Originally posted by Perfect stranger
let's not collapse the "world as we know it yet" The case still has to go to the Supreme Court and my gut says she won't win

The question remains, Perfect stranger, why did our SCC even agree to rule on it, then?

Alimony is just plain stupid.

If a woman chooses to not educate herself, and not find a career, that is HER fault and HER problem.

Laws as well as social expectations that lay the burden of supporting a woman during a relationship, and then even AFTER a relationship on the man are just offensive.

They don't feel they should have to take care of themselves, but instead feel that as a woman they are some how born deserving to be taken care of. It angers me deeply, and I would think real women would be offended by the actions of other women that hold that idea.

Being responsible for ones self is evidently not an idea that people care about. Back when women couldn't really work a decent job I could totally understand it, but today when you have many very successful women, and tons of opportunities, there is no excuse for demanding that your shoe buying habit be funded by a man.

I'll weigh in.

I'm not pro-Alimony. In a case where one partner has clearly been the main moneymaker and the other has tended other concerns in relation to their relationship a transitional period of time is important to the overall stability of the family unit.

This should be a short-term solution. The partner who isn't gainfully employed must pursue steps to take on that to support themselves in a reasonable time period. Not doing so should not extend the period of time where the non-employed partner is continuing to be "paid" for their work. And yes, being a parent is work.

In the case where the non-employed partner is NOT in a parent role, this time period of support should be significantly lessened.

I don't think an alimony situation should extend beyond a year at maximum.


If you choose to be in a relationship where one of you is not employed outside of the home, then you contract that that is that person job. Money is communal, and therefore the non-employed partner is something you AGREED to. If in that contract, a lack of other job skills have been neglected, then it a general severance period should be considered normal. If you want a housewive/husband, then you agree that that work is important and therefore worth compensation.

Originally posted by Aeons
I'll weigh in.

I'm not pro-Alimony. In a case where one partner has clearly been the main moneymaker and the other has tended other concerns in relation to their relationship a transitional period of time is important to the overall stability of the family unit.

This should be a short-term solution. The partner who isn't gainfully employed must pursue steps to take on that to support themselves in a reasonable time period. Not doing so should not extend the period of time where the non-employed partner is continuing to be "paid" for their work. And yes, being a parent is work.

In the case where the non-employed partner is NOT in a parent role, this time period of support should be significantly lessened.

I don't think an alimony situation should extend beyond a year at maximum.


If you choose to be in a relationship where one of you is not employed outside of the home, then you contract that that is that person job. Money is communal, and therefore the non-employed partner is something you AGREED to. If in that contract, a lack of other job skills have been neglected, then it a general severance period should be considered normal. If you want a housewive/husband, then you agree that that work is important and therefore worth compensation.

edit on 2011/3/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Money isn't communal, it is individual. In-fact it is one of the most individual things, as it is an individual who earns it and it enables individuals to survive. If you are interested in communal economics I suggest you look towards agrarian societies.

Simple fact is it ain't that hard to be a stay at home slouch. It is more boring and sometimes tedious thing to do, but it leaves plenty of time for a person to advance themselves. If a person failed to do so that is their own individual fault.

And in most cases the "bread winner"(as was common in the past) is often highly pressured to let the other person be a slouch. So your rewarding a person who used coercion to enter into an arrangement that while not being notarized with council, still oddly enough has the legal effect of a notarized contractual agreement...

Ah. A guy who complains women are "out of their place" AND wants them to work AND if they work thinks they are wrong AND doesn't think that men should support them.

At what point does you realize that being ^^ this ^^ at cross purposes just means you hate women?

Yes, you have indeed in other threads degraded women for being out of the traditional place of women and ruining everything.

And again, you are not all men. I don't hate all men. I don't even hate most men. I do however find certain men quite contemptible, and you certainly seem to run around acting like one of those ones.

You noticing that I don't find guys like you worthy isn't something you can blow up to include all men. You aren't a representative of men, you aren't a statistical sampling of men. I'll admit that you probably pick up on the fact that I might find that I am superior to YOU, but that is purely a personal reaction to your posts.

I am all the things that you think a woman should be - and you hate the crap out of me for it. Its really quite amusing.

Originally posted by Aeons
Yes, you have indeed in other threads degraded women for being out of the traditional place of women and ruining everything.

And again, you are not all men. I don't hate all men. I don't even hate most men. I do however find certain men quite contemptible, and you certainly seem to run around acting like one of those ones.

You noticing that I don't find guys like you worthy isn't something you can blow up to include all men. You aren't a representative of men, you aren't a statistical sampling of men. I'll admit that you probably pick up on the fact that I might find that I am superior to YOU, but that is purely a personal reaction to your posts.

I am all the things that you think a woman should be - and you hate the crap out of me for it. Its really quite amusing.

Yawn, please list all the post's where I expressly supported and advocated for traditionalism. Pretty pretty please? Wait you can't? aww pity you.

I hate the social construct of "woman" or rather what society enables women to do to men. I also hate the bias and discrimination against males in our society(in favor of women). Make no mistake I view women first and foremost as human beings and I am not going to hold anyone to a lesser standard because of their gender.

You don't see me saying "those barbarian's in Saudi Arabia have the right idea"(I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone). But if refusing to treat women like perpetual children makes me a bigot, then sign me right up. Because that I think is the singular, most contemptible sin that our forefathers committed against women.

We live in a society that enables women to commit great evil and get away with it. Of course it is a combination effect(arse backwards mix of traditionalism's "women can do no harm"+ gender feminist's "women are the master gender"). From a male perspective it doesn't matter that not all women are like that, what matters is that all women could be like that with the full blessing of the state.

But let's play a game, call it a term of the day type thing. Look up "feminist jurisprudence", and how "truly egalitarian" it is...(P.S to those who missed the sarcasm, it isn't).

Heck look up Paternity Fraud while your at it.


(As per my slouch comment, that applies in a gender neutral function. If I married some chick that had a super paying job and I became the SAHP, I would have to do something else. Volunteer work, something, even part time book-keeping. The most concession I would make about alimony is require the breadwinner to pay for the SAHP's unemployment tax so in the advent of divorce separation, they could use that until they get back on their feet. Direct payments from the bread winner strikes me as something akin to slavery or peonage, something I can never accept or agree with ever for any reason)