It seems easier to get along with someone who has a career and therefore similar goals and troubles and life-rhythm.
And a wife with a career is less likely to look for long term alimony in the event of a divorce.
In my case, it forced me to rejig my career plans and strike out on my own. I'm far, far, far better off for having done so (and so, more importantly, is my family), but at the time, it did seem like the end of the world.
Thankfully the person I married is far more willing to face my ambitions and discuss compromises and other options. We've run the gamut from me pursuing med school to SAHM-hood (and SAHD for him, too) - which, despite society generally looking down on childrearing, I think it's possible and great for someone to be ambitious about it.
Alimony is a bit amusing to consider from my perspective, then. It's being seen here and elsewhere as a bit of a "woman takes my hard-earned money" thing. I could easily think the opposite! I'm not sure all these people would necessarily appreciate being on the end of that kind of criticism if they made any sacrifices for my ambition that created an imbalance :) And with my relationship and aiming to work with my partner as much as possible for the benefit of our family, I wouldn't begrudge spousal support so easily, even if we split acrimoniously.
The reason alimony is unfair is marriage is a two way street and alimony is not.
I work 60+ hours a week in a high stress role. I come home at 6pm and spend a couple of hours playing with my kids.
Then my wife gets them ready for bed while I do another hour or so of work.
Finally around 9 or 930pm I sit down with my wife and we relax together for another hour or so.
What would happen if we divorced?
I'd get to see my kids every second weekend and I'd lose all my emotional support.
Without my partners support I couldn't handle my 60+ hours of high stress work each week. And I'd like to see my kids more often.
I could easily take a 60% pay cut and drop my hours to a sustainable 25-30/week but I'll end up in prison due to my states alimony laws.
Personally, I went from "she's slacking while I'm busting my ass" to "we are both very, very tired at the end of the day for very good reasons". The mutual increase in respect and empathy afterwards was noticeable.
> Without my partners support I couldn't handle my 60+ hours of high stress work each week.
So within the marriage, they're perfectly happy with the split (or at least that's a reasonable read of their comment).
They're saying that if a divorce happened, alimony laws would require them to continue working long hours to keep up their income, even though they lost the partnership benefits of the marriage that make such a workweek possible.
My wife supports and enables me to be ambitious and handle high stress work.
Without my wife I couldn't handle it and would burn out in months. But the legal system doesn't care.
My point is if we did divorce I would be screwed by the legal system whereas my wife would be supported by the legal system.
How is that fair?
[1] Note use of "us" and not "other". You aren't putting the other person on a pedestal here!
I was talking about this with my girlfriend recently. She's leaving the city in a year to do graduate studies. I'm a mostly location independent entrepreneur. But, leaving Canadian tax residency is complicated, and there are some big advantages to the fixed office setup I have here, because I do some video production.
I was thinking of keeping my residence here, but frequently traveling to visit her. There's some types of work I can do quite easily on the go. I'll only find out how well that works once we actually do it.
How did you arrange things?
My wife eventually got a really good professorship halfway around the world. We had a couple of titanic fights about what taking this job would entail -- and we eventually came to the conclusion that we would come out ahead if I quit and started my own company. I'm concentrating on building a portfolio of services now that will provide cashflow for a bigger project later on -- and it's going well. I get to play with the kids all day, write code when I feel like it (mostly late at night) and focus on getting healthier (I've lost about 20 pounds in the last year...no more stress eating on the job). Location doesn't matter because Internet: last year we spent 8 months in Doha, 2 months bumming around Europe and 1 each with family in Los Angeles and Bangladesh.
Honestly, I'm surprised more techies don't go down this road.
Wonder why doesn't everyone just do it? It's so easy, right?
I'm not comfortable disclosing my personal situation in any greater detail in public -- but I'm happy to chat about it over email if you are interested!
A remote working dev has the flexibility to earn a good keep while also letting their partner have the more rigid location and schedule.
I seriously suspect a lot of jabs directed at feminism would die away if more men took paternity leave and used it as directed (and not, say, as a way to goof off for an extended period of time).
The other issue is location/lifestyle: even if all else is agreed, it often becomes impossible to decide where to live (or to stay in one place) when both partners are ambitious.
I am not passing value judgement here - different strokes for different folks. But the strokes must match for a married couple, if it is going to work out.
But I advise against mentioning gender. Turning it into a gender-issue is going to make people dislike and downvote you and kill any hope for reform.
It's also unfair to women who pay alimony (my half-sister for example).
The real problem is a divorce system laden with incentives for couples to rip each other to shreds, with lawyers and others (follow the money) only too happy to help. Watch 'Divorce Corp' on Netflix. It may change the way you think about marriage and divorce in the United States.
Birds do this better than human beings and that's why they are usually bond for life. It is expensive to raise offsprings and it is not worth expending energy to gather resources to raising offsprings that aren't your own.
So..from a game theory point of view..it is not about divorces or alimony but the ability or inclination(or lack thereof) to be monogamous.
Earliest mention of alimony occurs in the code of Hammurabi..wherein a man shall return the dowry of the woman along with a portion of his property ..but only when the woman has borne his offsprings. And until the children have been reared and the property/monies split evenly amongst mother and children, she cannot seek another suitor or marital partner or have other children.
Alimony comes from necessity ..it is necessary in a society that is rife with inequalities. If men and women were equal in a marriage, there would be no need for alimony.
In the olden days, a woman entered a marriage with a dowry. In gold or currency or property. The dowry was meant to be her financial nest egg and the man has no rights over it. Entire dynasties and kingdoms were based on marriages and dowries.
And then it was the time of churches to decree what is moral and what wasn't. Divorces were all initially only due to infidelity and often by the man. Alimony became a safeguard so a man wouldn't profit from his philandering ways. If the fault lies with the woman, the woman forfeits the right to collect alimony.
With no fault divorces in our modern times, alimony became part of the divorce settlement. If we don't have divorces, there won't be alimonies..if we don't have a marriages, there won't be divorces.
Therefore, the only way eliminate gender inequalities is to eliminate the institution of marriage.
Times have changed. What if..as a thought experiment, we revamp all manners of social contracts. We will have to reconsider the basic human right to procreate to perpetuate the species. It should become a responsibility and a privilege to be earned..not a birthright to be exercised by all. And also eliminate the institution of marriage.
Thoughts?
That being said, while I agree that historically marriage was all about children I do think there are social benefits to bonded pairs which extend beyond raising children. For example, single people are more likely to commit crimes.
...explicitly for the woman.
I understand that there's men who don't, but it really feels like they're either hung up on weird gender norms or trying to find a method of asserting dominance.