earning potential for the mutual benefit of the couple.

In a sense, the couple specialized their labor so that, overall, the partnership would be better. But in doing so, one party (the wife) took on more risk than the other. The idea of alimony is to more equally distribute that risk. I think that most here would argue that the implementation is poor, but the idea behind alimony doesn't seem particularly ridiculous to me.

[–]Guy51234 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]KronktheKronk -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]KronktheKronk 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]KronktheKronk -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp11 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KronktheKronk1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carchamp11 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KronktheKronk1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]breakneckridge -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Guy51234 -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]breakneckridge 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Guy51234 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]breakneckridge 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Guy51234 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]breakneckridge 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Guy512340 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]breakneckridge -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

"Alimony, that is legal involuntary servitude, should be abolished."

No it isn't, not in the slightest. Alimony is the fulfillment of a contract. When the two people agreed on this marriage situation they set up a contract with each other where they both agreed that he would provide the money income for both of them for the rest of their lives and in exchange she would give up her chance at earning more money in her life while providing him with the emotional and household support that was intended to allow him to get through law school easier and/or with better grades and to make a nice home for him and his children that he desired in the exchange.

When the marriage contract is dissolved, the contract terms have to be settled equitably for both parties in the contract. He loses the household caretaking and child caretaking that was promised to him, while she loses the lifetime financial income that was promised to her. In order to fulfill the contract, each party must be "made whole" as the law refers to it. She needs to receive the financial income that he promised to her, and he should be able to deduct all expenses that she would've otherwise provided him with if they stayed married, as per their original marriage contract. So he should be able to deduct from his alimony payment the cost of hiring a bi-weekly maid, a part-time private chef, a live-in nanny, etc.

In cases like these (not in ALL alimony cases, just in cases like the one in this example) alimony isn't like slavery in any way at all, it's straight forward contract law. Two parties freely and willfully agreed to enter a contract with each other, and later when both parties decided to break that contract then the terms of the contract still must be equitably fulfilled.

[–]Guy51234 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AyeMatey[S] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First, you're wildly naive. If you think these stay-at-home arrangements are being made free of coercion you're sadly mistaken. "Feely" and "willfully", that's not how it works. Moms use their leverage in "family" court all the time to extract what they want out of their husbands, including the ability to stay at home. Exhibit one of this is me. My wife told me if you don't like it (her staying home)leave, knowing full well I would lose my kid in a divorce.

All you're doing by promoting alimony is creating dependency. If community property and alimony were abolished everyone would just have to pay their own way. What on earth would be wrong with that? I'll answer for you as it is obvious, NOTHING would be wrong with that.

You have you're contract completely screwed up by the way as alimony has nothing to do with the wages of maids and chefs (as if thats the quality of food coming out of America's kitchens). In fact, there is no work requirement whatsoever for alimony. Alimony is based mostly on disparity of income.

There is so much more I could say, but I just don't have time...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AyeMatey[S] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AyeMatey[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't buy it.

If this reasoning holds, then my ex-wife should be responsible for providing love and companionship for years to me after divorce. You see, I agreed with her to have a traditional marriage, in which I did not screw around and I was monogamous. And now she left me, and of course my skillz have deteriorated to nothing, so I am left without options with respect to adult companionship. Since SHE PROMISED ME that she would fulfill that role, and then elected to STOP doing so, she owes me, for some period of time. She needs to report to my bed 3 times a week to service me.

Alternatively, she can compensate me monetarily, for all the dates I go on, because those are expenses I wouldn't have to incur had she remained married to me. She should pay for my dates with new women, including periodic vacation cruises to the Caribbean during which I develop my romantic feelings for them.

How would that be? Does that seem fair to you? Does it seem even remotely sane?

The entire concept is ridiculous. If the marriage is dissolved, the partners should be on their own. Period. Any attempt to extend sharing of income beyond the marriage is broken, a throwback idea rooted in the days when there were fewer job opportunities for women, and marriage was a mechanism to care for women. When women were chattel. Any person who believes in equality today abhors the idea of alimony, or one adult depending on another under force of law where no other relationship exists.

It's too bad for her that she gave up her opportunity to build a 20yr career by staying home with the kids, but she chose that path. No one forced her to remain unemployed. (I'm sure there are some weirdos who prevent their wives from working, but let's assume this is an edge case). Life is full of risks. It's also too damn bad for me that I trusted her to be my lifelong companion and then she changed her mind; I am stuck without a family and without a means to create one. But like I said, life is full of risks.

(I use first person pronouns here, but it is only an illustration of the larger point.)

[–]breakneckridge 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AyeMatey[S] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Marriage is a contract.

Really? Then I want to have standards of law upheld in family court. I want accusations to be proven, and I want obvious perjury to be punished. I want my custody of my children to be treated as a right, not a privilege that can be revoked at the drop of a hat. I want abrogation of the contract by one party to result in penalties. I want binding arbitration.

But WAIT! We already did away with all of that by adopting no-fault divorce.

So,.... it ISN'T a contract, not in any normal sense of the word. No matter how many times you repeat it, it still isn't true. If my partner breaks the contract unilaterally, if my partner disregards the contract completely and makes no effort to fulfill her end, there is no repercussions for her. None.

In fact she is rewarded for perjury.

This is not a contract. This is a joke.

[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bombtrack411 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BobTheBird 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MartyMcButterpants 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bubbascrub 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link