this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
654 points (100.0% liked)
Memes @ Reddthat
1127 readers
1 users here now
The Memes community. Where Memes matter the most.
We abide by Reddthat's Instance Rules & the Lemmy Code of Conduct. By interacting here you agree to these terms.
Rules
- No NSFW content
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just for some pretext here: I'm not trying to defend this woman because I know nothing about her.
That being said and just for everyone's information, there is a scenario in which what she said is logical and fair.
It used to be that women were not allowed to have careers and some people still choose to practice that. So the women agree when entering into the marriage that they'll be homemakers and the husband will earn money and take care of her. If the husband doesn't keep up his end of the duties in that arrangement and they wind up being divorced then she now has no means to provide for herself. This is why alimony was initially created, so that women who were forced (or in the modern day chose) to be homemakers weren't absolutely fucked in the case of divorce.
Again, I'm not saying that's what's happening here, I have no idea, but I just wanted to provide some potential context because I find a lot of talk about alimony and divorce online often just dumps on women as being greedy and that's just not fair in every situation.
I gotta say though, it sure looks that way in this situation, especially with her talking about cheating on her husband, but again, who knows, maybe he's not holding up his end, maybe he's physically or emotionally abusive, we just don't know.
Alimony is off the table when infidelity can be proved in court. This was the case even when alimony was super common back in the 80s and 90s.
If you were a homemaker seeking divorce you could get alimony without being a perfect person, but infidelity was one of the few instant "no"s in divorce court.
The original intent behind alimony was to compensate a homemaker who had put their career on hold and essentially trashed their resume. They'd permanently hobbled their earning potential for the marriage and the marriage fell apart.
It only became possible to even think of alimony as supplemental income in the 90s and early 2000s when judges were handing decisions to women almost as a matter of course. It took a decade or two before divorce courts (and family courts) started to chill out and look at things a little more objectively, but even during the bad old days infidelity was the one thing that every single judge would throw the book at you for.
It’s just so fucking painful to imagine. Being cheated on feels fucking awful. Then having to permanently pay someone who did that to you. Also, if that cheating was the cause of the divorce, then that means they’re not just taking money from you, that person took your marriage from you.
So you’re sexually violated, lose your most valuable relationship, and then you have to pay the person who did it to you like they’re your landlord.
That is entirely untrue for divorce in Ontario, and probably other parts of Canada. Spousal support and divorce settlements in general have nothing to do with infidelity. No-fault divorce is available after 1 year of separation. For the financials the court uses a formula based on length of marriage and relative incomes as their guideline.
Good for Ontario for learning from the clusterfuck down South.
Bad for Ontario for creating a strict formula with no caps that doesn't consider the possibility that the man might not be making as money later in his career. Dave Foley got a divorce when he was at the top of his career, but since he's not on TV anymore and not making anywhere near the money he was getting when he was on TV. His alimony payments are higher than his income now, the judge admitted this, but the law didn't consider this as a possibility. Last I heard he can't return to Canada or he'll be arrested.
So it's a poorly written law.
She's a published author. That's called having a career.
It's pretty obvious she has a career writing magazine articles complaining about her life, so she should have some sort of income, and alimony shouldn't count. Never mind all of the infidelity that everyone else is mentioning.
If writing on medium is a career then I'm a professional lemming
LOL, "pretext" is right.
Even if she was a stay-at-home wife, then she would get half the husband's assets. So she shouldn't be dirt poor
Unless all he had was dirt
Its sad that your perfectly logical and objective comment got downvoted. Thanks for speaking truth that people dont want to hear.
Not in countries with no fault divorce laws.
Except it's perfectly clear that she has a career as a published author.
There's really just no way of knowing what could have happened to end their relationship. Truly one of the worlds biggest puzzles.
We are totally ok with that truth. It just isn't relevant here. Especially given the 4th headline "I divorced my husband because I couldn't trust him with my money". It seems like her financial troubles and his lack of financial troubles had nothing to do with the state of their finances during the marriage. And if alimony is involved at all, it would be a contributor to her post divorce financial problems, as it sounds like she would be the one paying if there is any.