Going to jail for not paying alimony?

[ruby sparks]

Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is. Custody disputes, alimony, etc are very much zero sim games that usually favour women.

As I said, there may be some areas where men are by and large disadvantaged now when they were by and large advantaged before.

I do not know enough about custody and alimony (and Child Maintenance) disputes to say how significantly unfair the disadvantage is I must say, even in those areas alone. Women being awarded custody, alimony and/or Child maintenance more than men is not of itself necessarily unfair, just as a gender pay gap does not necessarily mean unfairness, of itself.

My general impression is that there is some remnant unfair disadvantage for men in certain respects. Fwiw, I think this is sometimes overplayed by MRAs. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in perhaps a less pronounced way.

I would argue that men's civil rights have generally been increasing too

Over, absolutely. In regard to women, often not. Often the opposite. Depending on in regard to what, that can be good or bad.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. I was saying that men's rights, generally, have of themselves arguably improved (in the 'west' at least) independently of any relative comparison with women.

 

[TSwizzle]

This made me think of Kevin Federline and Britney Spears. Federline already receives $20k a month for child support for two kids. In view of Spears' recent successful tours and Vegas residency he now wants something like $60k a month. I'm not sure why Spears should be paying anything like that for child support, seems bogus.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Over, absolutely. In regard to women, often not. Often the opposite. Depending on in regard to what, that can be good or bad.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. I was saying that men's rights, generally, have of themselves arguably improved (in the 'west' at least) independently of any relative comparison with women.

Sorry, was typing into my phone. I meant to write "overall, absolutely". Everyone's rights, including those of men, have improved drastically over the years. But in regard to women, things have tilted against the men in many ways. We came from societies in which there were strict male/female gender roles and benefits of being both male and female, though more for being male. With feminism we have pushed back on rights kept from women and brought them towards equality, but we have not done that on the other side. We still have mandatory military service on the front line where you are likely to die etc applying only to men in most of our countries (where there is such mandatory service), etc. It has also become socially normalized for women to work outside the home, but still often a taboo for men to stay home and raise children.

 

[Bronzeage]

This made me think of Kevin Federline and Britney Spears. Federline already receives $20k a month for child support for two kids. In view of Spears' recent successful tours and Vegas residency he now wants something like $60k a month. I'm not sure why Spears should be paying anything like that for child support, seems bogus.

If you look up "first world problems" this one is at the top of the list. The disputes between two rich people don't really have much application in the world in which most of us operate.

In this case, it obviously has nothing to do with properly supporting a child.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She claims she gave up her career for 21 years to stay at home and raise his children by another marriage as well as their own children. Apparently the court agreed, so I think most people would agree she earned some alimony (for example, Loren Pechtel in this thread agrees with that).

Yup. Don't work for 21 years, your earning potential is shot.

Where I have a major disagreement with the current system is that it should be aiming to put such a person back where they were had they not given up their career, there should be no concept of maintaining one's lifestyle.

 

[Derec]

If you look up "first world problems" this one is at the top of the list. The disputes between two rich people don't really have much application in the world in which most of us operate.
In this case, it obviously has nothing to do with properly supporting a child.

I disagree. While the rich play for much higher dollar amounts, they are within the same system. Thus what happens to the Duke of Hazzard or the Pantiless Wonder are exemplary of what applies to us all.
If a man is forced to pay $2k in combined alimony and child support to his ex while only making $3k after tax that may not get the headlines that rich and famous get, but he is still very much screwed.

 

[laughing dog]

She claims she gave up her career for 21 years to stay at home and raise his children by another marriage as well as their own children. Apparently the court agreed, so I think most people would agree she earned some alimony (for example, Loren Pechtel in this thread agrees with that).

Yup. Don't work for 21 years, your earning potential is shot.

Where I have a major disagreement with the current system is that it should be aiming to put such a person back where they were had they not given up their career, there should be no concept of maintaining one's lifestyle.

Why should it aim to place them back where they were before they gave up their career? After all, those lost years mean lost earning potential. And why should the working spouse retain any and all of the financial benefits from having a household to sustain and maintain him/her so that they could increase their earnings?

 

[Toni]

If you look up "first world problems" this one is at the top of the list. The disputes between two rich people don't really have much application in the world in which most of us operate.
In this case, it obviously has nothing to do with properly supporting a child.

I disagree. While the rich play for much higher dollar amounts, they are within the same system. Thus what happens to the Duke of Hazzard or the Pantiless Wonder are exemplary of what applies to us all.
If a man is forced to pay $2k in combined alimony and child support to his ex while only making $3k after tax that may not get the headlines that rich and famous get, but he is still very much screwed.

I don't know. If there are minor children, limited maintenance likely means that the kids cannot stay in their home which means that in addition to giving up their family, they have to give up their home, and their school and their friends and their activities. I don't see how any parent can really want that for their kids.

Even if the kids are grown, the stay at home parent would, in addition to losing the marriage, also lose their home and likely their friendships, their ability to continue to do things with their friends, etc.

I don't think that anyone should be impoverished by divorce if it's avoidable. Even if one is a rat bastard who slept his/her way through half the country club or in this case: movie studio.

 

[ruby sparks]

Over, absolutely. In regard to women, often not. Often the opposite. Depending on in regard to what, that can be good or bad.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. I was saying that men's rights, generally, have of themselves arguably improved (in the 'west' at least) independently of any relative comparison with women.

Sorry, was typing into my phone. I meant to write "overall, absolutely". Everyone's rights, including those of men, have improved drastically over the years. But in regard to women, things have tilted against the men in many ways. We came from societies in which there were strict male/female gender roles and benefits of being both male and female, though more for being male. With feminism we have pushed back on rights kept from women and brought them towards equality, but we have not done that on the other side. We still have mandatory military service on the front line where you are likely to die etc applying only to men in most of our countries (where there is such mandatory service), etc. It has also become socially normalized for women to work outside the home, but still often a taboo for men to stay home and raise children.

I would not say that things have 'tilted against men in many ways'. I'm not sure about 'tilted against' or 'many' (I might say some). I would say what I said in the post, that it's mostly catching up (by women) against a backdrop of increasing rights and freedoms for everyone (speaking generally about the 'west'). And the particular point of mine you were responding to was that men's rights and freedoms have generally increased independent of women, which you agree with, so I don't know why you wanted to raise comparisons to women on that point, where it's irrelevant. In any case, even on the items you raised, it is now by and large arguably easier and more acceptable (in the 'west') for a man not to have to go to war and/or to stay at home and raise children. Those are hardly examples of 'tilted against men'. They are in fact examples of improvements for men, even if perhaps there has not yet been enough progress on them.

 

[Bronzeage]

If you look up "first world problems" this one is at the top of the list. The disputes between two rich people don't really have much application in the world in which most of us operate.
In this case, it obviously has nothing to do with properly supporting a child.

I disagree. While the rich play for much higher dollar amounts, they are within the same system. Thus what happens to the Duke of Hazzard or the Pantiless Wonder are exemplary of what applies to us all.
If a man is forced to pay $2k in combined alimony and child support to his ex while only making $3k after tax that may not get the headlines that rich and famous get, but he is still very much screwed.

First off, poor people don't pay alimony. When a poor couple split up, the woman is expected to go find a job and support herself. The days when a man was expected to support a home maker wife, you know the kind that watches tv and eats chocolate all day has been gone since the 1970's.

Second, a man, or woman is obligated to support their children. There's nothing "getting screwed" about paying child support, even if the money is handed over to a woman. If a man had to pay for full time child care, to a professional, it would cost much more. Anyway you look at it, child support is a bargain.

Poor decision making skills are a real handicap in this world. Choosing the wrong person with whom to have children, or not putting a lot of thought into it before hand, is expensive. Once saddled with those expenses, there's nothing a man can do but man up.

 

[bilby]

If you look up "first world problems" this one is at the top of the list. The disputes between two rich people don't really have much application in the world in which most of us operate.
In this case, it obviously has nothing to do with properly supporting a child.

I disagree. While the rich play for much higher dollar amounts, they are within the same system. Thus what happens to the Duke of Hazzard or the Pantiless Wonder are exemplary of what applies to us all.
If a man is forced to pay $2k in combined alimony and child support to his ex while only making $3k after tax that may not get the headlines that rich and famous get, but he is still very much screwed.

First off, poor people don't pay alimony. When a poor couple split up, the woman is expected to go find a job and support herself. The days when a man was expected to support a home maker wife, you know the kind that watches tv and eats chocolate all day has been gone since the 1970's.

Second, a man, or woman is obligated to support their children. There's nothing "getting screwed" about paying child support, even if the money is handed over to a woman. If a man had to pay for full time child care, to a professional, it would cost much more. Anyway you look at it, child support is a bargain.

Poor decision making skills are a real handicap in this world. Choosing the wrong person with whom to have children, or not putting a lot of thought into it before hand, is expensive. Once saddled with those expenses, there's nothing a man can do but man up.

I am not sure I agree that there is nothing else a man can do; Observationally, he has (and not infrequently chooses) the additional option of becoming a pathetic whiny little bitch about having to take responsibility for his actions.

 

[TSwizzle]

This made me think of Kevin Federline and Britney Spears. Federline already receives $20k a month for child support for two kids. In view of Spears' recent successful tours and Vegas residency he now wants something like $60k a month. I'm not sure why Spears should be paying anything like that for child support, seems bogus.

If you look up "first world problems" this one is at the top of the list. The disputes between two rich people don't really have much application in the world in which most of us operate.

In this case, it obviously has nothing to do with properly supporting a child.

Only one of the two is actually rich but I agree with your conclusion.

 

[Derec]

I am not sure I agree that there is nothing else a man can do; Observationally, he has (and not infrequently chooses) the additional option of becoming a pathetic whiny little bitch about having to take responsibility for his actions.

It's funny how women are not supposed to take responsibility for their actions. Because some man must be forced to fund her lifestyle.

 

[bilby]

I am not sure I agree that there is nothing else a man can do; Observationally, he has (and not infrequently chooses) the additional option of becoming a pathetic whiny little bitch about having to take responsibility for his actions.

It's funny how women are not supposed to take responsibility for their actions. Because some man must be forced to fund her lifestyle.

I don't see how raising a child on your own, that took two people to make, qualifies as a 'lifestyle'.

Nor is it clear how 'not abandoning your child' constitutes a lack of taking responsibility for your actions.

 

[laughing dog]

I am not sure I agree that there is nothing else a man can do; Observationally, he has (and not infrequently chooses) the additional option of becoming a pathetic whiny little bitch about having to take responsibility for his actions.

It's funny how women are not supposed to take responsibility for their actions. Because some man must be forced to fund her lifestyle.

It's sad to see such pathetic rationales for men to abandon their responsibility to their children.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am not sure I agree that there is nothing else a man can do; Observationally, he has (and not infrequently chooses) the additional option of becoming a pathetic whiny little bitch about having to take responsibility for his actions.

It's funny how women are not supposed to take responsibility for their actions. Because some man must be forced to fund her lifestyle.

I don't see how raising a child on your own, that took two people to make, qualifies as a 'lifestyle'.

Nor is it clear how 'not abandoning your child' constitutes a lack of taking responsibility for your actions.

Child support and alimony are different issues.

 

[bilby]

I don't see how raising a child on your own, that took two people to make, qualifies as a 'lifestyle'.

Nor is it clear how 'not abandoning your child' constitutes a lack of taking responsibility for your actions.

Child support and alimony are different issues.

Well, they are clearly related; But frankly, that's irrelevant to my comments here, which clearly address the child support part of the issue.

The people to whom I am responding are talking about:

"If a man is forced to pay $2k in combined alimony and child support to his ex while only making $3k after tax that may not get the headlines that rich and famous get, but he is still very much screwed", and

"Choosing the wrong person with whom to have children, or not putting a lot of thought into it before hand, is expensive".

So clearly child support is on-topic as a response to them. If you think they are derailing the thread, feel free to take it up with them, or to ask the mods to take appropriate action.

 

[Derec]

It's sad to see such pathetic rationales for men to abandon their responsibility to their children.

I think both parents should take responsibility for their children. But often the man is forced to take more of a responsibility than the woman. Like if the kids live with him half the time, and yet he has to pay child support to finance the time they spend with the mom. Or what about courts forcing men to pay for children that are not even theirs, but rather the result of the wife's adulterous affair?

 

[Derec]

I don't see how raising a child on your own, that took two people to make, qualifies as a 'lifestyle'.

The woman in this case does not have any minor children. The support is all for her, not any children. And if you get tens of thousands of dollars per month and have all this free time because you don't have to work for it, I would call it a lifestyle.

 

[bilby]

I don't see how raising a child on your own, that took two people to make, qualifies as a 'lifestyle'.

The woman in this case does not have any minor children. The support is all for her, not any children. And if you get tens of thousands of dollars per month and have all this free time because you don't have to work for it, I would call it a lifestyle.

Why would "a man [be] forced to pay $2k in combined alimony and child support to his ex while only making $3k after tax", if there are no minor children?

Or are you suffering the same selective amnesia as Loren, and hoping that I won't notice that you have reverted to talking about something else (perhaps more on-topic, which perhaps you should have stuck to to begin with), after I called you on the stupidity of what you were saying when I quoted your derail?