Ex-wife paying spousal support does not want her lottery-winning exhusband back or his money

[laughing dog]

So, simply claiming no direct evidence to support a claim is disingenuous way to avoid dealing with the claim that you started the thread claiming is untrue (aka "not based in reality").

I said the frothing was not based in reality.

You presented a meaningless anecdote as evidence that there is no general bias against men regarding alimony.

No, I did not. See above.

 

[ronburgundy]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-women-are-now-paying-alimony-and-child-support-2018-05-17-1882442

A recent American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) survey found that more than four in 10 lawyers (45%) had seen an increase over the past three years in women being on the hook for alimony, aka spousal support or maintenance. Meanwhile, 54% said they’d seen a rise in mothers paying child support.

Decades ago, AAML president Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich told Moneyish, “it was almost traditionally the man who paid support, and the man who was earning a higher income -- and it was the woman in either a lesser-income job or she would be a stay-at-home mom,” typically meaning she would receive alimony when the couple divorced.

But women now occupy more higher-paying positions and make more money than they used to, Marzano-Lesnevich pointed out. “Now when they’re faced with divorce, if they’ve had a history in their marriage of their being the breadwinner … or the husband being the child care provider, these women are going to be faced with paying support. And many of them are very surprised when they learn that.”


Indeed, today’s mothers are the primary breadwinners in four out of 10 U.S. families, according to Pew Research. And though only 3% of the roughly 400,000 alimony recipients in 2010 were male, per Census data, the trend of spousal support awards from women to men is “definitely on the rise” as women’s earnings continue to increase, New York divorce lawyer James Sexton told Moneyish.

Women have been responsible for paying spousal support since 1979, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision that alimony should be gender-neutral. Many states over the years have shifted away from permanent spousal support -- lifelong payments until death or the spouse’s remarriage -- to alleviate the payer’s burden and catch up with the modern marriage.

“The concept behind maintenance has evolved,” Dilpreet Rai, a partner at the New York-based firm Hennessey and Bienstock LLP, told Moneyish. “Spousal support for a long duration is not as common as it (once was) … It goes to the idea that it’s about rehabilitation and getting someone back into the workforce, and making sure that they have time to get sufficient skills and training.”

So, more women are paying alimony and child support.

True, but only "more" than the near zero they paid prior to 1979. That fact isn't in doubt and doesn't speak to the hypothesis of a bias against men seeking alimony. And the increase is clearly rather modest since the majority of lawyers did not say the saw any increase over the past 3 years in women paying alimony.

Yet we know that there has been an increase during that time of women being the primary earners in a family.

Alimony has been ruled as gender neutral since 1979

SCOTUS rulings that there should not be a bias allowed are just like their ruling that there should not be a racial bias in hiring. Neither a ruling has any bearing on whether such biases still exist in practice. In fact, the rulings mean that the courts found there was a bias, which we have no good reason to think has been eliminated even if there is some reason to think it has declined.

In terms of a possible gender bias in alimony, the most relevant facts of this report is that 40% of wives are the primary earners in the house, but are 97% of alimony recipients. Now, I think that 40% figure might include unmarried households. Census data shows that in hetero married households, 29% have females with greater earnings. Still, that means the ratio of being the alimony recipient in a divorce to being the lesser earner in a household 97/71 = 1.37 for women, but 03/29 = 0.10 for men. IOW, women who are the lesser earner in a marriage are 13 times more likely to wind up getting alimony during a divorce than men who earn less. That massive disparity needs to be explained, and one potential explanation is a judicial bias in awarding men alimony. Granted, there are two other possibilities but they have no more direct evidence behind them than the bias hypothesis. One alternative is that when men earn less divorce is just less likely, thus no one gets alimony. Given high divorce rates that could only account for a small portion of the gender disparity. Another is that husbands who earn less do not ask for alimony during divorce. That is plausible but not moreso than a judicial bias, and in fact both are made plausible by the same gender norms.

Given the extreme disparity to be explained, I'd argue that the most probable explanation is some combination of all 3 of these.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, simply claiming no direct evidence to support a claim is disingenuous way to avoid dealing with the claim that you started the thread claiming is untrue (aka "not based in reality").

I said the frothing was not based in reality.

You presented a meaningless anecdote as evidence that there is no general bias against men regarding alimony.

No, I did not. See above.

Careful, you might tear your achilles trying to backpeddle that fast.

Besides, it still means that you presented a meaningless anecdote that has zero relevance to whether their "frothing" is based in reality.
If there is generally a bias against men getting alimony, and rational analysis of what we know suggests that is probable, then their "frothing" about based in reality and your rare anecdotes of some men getting alimony do nothing to suggest otherwise.

 

[laughing dog]

I said the frothing was not based in reality.
No, I did not. See above.

Careful, you might tear your achilles trying to backpeddle that fast.

Your misreading is not my problem.

As to the rest of your objections, they'd have real merit if I was presenting a proof - but I was not.

 

[Toni]

This is to LD, Ravensky, and others who doubt that the courts are biased against men seeking alimony:

Please read my above reply to Derec, then come back and read the rest of this post.

I suspect that most of you accept the reality that the reason most women are the lower earners and home makers in marriages (and thus rightly due alimony) is b/c of cultural gender norms that pressure women to fill this role and pressure men to be the outside-the-home worker and major earner.

If those gender norms exists, then wouldn't many judges be susceptible to holding these same gender norms? And if judges are human beings, then wouldn't these cultural norms bias them against the men who violate accepted norms? This would likely make them view lesser earning men negatively as "lazy", plus view them as more able to go out an earn after a divorce b/c they are men and that is what men do.

This would have to lead to a bias that, on average, lowered the alimony payments to men relative to what women in the same situation get.

I am curious how you reconcile the reality of gender norms and that judges are socialized with these norms with your assumption that men who violate the norms by being lesser earners in a marriage are never treated negatively by judges.

It is possible to accept that woman are the one's mostly due alimony, and are the one's mostly screwed in marriage and society generally by gender bias and norms, while also acknowledging that when it comes to alimony, the norms and bias works against those minority of men who are the lower earner, homemaker, etc..

Should a divorced person who earned significantly less than their partner but contributed significantly to the partners career and economic success by bearing the bulk of the responsibility for child rearing and running the household bear the brunt of financial loss in a divorce? Their future earnings are already impaired by taking on the larger share of household duties especially child rearing.

Is the partner who pays maintenance being ‘screwed’ because an equitable sharing of marital assets results in them having less money?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ron, alimony is a mathematical formula.

 

[RavenSky]

This is to LD, Ravensky, and others who doubt that the courts are biased against men seeking alimony:

Please read my above reply to Derec, then come back and read the rest of this post.

I suspect that most of you accept the reality that the reason most women are the lower earners and home makers in marriages (and thus rightly due alimony) is b/c of cultural gender norms that pressure women to fill this role and pressure men to be the outside-the-home worker and major earner.

If those gender norms exists, then wouldn't many judges be susceptible to holding these same gender norms? And if judges are human beings, then wouldn't these cultural norms bias them against the men who violate accepted norms? This would likely make them view lesser earning men negatively as "lazy", plus view them as more able to go out an earn after a divorce b/c they are men and that is what men do.

This would have to lead to a bias that, on average, lowered the alimony payments to men relative to what women in the same situation get.

I am curious how you reconcile the reality of gender norms and that judges are socialized with these norms with your assumption that men who violate the norms by being lesser earners in a marriage are never treated negatively by judges.

It is possible to accept that woman are the one's mostly due alimony, and are the one's mostly screwed in marriage and society generally by gender bias and norms, while also acknowledging that when it comes to alimony, the norms and bias works against those minority of men who are the lower earner, homemaker, etc..

It's possible that all of this blah blah blah has shit-all to do with anything I've said here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would like to see data on this. Because I wonder if such a raw proportion takes into account when the alimony award was made and if the woman was employed at the time.

This pretty much comes down to duh!

It's far more likely that she stays home and raises the kids than he does and these days that's the usual situation that causes an alimony award.

 

[laughing dog]

I would like to see data on this. Because I wonder if such a raw proportion takes into account when the alimony award was made and if the woman was employed at the time.

This pretty much comes down to duh!

It's far more likely that she stays home and raises the kids than he does and these days that's the usual situation that causes an alimony award.

If it is such a duh, why are there so many vehement accusations that alimony/spousal support is biased against men?

 

[ronburgundy]

Ron, alimony is a mathematical formula.

Nonsense. If that were true, then every state would simply have a specific formula explicitly stated in the the law that precisely determined the amount of alimony in every case, with lawyers and court cases never getting involved becuase there would be no possible impact they could have. Since that doesn't happen, we know your premise is false.

The actual amount of alimony in a specific case might be eventually calculated by a formula, but the formula for any specific case is created by the judge who has massive leeway to set the parameters of the formula and thus subjectively controls the resulting quantity.

 

[ronburgundy]

This is to LD, Ravensky, and others who doubt that the courts are biased against men seeking alimony:

Please read my above reply to Derec, then come back and read the rest of this post.

I suspect that most of you accept the reality that the reason most women are the lower earners and home makers in marriages (and thus rightly due alimony) is b/c of cultural gender norms that pressure women to fill this role and pressure men to be the outside-the-home worker and major earner.

If those gender norms exists, then wouldn't many judges be susceptible to holding these same gender norms? And if judges are human beings, then wouldn't these cultural norms bias them against the men who violate accepted norms? This would likely make them view lesser earning men negatively as "lazy", plus view them as more able to go out an earn after a divorce b/c they are men and that is what men do.

This would have to lead to a bias that, on average, lowered the alimony payments to men relative to what women in the same situation get.

I am curious how you reconcile the reality of gender norms and that judges are socialized with these norms with your assumption that men who violate the norms by being lesser earners in a marriage are never treated negatively by judges.

It is possible to accept that woman are the one's mostly due alimony, and are the one's mostly screwed in marriage and society generally by gender bias and norms, while also acknowledging that when it comes to alimony, the norms and bias works against those minority of men who are the lower earner, homemaker, etc..

It's possible that all of this blah blah blah has shit-all to do with anything I've said here.

Yeah, "blah blah blah" is what facts and logic sound like to morons and those concerned only with their rabid dogma.

What I said has objective logical relevance to anything that relates to whether there is a bias in either the law or how it is applied to alimony determinations. IF what you said has no logical relevance to how the law and its application determines alimony decisions, then it is a derail with no logical relevance to this thread (despite LD's attempts to deny the clear implications of the OP).

 

[RavenSky]

It's possible that all of this blah blah blah has shit-all to do with anything I've said here.

Yeah, "blah blah blah" is what facts and logic sound like to morons and those concerned only with their rabid dogma.

You really shouldn't talk about yourself like that. I don't think you are a moron... though "rabid dogma" probably fits.

As I said, you seem to be trying to drag me into some strawman argument that has zero to do with anything I have said in this thread.

So please, do continue with your failed attempts to insult me so I can continue to laugh at you.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's possible that all of this blah blah blah has shit-all to do with anything I've said here.

Yeah, "blah blah blah" is what facts and logic sound like to morons and those concerned only with their rabid dogma.

You really shouldn't talk about yourself like that. I don't think you are a moron... though "rabid dogma" probably fits.

As I said, you seem to be trying to drag me into some strawman argument that has zero to do with anything I have said in this thread.
.

So then you just admitted that in a thread to an OP about bias in alimony decisions, you posted a reply that has zero logical relevance to whether there is a bias in such decisions.

Your incapacity to understand logical relevance is not my fault.

 

[Playball40]

Oh bullshit. If a man is making a salary and the woman is home raising the kids, then he has every responsibility to pay alimony and support for her value of lost work/salary.

No matter what certain people around here think, divorce laws are gender-neutral, as they are supposed to be.

If that were truly the case, 97% of alimony recipients would not be women. Judges think that if a man makes substantially more than the woman, he should support her even after the divorce, but if a woman makes substantially more than the man, judges usually do not condemn her to support him for the rest of her life.

I had to pay my ex 1/2 the value of my house when we divorced, even though I bought the house alone long before I met or married him. I also had to give him 1/2 of my investments. He, on the other hand, did not have to give me any portion of an inheritance he had just received. It wasn't because the judge liked him better. She didn't. It's just that the laws in my state are specific but gender-neutral, and I was on the losing side.

Note that you are not paying him alimony. That is different than just asset division, as it can go on forever.

 

[Playball40]

A womans brain is all about the money. And a guys brain is all about the pussy.

You're fucking disgusting

 

[Toni]

You really shouldn't talk about yourself like that. I don't think you are a moron... though "rabid dogma" probably fits.

As I said, you seem to be trying to drag me into some strawman argument that has zero to do with anything I have said in this thread.
.

So then you just admitted that in a thread to an OP about bias in alimony decisions, you posted a reply that has zero logical relevance to whether there is a bias in such decisions.

Your incapacity to understand logical relevance is not my fault.

Wow.

 

[laughing dog]

This is to LD, Ravensky, and others who doubt that the courts are biased against men seeking alimony:

Please read my above reply to Derec, then come back and read the rest of this post.

I suspect that most of you accept the reality that the reason most women are the lower earners and home makers in marriages (and thus rightly due alimony) is b/c of cultural gender norms that pressure women to fill this role and pressure men to be the outside-the-home worker and major earner.

If those gender norms exists, then wouldn't many judges be susceptible to holding these same gender norms? And if judges are human beings, then wouldn't these cultural norms bias them against the men who violate accepted norms? This would likely make them view lesser earning men negatively as "lazy", plus view them as more able to go out an earn after a divorce b/c they are men and that is what men do.

This would have to lead to a bias that, on average, lowered the alimony payments to men relative to what women in the same situation get.

I am curious how you reconcile the reality of gender norms and that judges are socialized with these norms with your assumption that men who violate the norms by being lesser earners in a marriage are never treated negatively by judges.

It is possible to accept that woman are the one's mostly due alimony, and are the one's mostly screwed in marriage and society generally by gender bias and norms, while also acknowledging that when it comes to alimony, the norms and bias works against those minority of men who are the lower earner, homemaker, etc..

It's possible that all of this blah blah blah has shit-all to do with anything I've said here.

Yeah, "blah blah blah" is what facts and logic sound like to morons and those concerned only with their rabid dogma.

What I said has objective logical relevance to anything that relates to whether there is a bias in either the law or how it is applied to alimony determinations. IF what you said has no logical relevance to how the law and its application determines alimony decisions, then it is a derail with no logical relevance to this thread (despite LD's attempts to deny the clear implications of the OP).

Ravensky said the divorce laws in her state were gender-neutral and she gave the example of the outcome of her divorce. Anyone without a reasoning disability would understand her point is relevant - that in her state there is no gender bias in the divorce laws.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yeah, "blah blah blah" is what facts and logic sound like to morons and those concerned only with their rabid dogma.

What I said has objective logical relevance to anything that relates to whether there is a bias in either the law or how it is applied to alimony determinations. IF what you said has no logical relevance to how the law and its application determines alimony decisions, then it is a derail with no logical relevance to this thread (despite LD's attempts to deny the clear implications of the OP).

Ravensky said the divorce laws in her state were gender-neutral and she gave the example of the outcome of her divorce. Anyone without a reasoning disability would understand her point is relevant - that in her state there is no gender bias in the divorce laws.

I agree her post was relevant, and anyone without a disability could see that what I said was also relevant, which inherently makes everything I said relevant to what she said. Yet, she disingenuously pretended it wasn't to evade having to make an honest rational response.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, "blah blah blah" is what facts and logic sound like to morons and those concerned only with their rabid dogma.

What I said has objective logical relevance to anything that relates to whether there is a bias in either the law or how it is applied to alimony determinations. IF what you said has no logical relevance to how the law and its application determines alimony decisions, then it is a derail with no logical relevance to this thread (despite LD's attempts to deny the clear implications of the OP).

Ravensky said the divorce laws in her state were gender-neutral and she gave the example of the outcome of her divorce. Anyone without a reasoning disability would understand her point is relevant - that in her state there is no gender bias in the divorce laws.

I agree her post was relevant, and anyone without a disability could see that what I said was also relevant, which inherently makes everything I said relevant to what she said. Yet, she disingenuously pretended it wasn't to evade having to make an honest rational response.

Ravensky made a statement about divorce laws being gender neutral. She made no factual claim about judges or their application. None. Hence when you implied she doubted there was gender bias and wrote an explanation why people who doubted there was gender bias against men were mistaken, your response was literally not relevant to anything she wrote. It was relevant to the OP topic, but it literally had nothing to do with her post (which is what she said). In this case, you made a mistake.

 

[RVonse]

Somehow I doubt that you know more than millions of happily married men.

The facts and statistics say otherwise.

1. It is a fact 1/2 all marriage ends in divorce. Yes, there are men who jumped out of an airplane with a parachute that actually opened and they survived and are happy. Does that mean all men should jump out of an airplane with a 50% might work parachute? I think not.

2. For those 1 in 8 men who think they are happy in marriage because their parachute opened. Yet they are really raising some other guys kid without knowing it. Their wife screwed some guy they liked better and gave them the bill for the kid. You think they are happy? Maybe now but definitely not later!

3. For the average guy it is just better not to get married at all...because there is absolutely nothing in it for the guy. Even if he wants kids, would be better not to get married and then just pay the child support. Not being married actually affords more opportunity to know the kid is really his.

Yes there are probably some happy and stupid beta men out there who got married. They might have married an honorable woman. They might have won the 50% and then 1 in 8 lottery. But just because you survived a fall from an airplane with bad odds did not make it a smart thing to do.