Divorced wife told to get a job and stop living off her ex-husband - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47197809]Stop[/QUOTE] You say this like every thread, as if any point anyone could ever be in support of/against is just ludicrious to even suggest as a topic of debate. [editline]23rd February 2015[/editline] [I]You[/I] should stop.

[QUOTE=butt2089;47198074]Yeah except she gave up her job after getting divorced[/QUOTE] I took the part you quoted "Former riding instructor..." to mean she did not seek work after getting divorced. I did not see anywhere in the article where it said she worked all through the marriage and only quit after the divorce.

[QUOTE=Xonax;47198469]Also I just want to add, what is the point of Divorce if I am going to end up paying for that person every year? Heck, what is the point of Marriage then? I don't want to have to pay for my ex-spouse every year.[/QUOTE] Just don't marry. Marriage today is a legal contract and holds no value besides that of law. Benefits of marriage are nothing compared to loss in case of divorce. [QUOTE=Kite_shugo;47198516]This is exactly why you sign a prenuptial agreement before getting married if you care about this possibly happening (but you'd probably be screwed if you did something that will sway legal sides against you during the marriage)[/QUOTE] Prenups can easily be nullified by judge. Especially concerning assets you acquire during marriage, even if your spouse had nothing to do with them.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;47198178]not really. having any law or legal system that isn't circumstantial is what's stupid. until the last like 8 years we've lived in a society where women almost universally planned on finding a husband and having kids. if a woman plans for that future and something happens that changes it why should she be left to live in poverty? getting married is a legally binding action and no one is forcing you to do it, so if you don't want to be responsible for your spouse should something happen that separates you then you can go ahead and not marry them. in situations where the man has proof that the woman caused the separation (evidence she cheated/was abusive etc.) courts have generally ruled against the man being required to pay anything.[/QUOTE] why should anyone be able to marry someone richer than them and then later divorce them so the richer person has to pay for their life until they die that makes no logical sense. if you were married to someone and chose to be the homemaker in the marriage, but then the marriage didn't work, get a fucking job. you shouldn't be allowed to leach off of them and force them to pay for whatever you want them to. that's fucked up. if there's kids involved in a divorce, that's a little different but should follow a similar line of logic. if there are kids, both parents should be putting equal effort into their children to make their life comfortable and as emotionally healthy as possible.

[QUOTE=draugur;47198147]Marry a rich guy and divorce him then. You can still do that in the U.S.[/QUOTE] Well its kinda hard for guys to do that sort of thing in the US, its getting there though At any rate, she chose to keep that mansion of a house, if she can't maintain it while providing for her children then its time to look into downsizing to something affirdable [editline]24th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=itisjuly;47198713]Just don't marry. Marriage today is a legal contract and holds no value besides that of law. Benefits of marriage are nothing compared to loss in case of divorce. Prenups can easily be nullified by judge. Especially concerning assets you acquire during marriage, even if your spouse had nothing to do with them.[/QUOTE] Ya I've actually heard because of that they are actually moving towards post-nuptual agreements, basically a plan agreed upon by each party in case the marriage is over instead of pre-nups because they are drawn up after a couple is married instead of before, so one can't argue they were forced to sign a bad prenup

[QUOTE=dai;47198561]you sound more likely to end up with a restraining order than a marriage certificate to tear up[/QUOTE] It's not to be taken literally. It's just an edgy way to express my disappointment in how divorces are handled. I understand paying child support until the kids reach a certain age but the woman shouldn't get to just live off her husband for the rest of her life because she "Ruined her career by having children" or something like that. Why would a woman continue to get benefits from a past marriage at the man's expense? It's law approved theft. I've heard too many stories of men getting their lives torn apart by bitter divorces. This is probably one area of our culture where it's men, and not women getting the shitty end of the stick. I'm never getting married without a prenup. (If I ever get married at all).

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47197809]Stop[/QUOTE] No. For once, those two words stand.

I think someone being able to live off their former spouse as a parasite is absolutely not right, but I can't agree with this: [QUOTE=itisjuly;47198443]Alimony is bullshit. It's good to see we're starting to move in the right direction and doing something about this issue.[/QUOTE] If you got married and put your career on hold so that you could raise children while your spouse works, you've sacrificed your money-making ability for the sake of the marriage. I think some payment for a limited time is absolutely fair in cases like that.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47202667] If you got married and put your career on hold so that you could raise children while your spouse works, you've sacrificed your money-making ability for the sake of the marriage. I think some payment for a limited time is absolutely fair in cases like that.[/QUOTE] No one forced you to do this. If we're to talk about equality, you should not sit on your ass and instead get a job. Single parent families can raise kids and pay for them so I believe as a couple you can do it too. Just hire a babysitter. If you get divorced that's the end of it. You are not entitled to any money from your ex. It should not be a law for your ex to pay. If there's an issue, it should be government's responsibility to provide unemployment benefits to you.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47202687]No one forced you to do this. If we're to talk about equality, you should not sit on your ass and instead get a job. Single parent families can raise kids and pay for them so I believe as a couple you can do it too. Just hire a babysitter.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I went through that as a kid when both my parents had to work. It works, but it's not an optimal situation and you can find plenty of studies on the effects the rise of dual-income families has had on raising children. A married person being forced to either resign themselves to hiring a babysitter to raise a child or render themselves entirely dependent upon the other spouse for long-term support is not a good choice. A housewife could spend years effectively working in the home but have nothing to show for it at divorce. If you gave up your career ten years ago for the sake of raising children, you have basically no job prospects. Now if you're stuck in an unhappy or even abusive relationship, your choice is to either leave with nothing, despite the years you put into the relationship, or stay because you need the money and work in the home as essentially an unpaid maid and caretaker. That's not a good choice either. My stepdad is a hard-working man who for the last ten years has had a chunk of his paycheck diverted to an ex-wife who has decided not to work. That's not what the alimony system is meant for and this news article shows that culturally we may be moving in the right direction. But there are legitimate reasons for why alimony exists and to write it off as 'no one forced you to, deal with it' is callous and unfair.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47202836] If you gave up your career ten years ago for the sake of raising children, you have basically no job prospects. Now if you're stuck in an unhappy or even abusive relationship, your choice is to either leave with nothing, despite the years you put into the relationship, or stay because you need the money. That's not a good choice either. [/QUOTE] Why would you give up your career to choose children? Modern times have changed, nuclear family is no longer a thing. Faster people realize this, better all our lives will be. I don't see why your ex should be forced to support your poor decisions in life.

Classic case of worker and parasite.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47202852]Why would you give up your career to choose children? Modern times have changed, nuclear family is no longer a thing. Faster people realize this, better all our lives will be. I don't see why your ex should be forced to support your poor decisions in life.[/QUOTE] So now two married adults mutually agreeing to raise a child in a traditional (and typical) family structure rather than hire someone else to raise their child for them is the poor life decision of exclusively the parent who stays home? I don't mean this as an attack, but do you have some kind of resentment against single-income families or something? Dual income families are more common than ever, but single income families aren't uncommon, and people shouldn't be forced to either adopt your vision of the ideal family or get shafted by divorce court. That's leaving aside that for many families, hiring someone to take care of a young child full-time once maternity leave ends is often more expensive than what that spouse earns working. So what you're saying is they can either deal with losing money for no good reason, or risk winding up with no income, career, or job prospects if they should divorce?

[QUOTE=catbarf;47202931]So now two married adults mutually agreeing to raise a child in a traditional (and typical) family structure rather than hire someone else to raise their child for them is the poor life decision of exclusively the parent who stays home? I don't mean this as an attack, but do you have some kind of resentment against single-income families or something? Dual income families are more common than ever, but single income families aren't uncommon, and people shouldn't be forced to either adopt your vision of the ideal family or get shafted by divorce court. That's leaving aside that for many families, hiring someone to take care of a young child full-time once maternity leave ends is often more expensive than what that spouse earns working. So what you're saying is they can either deal with losing money for no good reason, or risk winding up with no income, career, or job prospects if they should divorce?[/QUOTE] Nothing wrong with single income families. Leeching off of your ex on the other hand is very wrong. If you two want to enter a traditional marriage, you can agree to pay in case of divorce without a court. When it comes to law, alimony should not exist. If a marriage is over, it's over. One partner should not be entitled to other's cash. That's why we have unemployment benefits. Apply for that instead of being a leeching scumbag.