TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Why Do So Few Men Get Alimony?

eaton80

February 17, 2016
28 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/#3e10dc6423c2
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

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Why Do So Few Men Get Alimony?
Author

eaton80

Upvotes 28
Comments 42
Date February 17, 2016 3:55 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/469a0w/why_do_so_few_men_get_alimony/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony.955942
https://theredarchive.com/post/955942
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

[–]PhilWylie 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So the gist of the article is that men basically don't think alimony is fair for men or women and so even when they're eligible they don't ask for it, deferring personal financial gain in favor of principle.

The author calls this "macho pride."

[–]LikesTacos 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"macho pride" or maybe they have principles about stealing other people's money.

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

Your patriarchy is showing.

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

I think the TL;DR of that explanation is "because patriarchy!"

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

Women generally avoid marrying down. So in most marriages, the man is the higher earner.

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

Yup. Hypergamy. Comes from evolutionary instincts. Successful and strong men are simply more attractive to most women. Period. Why? Gestation makes a gall hella vulnerable. Goodluck bringing down an antelope, let alone a hungry lion, in your 3rd trimester. Men were tasked with protecting her and her children. Thus, we were selected for based on our ability to do that.

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

Not only male pride; the very few women that do pay alimony are at the forefront of pushing for alimony reform. They find it deeply unfair that they should support their spouse, even in cases where the claim is fully legitimate (a man who gives up his career to take care of the family, say), at least for a transition period. Something about the mere thought of supporting a grown man causes outrage in all of us. Even I, a gay MRA sympathiser, find myself having a hard time mustering sympathy for men who fail to use their potential, while I hesitate to judge women as harshly.

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

Meanwhile, female breadwinners never pay alimony without a contentious battle. “Every guy in that situation has to go through a fight, while (breadwinning) guys go into the divorce accepting they have to pay,” says Rosen. Then, facing humiliation, stress and expense of that fight, they are further disincentivized from pursuing spousal support. “Men are essentially shamed into not receiving alimony,” Ressa says.

Adds Rosen: “Her attitude is always, ‘Dude, get a job.’”

Depending on in which part of the country you live, the judge may say the same thing.

Alpha Women, Beta Men: Wives are increasingly outearning their husbands, but their new financial muscle is causing havoc in the home.

Once Anna sought a divorce—“You know what my lawyer called him? A parasite”—she, like many other women in her position, was in for a shock. Divorce lawyer Harriet Newman Cohen explains, “The law is supposed to be gender-blind. Therefore, when a marriage is breaking up at the insistence of either the breadwinning wife or the supported husband, the lawyer has to apprise the client that when a big-earner wife comes in, the court bends over backward to be gender-neutral, and it is possible the bum is going to be rewarded for sitting on his hands. You do a flip-flop and make believe she is a guy.”

More often than not, this doesn’t involve alimony. “A lot of men, I’ve noticed, feel embarrassed to ask for alimony,” says Ken Neumann, since they already know their partner’s reaction. “The wife’s idea is, ‘You’re not going to ask for alimony, are you? It’s bad enough I was making more than you.’ ”

[–]el_chief 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

Don't get married.

If you want to have kids, find a woman with a similar income level to your own. Don't live with her. Agree on shared custody. Have kid.

[–]LikesTacos 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Or hire a third world country woman to surrogate for you.

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. Surrogacy is the way to go.

[–]chavelah -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Yes, why reach an agreement with one of your peers and raise a child with two loving and involved parents, when you can rent a poor woman's body to deliberately create a motherless child? /s

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

Why would you want to avoid a woman changing her mind and suing you for child support? Why would you want to raise a child in 1 household without having to split time between parent's houses? Why would you want to have another person making decisions on where you live, where you can move, what school district your child goes to? /s

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

If what you want is total control and complete ownership, then parenthood is not for you. Even older-child adoption, which is an entirely ethical path to single parenthood since those kids would have zero parents otherwise, won't please you, because children are human beings with their own agenda.

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

Kate Winset wants total control and complete ownership of her kids. And she gets it. The point, is the risks involved for men. It's regaining the rights to make decisions.

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

A child is not a tool for exercising your rights. By all means, do not marry Kate Winslet. But don't create half-orphans either, just so you can enact a male version of her sick game.

[–]LikesTacos 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Don't put words in my mouth. I stated valid reasons for having a child on your own. You make it about control and "ownership."

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

I put words in your mouth?!? You stated very plainly that you want to be able to decide where your child lives, where your child goes to school, etc., without regard for the wishes of the other parent. You want to be "on your own" with total control - a single parent by choice.

That's a shitty deal for a kid regardless of the gender of their lone parent... but it's a far better fate than aging out of foster care, so it'a not like you don't have a way to get what you want without renting a poor woman's body to create a half-orphaned infant.

[–]LikesTacos 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Exclamation points don't make what you did any more valid. So you are an advocate of creating two single parent households that the child can be shared between. Good for you. I think that deal is FAR worse for the child than 1 household with 1 parent. Total control and ownership (your words not mine) in the best interest of the child is still in the best interest of the child. It also eliminates the court's potential involvement in any aspect of the child's life and yours. I never stated it was an ideal solution, but FAR better than the idea being proposed. It is also a legitimate solution to having a biological child without potentially being destroyed in family court.

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm an advocate of building a family with your child's other parent, rather than trying to do it on your own.

It is in NO child's best interests to be deprived of one of their parents, unless one of them is a raving psycho, which is rare. There is no "legitimate" way to create a motherless or fatherless child. Do asshole women do it fairly often? Yes. Why would you seek to imitate those lowlifes?

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

The original comment which I was responding to was advocating having a child outside of the traditional setting. Having that child split their time between two homes. I stand by my suggestion as a better alternative. Having an intact family is obviously what is in a child's best interest. I am stating that having a single parent is a better alternative than what was being suggested. It is also a better alternative than seeing weekend dad four days a month.

[–]chavelah1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh, my bad. I see your point.

I do know a woman (a single lesbian) who made a deal with a known donor (a gay man) who takes the kid on trips, sends him toys, is called Dad, and is saving up for college. I think that was a good decision on both their parts, and that the child is a lot luckier than many children born to unhappily married straights. But legally, the dad has no rights and no responsibilities, so it's a relationship based on ongoing mutual consent. I'm glad that my children have a legal claim on their father and he has a legal claim on them.

[–]LikesTacos1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's great when it works out, but the pitfalls that the legal system has put in place makes it treacherous/potentially life ruining when it doesn't.

[–]_throwaway16384 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

because the only alternative is a fatherless child which you still have to pay for.

[–]chavelah -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's a popular myth on this subreddit, but the data isn't there to support it. Most first marriages, especially among college graduates, do not end in divorce. Most divorces, among all demographic cohorts, do not end in the father being excised from the children's lives.

The stories of injustice are true, but there is a salience bias here. If you don't believe that, and are sincerely convinced that the "only alternative" you have is to rent a poor woman's womb and raise a motherless child, then either look into older-child adoption or remain childfree. It's disgusting when women deliberately deprive their children of a father. It's equally disgusting when you flip the genders.

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

Eh, more than half of all marriages end in divorce. 75% filed by wives. Among the college educated, 90% are filed by wives.

[–]chavelah -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Go look at the data.

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

Source?

[–]mochacola 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

As oppose to risking letting your kids have fatherless child because your ex kidnaps them for extortion? All legal? Some even going to the lengths of making accusing you of criminal acts, or making your kids hate you? All legal? The point, is to regain rights.

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

The point of having children is to give them the best life possible. If you think that "regaining rights" by creating motherless children is the point, then biological parenthood is not for you. Adopt an older child who needs a parent.

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

Who says a man with a kid can't provide a mother for the kid? No one says creating motherless kids is "regaining rights". Any accusation of dads, burden of proof is on the accuser, that would be enough. But it isn't happening.

Bottom line, what is the way to ensure your kids won't be kidnapped for extortion, or even brainwashed to hate you?

This is just a boycott of very flawed system, nothing to do with "creating motherless child". Are you saying couples who adopt kids are creating parentless child or gay couples adopting kids are creating fatherless/motherless child?

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

  1. A boycott of the system would be not having babies. This leaves plenty of options for parenthood, just no options for exploiting poor women to create a child that you "own." People who want to own another living creature should get a dog, not make a baby.

  2. A single parent can have a girlfriend or boyfriend who is fond of their kid, but a person who can be kicked out of your child's life on a whim is NOT a parent. Father's rights groups have been pointing this out for years. The argument is still valid if you swap the genders.

  3. Adoptive parents, by definition, do not create children. They parent children who already exist and need homes. Domestic infant adoption is essentially baby-buying, which I find unethical regardless of the gender, relationship status, or sexual orientation of the buyers - but it's certainly a step up from using an Indian peasant as a vessel.

[–]mochacola 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Geez. Who says being a dad is owning another human being? Are you saying all single moms treat their kids like slaves they own? Or, if a parent dies and the widower decide to never have a relationship, then, that parent becomes a sicko who want to won another human being?

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No, I'm saying that deliberately creating a half-orphan is a morally revolting notion. Death happens. Divorce happens. Deadbeat parents of both sexes happen. Mothers getting rid of fathers happens WAY TOO MUCH.

Raising kids well is a two-person job. When circumstances dictate that one person attempt it alone, then I wish them the best. Deliberately creating that situation so that you can wield sole parental authority is sociopathic behavior. Renting an Indian peasant to further that agenda is a whole 'nuther layer of sociopathy. You won't find many people who loathe single-mothers-by-choice more than me... but at least they used their own bodies to fulfill their inherently abusive, narcissistic wish to have complete control over the life of a child.

[–]mochacola 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Sigh. Again, what makes you think the dad does not have sisters, a mother who's more than happy to help full time, or he won't have a girlfriend down the road?

All of which are still far better options than have your kid come back to you at 24 and reconcile that he/she realized he/she had been used by the system to extort money.

So, a man decide kids need both biological parents. Tell me ONE way for a man to guarantee that for his kids, just ONE. There is none.

[–]chavelah1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your mama cannot be your child's other parent. She is the grandmother.

Your sisters cannot be your child's other parent. They are the aunts.

Your theoretical future girlfriend can only be your child's other parent if you allow her to adopt - which would mean sharing control, which apparently you aren't willing to do.

If you want total ownership of a living being, get a dog. If you want to be a parent but don't feel you can risk a partnership, adopt from foster care. But realize before you do so that ALL paths to parenthood are fraught with various types of risk. Even the path that involves exploiting an Indian peasant.

[–]mochacola1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sigh. A wife can't give birth, she gets pregnant via artificial method with someone else's womb with her husband's sperm. So, there's a mom because it comes out of her womb? The kid won't know, will he/she?

Yeah, a guy really, rally want his kid to have both parents. Now, tell me how. Get married? Yeah, right. This isn't about ownership. It's avoiding kids getting ripped apart psychologically by divorce battle.

[–]chavelah1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Children conceived by gamete donation are informed of their genetic origins, unless their parents are psychos. There's a mom and a dad (or a mom and a mom, or a dad and a dad) because two people are present and raising the kid. The presence or absence of a biological link doesn't mean squat - ask any adoptive parent.

You probably want to do some research about your specific risk factors in terms of divorce. You keep presenting it as inevitable, which is far from the truth. Deliberately becoming a single parent is like breaking your own leg (or your kid's leg!) before a skiing trip - you avoid the risk of trauma in the future by inflicting certain trauma at the beginning of the endeavour.

But I'm not even suggesting that marriage is necessary - there are lots of umarried coparents in this world, including cohabitants. I'm just saying that it's not OK to deliberately deprive children of their other parent, or to rent a poor woman's body to make yourself a designer baby. (By far the biggest offenders in the peasant-renting racket are rich straight couples, but it's revolting no matter who is doing it.)

If you really, really want your children to have both parents in their lives, then you need to find somebody with the same goal and make an agreement with them to share power and responsibility. It doesn't have to be a wife or a romantic partner or even a female - ethical surrogacy options exist in America.

If you can't do any version of that, if you are simply not equipped to take the risk of commiting to a two-decade involvement with another adult - then don't bring a new life into the world. Adopt from foster care, because those kids are already here and one odd-duck parent is waaaay better than no parent at all.

[–]mochacola1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right. Some people go into vow expecting it'll end bad. Please. Go to all weddings and ask all couples if they are committed to 20 years to bring up kids in a stable family. 100% of them will tell you they won't be the ones failing. Yet, more than half of them will.

Your measure of "find somebody with the same goal and make an agreement with them to share power and responsibility" is kinda idiotic. Because when the relationship goes down the drain, no one will keep their word especially when loads of money is involved.

You still don't get it. Let me reframe this from a woman's point of view. A woman committed herself to her family and kids. Her husband then becomes abusive down the road. So, if their marriage fall apart, and the kids won't be getting both parents, that's because that mom was not committed enough to let the kids have two parents, and should never had thought about being a parent in the first place? Or, she should stay committed and subject herself to his abuse so kids can have both parents? It has zero thing to do if any one parent is committed.

By your reasoning, half of all married couples should not have kids because those kids will be at very high risks of becoming being alienated from one parent via divorce tactics in family courts.

A kid with a father and his long-term girlfriend, or aunt or grandma or whatever, has zero chance of going through the process to being used as a manipulative tool against his/her own parent when he/she is too young to understand. A kid belonging to a couple committed to life-long relationship has about 1-in-4 chance of going through it. Until the family court changes, that is not going to change.

[–]chavelah1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

  1. I am not telling you to get married, merely pointing out that deliberately creating a human life for the purpose of single parenthood is inherently narcissistic and abusive regardless of the gender of the parent. You have other choices.

  2. If marriage is the only two-parent family structure that you can conceive of, stop guessing about your risk of divorce and do some actual research. I don't know anything about your background, or I would do it for you. 50% is an aggregate number that includes people who never finished high school, married for the first time as teenagers, and are now on their third spouse. Conversely, women in my cohort (college educated, first marriage) have experienced a steady decline in their 20-year divorce rate, which now stands at 12%.

A 12% risk over 20 years... worth it? I mean, you COULD still get divorced when your kids were too young to understand, and you COULD have an acrimonious divorce that leads to parental alienation (although that's not the typical scenario in any cohort)... and you COULD have an accident or develop an addiction problem or simply be very shitty and handling a certain developmental stage, and too bad for your kid who doesn't have another parent to fill the gap because you were bound and determined that they should come into this world half-orphaned so that you could have 100% control over their lives.

Parenthood isn't about what's best or easiest for you. If that's your focus, you are not ready to be a parent.

[–]mochacola1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My point was, there's no guarantee. I was married. The reason I got married? I wanted to start a family. The reason she got married? She wanted to start a family. For me, kids' needs come first, before anything. For her, kids' needs come first before anything.

And when our marriage fell apart and we were separated, for those 3 years, I still see my kids 4 days a week from 3pm to 8pm. Now that the divorce filing is finally happening, I'm being denied of my kids entirely. And over time, my kids are now hating me, or so my ex claims.

From kids point of view, the likelihood of having two loving parents is the same for a dad who has a long term girlfriend who is not the kid's biological mom, and a pair of biological parents. But, the chance of a kid getting screwed over through divorce tactics, is higher when he has a biological mom. It is saddening, but that's the state we are in.

I'm not planning on using surrogates to have kids, and if I were to fall in love with someone who can't have kids, but I ended up wanting to start a new family, I would actually end that relationship and find someone who can bear children. But that's me.

The thing is, if you think through the logistics of it, a kid has a better chance of having 2 loving parents if you take biological mom out of the equation. It sounds preposterous, but it's true.

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because damseling, chivalry are shit.

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