In this century we have seen a drastic social change (and rightfully so) in regards to more and more women attending college, holding higher positions in the workplace and starting their own businesses.

Should we therefore eliminate alimony?

I think we should leave alimony in place. Though women can now independantly support themselves, it serves as an disincentive for divorce. If honoring marriage vows can't stop a divorce, perhaps the thought of losing half of net worth might.

Of course not.

Scenario: a woman stops her career in her early 30's to have kids. After 5 years and two kids, they decide to split (I'm not placing fault here; it sometimes just happens). Under most states' laws, the acquisitions of the marriage are split in two, but that doesn't account for the 5 years that the woman gave up to have kids with the guy. Alimony offers a way for him to help her to get back into her career.

Should alimony be a blanket "X% of income" as it's currently administered in many cases? Probably not, since it doesn't allow for the man's obligation to end as the woman's career resumes.

On the other hand, flip the scenario around: the guy stays at home to raise the kids and the woman continues her career. Do you favor alimony for him? I do, for the same reasoning, but many people think that's nuts.

For the record--I am single and never married.
You have some good points, amf. I'm sorry I didn't include my idea on what's good for the goose philosophy. People (men and women) sometimes take advantage of the extra income and decide to lounge around rather than being productive. I think there should be short term alimony payments of a year. That should be enough time for anyone to find work.



otsend, don't you think though that anyone who is in a very strained or abusive marriage should not stay for the money only? It only promotes adultery and in extreme cases which are rare but happen --murder. To me it seems that it makes the world more antagonistic.

I do not think alimony is antiquated but I think our standards for looking at alimony, child support, and custody sseem to be somewhat antiquated and gender-biased.

When people form into a union sometimes economic sacrifices will be made. Men and women should be looked at for fair support payments. But after reading alimony and child support nightmare stories from this debate site, it seems that the system is not very good at handing out justice and making fair aaccommodations for changes in people's economic lives after divorces.

when equal pay for equal work becomes reality... perhaps. We are not there yet.

No, alimony shouldn't be eliminated as long as the ex-wife remains unmarried or economically incapable of maintaining for herself and her children. I've seen many more women give up their careers to start families or support their husband's careers. I've only personally known one husband/dad who gave up his career to be a stay at home dad because his wife's job was much more lucrative. They later divorced. he got custody of the children and she does pay him alimony and child support as he can only work part time for now. fair.

I think alimony could be one factor in keeping a marriage together, but it can't function as the only factor in keeping it together.

Alimony is based on the concept of the single-earner family, where the women stays at home with the kids. This is certainly not the norm anymore. It seems as if many states have already adapted to this. I believe here in Texas alimony is excluded unless the marriage has been for 10 years or more (not really sure why even that is relevant, but it's a start). The other concept for alimony is remove the monetary reasons for staying together--ie. to provide for keeping the wife (usually) in the same financial circumstances she was in during the marriage. Why one party should have to 'reward' the other for failing to keep their wedding vows is beyond me. I think, in general, it should be treated as a separate civil case. One side should have to show damages for which they should be compensated for. If no damages can be shown, then no compensation for them should be necessary.

But when alimony favors the woman, wouldn't that be incentive for her to divorce her husband?



I like Chris Rock's comedy on this subject. His logic actually makes sense. Alimony is based on the idea that a person grows accustomed to a certain living standard. In the case of the traditional man and wife relationship this meant that the wife was used to a nice house and a car and that those things were part of the deal she thought she was getting when she got married, which means she should still be entitled to those things after the marriage is over. What about what the man is accustomed to? If a man's benefits of marriage are steady sex, and that was part of the deal he thought he was getting, why isn't he entitled to keep having sex with his ex-wife after the marriage is over?

The system definitely needs to be improved. What's true is that oftentimes one partner in the relationship gives up financial opportunity to help the other (maybe a young wife foregoes college to make money while the husband finishes school). I agree with amf that if the situation were reversed (the husband worked to put the wife through school) then the man should receive alimony. Alimony can't be removed entirely, but like so many institutions, it needs to become more case-specific and careful in its implementation.

Alimony should be considered on an individual case-by-case basis. The woman who supported her husband through medical or law school and stayed at home to care for the children while he worked 15 hour days and spent months away is entitled to something (provided she kept her marital vows). Likewise, a man in the same situation would be entitled to something.

OTOH...A couple with no kids and/or no real career holdbacks due to one partner's disproportional support of those kids shouldn't need to consider alimony payments to anyone.

Edited to add: I didn't participate in the poll because it shouldn't be gender exclusive.

When two people divorce, the less affluent one (the spouse
who stayed at home to tend to the home, and/or family) still
needs to be able to survive.

Take this scenario:

A woman is married to a man for 20 years.
She's been a stay-at-home mom, raising their children.
The two decide to call it quits, for whatever reason.
There will be a period of adjustment, where she will need
support, while she gets herself back on her feet, and
prepares to become self-sufficient.

The same would apply to a man, if he was the stay-at-home
father.

If the money is there, it should be shared, for a period of time.
How much, and for how long, would depend on circumstances
(as Mrs. P. stated, a case-by-case basis)...

I guess if the woman married for the money, it could.

I agree with Mrs P and DP, alimony shouldn't be entirely thrown out, but should be on a case-by-case basis.

I voted no. It depends on the understanding (if any) that a couple had when they decided to marry and then how the marriage actually turned out.

There are many factors that come into play when a judge has to decide whether alimony is appropriate, which again emphasizes the importance of taking things on a case-by-case basis.

Mrs. Pigpen is right; this question should have been gender-neutral.

Absolutely it should be abolished. It is a travesty that this still even exists. It is not considered acceptable for a woman to be treated as a sex object (even though it still happens of course) but it is considered okay for a man to be considered a success object! Equality will only be achieved when women stop treating men as a walking wallet (as a society, of course individuals are all different)

How, exactly, are men being treated as walking wallets, as it pertains to alimony? If one member of the union (either gender) is required to sacrifice their ability to generate income and contributes a very disproportionate amount to childrearing, shouldn't they be compensated? How are they supposed to subsequently survive and care for their children?

No one could legally hire a nanny and housekeeper under a long-term contractual obligation, not compensate them and arbitrarily dissolve it.

During marriage, both man and wife take care of each other. It is their sacred bond; a tie so profound that it must be recognized by religion and law.

A divorced husband and wife have severed that tie. They have both requested that they should be free of the obligation of taking care of each other. A woman does not owe anything to a man she has no tie with. Therefore, a woman who has divorced her deadbeat husband owes him nothing. She should have no obligation to pay for him simply because of his lack of accomplishments over a period of 20 years.

I voted to abolish alimony simply because the situations in which it might be warranted are few and far between. Were talking about adults, not children, who are capable of entering back into the workforce if they choose to divorce from their financial superior.

It's nice to know that a spouse is much more disposable than any business partner, childcare provider or housekeeper could ever be.

Few and far between? Here's a newsflash for you. A large percentage of those troops in Iraq right now (making peanuts) are relying on their spouses to take care of all of their finances, housing affairs, children...everything for months upon months while they are away. How much would it take to actually pay a person to take over that responsibility? I have a friend with a nanny, who says the going rate for a live-in and one child is 2K a month. I think it's safe to say the average enlisted person doesn't make enough in an entire paycheck to compensate their spouse. That's what married people do for each other. It is beyond my comprehension that anyone could say such a union could be dissolved and they're even. The spouse who took care of all affairs and cannot provide for his/her family with no jobskills is irrelevant. That absolutely makes me sick to my stomach.

Fair enough. We fundamentally disagree, then.

Those troops in Iraq are being supported by their wives/husbands, thats what good teamwork produces. I would find it disgusting if the spouse of a solider, after their divorce, said "compensate me" for the trouble I went through while supporting them.

Marriage obviously should be more than money. Its nice to make the connection to a 2K nanny who takes care of affairs for you, but its not the same. A wedding signifies a union, the spouses take burdens for each other without asking anything in return. When they divorce, they are prevented from making future burdens for each other, but everything they sacrificed before was agreed to when they took their vows.

Not true. There is absolutely nothing that can prepare a person for the burdens one will under take in a union. Such 'burdens' are undertaken with the understanding and promise that the union will last FOREVER. Somehow, from this you have concluded that one party may incur all of the sacrifice while experiencing none of the benefit or security of the commitment.

It's nice that you believe the 2K reference was mine, but my life affords me no such luxuries. I have been left for months upon months at a time to care for our children. I have moved 10 times in 12 years. Marriage is a contractual obligation. We decided jointly that I would care for the children because it was absolutely infeasible for my husband to do so. I would have very little option to find gainful employment, if he were to arbitrarily leave me today. That was the sacrifice I made under our long-term obligation together, as an understood commitment. If he were to abandon the commitment, he should be obligated to compensate me until I would be able to support myself and my children on my own.

Mrs. Pigpen, that is a fair assessment.

I'm afraid I miswrote my reference to a "2K nanny." I meant to show the differences between a 2K nanny and a housewife.

I myself have not made the commitment you have, thus my position is somewhat blind. I understand the difficulty one might encounter if the breadwinner arbitrarily left: it would seem like a unfair spilt. It seems as though your experince, living in a full household, is most definitely the wiser one. Therefore, I revoke my previous position.

Thankyou.
I apologize if my responses were overly emotional. I've known so many in that position, though...Not just mothers... A friend of mine was a stay-at-home father of twins. He stayed home with the kids because his wife had a good public relations job, and childcare for two is prohibitively expensive. There are a lot of father military spouses that do the same.

At any rate, I do agree that alimony shouldn't be a foregone conclusion by any means, and should only be alloted for a short duration until the spouse has a reasonable means to support themselves, if they had been disproportionately burdened (especially career-wise) with childcare during the union. By my estimation, my friend with the 2K nanny would certainly not receive alimony, because she has maintained an excellent career, and sacrificed no more than her husband towards that union.

You folks are confusing Alimony with child support IMO- If you have kids, you recieve child support, so Alimony is not the issue there, but typically Alimony is above and beyond paying for the kids. Personally, I don't even believe in child support, having been in that particular war as a child. Your going broke because you made bad choices in marriage? Too dang bad, start over, go to school, restart your career, whatever, you got dealt bad cards, start a new game. That is what men have to do after a divorce, only in celebrity divorces are there any monies awarded to men, once again, equality in divorce might be nice someday too!

Well, there is no question that child support is mandatory
and necessary in the case of divorce. Too bad so many men
don't live up to their obligations where that is concerned!
I speak from experience.

In terms of alimony, there are many cases where it
is unnecessary, yet awarded to the wife, as a settlement in
a divorce. So, I can understand why men would feel
it is unfair. However, a lot of men dump there wives for younger
women. Is that fair???

It all boils down to this: Don't get married. And if you do,
be darn sure that the person you are marrying is a
responisble, mature, stable, respectful partner. Then
there will be no need for alimony, because there will be no
need for divorce.