Originally Posted by jeffb
Of course it is which is why i said it goes both ways, i know a woman in my family who divorced her husband, they had two kids together.Anyway he's been paying support and everything for about 13yrs now. Well both kids are 18+, one is in University. She said to me a few months ago that once he doesn't have to pay for his kids anymore (once they're out of school) that she was gonna go after her ex's pension. I asked her why, she said "because i can".
With women like this, I think they are likely being influenced by divorce lawyers, and like most professional groups, lawyers will seek conditions that are good for business. What makes attorneys a little scary compared to say, engineers or salespeople, is that 1) they know how to lobby for change to the legal system, bypassing voters and previously established policy that secures more revenue for them, and b) what benefits them is often directly harmful to the fabric of society in general, and to children in particular.
I really find interesting too the bogus claims by the females seeking alimony that women suffer under divorce, and thus should be reimbursed. This is designed to obscure the fact that she is the one who filed for divorce!
Defenders of alimony too insist that a woman seeking a divorce should not see a drop in living standards, but it is somehow acceptable for the husband to see a drop even if he did not want a divorce. I would go further and declare that any belief that women deserve alimony on a no-fault basis in this day age is utterly contradictory to the belief that women are equals of men. You shouldn't need a prenup, these are atavistic scripts that should be vestigial.
How can women both deserve alimony while also claiming equality? Yes, in rare cases, high-earning women have had to pay alimony to ex-husbands, but that is only 4% of the time, vs. the man paying 96% of the time. I see little equality, just a lot of pretense.