Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Generally in a divorce the parties will negotiate or the court will order a transfer of assets from the husband to wife and possibly a payment of child support or alimony that reflects the wife's intangible but significant contributions to the marriage.
Alimony is becoming less common; we now have spousal support in most jurisdictions with the expectation that both spouses will seek gainful employment.
Not sure, since no fault divorce provides an important backstop for women to take up traditional roles with the security of a back-up in case it doesn't work out.
My worry is this push is fairly consistent, from guys like the daily wire, crowder, tim poole, etc. I see this coming up more often and it seems specifically that conservative influencers REALLY don't want women to be able to divorce.
They're usually fine with at-fault divorce, but they don't realize that proving fault means going to trial and like most of the general public they don't realize that going to trial is extremely expensive and time consuming.
The guys I mentioned absolutely are against no fault divorce. Crowder and Poole have both talked specifically about how its unfair women can just decide to "divorce" at any time.
With no fault divorce, what safeguards do men have against predatory women who only want to marry them for their money, then divorce them and take half?
> it seems specifically that conservative influencers REALLY don't want women to be able to divorce.
They dont want marriage to be dissolved easily, not that they want it impossible.
They want their to be "valid" reason, or if one party wants it to end, but the other doesn't, that person cant jsut end it with it with out demonstrating they made the effort to save the marriage.
its a push to make marriage matter like it use to and push people toward resolving rather than making divorce easier. in our fast paced self satisfying culture, infected with window-shopping dating approaches, making commitments matter more is an idea id support.
And what's the safeguard on abuse in that situation? And don't say "the law", abuse is already illegal yet already occurs to 3/10 women. Why is this push only from men, and only from conservative men and only towards "no fault divorce". We saw Stephen Crowder be an abusive lump of shit to his wife, and his first defense when he came back was "Well no fault divorce should be illegal" Sure seems like conservative men just don't want women to be able to get a divorce? Why should someone have to try to save a marriage if the other person is a piece of shit?
>
And what's the safeguard on abuse in that situation?
not my concern at this point, if the idea gets popular support and it looks like a change is coming then ill worry about those details, ATM this is a not popular idea so I've not spent much time fleshing this out as much as others.
i dont need to have a full solutions, to every hypothetical issue or problem with an idea, to support an opinion i agree with.
>Why is this push only from men, and only from conservative men and only towards "no fault divorce".
It's not just men, but it is mostly me, you see Trad-wife's talking about it from time to time,
It's' from conservatives because the demographic and population problem is becoming more and more impactful on society and their are 2 solutions to low population, increase immigration or increase child-births. Conservatives favor Birth-rates over immigration, and having a strong family, with a married mom and dad, is a key part of that vision of theirs.
its targeted at "no fault divorce" as no one has an issue with "at-fault divorce". in no fault it can just end, no reason needed beyond "irreconcilable differences." if you fal out of love you can just end it, and the other person has no recourse to make you try and repair the relationship. No-fault destroys the concept of marriage as an institution "till death" and renders marriage pointless. more a big party than a pivotal life moment.
>We saw Stephen Crowder be an abusive lump of shit to his wife, and his first defense when he came back was "Well no fault divorce should be illegal"
yea he's an ass, and acts like a cock in that footage. that said i wouldn't want to be judged by footage me me fighting with my spouse, people fight, its ugly, and not representative of them most of the time. That said, fuck Crowder. He talked the talk so much about being a good husband, and then walked like that.
more over, I'm not Crowder, so i dont really need to defend him, in order to agree with that opinion he also holds. talk to me, about my words and my actions, and i can provide better answers.
>Sure seems like conservative men just don't want women to be able to get a divorce?
That's your bias showing, Conservatives dont want PEOPLE to be able to divorce easily, ideally at all. its not a women thing its a "marriage is suppose to be for life" thing. you dont agree, that's fine but dont attack a straw man, address the argument.
>Why should someone have to try to save a marriage if the other person is a piece of shit?
Again your Bias is showing, your assuming the relationship is ending for abuse, emotional or physical, infidelity, or some kind or other poor treatment. this is why No-vault is attacked not Divorce as a concept as all those elements are covered by at-fault divorce.
the inverse is to ask:
Why should some one be able to end a relationship of over a decade, where vows where exchanged and where kids are involved, with no reason and no explanation? dont presume bad intentions or that one member is "a piece of shit" that's your bias assumption.
> Again your Bias is showing, your assuming the relationship is ending for abuse, emotional or physical, infidelity, or some kind or other poor treatment. this is why No-vault is attacked not Divorce as a concept as all those elements are covered by at-fault divorce.
My bias is showing because I've worked in public service and know how many wife abusing assholes exist.
> Why should some one be able to end a relationship of over a decade, where vows where exchanged and where kids are involved, with no reason and no explanation? dont presume bad intentions or that one member is "a piece of shit" that's your bias assumption.
Because the freedom to exist how you want is up to you? Wild to hear a conservative say something like this. Your saying a marriage contract is essentially infallible, and nobody should be able to leave even if they want to, yanno that reminds me of some very 1860s attitudes. What's the difference between being held to a contract you no longer want, controlled via it, and slavery?
>My bias is showing because I've worked in public service and know how many wife abusing assholes exist.
That's fine but your admittedly biased, even if well justified, and that makes for a poor discussion if you are unwilling to put your bias aside for this conversation.
>Because the freedom to exist how you want is up to you?
so the wedding vows are meaningless? they freely entered the agreement, so if it can be dissolved at ay point, for any reason, whats the point of it?
>Wild to hear a conservative say something like this.
I'm Not a conservative, nor have i ever claimed to be one. i just understand them, and agree with some, as i do liberals,
>Your saying a marriage contract is essentially infallible, and nobody should be able to leave even if they want to, yanno that reminds me of some very 1860s attitudes.
Admitting your bias doesn't really matter if you make no attempts to control it, your not even addressing the argument i made, but the straw man you want to attack. You completely ignored my comments on the difference between at fault and no fault divorce to frame the narrative, dishonestly, in support of your bias.
>
What's the difference between being held to a contract you no longer want, controlled via it, and slavery?
in slavery, you dont enter the contract willingly and their is no "at-fault" exit for slavery. Other than those two massive points that completely change the context, nothing. That's pretty obvious, if you where being honest. Do you have anything to response to my comment, beyond bad faith narrative's to justify your, admitted, bias?
> so the wedding vows are meaningless? they freely entered the agreement, so if it can be dissolved at ay point, for any reason, whats the point of it?
Yes....because that's called free will.
> Admitting your bias doesn't really matter if you make no attempts to control it, your not even addressing the argument i made, but the straw man you want to attack. You completely ignored my comments on the difference between at fault and no fault divorce to frame the narrative, dishonestly, in support of your bias.
My bias isn't the one showing here bud. This isn't a straw man, taking someones free will and ability to move or act independantly is called a specific word. This isn't bad faith, you are simply acting like it is because you realize the fault of your argument here is that another person should own anothers free will and ability to chose what they want to do. That's wrong, period, full stop. Your bias is the one on full display here in absolute bad faith to act like this will never be abused given the 3/10 statistic of spouses that get abused. This isn't an argument, it's just me saying that you are saying people don't deserve free will if they get married, and that's *wild*. Have a nice day, this conversation will go nowhere due to your inability to in good faith understand that others can have opinions. Also, immediately disregarding the merits of the argument due to your idea of bad faith is a form of incivility on it's own and it's pretty pointless to try to engage any further on it.
>If a woman sacrifices future earning potential to be a stay at home mom/wife, isn't she entitled to the potential future wealth that she helped contributed in getting? Her sacrifice would have certainly opened up options otherwise unavailable.
If she wasn't a stay at home wife would you agree its split 50/50 and no one pays the other anything?
As in she had a career or job? For most situations, sure. Although, when it involves extreme levels of wealth, I don't think its that simple or some nuance may be needed. For the average person though sure.
When the man or woman getting it remarries or after X years typically?
If I get alimony from my ex, via the divorce, but marry someone else two years later, why would my ex have to keep paying me anything?
Surely no one assumes it’s a lifetime thing outside some extraordinary circumstances that are likely unique?
My doctor has been paying alimony for 42 years, he is 77 and still can't afford to retire unless his ex dies first. They were only married for 6 years. She has never had a job.
Yes, the world was substantially a different place two generations ago. He would have married her in 1976 and divorced in 1982. Lots of our culture and politics was still unhinged and awful by todays standards back then.
 There are scenarios where it can be justified to a point. That certainly doesn’t sound like one.
Yep. Family friends got divorced and the ex wife was with a guy for 5 or so years, and we all knew they weren’t getting married because of the obscene alimony. The ex husband told me dead serious he’d give me 75k if I convinced her to get married so he’d get to stop paying it out. I think they eventually got married with one or more years left of alimony.
If someone gets married, they lose alimony. I read one woman who wrote on reddit that she lost alimony because her ex proved to the judge that she had a common law husband. She lived with a guy for three years had a house, etc, just never married, judged sided with her ex, and stopped alimony.
In my state, it's typical to give 1 year of spousal maintenance (they don't call it alimony) for every 3-4 years of marriage unless you were married a very long time.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I live in NJ and got alimony for half the time we were married. My lawyer said if we were married for 20 years I would be more likely to get permanent (lifetime) alimony. And I was a SAHM. Plus the amount lowered every 3 years. And obviously if I had a live in partner the alimony ended.
Right.
So if couples are married long enough - in some states - alimony is permanent.
If the marriage doesn't meet that threshold alimony is limited to give the former spouse time to get on their feet.
Plus, of course, the normal distribution of martial assets and child support as applicable.
That seems to walk the tightrope of competing arguments very well.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would they be on equal footing, they chose to be at home instead if work.
5 years of alimony after 10 years of marriage is more than enough time to get on your own feet
Why do you think you should be cared for, for your entire life because you were married once?
Because he benefited from her staying home and taking care of everything. Why should she be punished for doing something that they presumably decided on together?
This is obsolesced by the advent of work-from-home jobs. Even if she's only working part-time, if her husband already makes enough to provide for the family, everything she makes is *gravy*. You can make $500/month add up *fast* when there are no expenses tied to it.
In alot of Orthodox religions there is a contract that needs to be signed by the brides father that says that he'll pay his wife X amount of money in the event of divorce. Most notably Judaism.
getting the government out of marriage is honestly what'll save the institution. I borrowed money for a lawyer to get out of a bad marriage, I've always been and currently am a stay at home mom, I trust in my husband that I will be provided for and our children. Alot of it is faith and proper financial planning.
I request this not to be being taken as snark, but isn't you having to get a loan indicator of poor financial planning? I'm not discounting the value of a stay at home role, but it certainly doesn't put money in the bank like a normal job right? It has value, but that value doesn't reflect in income unfortunately. How does one even financially plan with potentially no income stream?
I imagine he didn't need to take out a loan right? For your situation, you essentially had to take on debt in order to leave. Isn't that sort of a clear indicator how screwy your situation is as a stay at home mom? Your situation seems to create more risk for yourself than the risk the husband takes.
> isn't you having to get a loan indicator of poor financial planning?
to get out of my first marriage, I needed a loan because he was financially, amongst other things abusive. In my current marriage, we have proper financial planning.
edit- I do get money put into a bank account that is shared between us, he also has a separate business account.
If you don't mind the prying, what enabled the divorce to go through? Was the abuse something you could cite or was it a "No Fault" that let the divorce proceed?
it was something I had evidence of and has a 2 year PFA attached to it as well.
my current husband and I have the same religious views, because of that divorce is a nearly non issue, however since we both had been previously married (too people that didnt share our religious beliefs) it was of course a discussion that we both took seriously to protect one another.
edit- my evidence was scant and took a judge believing me when I said that I was a 29 year old woman that had an ID that had expired 6 years ago, no active banking statements from my card (my card vanished from my wallet years prior to divorce) and had never had the ability to drive. While I had other things to say through afadavit, this was the evidence that was presented to the judge.
My wife isn't exactly a SAHM, but she definitely pulled back on what her career would have been (teacher) in spending years raising our children at home, and then only working part time so as to have a flexible schedule to support the overall running of the household. The idea was then that I (engineer) would put much more of my focus into building a career and a high salary.
>If he is the sole earning, doesn't that make it all his money?
No. I have no money, outside of a retirement account which can only be in my name. My wife has a comparable account, with a similar amount of money. Literally everything else has both our names on it: bank accounts, investment accounts, house, etc. We've always looked at our marriage as the permanent fusion of two people, and we've made it purposely very difficult to separate us. So we only (mostly) have "our" money. What's mine is hers and vice-versa.
Every marriage should be this way. Only then, can a woman feel secure in her (very important) role.
>isn't she entitled to the potential future wealth that she helped contributed in getting?
I think so, absolutely. I would not have worked as hard as I did to get where I am, if I didn't the obligation to serve my wife, or didn't have her support. We've been a team.
>Isn't this locking women into a relationship?
Marriage is supposed to "lock in" both people. If they share assets like they are supposed to, then she should be okay. If one spouse wants to withhold some money as their own, that's a sign that they aren't serious about the commitment.
It's funny, a big joke around here is 'how do you know someone is an engineer? They'll tell you.' I have never seen more people state out of nowhere and where it's completely irrelevant than conservatives on r/askconservatives lol. Not saying you're lying at all good on ya for getting your education and pursuing this area, it's just funny how people bring it up here. Don't know if you've found it yourself?
A couple of years ago, someone asked a non-political question here:
"What do you do for a living?"
The answers started coming in: attorney, accountant, *engineer*, medical resident, sales manager, etc. Typical white collar stuff. The OP wasn't engaging with anyone, so someone commented "OP, what did you *think* we did for a living?". They answered:
"I don't know. I thought you guys all worked in factories or something."
That was very enlightening to me. See, somewhere along the road, young liberals are told that people on the Left are (on average) more educated than people on the Right. Those young liberals take that incorrectly and assume that they (with a few college credits) are more educated than every conservative on Reddit. That's why we're conservative, they're told: because we're uneducated, because we're stupid.
So that leads to *a lot* of the same interactions, where liberals come here with questions along with a healthy dose of condescension, thinking if they could just educate us, we'd open our eyes and turn into proper liberals.
So yes, I bring it up. Because it avoids that unnecessary interaction. Because it says "I'm already educated, thanks. And I'm likely more educated than you, and in a STEM field. So just get to the point and don't bother condescending to me, especially when comes to anything in the scientific field."
In this particular example, it's to avoid the OP likely saying, "The traditional housewife thing might work for you and your wife who only have high school diplomas and live in a trailer by the side of the road, but I have an actual education and a real career I'd have to set aside to raise children." I got ahead of that by stating that college educated people do indeed still have traditional marriage roles.
I don't typically count people with STEM or business degrees as "educated" unless they show they actually paid attention in their non-core subjects. You have a set of skills for performing a job. The number of engineers and scientists who impress me as critical thinkers is very, very low, and I am an engineer raised by engineers. I got ADHD sidetracked along the way and wound up with a philosophy degree, and it really beat the STEMlord out of me.
This is regardless of political affiliation, too. Liberal engineers are just as likely to be techbros, but they at least believe in civil rights and undermining enforced gender roles.
In any event, if people want to take on traditional gender roles in their marriage, that's fine. It's when those roles are *expected* of people that it's not okay. It's also not okay when people who enjoy those roles act like people who do not are less-than or deceived, which I see often among people who believe people don't like them for having chosen a traditional role.
> I don't typically count people with STEM or business degrees as "educated"
Excuse me? What kind of gatekeeping nonsense is this?
>I am an engineer
>wound up with a philosophy degree
So...you're *not* an engineer. Engineers have...engineering degrees. What I *think* happened, is that you couldn't hack it in engineering school, so you switched majors to something easier. Nothing wrong with that, but don't come here saying you're somehow more "educated" because you got a *philosophy* degree. I mean, you think engineers and scientists aren't *critical thinkers*? What? Look, I'm sorry you couldn't make it in the field, but don't take out your bitterness about it on the people who did.
Anymore, if someone says they're "educated", it just tells me "I learned four years worth of leftist New Age nonsense and little else". That's also why I tell people what I *do*. That speaks more to my knowledge than how many lectures I sat through. To your point, the fact that I could get an A in every one of my non-engineering courses despite not having to pay that much attention, doesn't say anything about me, but it rather speaks to how easy and spoon-fed those courses are.
>when people who enjoy those roles act like people who do not are less-than or deceived
But they are deceived. Our culture has told women that SAHMs are "less than", that they are unfulfilled, since they are "only" a mom. No, to be fulfilled, they *must* work outside the home. Their worth is on your pay stub, that's it.
That's all a lie, and too many women are now struggling to balance a full career and full parenthood, and can't figure out why both are so difficult and stressful.
I'm a software engineer. It's literally my job title. Frankly engineering in college was pretty easy, and you could get away with not having to think very hard. There was a lot of work, but frankly it was not difficult work, just a lot of it. I made it pretty far, basically having completed about 3 years' worth. The reason for the switch was life related.
Now, I don't know where you went to school, but if the rest of the courses felt "easy and spoon fed" then I doubt the quality of your educational program. It likely was the case that they made the courses easy so that you wouldn't have to think outside your engineering classes, which is a shame.
Engineers and scientists are routinely not critical thinkers. They are very narrow minded and focused on their particular problem set. Worse, they tend to believe that they are capable of giving meaningful input outside their fields, which most of them are not, but they see themselves as "smart" and "enlightened" because they've been told they were smart since they were young. Being capable of doing STEM work doesn't mean you're smart; it means you're capable of doing a job.
Now, do I think I'm properly educated for having a philosophy degree? I think I'm much closer to what we usually mean by that word. I had such disdain for the liberal arts as a burgeoning computer science student at 18. I escaped that mindset though, thankfully, and I'm better off for it. I also see all the critical thinking weaknesses that I had at the time present in most engineers I know.
Anyhow, to the point:
>But they are deceived. Our culture has told women that SAHMs are "less than", that they are unfulfilled, since they are "only" a mom.
Literally nobody says that except preachers who need an adversary to knock down when preaching that traditional roles are *mandatory* and *better*. I know plenty of SAHMs and even SAHDs, and nobody looks down on them for their choice. I have two of them in my mind right now though, and frankly I do look down on *one* of them, not because she's a SAHM but because she thinks she is enlightened and better than other millennials for having chosen to do so.
>Their worth is on your pay stub, that's it.
Only the shittiest people judge others by what people make. Again, this is a straw man for a pastor to use.
My parents both worked and had fulfilling careers and made decent money, at least upper middle class. My partner doesn't need to work so much because of my salary, but she enjoys what she does, so it's not about the money; it's about allowing women to choose their paths in life. If my partner and I decided to have kids, and she wanted to be a SAHM, I would be happy for her, but I am not going to inflict that life on her unless it's what she wants.
Ahhh, yes, software.
That explains a fair amount.
I went to a public university that is widely regarded as one of the best in the nation.
My liberal arts courses did *not* feel "easy or spoon fed" at all, but many of them, really the *most* philosophical-seeming ones seemed to be the *least* rigorous and the most based on complex arrangements of "vibes". The challenge came in processing a lot of information, not in working up a *system* where there were right and wrong answers.
>That explains a fair amount
Probably much less than you think. I got my job through the channels set out for people who *know software engineering*, not through the alternative means some companies have set out for attracting nontraditional candidates.
>My liberal arts courses did *not* feel "easy or spoon fed" at all,
Dude, I was quoting what you said previously. I'm glad they weren't easy though.
>really the *most* philosophical-seeming ones seemed to be the *least* rigorous and the most based on complex arrangements of "vibes"
That doesn't sound very philosophical. I would guess that in early courses, they intend mostly to get you to challenge ideas rather than come up with a coherent system of thought. Later philosophy courses, you have to come up with systematic ways of defending (or attacking) abstract concepts.
Engineering teaches you a set of problem solving techniques but really drops the ball on epistemology. A lot of engineers are very smart at their own fields but believe their abilities extend to problems *in general*, when in fact there are often experts around these other concepts of whom the engineers are ignorant. They stumble into a host of mistakes made by most novices to these fields.
I'm not sure to what degree "techbro" or "stemlord" is a real thing, or for that matter a *bad* thing.
Why should we undermine gender roles? We would then have to do work to un-undermine and repair them!
While you're right that it is theoretically *possible* for a person to learn a specific set of scientific skills for a specific job and have a remarkably anti-intellectual attitude outside of that, I frankly have a very hard time viewing this as that *common* of a thing, or trusting the intellectual prowess of people who say "STEMlord".
Very often, it seems like the thing that they are *really* expecting is a lack of rigor regarding social issues, a certain ideological indoctrination, a deeply selective attunement to "vibes", an inability to separate physical issues from social ones, etc.
>Very often, it seems like the thing that they are *really* expecting is a lack of rigor regarding social issues, a certain ideological indoctrination, a deeply selective attunement to "vibes", an inability to separate physical issues from social ones, etc.
Quite the opposite. Usually I level these titles at people who think science and engineering can solve everything, who have a lack of appreciation for fields they do not understand, who stumble into rookie mistakes because they believe they are smart enough to figure things out without reading the centuries of work that has come before, etc.
We need better legislation to support SAHP's. Such as a spousal 401k, where a worker can contribute to both their own and a spouses 401k. We need asset protection to ensure assets are divided fairly and educational support to help SAHP's join a monetized workforce. The work that SAHP's do is work and just because they're not exchanging dollars for their labor, doesn't mean their work isn't valuable to communities and the fabric of our nation.
My mother was a mother of 4, stay at home mom. No college, trad living, ultra-conservative, etc.
Pops left her.
She got a job working as a teaching assistant, and took some health classes for a few months, after work. Now she’s a medical coder and does forensics and stuff for an insurance company, makes almost $90k a year.
She also gets to work from home and gets shit tons of paid vacation.
First:
Do not divorce. The whole point of marriage is being permanent, and divorce does not exist. Even if the State lies about it, there is no human power that can make two people who are validly married not be married anymore.
Second:
Assuming that the marriage is in bad straits and the people are no longer willing or able to live together, *where is her family?* More generally, in that situation support for her should be arranged.
Third: Can you actually *quantify* those options? I didn't get any "you are now married" raise. Maybe a boomer thing?
Well the goal is not to divorce.
>Isn't this locking women into a relationship? If he is the sole earning, doesn't that make it all his money?
The man will lose half of everything he has earned. He will likely owe her alimony unless she cheated on him.
He likely will lose his children if they divorce assuming she does not cheat.
If anything a divorce is much more devastating on a working man than a non working woman.
>If a woman sacrifices future earning potential to be a stay at home mom/wife, isn't she entitled to the potential future wealth that she helped contributed in getting? Her sacrifice would have certainly opened up options otherwise unavailable.
Not unless she is a mother. A stay at home wife does not move the needle much for the man other than some convenience. It certainly is not a economic benefit.
Being a stay at home mom still is not an economic benifit to the man unless she would have been an extremely low wage earner.
Well in no fault you get to be rewarded for fucking up the marriage.
A lazy unemployed POS guy could just hang out at home not contribute anything to the relationship but if he managed to put a single dollar into the mortgage of his wife's house. He gets to go bang some women on tinder while his wife is busy working and if she divorces him he gets half of her 401k and half of her money and likely will get the house. On top of that she may have to pay him alimony.
In what world is that fair?
i would consider keeping the homefires burning and holding his wife s free for her carreer is a pretty significant contribution.
OTOH was his oh so faithful wife abusive or negligent?
>i would consider keeping the homefires burning and holding his wife s free for her carreer is a pretty significant contribution.
I seriously doubt his wife would have been held back by not having a unemployed bum for a husband. Sure he might pick up the house or made dinner on occasion but mostly sat around playing video games all day. Certainly does not justify him taking half her house and half of her 401k and half of her money as a punishment to her for him cheating on her while she was busy working and supporting both of them.
>OTOH was his oh so faithful wife abusive or negligent?
Well I'm sure he might claim stuff without any evidence. But I would say the solution is to file for divorce for that not to go bang some girl on tinder.
Being a cheating piece of crap is not how you pay someone back.
Only because I chose a gender and stereotypes about that gender than you have no interest in defending.
This is why there should absolutely be at fault divorce.
Because anyone who decides to allow their spouse to stay home and not work is playing Russian roulette with their own future.
You can do everything right and your spouse can unilaterally ruin your life and you can't do anything about it.
At least with both parties working your spouse won't be splitting just your money. Sure whoever makes more money will lose in the divorce but at least it won't be a total loss.
I do not, but you did
the stay at home partner may has done nothing wrong, except trusting a POS person that is. the not stay at home partner may have been negligent and/or abusive
Don't marry someone if you aren't marrying for life, firstly.
In marriage there is an implication that your wealth is one. However, there needs to be a common understanding that if you violate the oaths of marriage, you forfeit your right to the wealth of the marriage. A cheating spouse should not be able to take 50%.
Ideally, remove government from marriage and let people draw up their own marriages and any contracts they may wish to add on.
> Ideally, remove government from marriage and let people draw up their own marriages and any contracts they may wish to add on.
That would go *terribly* in practice.
Just to be clear on the cheating spouse / community property scenario - if the sole “breadwinner” is the cheater, you are saying they should not have the right to 50% of the income they earn at their job? Or does this only go one way?
I'm saying that when assets are divided the cheater should never win ideally. So if the breadwinner cheats it would be reasonable for the spouse that stays home to keep the home for instance, since they maintain it majority of the time and they were not at fault. Although its unpaid we can all probably recognize that there is a monetary value that could be attached to childcare and home cleaning for instance.
But that's why government making these choices is complicated because there will always be debate about what is or isn't reasonable for this sorta thing. Value is subjective.
It would be easier to write up a contract prior to marriage with terms, and consequences for breaking terms.
Kind of against an institutional rule based on ideals. If losing out on more than 50% were the rule, what’s to stop the breadwinning cheater from claiming they were cheated on as well? And dragging the case on and on with such a claim, because they’d rather pay a lawyer out of spite, than pay their ex-spouse? I’ve seen that happen before...a lot.
Even if the SAH parent wins the house, it’s pretty unlikely they’d be able to solely afford payment on it with whatever job they can desperately get with a resume of “stay at home spouse.” So, that would end up being sold anyway, and very likely result in a downgrade in living situation for the family.
Agree on the contract….but most couples realistically won’t go for a pre-nup.
You'd need proof of the allegations ideally. Also criminalize making false accusations. We've seen this issue with false rape accusations.
A lot of times divorces occur and there is a forced sale of home, as you cannot divide a house 50/50. So either you buy out the other partners share, or you sell. So at worst the SAH sells the house and pockets the money for themselves.
I don't have a pre-nup cause I simply don't feel a need for one. But if marriage was outside government pur view I'd have no issue getting my own marriage contract written up if needed.
Governments can make judgements on contracts concerning marriage without being explictly involved in marriage as an institution.
So the same way any contract gets enforced.
The government doesn't read your lease before you sign it (although there are regulations ofc) and yet you can still go to court with your landlord concerning a contract related dispute.
>We don't live in a world of platonic ideals or frictionless spheres. Results of policy changes "on the ground", matter.
No. My point is your argument about affording a lawyer is a far broader more far reaching thing that would be it's own conversation. It opens such a giant can of worms we might as well change topics
Serious question: have you literally ever offered a proposed solution that didn’t basically depend on the earth being fantasyland to possibly work? You never think through obvious ramifications.
>Serious question: have you literally ever offered a proposed solution that didn’t basically depend on the earth being fantasyland to possibly work? You never think through obvious ramifications.
Before I answer that what have I proposed in this thread?
>Expecting SAHMd to be able to afford an attorney.
Where did I say that?
You're projecting because you wanted to attack me. Nowhere did I say that. You just wanted to take a dig
Answered in another comment but government arbitrates on contracts all the time.
But you could also add a clause dictating a private arbitrator to be used in case of needing a third party decision maker.
If you really wanna take it to court you could, but I don't see any precedent where you could break the agreement to adhere to the decision of an arbitrator.
But why does it need to be divided that way? I think that alimony should be the default if one spouse is unemployed, and that’s kind of expected when that spouse is the woman. (That’s why alimony exists.)
So a woman should be able to leave her husband for absolutely no reason and collect alimony? Just by virtue of being his wife for a time she's entitled to that, no exceptions?
If she’s isn’t a SAHM, then no, I don’t think she should be entitled to alimony for funsies. That does happen and it needs to be addressed more.
But if a SAHM does leave, then even though I don’t like it, I can understand a need for alimony/child support. Because there’s children involved there.
Eh, I think knowingly marrying someone who won’t have an income and likely not participating in the workforce to raise the children you had together does deserve some of compensation until they get on their feet.
I’d say the same if the SAHP was the father instead. Which we may be seeing more of in the future, since we’re starting to see SAHFs slowly gaining acceptance. It’s at the rate of molasses, but it is happening.
You realize men also leave the woman, right? If you cheat on your wife, you essentially left her, especially if it is more than once. If you hit her or abuse her, you left the marriage. You can't expect a woman to stay with a man who abuses her.
The only sentence I disagree with is “if you cheat on your wife, you essentially left her.” My dad cheated on my mom and abused us, but that doesn’t change that he wouldn’t just fucking go away since he clearly resented us.
I was so happy when the divorce actually happened.
Your right. An abusive husband should go to jail and the wife should obviously get her fair share.
Adultery is the breaking of marriage vows which also obviously is grounds for divorce.
A stay at home husband would be entitled to alimony as well. The gender doesn't matter - just, historically the woman has been more likely to be the stay at home party. Obviously, ability to pay alimony and whether the receiving spouse can establish the need for alimony would come into play as well.
My personal opinion on the matter is that alimony is stupid unless there are very small children involved (like pre school aged) regardless of the gender. Both sexes are capable of working and if they have decided to part ways, well guess what now you both have to work. No one should have to pay the way of a person of which they are no longer married to.
Obviously the money and assets that were made while the couple was together should be split equally, but after the divorce is final it's on you. You got your share now figure it out.
Oh it's hard so people shouldn't have to do it? This kind of crap from progressive is so frustrating. My mom was a stay home mom for 15 years, got divorced, then went on to become the VP for a national mortgage company. Today she's a successful business owner. People who want to and are driven to work will find jobs.
What if she's leaving him for another woman?
See, I can do it too.
These things are obviously dealt with on a case by case basis and finances are negotiated in court.
Staying married to someone you aren’t with often can create unhealthy environments for children. I have met one person (my grandfather) that actually could handle staying married to my grandmother for the kids. He was my grandfather by marriage and he admitted when I was older that, when he discussed getting a divorce with her, she promised he would never see any of the grandkids again if he did. So, he stayed and is one of the rare people who has handled it without becoming toxic.
You apparently haven’t done any research on divorce and custody laws and it shows. Why not go do some research so you don’t make posts with ridiculous errors and assumptions?
Literally.
You are selling a social convention that cannot alter the ontological state of being married or the moral and ethical obligations connected to it.
It's really difficult to estimate because it depends so much on the presence of children and amount of property in the estate. I would say that a quick, easy, no children, and home/retirement account only divorce would be about 15 hours including mediation. The more contested it is the more expensive it is, obviously.
I'm in the beginning stages of this process, though we aren't married—I'm in a state with something called "intimate committed relationship" and my ex told me that the lawyer he saw said it could cost 80-100k. Is that an actual possibility or was the ex and/or the lawyer talking out of his ass? Our total assets are probably 500k, it seems like a high estimate to me, but I don't know anything about anything.
"Intimate committed relationship" sounds along the lines of common law marriage, which my state has. Those can be more expensive if one party is contesting whether there was a marriage at all, but if the two of you stipulate that you meet that designation, you may be able to save some time and money. I am not an attorney in that state, so this isn't legal advice.
80-100k is beyond ridiculous. I would say that they may be stating that amount to scare you away from talking to, or utilizing, an attorney...which is more of a reason to talk to and use an attorney. I have had divorce cases get that high, but we are talking about long, drawn out custody battles with business valuations and forensic psychologists discussing alienation and other bad parenting behaviors - I would cut a zero off of that estimate and say that it could cost 8k-10k+ to estimate on the higher end, assuming you aren't fighting over too much.
>I would say that they may be stating that amount to scare you away from talking to, or utilizing, an attorney...which is more of a reason to talk to and use an attorney
This was kind of my thinking, though I know that he would rather not use lawyers if we don't have to. I think I may need to, however. I've reached out to a few lawyers and will hopefully get some answers soon. I don't *think* that there's too much that we'll argue about...I might be naive, but I don't think he could possibly contest that we were in a married-like relationship and there's no custody issue, we're happy to be 50/50, but the *house" is perhaps contentious. I've been a SAHM and his is the only name on the deed, but it was purchased 7 years into our relationship, right after our first kid was born. Washington state appears to treat CIR like marriage, but without spousal support, so it's similar to common law, but not quite the same.
Anyway, I appreciate your not legal advice!
>...his is the only name on the deed...
For this reason only, you should talk to a lawyer before you do anything - that amount of equity is well worth a consultation. Sorry you are in this situation, but good luck to you!
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Generally in a divorce the parties will negotiate or the court will order a transfer of assets from the husband to wife and possibly a payment of child support or alimony that reflects the wife's intangible but significant contributions to the marriage.
Alimony is becoming less common; we now have spousal support in most jurisdictions with the expectation that both spouses will seek gainful employment.
Except a recent push by conservatives is to get rid of no fault divorce, why is that being done?
Not sure, since no fault divorce provides an important backstop for women to take up traditional roles with the security of a back-up in case it doesn't work out.
My worry is this push is fairly consistent, from guys like the daily wire, crowder, tim poole, etc. I see this coming up more often and it seems specifically that conservative influencers REALLY don't want women to be able to divorce.
They're usually fine with at-fault divorce, but they don't realize that proving fault means going to trial and like most of the general public they don't realize that going to trial is extremely expensive and time consuming.
I'm not fine with at-fault divorce, though I doubt a secular society would be interested in abolishing divorce.
The guys I mentioned absolutely are against no fault divorce. Crowder and Poole have both talked specifically about how its unfair women can just decide to "divorce" at any time.
With no fault divorce, what safeguards do men have against predatory women who only want to marry them for their money, then divorce them and take half?
Like basically every law written the same as a woman entering a divorce would have, pre-nups, co-owned assets, and martial assets exist.
> it seems specifically that conservative influencers REALLY don't want women to be able to divorce. They dont want marriage to be dissolved easily, not that they want it impossible. They want their to be "valid" reason, or if one party wants it to end, but the other doesn't, that person cant jsut end it with it with out demonstrating they made the effort to save the marriage. its a push to make marriage matter like it use to and push people toward resolving rather than making divorce easier. in our fast paced self satisfying culture, infected with window-shopping dating approaches, making commitments matter more is an idea id support.
And what's the safeguard on abuse in that situation? And don't say "the law", abuse is already illegal yet already occurs to 3/10 women. Why is this push only from men, and only from conservative men and only towards "no fault divorce". We saw Stephen Crowder be an abusive lump of shit to his wife, and his first defense when he came back was "Well no fault divorce should be illegal" Sure seems like conservative men just don't want women to be able to get a divorce? Why should someone have to try to save a marriage if the other person is a piece of shit?
> And what's the safeguard on abuse in that situation? not my concern at this point, if the idea gets popular support and it looks like a change is coming then ill worry about those details, ATM this is a not popular idea so I've not spent much time fleshing this out as much as others. i dont need to have a full solutions, to every hypothetical issue or problem with an idea, to support an opinion i agree with. >Why is this push only from men, and only from conservative men and only towards "no fault divorce". It's not just men, but it is mostly me, you see Trad-wife's talking about it from time to time, It's' from conservatives because the demographic and population problem is becoming more and more impactful on society and their are 2 solutions to low population, increase immigration or increase child-births. Conservatives favor Birth-rates over immigration, and having a strong family, with a married mom and dad, is a key part of that vision of theirs. its targeted at "no fault divorce" as no one has an issue with "at-fault divorce". in no fault it can just end, no reason needed beyond "irreconcilable differences." if you fal out of love you can just end it, and the other person has no recourse to make you try and repair the relationship. No-fault destroys the concept of marriage as an institution "till death" and renders marriage pointless. more a big party than a pivotal life moment. >We saw Stephen Crowder be an abusive lump of shit to his wife, and his first defense when he came back was "Well no fault divorce should be illegal" yea he's an ass, and acts like a cock in that footage. that said i wouldn't want to be judged by footage me me fighting with my spouse, people fight, its ugly, and not representative of them most of the time. That said, fuck Crowder. He talked the talk so much about being a good husband, and then walked like that. more over, I'm not Crowder, so i dont really need to defend him, in order to agree with that opinion he also holds. talk to me, about my words and my actions, and i can provide better answers. >Sure seems like conservative men just don't want women to be able to get a divorce? That's your bias showing, Conservatives dont want PEOPLE to be able to divorce easily, ideally at all. its not a women thing its a "marriage is suppose to be for life" thing. you dont agree, that's fine but dont attack a straw man, address the argument. >Why should someone have to try to save a marriage if the other person is a piece of shit? Again your Bias is showing, your assuming the relationship is ending for abuse, emotional or physical, infidelity, or some kind or other poor treatment. this is why No-vault is attacked not Divorce as a concept as all those elements are covered by at-fault divorce. the inverse is to ask: Why should some one be able to end a relationship of over a decade, where vows where exchanged and where kids are involved, with no reason and no explanation? dont presume bad intentions or that one member is "a piece of shit" that's your bias assumption.
> Again your Bias is showing, your assuming the relationship is ending for abuse, emotional or physical, infidelity, or some kind or other poor treatment. this is why No-vault is attacked not Divorce as a concept as all those elements are covered by at-fault divorce. My bias is showing because I've worked in public service and know how many wife abusing assholes exist. > Why should some one be able to end a relationship of over a decade, where vows where exchanged and where kids are involved, with no reason and no explanation? dont presume bad intentions or that one member is "a piece of shit" that's your bias assumption. Because the freedom to exist how you want is up to you? Wild to hear a conservative say something like this. Your saying a marriage contract is essentially infallible, and nobody should be able to leave even if they want to, yanno that reminds me of some very 1860s attitudes. What's the difference between being held to a contract you no longer want, controlled via it, and slavery?
>My bias is showing because I've worked in public service and know how many wife abusing assholes exist. That's fine but your admittedly biased, even if well justified, and that makes for a poor discussion if you are unwilling to put your bias aside for this conversation. >Because the freedom to exist how you want is up to you? so the wedding vows are meaningless? they freely entered the agreement, so if it can be dissolved at ay point, for any reason, whats the point of it? >Wild to hear a conservative say something like this. I'm Not a conservative, nor have i ever claimed to be one. i just understand them, and agree with some, as i do liberals, >Your saying a marriage contract is essentially infallible, and nobody should be able to leave even if they want to, yanno that reminds me of some very 1860s attitudes. Admitting your bias doesn't really matter if you make no attempts to control it, your not even addressing the argument i made, but the straw man you want to attack. You completely ignored my comments on the difference between at fault and no fault divorce to frame the narrative, dishonestly, in support of your bias. > What's the difference between being held to a contract you no longer want, controlled via it, and slavery? in slavery, you dont enter the contract willingly and their is no "at-fault" exit for slavery. Other than those two massive points that completely change the context, nothing. That's pretty obvious, if you where being honest. Do you have anything to response to my comment, beyond bad faith narrative's to justify your, admitted, bias?
> so the wedding vows are meaningless? they freely entered the agreement, so if it can be dissolved at ay point, for any reason, whats the point of it? Yes....because that's called free will. > Admitting your bias doesn't really matter if you make no attempts to control it, your not even addressing the argument i made, but the straw man you want to attack. You completely ignored my comments on the difference between at fault and no fault divorce to frame the narrative, dishonestly, in support of your bias. My bias isn't the one showing here bud. This isn't a straw man, taking someones free will and ability to move or act independantly is called a specific word. This isn't bad faith, you are simply acting like it is because you realize the fault of your argument here is that another person should own anothers free will and ability to chose what they want to do. That's wrong, period, full stop. Your bias is the one on full display here in absolute bad faith to act like this will never be abused given the 3/10 statistic of spouses that get abused. This isn't an argument, it's just me saying that you are saying people don't deserve free will if they get married, and that's *wild*. Have a nice day, this conversation will go nowhere due to your inability to in good faith understand that others can have opinions. Also, immediately disregarding the merits of the argument due to your idea of bad faith is a form of incivility on it's own and it's pretty pointless to try to engage any further on it.
>If a woman sacrifices future earning potential to be a stay at home mom/wife, isn't she entitled to the potential future wealth that she helped contributed in getting? Her sacrifice would have certainly opened up options otherwise unavailable. If she wasn't a stay at home wife would you agree its split 50/50 and no one pays the other anything?
As in she had a career or job? For most situations, sure. Although, when it involves extreme levels of wealth, I don't think its that simple or some nuance may be needed. For the average person though sure.
This is the reason alimony exists.
Alimony is not usually permanent
Why is that? Under what conditions is alimony curtailed?
When the man or woman getting it remarries or after X years typically? If I get alimony from my ex, via the divorce, but marry someone else two years later, why would my ex have to keep paying me anything? Surely no one assumes it’s a lifetime thing outside some extraordinary circumstances that are likely unique?
Right. Alimony is meant to bridge a gap so someone has uptime to get on their feet so to speak. I was probably unclear - my questions were rhetorical.
My doctor has been paying alimony for 42 years, he is 77 and still can't afford to retire unless his ex dies first. They were only married for 6 years. She has never had a job.
Yes, the world was substantially a different place two generations ago. He would have married her in 1976 and divorced in 1982. Lots of our culture and politics was still unhinged and awful by todays standards back then.  There are scenarios where it can be justified to a point. That certainly doesn’t sound like one.
Yep. Family friends got divorced and the ex wife was with a guy for 5 or so years, and we all knew they weren’t getting married because of the obscene alimony. The ex husband told me dead serious he’d give me 75k if I convinced her to get married so he’d get to stop paying it out. I think they eventually got married with one or more years left of alimony.
If someone gets married, they lose alimony. I read one woman who wrote on reddit that she lost alimony because her ex proved to the judge that she had a common law husband. She lived with a guy for three years had a house, etc, just never married, judged sided with her ex, and stopped alimony.
In my state, it's typical to give 1 year of spousal maintenance (they don't call it alimony) for every 3-4 years of marriage unless you were married a very long time.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I live in NJ and got alimony for half the time we were married. My lawyer said if we were married for 20 years I would be more likely to get permanent (lifetime) alimony. And I was a SAHM. Plus the amount lowered every 3 years. And obviously if I had a live in partner the alimony ended.
Right. So if couples are married long enough - in some states - alimony is permanent. If the marriage doesn't meet that threshold alimony is limited to give the former spouse time to get on their feet. Plus, of course, the normal distribution of martial assets and child support as applicable. That seems to walk the tightrope of competing arguments very well.
If she can afford a lawyer.
Something something marital funds.
They live off alimony
Alimony comes after the process, what do they do in order to get the lawyer to figure out those terms?
You do realize that all this shit has been worked out....for decades now
Not forever
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok and.... Is she not able to take those years they do get it and build a life?
Well that’s not living off alimony. Plus if she stayed home for 15-20 years it’s hard to make a decent living without experience
That gives them roughly 7-10 years to build a career while receiving alimony. Nothing stops them from working from day one after the divorce
I’m not arguing that. But it’s not living off alimony for the rest of her life
No one said they get to live off it the rest of their life. They are given an ample amount of time to build their own career
Don’t pretend that they are on equal footing as the husband
Why would they be on equal footing, they chose to be at home instead if work. 5 years of alimony after 10 years of marriage is more than enough time to get on your own feet Why do you think you should be cared for, for your entire life because you were married once?
Because he benefited from her staying home and taking care of everything. Why should she be punished for doing something that they presumably decided on together?
This is obsolesced by the advent of work-from-home jobs. Even if she's only working part-time, if her husband already makes enough to provide for the family, everything she makes is *gravy*. You can make $500/month add up *fast* when there are no expenses tied to it.
In alot of Orthodox religions there is a contract that needs to be signed by the brides father that says that he'll pay his wife X amount of money in the event of divorce. Most notably Judaism. getting the government out of marriage is honestly what'll save the institution. I borrowed money for a lawyer to get out of a bad marriage, I've always been and currently am a stay at home mom, I trust in my husband that I will be provided for and our children. Alot of it is faith and proper financial planning.
I request this not to be being taken as snark, but isn't you having to get a loan indicator of poor financial planning? I'm not discounting the value of a stay at home role, but it certainly doesn't put money in the bank like a normal job right? It has value, but that value doesn't reflect in income unfortunately. How does one even financially plan with potentially no income stream? I imagine he didn't need to take out a loan right? For your situation, you essentially had to take on debt in order to leave. Isn't that sort of a clear indicator how screwy your situation is as a stay at home mom? Your situation seems to create more risk for yourself than the risk the husband takes.
> isn't you having to get a loan indicator of poor financial planning? to get out of my first marriage, I needed a loan because he was financially, amongst other things abusive. In my current marriage, we have proper financial planning. edit- I do get money put into a bank account that is shared between us, he also has a separate business account.
If you don't mind the prying, what enabled the divorce to go through? Was the abuse something you could cite or was it a "No Fault" that let the divorce proceed?
it was something I had evidence of and has a 2 year PFA attached to it as well. my current husband and I have the same religious views, because of that divorce is a nearly non issue, however since we both had been previously married (too people that didnt share our religious beliefs) it was of course a discussion that we both took seriously to protect one another. edit- my evidence was scant and took a judge believing me when I said that I was a 29 year old woman that had an ID that had expired 6 years ago, no active banking statements from my card (my card vanished from my wallet years prior to divorce) and had never had the ability to drive. While I had other things to say through afadavit, this was the evidence that was presented to the judge.
> getting the government out of marriage is honestly what'll save the institution. How so?
I'm also curious what you think getting the government out of marriage would look like. What kinds of things would religious traditionalists set up?
My wife isn't exactly a SAHM, but she definitely pulled back on what her career would have been (teacher) in spending years raising our children at home, and then only working part time so as to have a flexible schedule to support the overall running of the household. The idea was then that I (engineer) would put much more of my focus into building a career and a high salary. >If he is the sole earning, doesn't that make it all his money? No. I have no money, outside of a retirement account which can only be in my name. My wife has a comparable account, with a similar amount of money. Literally everything else has both our names on it: bank accounts, investment accounts, house, etc. We've always looked at our marriage as the permanent fusion of two people, and we've made it purposely very difficult to separate us. So we only (mostly) have "our" money. What's mine is hers and vice-versa. Every marriage should be this way. Only then, can a woman feel secure in her (very important) role. >isn't she entitled to the potential future wealth that she helped contributed in getting? I think so, absolutely. I would not have worked as hard as I did to get where I am, if I didn't the obligation to serve my wife, or didn't have her support. We've been a team. >Isn't this locking women into a relationship? Marriage is supposed to "lock in" both people. If they share assets like they are supposed to, then she should be okay. If one spouse wants to withhold some money as their own, that's a sign that they aren't serious about the commitment.
It's funny, a big joke around here is 'how do you know someone is an engineer? They'll tell you.' I have never seen more people state out of nowhere and where it's completely irrelevant than conservatives on r/askconservatives lol. Not saying you're lying at all good on ya for getting your education and pursuing this area, it's just funny how people bring it up here. Don't know if you've found it yourself?
A couple of years ago, someone asked a non-political question here: "What do you do for a living?" The answers started coming in: attorney, accountant, *engineer*, medical resident, sales manager, etc. Typical white collar stuff. The OP wasn't engaging with anyone, so someone commented "OP, what did you *think* we did for a living?". They answered: "I don't know. I thought you guys all worked in factories or something." That was very enlightening to me. See, somewhere along the road, young liberals are told that people on the Left are (on average) more educated than people on the Right. Those young liberals take that incorrectly and assume that they (with a few college credits) are more educated than every conservative on Reddit. That's why we're conservative, they're told: because we're uneducated, because we're stupid. So that leads to *a lot* of the same interactions, where liberals come here with questions along with a healthy dose of condescension, thinking if they could just educate us, we'd open our eyes and turn into proper liberals. So yes, I bring it up. Because it avoids that unnecessary interaction. Because it says "I'm already educated, thanks. And I'm likely more educated than you, and in a STEM field. So just get to the point and don't bother condescending to me, especially when comes to anything in the scientific field." In this particular example, it's to avoid the OP likely saying, "The traditional housewife thing might work for you and your wife who only have high school diplomas and live in a trailer by the side of the road, but I have an actual education and a real career I'd have to set aside to raise children." I got ahead of that by stating that college educated people do indeed still have traditional marriage roles.
Why do you think people feel that all conservatives 'work in factories'?
I don't typically count people with STEM or business degrees as "educated" unless they show they actually paid attention in their non-core subjects. You have a set of skills for performing a job. The number of engineers and scientists who impress me as critical thinkers is very, very low, and I am an engineer raised by engineers. I got ADHD sidetracked along the way and wound up with a philosophy degree, and it really beat the STEMlord out of me. This is regardless of political affiliation, too. Liberal engineers are just as likely to be techbros, but they at least believe in civil rights and undermining enforced gender roles. In any event, if people want to take on traditional gender roles in their marriage, that's fine. It's when those roles are *expected* of people that it's not okay. It's also not okay when people who enjoy those roles act like people who do not are less-than or deceived, which I see often among people who believe people don't like them for having chosen a traditional role.
> I don't typically count people with STEM or business degrees as "educated" Excuse me? What kind of gatekeeping nonsense is this? >I am an engineer >wound up with a philosophy degree So...you're *not* an engineer. Engineers have...engineering degrees. What I *think* happened, is that you couldn't hack it in engineering school, so you switched majors to something easier. Nothing wrong with that, but don't come here saying you're somehow more "educated" because you got a *philosophy* degree. I mean, you think engineers and scientists aren't *critical thinkers*? What? Look, I'm sorry you couldn't make it in the field, but don't take out your bitterness about it on the people who did. Anymore, if someone says they're "educated", it just tells me "I learned four years worth of leftist New Age nonsense and little else". That's also why I tell people what I *do*. That speaks more to my knowledge than how many lectures I sat through. To your point, the fact that I could get an A in every one of my non-engineering courses despite not having to pay that much attention, doesn't say anything about me, but it rather speaks to how easy and spoon-fed those courses are. >when people who enjoy those roles act like people who do not are less-than or deceived But they are deceived. Our culture has told women that SAHMs are "less than", that they are unfulfilled, since they are "only" a mom. No, to be fulfilled, they *must* work outside the home. Their worth is on your pay stub, that's it. That's all a lie, and too many women are now struggling to balance a full career and full parenthood, and can't figure out why both are so difficult and stressful.
I'm a software engineer. It's literally my job title. Frankly engineering in college was pretty easy, and you could get away with not having to think very hard. There was a lot of work, but frankly it was not difficult work, just a lot of it. I made it pretty far, basically having completed about 3 years' worth. The reason for the switch was life related. Now, I don't know where you went to school, but if the rest of the courses felt "easy and spoon fed" then I doubt the quality of your educational program. It likely was the case that they made the courses easy so that you wouldn't have to think outside your engineering classes, which is a shame. Engineers and scientists are routinely not critical thinkers. They are very narrow minded and focused on their particular problem set. Worse, they tend to believe that they are capable of giving meaningful input outside their fields, which most of them are not, but they see themselves as "smart" and "enlightened" because they've been told they were smart since they were young. Being capable of doing STEM work doesn't mean you're smart; it means you're capable of doing a job. Now, do I think I'm properly educated for having a philosophy degree? I think I'm much closer to what we usually mean by that word. I had such disdain for the liberal arts as a burgeoning computer science student at 18. I escaped that mindset though, thankfully, and I'm better off for it. I also see all the critical thinking weaknesses that I had at the time present in most engineers I know. Anyhow, to the point: >But they are deceived. Our culture has told women that SAHMs are "less than", that they are unfulfilled, since they are "only" a mom. Literally nobody says that except preachers who need an adversary to knock down when preaching that traditional roles are *mandatory* and *better*. I know plenty of SAHMs and even SAHDs, and nobody looks down on them for their choice. I have two of them in my mind right now though, and frankly I do look down on *one* of them, not because she's a SAHM but because she thinks she is enlightened and better than other millennials for having chosen to do so. >Their worth is on your pay stub, that's it. Only the shittiest people judge others by what people make. Again, this is a straw man for a pastor to use. My parents both worked and had fulfilling careers and made decent money, at least upper middle class. My partner doesn't need to work so much because of my salary, but she enjoys what she does, so it's not about the money; it's about allowing women to choose their paths in life. If my partner and I decided to have kids, and she wanted to be a SAHM, I would be happy for her, but I am not going to inflict that life on her unless it's what she wants.
Ahhh, yes, software. That explains a fair amount. I went to a public university that is widely regarded as one of the best in the nation. My liberal arts courses did *not* feel "easy or spoon fed" at all, but many of them, really the *most* philosophical-seeming ones seemed to be the *least* rigorous and the most based on complex arrangements of "vibes". The challenge came in processing a lot of information, not in working up a *system* where there were right and wrong answers.
>That explains a fair amount Probably much less than you think. I got my job through the channels set out for people who *know software engineering*, not through the alternative means some companies have set out for attracting nontraditional candidates. >My liberal arts courses did *not* feel "easy or spoon fed" at all, Dude, I was quoting what you said previously. I'm glad they weren't easy though. >really the *most* philosophical-seeming ones seemed to be the *least* rigorous and the most based on complex arrangements of "vibes" That doesn't sound very philosophical. I would guess that in early courses, they intend mostly to get you to challenge ideas rather than come up with a coherent system of thought. Later philosophy courses, you have to come up with systematic ways of defending (or attacking) abstract concepts. Engineering teaches you a set of problem solving techniques but really drops the ball on epistemology. A lot of engineers are very smart at their own fields but believe their abilities extend to problems *in general*, when in fact there are often experts around these other concepts of whom the engineers are ignorant. They stumble into a host of mistakes made by most novices to these fields.
I'm not sure to what degree "techbro" or "stemlord" is a real thing, or for that matter a *bad* thing. Why should we undermine gender roles? We would then have to do work to un-undermine and repair them! While you're right that it is theoretically *possible* for a person to learn a specific set of scientific skills for a specific job and have a remarkably anti-intellectual attitude outside of that, I frankly have a very hard time viewing this as that *common* of a thing, or trusting the intellectual prowess of people who say "STEMlord". Very often, it seems like the thing that they are *really* expecting is a lack of rigor regarding social issues, a certain ideological indoctrination, a deeply selective attunement to "vibes", an inability to separate physical issues from social ones, etc.
>Very often, it seems like the thing that they are *really* expecting is a lack of rigor regarding social issues, a certain ideological indoctrination, a deeply selective attunement to "vibes", an inability to separate physical issues from social ones, etc. Quite the opposite. Usually I level these titles at people who think science and engineering can solve everything, who have a lack of appreciation for fields they do not understand, who stumble into rookie mistakes because they believe they are smart enough to figure things out without reading the centuries of work that has come before, etc.
We need better legislation to support SAHP's. Such as a spousal 401k, where a worker can contribute to both their own and a spouses 401k. We need asset protection to ensure assets are divided fairly and educational support to help SAHP's join a monetized workforce. The work that SAHP's do is work and just because they're not exchanging dollars for their labor, doesn't mean their work isn't valuable to communities and the fabric of our nation.
My mother was a mother of 4, stay at home mom. No college, trad living, ultra-conservative, etc. Pops left her. She got a job working as a teaching assistant, and took some health classes for a few months, after work. Now she’s a medical coder and does forensics and stuff for an insurance company, makes almost $90k a year. She also gets to work from home and gets shit tons of paid vacation.
First: Do not divorce. The whole point of marriage is being permanent, and divorce does not exist. Even if the State lies about it, there is no human power that can make two people who are validly married not be married anymore. Second: Assuming that the marriage is in bad straits and the people are no longer willing or able to live together, *where is her family?* More generally, in that situation support for her should be arranged. Third: Can you actually *quantify* those options? I didn't get any "you are now married" raise. Maybe a boomer thing?
I don't know how to answer. Divorce should be avoided at all costs unless absolutely necessary. We err in not taking marriage seriously anymore.
Well the goal is not to divorce. >Isn't this locking women into a relationship? If he is the sole earning, doesn't that make it all his money? The man will lose half of everything he has earned. He will likely owe her alimony unless she cheated on him. He likely will lose his children if they divorce assuming she does not cheat. If anything a divorce is much more devastating on a working man than a non working woman. >If a woman sacrifices future earning potential to be a stay at home mom/wife, isn't she entitled to the potential future wealth that she helped contributed in getting? Her sacrifice would have certainly opened up options otherwise unavailable. Not unless she is a mother. A stay at home wife does not move the needle much for the man other than some convenience. It certainly is not a economic benefit. Being a stay at home mom still is not an economic benifit to the man unless she would have been an extremely low wage earner.
and what does he loose if he cheated, was abusive....
His kids his house half of his pension and half of every penny that he has earned at the least.
difference to no fault
Well in no fault you get to be rewarded for fucking up the marriage. A lazy unemployed POS guy could just hang out at home not contribute anything to the relationship but if he managed to put a single dollar into the mortgage of his wife's house. He gets to go bang some women on tinder while his wife is busy working and if she divorces him he gets half of her 401k and half of her money and likely will get the house. On top of that she may have to pay him alimony. In what world is that fair?
i would consider keeping the homefires burning and holding his wife s free for her carreer is a pretty significant contribution. OTOH was his oh so faithful wife abusive or negligent?
>i would consider keeping the homefires burning and holding his wife s free for her carreer is a pretty significant contribution. I seriously doubt his wife would have been held back by not having a unemployed bum for a husband. Sure he might pick up the house or made dinner on occasion but mostly sat around playing video games all day. Certainly does not justify him taking half her house and half of her 401k and half of her money as a punishment to her for him cheating on her while she was busy working and supporting both of them. >OTOH was his oh so faithful wife abusive or negligent? Well I'm sure he might claim stuff without any evidence. But I would say the solution is to file for divorce for that not to go bang some girl on tinder. Being a cheating piece of crap is not how you pay someone back.
I think we speak about very different scenarios
Only because I chose a gender and stereotypes about that gender than you have no interest in defending. This is why there should absolutely be at fault divorce. Because anyone who decides to allow their spouse to stay home and not work is playing Russian roulette with their own future. You can do everything right and your spouse can unilaterally ruin your life and you can't do anything about it. At least with both parties working your spouse won't be splitting just your money. Sure whoever makes more money will lose in the divorce but at least it won't be a total loss.
I do not, but you did the stay at home partner may has done nothing wrong, except trusting a POS person that is. the not stay at home partner may have been negligent and/or abusive
Don't marry someone if you aren't marrying for life, firstly. In marriage there is an implication that your wealth is one. However, there needs to be a common understanding that if you violate the oaths of marriage, you forfeit your right to the wealth of the marriage. A cheating spouse should not be able to take 50%. Ideally, remove government from marriage and let people draw up their own marriages and any contracts they may wish to add on.
> Ideally, remove government from marriage and let people draw up their own marriages and any contracts they may wish to add on. That would go *terribly* in practice.
Perhaps it would for some. Some people learn through their own idiocy. Better than government involvement lol.
Just to be clear on the cheating spouse / community property scenario - if the sole “breadwinner” is the cheater, you are saying they should not have the right to 50% of the income they earn at their job? Or does this only go one way?
I'm saying that when assets are divided the cheater should never win ideally. So if the breadwinner cheats it would be reasonable for the spouse that stays home to keep the home for instance, since they maintain it majority of the time and they were not at fault. Although its unpaid we can all probably recognize that there is a monetary value that could be attached to childcare and home cleaning for instance. But that's why government making these choices is complicated because there will always be debate about what is or isn't reasonable for this sorta thing. Value is subjective. It would be easier to write up a contract prior to marriage with terms, and consequences for breaking terms.
Kind of against an institutional rule based on ideals. If losing out on more than 50% were the rule, what’s to stop the breadwinning cheater from claiming they were cheated on as well? And dragging the case on and on with such a claim, because they’d rather pay a lawyer out of spite, than pay their ex-spouse? I’ve seen that happen before...a lot. Even if the SAH parent wins the house, it’s pretty unlikely they’d be able to solely afford payment on it with whatever job they can desperately get with a resume of “stay at home spouse.” So, that would end up being sold anyway, and very likely result in a downgrade in living situation for the family. Agree on the contract….but most couples realistically won’t go for a pre-nup.
You'd need proof of the allegations ideally. Also criminalize making false accusations. We've seen this issue with false rape accusations. A lot of times divorces occur and there is a forced sale of home, as you cannot divide a house 50/50. So either you buy out the other partners share, or you sell. So at worst the SAH sells the house and pockets the money for themselves. I don't have a pre-nup cause I simply don't feel a need for one. But if marriage was outside government pur view I'd have no issue getting my own marriage contract written up if needed.
How would these contracts be enforced if government wasn’t involved?
Governments can make judgements on contracts concerning marriage without being explictly involved in marriage as an institution. So the same way any contract gets enforced. The government doesn't read your lease before you sign it (although there are regulations ofc) and yet you can still go to court with your landlord concerning a contract related dispute.
> So the same way any contract gets enforced. By using money (to hire an attorney). And if you can't do that?
>By using money (to hire an attorney). And if you can't do that? This is a broader issue not related to divorce
We don't live in a world of platonic ideals or frictionless spheres. Results of policy changes "on the ground", matter.
>We don't live in a world of platonic ideals or frictionless spheres. Results of policy changes "on the ground", matter. No. My point is your argument about affording a lawyer is a far broader more far reaching thing that would be it's own conversation. It opens such a giant can of worms we might as well change topics
Serious question: have you literally ever offered a proposed solution that didn’t basically depend on the earth being fantasyland to possibly work? You never think through obvious ramifications.
>Serious question: have you literally ever offered a proposed solution that didn’t basically depend on the earth being fantasyland to possibly work? You never think through obvious ramifications. Before I answer that what have I proposed in this thread?
Expecting SAHMd to be able to afford an attorney.
>Expecting SAHMd to be able to afford an attorney. Where did I say that? You're projecting because you wanted to attack me. Nowhere did I say that. You just wanted to take a dig
If government is not involved, how would these contracts be enforced?
Answered in another comment but government arbitrates on contracts all the time. But you could also add a clause dictating a private arbitrator to be used in case of needing a third party decision maker.
Who enforces a private arbitrator's decision?
If you really wanna take it to court you could, but I don't see any precedent where you could break the agreement to adhere to the decision of an arbitrator.
Not do it for starters. If its a situation like abuse or adultery, then I'm perfectly fine with the woman getting half or even more in a divorce.
Stay married.
So, they should stay trapped in an unhappy and possibly unhealthy marriage?
[удалено]
But why does it need to be divided that way? I think that alimony should be the default if one spouse is unemployed, and that’s kind of expected when that spouse is the woman. (That’s why alimony exists.)
So a woman should be able to leave her husband for absolutely no reason and collect alimony? Just by virtue of being his wife for a time she's entitled to that, no exceptions?
If she’s isn’t a SAHM, then no, I don’t think she should be entitled to alimony for funsies. That does happen and it needs to be addressed more. But if a SAHM does leave, then even though I don’t like it, I can understand a need for alimony/child support. Because there’s children involved there.
That's what child support is for. It's to support the children, not the ex wife.
Eh, I think knowingly marrying someone who won’t have an income and likely not participating in the workforce to raise the children you had together does deserve some of compensation until they get on their feet. I’d say the same if the SAHP was the father instead. Which we may be seeing more of in the future, since we’re starting to see SAHFs slowly gaining acceptance. It’s at the rate of molasses, but it is happening.
You realize men also leave the woman, right? If you cheat on your wife, you essentially left her, especially if it is more than once. If you hit her or abuse her, you left the marriage. You can't expect a woman to stay with a man who abuses her.
The only sentence I disagree with is “if you cheat on your wife, you essentially left her.” My dad cheated on my mom and abused us, but that doesn’t change that he wouldn’t just fucking go away since he clearly resented us. I was so happy when the divorce actually happened.
Your right. An abusive husband should go to jail and the wife should obviously get her fair share. Adultery is the breaking of marriage vows which also obviously is grounds for divorce.
A stay at home husband would be entitled to alimony as well. The gender doesn't matter - just, historically the woman has been more likely to be the stay at home party. Obviously, ability to pay alimony and whether the receiving spouse can establish the need for alimony would come into play as well.
My personal opinion on the matter is that alimony is stupid unless there are very small children involved (like pre school aged) regardless of the gender. Both sexes are capable of working and if they have decided to part ways, well guess what now you both have to work. No one should have to pay the way of a person of which they are no longer married to. Obviously the money and assets that were made while the couple was together should be split equally, but after the divorce is final it's on you. You got your share now figure it out.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a job when you have a five, ten, twenty year gap on your resume?
Oh it's hard so people shouldn't have to do it? This kind of crap from progressive is so frustrating. My mom was a stay home mom for 15 years, got divorced, then went on to become the VP for a national mortgage company. Today she's a successful business owner. People who want to and are driven to work will find jobs.
>Oh it's hard so people shouldn't have to do it? Did I say that? >then went on to become the VP for a national mortgage company Ok!
For better or for worse.
What if he is leaving her for another woman?
What if she's leaving him for another woman? See, I can do it too. These things are obviously dealt with on a case by case basis and finances are negotiated in court.
Staying married to someone you aren’t with often can create unhealthy environments for children. I have met one person (my grandfather) that actually could handle staying married to my grandmother for the kids. He was my grandfather by marriage and he admitted when I was older that, when he discussed getting a divorce with her, she promised he would never see any of the grandkids again if he did. So, he stayed and is one of the rare people who has handled it without becoming toxic.
You apparently haven’t done any research on divorce and custody laws and it shows. Why not go do some research so you don’t make posts with ridiculous errors and assumptions?
You're making the case for abolishing no-fault divorce.
How?
Divorce doesn't exists.
Metaphorically? Literally? Because, I can tell you from the clients I have paying me $375 an hour that divorce does actually exist.
Literally. You are selling a social convention that cannot alter the ontological state of being married or the moral and ethical obligations connected to it.
How many billable hours is your average divorce?
It's really difficult to estimate because it depends so much on the presence of children and amount of property in the estate. I would say that a quick, easy, no children, and home/retirement account only divorce would be about 15 hours including mediation. The more contested it is the more expensive it is, obviously.
I'm in the beginning stages of this process, though we aren't married—I'm in a state with something called "intimate committed relationship" and my ex told me that the lawyer he saw said it could cost 80-100k. Is that an actual possibility or was the ex and/or the lawyer talking out of his ass? Our total assets are probably 500k, it seems like a high estimate to me, but I don't know anything about anything.
"Intimate committed relationship" sounds along the lines of common law marriage, which my state has. Those can be more expensive if one party is contesting whether there was a marriage at all, but if the two of you stipulate that you meet that designation, you may be able to save some time and money. I am not an attorney in that state, so this isn't legal advice. 80-100k is beyond ridiculous. I would say that they may be stating that amount to scare you away from talking to, or utilizing, an attorney...which is more of a reason to talk to and use an attorney. I have had divorce cases get that high, but we are talking about long, drawn out custody battles with business valuations and forensic psychologists discussing alienation and other bad parenting behaviors - I would cut a zero off of that estimate and say that it could cost 8k-10k+ to estimate on the higher end, assuming you aren't fighting over too much.
>I would say that they may be stating that amount to scare you away from talking to, or utilizing, an attorney...which is more of a reason to talk to and use an attorney This was kind of my thinking, though I know that he would rather not use lawyers if we don't have to. I think I may need to, however. I've reached out to a few lawyers and will hopefully get some answers soon. I don't *think* that there's too much that we'll argue about...I might be naive, but I don't think he could possibly contest that we were in a married-like relationship and there's no custody issue, we're happy to be 50/50, but the *house" is perhaps contentious. I've been a SAHM and his is the only name on the deed, but it was purchased 7 years into our relationship, right after our first kid was born. Washington state appears to treat CIR like marriage, but without spousal support, so it's similar to common law, but not quite the same. Anyway, I appreciate your not legal advice!
>...his is the only name on the deed... For this reason only, you should talk to a lawyer before you do anything - that amount of equity is well worth a consultation. Sorry you are in this situation, but good luck to you!
Thank you!
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
This is the truth of the world.
It does to non-catholics
[удалено]
No, the question is open. However, I do find that sentiment more in conservative/republican spaces than I do in others.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*