Because a man has supported a housewife financially he should keep doing so after she files for divorce?

Question

I dont get this reasoning, how does a woman benefitting from the generosity of the husband justifies that she keeps getting supported after 20 years of marriage or so ? She didnt have to work for all this time, why cant she get a job at McDonalds. The issue isnt so much weather or not she should be supported its the reasoning that irks me. She didnt work for 20 years and because she payed all the bills for 20 years he should keep doing that after divorce, because she "sacrified her career" (which was her decision to stay at home and have him worry about money). How can that be used as a reasoning to demand he keeps paying ? It doesnt make any sense at all. I dont go to apple and say your ads make me want the Iphone therefore I deserve a free one.

Answer 1

Not at all.  Especially if she filed.  If you divorce the man, you divorce the bank account.

EDIT- Ha, ha.  Thanks.  I don't think I will be making the laws, but I hopefully have influence over those that will in the future.  Just give them about 20 years...they'll come around.

Answer 2

Rant.

Answer 3

it was their joint decision for her to stay at home. there should be a time period of him helping her, but not for very long. maybe until the divorce is final. ESPECIALLY if SHE filed for divorce...

if HE filed for divorce, then he should be required to support her for much longer, maybe while she goes back to school to get a career or something.

if she filed, then she'd know what was coming & could make provisions, so i don't think she should expect much help at all.

BUT if he filed, then she may not have known what was coming & that's more like abandonment. she'd have no time to make provisions to support herself. in that instance, i think the man should support her for a much longer time.

Answer 4

because a lot of us men are still this d**n dumb as to still let the wife be a stay at home wife! It is not like this is all new and unknown to us you know. We go into it knowing this and yet are so stupid as to thank " no that wont happen to me".

Answer 5

So many people get angry over this , but this woman was very comfortable with the lifestyle she and her husband shared...which means the courts or going to ensure she still has this lifestyle even if they get a divorce.and thats vice versa also..alimony gets people everytime.

Answer 6

"which was her decision to stay at home...." You don't make a decision like that by yourself. He would have had to say, yes, you stay home, I'll go earn the money. She would have run the house and managed the money. He should help her (like Rio said) until she's back in the game.

Answer 7

'benefiting from the genorisity of the husband' - from personal experience of my parents, being a housewife and full time mother is a much harder and phsycially demanding job than a 9-5 cushy office number.

Answer 8

I don't think we have an alimony law in Alabama.. I may be wrong..

I can't say I know anyone receiving alimony.

In cases especially where the stay at home spouse (male or female) filed.. I don't think they should continue to get to live off of the ex-spouse.

It is not that hard to get out and get a job.

Answer 9

In all fairness, it makes all the sense in the world.  Being a SAHM or SAHD, forfeiting career to make a loving and comfortable home for a spouse and children, is priceless.  SO as it now stands, the SATM or SAHD should be entitled to some compensation for staying home.

Also, neither should have to work at barely subsistence wages after a divorce.  They must work outside the home, especially if any children have flown the coup, but should be able to maintain some semblance of the life style they helped build. The breadwinner should not have to pay his/her entire life, but to selfishly benefit from years of promotions and salary increases at the expense of, or not sharing it with, the supporting spouse is just not fair.

Answer 10

That's why women should work, so they're never dependant on their husband to the point they are crippled if they split.

And you're assuming that it was her decision to stay at home. You don't know what circumstances lead to her being a housewife. Maybe she had young children, maybe her husband d**n near insisted she stay at home and cook. You just don't know, every situation is different.

I don't understand how in one instance the people here will praise the work of a housewife and call it one of the most difficult jobs and in the next say she was lucky she didn't have to work, call her lazy and then demand she suddenly aquire work skills and join the ranks.

20 years of domesticity isn't something you can put on a resume.

Answer 11

This doesn't mention whether or not there are children involved.  If there are no children and she files, I see no reason why her husband should support her.  If there are children under 18 and custody is granted to her most of the time, it makes sense for the father to pay some reasonable amount towards food, clothes, keep, etc.

To me, the underlying difference in this case is that the husband did not want her to stay at home.  If it had been a mutual decision, then I think that some sort of living allowance for a specified period to give her time to establish herself in the work force would not be unreasonable.  

The husband did reap benefits of having the wife at home assuming that she did household chores.  He had someone to cook for him, clean for him, take care of the family expenses, etc.  These are valuable tasks that would either have cost him time or money if he were single.

Answer 12

If it happened the other way around feminists would be screaming about The Tyranny of The Patriarchy.

Answer 13

I worked all throughout my marriage, but the option of alimony was available to me since I made less than my ex.  I didn't take it because I truly do not believe that anyone should have to pay for anyone else upon divorce.  Children should be paid for, and women are not children.  It was BOTH partner's choice for the woman not to work, though, so a period of time to help the woman get on her feet would be reasonable--but years and years of alimony?  That is ridiculous and it infantilizes women.  In my view, alimony should be abolished...it seems that too many men are getting taken by this outdated and arcane way of thinking and it is far too easy for the people receiving alimony (almost always women) to take advantage of this "free money."

Answer 14

Too many people look at marriage as some sort of career investment. They figure if they put in a short amount of time, they're entitled to a retirement plan. Unless a married couple shared a business, you should walk out of a married with what you put into it. There should always be finality in a divorce.

Answer 15

Alimony should be there until she/he has sufficient education/ training or refreshing of her employability skills for her (or him) to survive at more than a subsistence level.   It is not the generosity of the husband that they lived this way- it is a decision they made together for the benefit of their family.    She did work - keeping a home and tending children is work.    

Alimony is not forever unless the person is disabled.  (Some courts have said 4 years.)    

Thankfully most judges see things as I do.    Divide the assets of the marriage, give subsistence alimony for a limited term, if necessary,  and base child support on that.

Answer 16

He SHOULDN'T keep supporting the housewife, but mainly the CHILDREN.  That's the only valid reason for any kind of financial support to the other half aftera  divorce....benefits to the children, which of course is at times abused anyway as sometimes the children don't get to reap the full amount of those rewards.

Yea i don't see where they have to be supported ESPECIALLY if there isn't any children involved. She's a grown *ss woman she can take care of herself....but then again it DOES depend on the decisions of the household too.  I mean if the guy WANTED her to be a housewife then he has to take SOME blame since he put her in a situation where if a divorce happened she wouldn't be able to get an easy transition to a single life....that's like adopting a child and then he's a problem child and you just drop him off the side of the street with some money and call it a day.  

But if it wasn't his decision, then that would be HER fault for not having her own savings account for those 'just in case' situations.  I told my wife I love her to death, but in the scenario that we ever break up or if i die and somehow we don't get any kind of money she still gets some kind of savings, or job resume and/or degrees for her career, because h**l even if we didn't divorce and i end up becoming crippled in some form or manner she'll end up having to cover for us during that time...and bein a housewife ain't gonna cut it.

In regards to children yes it's a 24/7 job to care for children, and again it's understandable to have to support her to take care of the children.  Again if ther'es no children involved though pfft...no.  Now as far as who works harder, i'm sorry if you're in the military and have to work 12-18 hour shifts (if you're lucky) while dealing with the hot *ss desert, getting fired at AND or out on the d**n flight line workin on hot *ss planes, then have to room with a bunch of stinky roommates after the fact and that's not even half the mess one who is deployed goes through while your significant other stays at home with air conditioning, a nice house or apartment, cable, decent internet, and a walmart i'm sorry.....being a 24/7 housewife is not as hard as that....maybe harder than a desk job, but not manual labor or combat labor in comparison to that? No.  There are some jobs the housewife will not win that battle....and if it does then you got some bad*ss kids that you can't maintain well.  

And in your case if it was her decision to stay at home and be a housewife she didn't sacrifice sh*t she CHOSE to live that life....and how could she sacrifice her career? What for the children or because she liked bein a housewife? It's only your fault for not encouraging her to continue her career, but like any advice it's HER choice to make the move, so she can blame you for that c**p.  

But as long as the need for child support exists you're gonna have to support her, if children aren't the issue then that's just the law being f*cked up.

Answer 17

You are ignoring the value of unpaid labor  (again).

Assuming no children in the marriage, the spouse at home has contributed 20 years of cleaning, laundry, cooking and personal shopping services.   Therefore the at home spouse contributed materially to the marriage and is entitled to a PROPORTIONAL settlement in a divorce.  Add up the market value of those services, and there's your settlement.

Alimony is TEMPORARY, to allow a person to develop marketable skills for self-sustaining employment when the person has sacrificed those things as a condition of marriage.  Everyone knows that the wages McDonalds pays are not "self-sustaining" income.

Answer 18

The main premise of alimony is to maintain  in the lifestyle in which  she (the wife) is accustomed.  Following that rule, shouldn't she then be responsible to go to his home and continue fulfilling her housekeeping duties? Doesn't the husband deserve to have the in lifestyle which he was accustomed to maintained?

Child support is one thing, but ones duty to ones ex is a completely one-sided absurdity.

Answer 19

Only until she gets on her own two feet. This is the only instance in which I support alimony. It's more for the good of her and the kids than it is for the good of just her. Another argument for maintaining separate finances.

Several decades ago, only financial contributions to a marriage were considered upon divorce, even if the wife helped out the husband's business by working in it or shouldering all the duties at home. Is that fair?

Answer 20

Even if the woman works a "cushy 9-5 office job" like her husband. He would still end up having to pay her money after the divorce. To me most of the feminists should be PO'd about this seeing as the court systems think you arent able to take care of yourselves without an allowance from a male. And what about the male who didnt work a cushy office job and risked death and dismemberment on a daily basis just to feed his family?