Wednesday, December 19, 2007

It's so Twentieth Century...

Alimony, that is.

Dr. Helen raises some good points. It's getting to where it looks silly to wave the equality flag with one hand while holding the other one out for the payoff. I think it needs to be highly situational, and very short-term at best. Else, why keep the bull when you can divorce it for free at a profit?

5 comments:

GeorgeH said...

I don't see a marriage as that different from a business partnership. A career can be an asset developed by the partnership and each can be entitled to a share of the future income stream. Then again, one of the partners can just be a leech that needs a cigarette pressed to it's ass.

OA said...

"It's getting to where it looks silly to wave the equality flag with one hand while holding the other one out for the payoff."

Same goes for how women are treated by the courts in criminal cases.

kbarrett said...

Alimony should only be about compensation for total lifetime income lost by staying home to raise sprogs.

There is no other need for it ... certainly not as an automatic benefit for being female.

Timmeeee said...

Tam, you are so liberated and progressive, yet conservative all at the same time.

Women like you should be allowed to vote. ;)

jimbob86 said...

Unless you are part of a traditional couple interested in raising children in a stable, 2 parent household, there is no point at all in getting married...... free milk and cows and all that...... and if raising kids in that traditional 2 parent household is the whole point of the excerise, Divorce is not an option.