Ask Dr. Helen: Should Alimony Die a Quick Death?

2007-12-19
By



The time for alimony as we know it may have passed, writes Dr. Helen Smith. “No man or woman should be held to being a slave to an ex-spouse after a marriage ends.”




by Helen Smith

An anonymous reader writes in:

Dear Dr. Helen,

I recently read your post about a man whose wife had killed their son and now she wants alimony while in prison! It seems you didn’t think this was a very good idea and I agree. But my real question to you is “what is your personal opinion of alimony–do you think it’s passé?”

Dear Anonymous Reader,

Good question. First, let me make clear that we are distinguishing alimony here from child support which is a whole different matter. Children have to be supported by someone and are in a different category than grown-ups who should be held responsible for their lives and their livelihood. I will discuss alimony only which is defined as “an allowance for support made under court order to a divorced person by the former spouse, usually the chief provider during the marriage. Alimony may also be granted without a divorce, as between legally separated persons.”

Personally, I have a hard time justifying long term alimony payments to men or women in today’s society. Years ago, when one spouse (typically women) was expected to stay home with the kids, tend the house and generally had no training or as many opportunities to make a living as women do today, I would say that alimony might have been more fair. However, in today’s world, in which women have fought for the right to equality, alimony seems more like a kid getting an allowance from daddy and I believe it should be abolished altogether except for extremely dire circumstances where a spouse is older, cannot work at all, and for only a short term period. No man or woman should be held to being a slave to an ex-spouse after a marriage ends. That said, if we are going to have alimony laws, I believe that men and women should be held to an equal standard under the law. But apparently, many women do not feel that equality holds when they are the ones who have to take responsibility.

In this Forbes article, women are angry about paying alimony:

A lot of women are indignant now that the shoe is increasingly on the other foot, says Carol Ann Wilson, a certified financial divorce practitioner in Boulder, Colo. “There’s this sense of, ‘What’s yours is ours, but what’s mine is mine,’” Wilson says. “My first response to that is, ‘All these years we have been looking for equality; well, this is what it looks like.’ I think women get angrier about having to pay than men do.”

Or take a look at what a couple of female commenters have to say when Kevin Federline asks Britney for more spousal support:

Do you believe this guy? Still asking for money. He is using the kids as big ticket items for his greed. The LAZY ASS! why don’t he get a job…..Kevin Fed…….LOSER!

this broke ass wants brittenys kids and more of her money???? what the hell. this lazy worthless piece oof shit nedds a fukin job. he wudnt even have a life without brittany

If Kevin was a woman, would we see this type of outrage? You might think K-Fed is a poser and a loser (and in a way, he is) but many men who have written to me say that they secretly find it satisfying that the shoe is on the other foot for a change and women are getting to experience what men have been dealing with for ages.

Men’s rights columnist Glenn Sacks points out another frustrated woman who got stuck paying alimony and set up a website called WomenPayingSupport.com whose motto is “Be a Man Among Men…Don’t Ask for Spousal Support.”

My motto? “Real men are champions of justice and don’t give in to manipulation from gender ‘feminists’ who want to have their cake and eat it too.” That’s not the way that equality works. If women don’t have to pay, then neither should men. People should learn to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for their choices. I say abolish alimony altogether.

If alimony laws continue to hurt only men, nothing will change. But once women are affected in more and more numbers, there will be an outcry for change. As Tom Leykis, a nationally-syndicated talk show host stated, “The only way to abolish alimony is to make women pay it.” Only then will alimony laws be considered passé and dropped altogether except for extreme short term cases, as it should be.

What do you think–should alimony die a quick death, should it continue as is or change to somewhere in-between?




—————————
If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question—if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

759 views

  • Big shooter

    Welcome to equality ladies!! enjoy…

  • metalman

    “But apparently, many women do not feel that equality holds when they are the ones who have to take responsibility.”

    Gee, where have you been the last twenty years?

    Alimony is only one part of the issue, which is that gender feminism is a two-faced proposition. Gender feminism’s primary tenet is that women are to be treated as ‘equals’ when it’s convenient for them, and given special privileges and entitlements when it’s convenient for them.

    I will again mention the throngs of ‘strong, independent’ career women with VP titles and Prada bags who run for cover whenever the dinner check comes. I will mention the wives who make plenty of dough but expect their husbands to pay all of the bills. I will mention the countless commercials where men lavish their wives and girlfriends with expensive jewelry, and the complete absence of a single commercial that shows a successful woman giving a MAN a nice watch for Christmas.

    The easiest way for men to escape the alimony trap altogether is by NOT GETTING MARRIED. Plain and simple.

    And as far as dating, if you factor in all of the variables, career women are now making 117% of the salaries that their male counterparts are making in major cities. This means that if you are dating a woman, and you are paying for everything, you are a TOTAL SCHMUCK.

    Yes, that’s right, YOU. You with the ‘Well it’s always been the traditional male role / It’s always been that way / It makes me feel good about myself, etc” argument. You are a SCHMUCK!! Put your wallet away, leave your macho bullshit at the door, and let them pay their share.

    BTW – I think Tom Leykis is absolutely correct. Women are already crying to the far heavens about having to pay alimony. Within ten years, it’ll be a thing of the past.

  • Robert Stevens

    I have been saying for years ” women today are socially legally and morally irresponsible. And they have gottens used to “special treatment” and yes I have notices women seem to have a problem when they end up on the payside of the equal sign.
    They have been lead to believe equality is all goodies and benefits, that the draw backs do not apply to them.
    It is time, it is high time women ” grew up socially legally and morally” and understand just what all this “equality” they have hollering about for over 40 years really means!

  • http://ladads.info mikeh2002

    Too many American women today do not want equlity, they want privilege and preferred treatment. They want laws to protect them from their own decisions and actions. They want NO accountability whatsoever.
    They want the privilege of having a man take care of them, help them through college, be a very active father in the lives of their children, and pay any and all bills that she doesn’t want to be held responsible for. Then when she is done with the man she still wants the free ride.

    I’ve seen too many women live the free ride of marriage with a supportive husband, then take him to the cleaners when she is expected to return the supportive spouse role.

    Our left wing, socialist, government agencies are more than happy to give them everything they want. After all, expecting women to uphold their marital vows and be held accountable to their husbands for support rendered during the marriage does not get them re-elected.

    Automatic and/or long term alimony (here in Lowsyana they call it spousal support) needs to go away. The vast majority of divorces in this country are initiated by women because they KNOW they are going to get a free ride.

    Look at the statements above regarding women being appalled at the notion of a woman paying spousal support/alimony. They are the same ones saying “you go girl” whenever a friend of theirs gets a rubber stamped free ride, even though she may have plenty of money of her own.

    Remember Jack Nicholson’s line in “As Good As It Gets”:
    A female secretary asks his character (a writer) how he “writes women”.
    His reply:
    “I think of a man, then I take away reason and accountability.”

  • amfortas

    I whole heartedly agree with you Dr H. There should be no alimony at all.

    You make a sound case, between the lines. But some of your arguements are a bit on the nose. For instance:

    “Years ago, when one spouse (typically women) was expected to stay home with the kids, tend the house and generally had no training or as many opportunities to make a living as women do today, I would say that alimony might have been more fair”.

    Why are you comparing yesterday’s women to today’s”

    In those ‘years ago’ MEN didn’t ‘have’ opportunities to make a living, nor ‘training’. They went out and made opportunities, sometimes successfully and mostly not. The work life of 99% of men was apalling. They ‘acquired’ training, usually by becoming indentured servants to a skiiled ‘master’ at 10 years of age and at substantial ‘opportunity’ cost.

    “when one spouse (typically women) was expected …” Don’t ya just love it ! The ‘expected to stay at home’ was a WOMAN’s expectation. It is of no use blaming others for a self inflicted faux-injury. The ubiquitous ‘they’ when derogatory is always a friggin’ bloke, isn’t it. By ommission and implication. ‘Society’ suddenly is devoid of women. ‘Was expected’ has a curiously anodyne ring without saying who it was that was doing the expecting.

    Dr H, for a Psychologist (I know a little of the profession) you have duty to clarity of thought and avoidance of implications that are mendacious. People read between the lines so be careful what you inadvertently leave on the tracks.

    Also women today have’n't simply more ‘opportunities’ than yesterdays women – or men – but they have legislated opportunity. Deliberately denied to men. Today they have affirmative action hire opportunities, special programs at huge capital expense, paid by male taxpayers. They have Preferential treatment across the whole of work society. And education. And leisure.

    These don’t ‘catch up’. They far outstrip any opportunities that men have or ever might have made for themslves. Far outstrip.

    How about this one:

    “”Real men are champions of justice and don’t give in to manipulation from gender ‘feminists’ “.

    Oy Vey. Men, real or unreal, (and that ‘Real men’ business is such an insult – don’t you get it, Helen?) do not have a choice in the matter. Gender feminist creed has infiltrated to the heart of all our so called ‘Justice’ institutions to the point where a man is simply a serf.

    They “don’t give in to manipulation” ? Oh, come on. When a gun is poked in your ribs and Mace is sprayed in your face by thugs in blue taking their alloted place in the ‘Let’s you and him fight’ manipulative game women learn in the infant school playgound and imposed on us all, the ‘Real men’ have no frigging’ chance.

    What do you think a ‘Real Man” does in that situation? A Bruce Willis impersonation? Blow up a street full of cars in his championing of justice? What do you think of Darren Mack? Real man? Maybe nutty, impulsive and Final, but quite real. Measured too. Not a blown up car in his gun-sight. Just a Judge.

    Our Courts are populated by men (and women) who care not a fig for justice, let alone champion it.

    Here is a beauty. A true one, but just as on the nose. An ‘as it is, as it will be’ one:

    “If alimony laws continue to hurt only men, nothing will change”

    Now, who allows that? Who sits back and laughs? Who benefits? It ain’t the men; the men who ‘oppress’, force women into slave labour and deny them ‘opportunities’. And it is no use arguing that men introduced Alimony laws in the first place. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the friggin’ world.

    Women demanded Alimony as part of their natural money-grubbing, manipulative, emotional terrorism strategies that they have been using since time immemorial.

    You make a reasoned case, Dr H. Thank you. But of course the women you’d like to speak to aren’t going to listen to reason. There’s no money or victimhood in it.

  • http://mgtow.net zed

    amfortas said,

    How about this one:

    “”Real men are champions of justice and don’t give in to manipulation from gender ‘feminists’ “.

    Oy Vey. Men, real or unreal, (and that ‘Real men’ business is such an insult – don’t you get it, Helen?) do not have a choice in the matter.

    Yeah, I get a chuckle out of the whole “RealMen(tm)” game, too, amfortas.

    It’s true that men your age (and mine) didn’t get a lot of choice in the matter, in part due to that whole “RealMen(tm)” nonsense and how ubiquitous the social pressure to get married was at the time we were entering the marriage years.

    But, things are very different now. Men really do now have the choice to marry or not, and a rapidly growing number are choosing not. It’s like that line from the old movie “War Games” – “What a strange game! The only winning move is not to play.”

    Whenever I get hit with the old “RealMen(tm)” BS these days, my response is that (“sigh”) oh well, it is a terrible burden to bear, but I have gotten used to being an UNreal man, and on the days when I am at the top of my form, a SURreal man. ;) ;D

  • Ed

    amfortas; always a breathe of fresh air!

    A sharp knife and the ability to read between the lines.

    Mrs Robinson would never have stood a chance.

  • GreatMRNI

    Should alimony die a quick death?

    Well, if we follow the logic of affirmative action, only women should pay alimony to men. In the past only men paid alimony to women, so to justify a so called past injustice, only women should pay alimony to men for the next two hundred years.

    Affirmative action is a men’s rights issue. This anti-male legislation must be removed from this society.

    Real Men champion Truth, Justice, and all that is Good. Affirmative action isn’t any of these things.

  • Virtue

    Child support also needs to be dropped…..Sex with a woman with out her consent is a crime…..we don’t even have a word to describe heterosexual sex with out a man’s consent.

    Logically speaking since only women have the choice only women should have the responsibility. Give Men some choice and let them choose their responsibility.

  • PolishKnight

    Pink Parachutes

    One of the holy mantras of the modern age, that few men even on mensnewsdaily questions is the notion that women should be allowed to vote and paid the same as a man for the same work.

    Yet, here we go seeing that while men and women should be “equal” in the workplace (which they’re really not since “equal” means special privileges for women), they get most of the golden parachutes including but not limited to:

    A) Marrying up and out of the workplace.
    B) Welfare and bastard child-support.
    C) VAWA DV shelters.

    That’s just off the top of my head. For men, work is this concept of producing something of value so you eat. For women and especially those who buy into feminism (including MRA’s), it’s a friggin’ playground for women to be “independent” or “empowered” or to win nobel prizes or “find themselves.”

    Yet, even that’s not enough. There’s the notion that, as Dr. Helen puts it, a woman who would be judged as a bum if he was a man is someone who has made a “sacrifice” by leaving work and is entitled to support. Amazing. And many MRA’s even sympathize with this view of feminine entitlement and we wonder why women treat men in our culture like disposable trash!

    Folks, it’s time to start viewing work for what it is: EARNING A LIVING! If someone isn’t working, then they aren’t (turn up the volume here) EARNING A LIVING! If they get away without EARNING A LIVING, then they should be GRATEFUL they got away with it for as along as they did. MAN or *WOMAN*.

    Unless we’re willing to take all these safety nets that exist mostly for women and toss them in the trash, then we have to re-evaluate whether “equality” applies in the workplace as some kind of holy, unquestioned assumption. If men and women work under DIFFERENT conditions, then why the hell are they BEING PAID THE SAME?!?!?

  • lieweary

    Child support is just as ridiculous as alimony. This is the 21rst century; the custodial parent should have to pay, period. No more slavery for divorced men. And if the custodial parents don’t like it, they can always resist their selfish urges and dedicate themselves to their marriages.

  • Justaguy

    You know what drives me nuts as much as alimony is alimony disguised as child support. A lot of states don’t have alimony laws but the child support is so high that alimony is not needed! Another thing is who the hell are these women to define what a “Real Man” is?
    Let me try and define what a “Real Woman” is and I would be castrated in a minute. I am sooo sick of that line!!!

  • http://citizensrule.org right2parent

    Something that’s been left out of the discussion, but is an essential charactoristic of alimony, is fault. No alimony or child support is due a woman who has deserted a home that her husband has provided for her. That is still the law, although there are not enough lawyers left who understand this. The equitable action for alimony is premissed on the husband’s fault for ending the marriage. It’s for his abandonment.

    In the world of no-fault divorse, fault is no longer an issue, so manipulation of “child support” laws, and ignorance of “spousal maintenance” laws have awarded women with more than what was due under the common law without the need to show fault for the breakup. I blame the lawyers, and people who think they have the answers without understanding the law.

    If a woman wants to change the natural roles of provider and homemaker within a marriage, she should be responsible for fulfilling the contract after she abandons the home, just as a husband was held responsible.

    Don’t confuse overreach of child support legislation with a replacement for alimony. Like alimony, child support legislation is legally limited to dependent children who have been abandoned by a father and left to the public to support. Without fault there is no alimony or child support due from a husband abandoned under no-fault divorse. What typically comes from Family Courts these days are agreements made without the protection afforded by the common law because of uneducated lawyers and a gullible public. Put your faith in the typical family law attorney and you get what you pay for.

  • Robert Stevens

    right2parent is correct , but something was left out. Common law is not used anymore. Not since the advent of the UCC and “statutory law”* have we used common law. Statutory law is Admiralty law ie law of the sea used on dryland. It is about contracts or equity .
    The problems with this arrangement is that statutory law is based on contracts and under that arrangement some of these contracts can be unrevealed and still be binding. In effect they have conned us into taking, for most men, a “bad contract”, an arrangement where we pay everything , but get little or nothing in return. Where we have no rights, but the woman has them all. We agreed to the mistreatment and abuse without even knowing we did. The solution is obvious, CANCEL THAT BAD CONTRACT.
    The courts# are not really courts at all , they are by definition “equity tribunals” operating under the “colour of law” ie statues but not real law.
    It is based on contracts, contracts that can get around the protections and limits of commonlaw. But that also means that these court must get our consent and they do it by deceptive means. Do you ever wonder why they always trying to get us to sign something? We have to volunteer into their system and since they do this by either deception or by terroristic threat, by the code ( UCC) this juridiction (ie authority) is not lawful. Under code any contract entered into without full disclosure or by terroristic threat is null and void. So, in simple english, if we use remedy provided by law and yes it does existe. We can get out from under their little racket and have our lives back.
    If were willing to go the trouble and yes it would take many court fights and years, we could prove fraud on the government and retroactively remove their immunity and have them prosecuted. We could put the bastards in jail and make them pay massive damages to us. However, you must remember we are using their corrupt system and this could fail anywhere along the line.
    The most effective way to get back at them is to pull out of their system and encourage others to do the same. After awhile, the money gets cut off and they either clean up their act or go out of business( yes. all the governments that existe in our country are money making enterprizes and they could be put out of business.)
    As far lawyers not Knowing about this, they do! The good ones use it and the bad ones try to.
    *statutory law is a total fabrication, nowhere in the constitution, is satutory law mentioned and it is not authorized. Statutory law is Admiralty law on dry land. In fact statutory law is not even in Black Law Dictionary. It’s totally phoney. It is just a “contract system” you sign up for!
    #courts- By definition courts ,real ones that is, are based on commonlaw and the constitution. The fictions we call courts are not court, atleast not by the authorization and the definition the constitution gives. They operate on the colour or the appearance of law. The statues they operate under are not real laws. Statue is by definition a rule with the force of law in a society, so for it to have force, those subject to it . Have to “sign up” for it and be part of that society where it applies.

  • http://citizensrule.org right2parent

    The common law has not gone away, since the “advent” of statutory law, and they can work together quite effectively when the subject matter is not confused.

  • tomlw

    We will never have equality until women pay the same price for freedom that men do. Until 18 year old women are requried to register for the draft just as men do they will NEVER be equal. They will continue to be a protected class in America.

  • Ann

    If both spouses have good paying jobs and share custody of any children, alimony and child support are unnecessary.

    However, if one spouse (usually the woman) has been out of the workforce for some time and/or has no job skills (meaning no way of supporting herself), exactly what is she supposed to do?? It is extremely difficult for a person, especially a woman to re-enter a career or start one midlife and beyond.

    Adjust your expectations accordingly when you marry and if you divorce.

  • DrDamage

    However, if one spouse (usually the woman) has been out of the workforce for some time and/or has no job skills (meaning no way of supporting herself), exactly what is she supposed to do??

    If one spouse (usually the woman) chooses to leave the workforce, even though her partner doesn’t want the burden of being sole breadwinner, what is he supposed to do??

    She’s made a choice, now she gets to live with it. That’s how freedom works. Slavery is the only alternative.

  • amfortas

    Ed #7. “Mrs Robinson would never have stood a chance.”

    Unfortunately, like a fine bit of repartee popping into mind half an hour too late, several Mrs Amfortas-Robinson’s have already taken me to the friggin’ cleaners. Ain’t love grand? How about 600 grand.

  • http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/ christianj

    As the new saying now goes ” want to get rid of alimony, get women to pay it and watch it disappear”, this is just the start…

    Feminists have been spreading the pain and it includes women in that broad net..

    Reap what you sow..






Search