Letters to the Editor
-
Wha?
I have to say I found the following sentence quite obscure:
"Does maleness always create enough of an advantage that manimony will turn into the new reverse racism?"
Are you saying "manimony" is like white law school applicants complaining about affirmative action?
The problem could be that I don't have enough brain cells to pound these two different cases into similar enough shapes to make them comparable.
I also wonder about the utility of doing so. Some of these "the new X" constructions seem to operate at such a level of abstraction as not to be useful. "This is the new backlash"; "this is the new racism"; etc.: what's the point? It seems to derive from a desire to link all society's flaws to some primeval conspiracy--in which some nefarious "backlash" and "racism" keep recurring--when what's alike about these phenomena is simply that their reprehensible, in related but novel and also quite different ways.
-
Scary that you even consider this
"It must sometimes feel like sweet vengeance to shake a man down for his part in denying women access to financial independence otherwise."
I guess we should be thankful that this James Hannaham nutcase is writing for an online magazine and not in a position of real power.
-
Why not?
We already know that divorce can be financially devastating to people. If there's a major income discrepancy, why shouldn't the ex-husband receive alimony? ESPECIALLY, if he's been at home while his ex-wife has been earning degrees that drive up her income, or raising children. In that case, there should be childcare AND monitoring to see that it's paid; a settlement; keeping the home if possible; and at the very least, time and training to hold an out-of-the-house job.
Punitive settlements, though: I knew one man who tried to beggar his wife in the divorce by demanding alimony when he had the house and the income. Tacky. Just as tacky for a man to do it as a woman.
Fair is fair.
-
Why Pretend?
"Or should we pretend that equality already exists so that, one day, it will?"
Live in whatever delusion you wish, that's the beauty of moral relativism.
But actually, don't pretend that equality exists, instead work to make it happen. Fantasy is all well and good, but pretending the nukes don't exist doesn't make it true.
-
limit it
While I can't abstain from a litle gloating about this state of affairs - women have done this kind of plunder far too long - it can not be a solution.
The whole conncept of alimony comes from a time where the lower status of women directly translated into a duty for men to finance their living. Women without this support were, at one time, falling into an economic abyss.
This isn't the case any more, and hasn't been for close to a century.
So the logical course of action should be doing away with permanent alimony alltogether. There should be a duty to support an ex partner for a limited time to help her or him reintegrate into the workplace, but after that, that should be it.
"Financial Rape" by men isn't in any way better or worse than by women. It should be ended alltogether.
-
Paying money to someone you hate sux
doesn't it? It's no more fun if you are a woman, than if you are a man. If a women is earning enough money that she is required to pay spousal support, then the argument that there is some amorphous, abstract sexism still at work that should preclude her from paying goes out the window.
33% of families have women who earn more? How does that comport with the 77 cents per dollar. I think there may be some cooking of the books here. Maybe politics is blurring reality.
-
WHAT?
"It must sometimes feel like sweet vengeance to shake a man down for his part in denying women access to financial independence otherwise."
Erm... are you just completely daft? Not every parcel of American existence can be jammed into the crucible of post-structuralism and existential dialectic. This statement is offensive.
While one could make the case that a man in 1940 was without a doubt a part of a culture in which women were intractibly locked in domestic, or possibly, low paying service jobs. The same, in general can not be said of today's world. Plenty of marriages dissolve as the result of female infidelity, misbehaviour, addictions or, really, just two people growing ill of each other.
Sure, there can be said to be inequalities in 'business' although, mind you, being an executive is not exactly the dream job for everyone. But true, average pay disparities cross into several fields. However, it can not be said that an individual who has made sufficient efforts to educate or train themselves should be unable to support themselves. If, in 2008, a woman of 45 divorces, only to find herself un-hirable (at what payscale she feels she deserves) due to lack of experience or training, that may be because she has spent the last many years either idling her mind OR has been raising children.
If the latter is the case, then one might say his inability is due to her service of the family, for which reason she might well deserve the money -- this is recognized in law in various foms, the family as financial entity. I can't see how anyone could argue, either morally, logically or legally, that were the situation reversed gender-wise, that the male was any less disadvantaged by his 20+ years on the sidelines. To argue against this is clearly malicious or a form of darwinistic classism... both of which Mr Hannaham's tenor seem to indicate. And really, to argue against this is tantamount to arguing against one of the only truly liberal (in the modern sense) legal consistants to precede the new deal.
Now, without proof-reading, I post
-
Yes on alimony to men
I was with Hannaham until the last couple of sentences.
I say
Yes to alimony for men on the same terms as for women,
No to calling it "manimony," like "murse" and "manorexia"
If my boyfriend and I got married, and then got divorced, he would have a pretty good shot at alimony, though I hope he would not do that.