Serious question - Why is the breadwinner expected to keep the homemaker in the lifestyle they've been accustomed to (with alimony), but the homemaker has no obligation to continue keeping the breadwinner in the lifestyle they were accustomed to?

MagicTampon · 2017-05-19T03:29:54+00:00

Because men can be forced to do nearly anything, but women can be forced to do nearly nothing.

Sexism, basically.

Chivalry is sexist bigotry.

Demonspawn · 2017-05-19T02:04:51+00:00

Women get divorces. Men don't.

TibsKirk · 2017-05-19T01:56:35+00:00

I don't think sex is a service in a loving marriage between two people who respect each other, but I get your point here. It seems pretty simple to me. A lifestyle is associated with a certain income, not the luxury of a partner who does unpaid work, although we could make a case that a stay at home parent is paid work by the working parent.

Some of this stuff is a hang over from an older time. A woman could be financially devastated by a provider husband who just decides that the twenty-something neighbor is his new thing. Some of this system was put in place to give social safety nets to women who could find themselves in their late 30s with no job skills and suddenly no provider, at no fault of her own. Men could absolutely ruin a woman, but women gained some security with the tender years doctrine, child support, and alimony. All of this stuff is totally outdated for 2017. It creates massive amounts of discrimination against men.

PowerToAnnihilate · 2017-05-19T02:34:35+00:00

I don't get it either.

Yet another reason not to cohabitate or marry

fengpi · 2017-05-19T02:21:08+00:00

Because men are super-privileged masters of the planet who get everything they want. Or something.

Or, like, women are owed a lifetime of $ because of an occasional use of their vaginas.

Gotovoat5342 · 2017-05-19T04:26:07+00:00

Because being a bread winner requires developing skills + career (school, experience, seniority, contacts). The home maker didn't develop these skills+career as they were busy supporting the bread winner allowing them to develop the skills + career.

Being a home maker doesn't require any special skills though (or at least that's what the alimony system assumes)

Basically, it's seen that like the money made during the marriage, the skills + career the bread winner developed while being supported by the home maker are actually belong to both parties.

For example, if the home maker gave up on developing their own career / going to school to better support the bread winner in their career (taking care of the house / kids so the bread winner has more time to study / make contacts / invest time in building their career), it would be unfair to take away the fruit of their sacrifice / investment.

In a sense the idea is that the career built was built from an investment by both parties, so both needed to profit from it.

That also explains why the bread winner is required to word a reasonable amount - and isn't allowed to decide not to work so their ex doesn't get money : they are seen as sabotaging a career that's half owned be the hole maker.

grasshopa · 2017-05-19T05:07:39+00:00

Your views are a bit dated.

Chances are, now a days, both are breadwinners. The one with the penis, however, is the one who ruined the marriage...ergo, he's the one who pays.

No, I don't care which marriage you are talking about; doesn't matter, penis is at fault.

PeteyMax · 2017-05-19T17:22:26+00:00

Because alimony is an anachronistic holdover from a time when women had fewer options for employment and were generally paid less than men.

the_unseen_one · 2017-05-19T22:24:24+00:00

It ultimately comes down to women being absolved of all social and legal responsibility while being rewarded all the rights, and men being given all the responsibility while stripped of all their rights. Men are obligated to give the women anything they want, while the woman is obligated to do absolutely nothing. If the man ever attempts to gain what he was promised through a marital contract, or to gain some fairness in return for financial obligation, he will at best be called a sexist, and at worst locked up.

It's just another sexist function of society. Men marry for sex and children, and they have zero guarantee to either even in the marriage. Women marry for money and security, and they are promised both regardless of marriage or divorce, and regardless of whether they CAUSED the divorce or not. The day I see feminists with power address this horrid injustice is the day I might think feminism isn't a female supremacist movement.

perplexedm · 2017-05-19T10:44:10+00:00

A rule meant for the affluent, forced down to commons.

bitchbepsycho · 2017-05-19T13:02:16+00:00

Because the vast majority of homemakers are women so god forbid their needs are not met.

WillMeatLover · 2017-05-19T18:49:34+00:00

It's not hard to understand. You are not experiencing confusion. You are experiencing frustration. It is just a raw deal. It is just unfair.

mistixs · 2017-06-09T18:54:58+00:00

She earned the lifestyle by her labor.

If you have a job, and quit, you retain the money you earned from that job.

mistixs · 2017-06-09T19:00:56+00:00

Another note.

The homemaker sacrificed her career-life to sustain her family with unpaid labor. Therefore, she is disadvantaged in the paid workforce compared to the breadwinner.

Which is to say, it'll be difficult for her to get back into the workforce because she doesn't have as much job experience, because she spent that time on unpaid labor.

Why isn't it fair to mitigate that disadvantage?

By the way I would feel the same way about stay-at-home dads and breadwinning moms.

Comments