Alimony is a carryover from an obsolete type of limited divorce, a mensa et thoro, wherein the husband was still liable for the wife’s support; an early form of separate maintenance.  It wasn’t applicable to absolute divorce, a vinculo matrimonii, but it is so in modern times.  Its purpose before emancipation was to support destitute, incapacitated ex-wives.  Now it has become corrupted into the notion that an ex-wife “has a right (in the words of one judge) to continue to live in the manner to which she has become accustomed” (by her husband)…  It is considered to be “in the nature of a pension.”  This post facto service charge is, as the saying goes, “the screwing you get for the screwing you got.”

The claim that women give men the best years of their lives is nonsense.  It’s a horse apiece; men give the same and don’t ask for stud fees when it’s over.  An argument for alimony is that husbands owe money to wives for ‘services rendered.’ 

Eulogies have been prepared purporting to list the monetary value of a wife to a husband.  According to Reuters Limited. an informal study conducted by Web site shows that stay-at-home moms would earn an average of $131,471 annually, including overtime, if they received a paycheck.  Ridiculous, considering her husband may earn only $35,000 a year.  Such preposterous claims assume that all the alleged benefits somehow accrue to the husband alone, an insult to the greatest recipients, women and children.  Nowhere are there listings of her cost.  Including reserve for alimony, it should come out about even.  A great many are liabilities, not worth their salt.  Husbands’ services, including on the job, usually exceed in value those of wives.  Looked at realistically, an average father raises his wife’s and children’s standard of living by 73 percent.  His marriage motivates him to do so.

Automatic alimony/support awards are nails in the coffin of marriage.  They ‘bribe’ women into initiating the vast majority of divorces.   An open invitation to divorce and prosper, alimony often discourages women from the formality of legalizing new unions and, believe it or not, in some states does not necessarily terminate if they do.  According to an Oklahoma appellate court, it isn’t necessarily terminable by death.  It has even been awarded in voided marriages.

Divorce courts operate on the assumption that men’s sole function is to be a financial base upon which families can live and amuse themselves.  But responsibility is not reciprocally applied.  In the apparent opinion of the legal community, women’s only function is to exist and consume.  Not having such immunity from responsibility, men are judiciously enjoined, under penalty of jail, to perform functions only implied in the marriage contract.  Upon dissolution of marriage, men’s obligations continue to be enforced; yet no judge has ever ordered a woman to cook, clean and sew (OK, that last is an anachronism) for her ex-husband, not to mention an existing one. 

Alimony has been awarded even to women with considerably greater assets than the ‘marks’ ordered to pay it.  Even pension funds are subject to garnishment in domestic relations cases, despite local ordinances to the contrary.  One New York judge, incensed about a man’s pre-marital promiscuity, ordered alimony payments in the amount of 105 percent of his income despite alimony’s non-punitive intent.  A Stillwater, Minnesota judge told a member of the Men’s Defense Association to file bankruptcy in order to free up other obligations in order to support a lazy ex-wife who wouldn’t work.

As a famous judge said, “Alimony drones neither toil nor spin.”  Liquor lounge operators and most judges are probably the only segments of society which don’t despise alimony junkies.  My previous book, The Rape of The Male was replete with citations of, inter alia, inordinate, mind-boggling citations of over-generous alimony/support awards to women.

While not altogether extraordinary, the following situation has received some welcome attention.  Colonel Bob Stirm was a POW long imprisoned in North Viet Nam.  People magazine featured a Pulitzer prize winning picture of Bob meeting his family after his release.  Unbeknownst to Bob, his wife had dissipated all of his salary while he was a POW and was planning divorce, having agreed to marry at least three different men while Stirm was a POW — including attorneys in Texas and California and a Naval officer in California.  Now divorced, she still draws 42% of his retirement pay.  Mat Eytan the famous San Francisco attorney has agreed to use the Stirm case in arguing, in the U.S. Supreme Court, to overturn the practice of awarding large portions of military pensions to divorced wives.

The irony of this situation was stated most poignantly by Colonel Stirm during an address to the American Retirees Association national convention, “During my six years as a prisoner of war, I was able to survive for one reason... by strong faith in God, my country and my family.”

Hear the good Professor Amneus on alimony:  Imagine an employee quitting her job and demanding to be paid for doing so...  Why is the woman entitled to a pension?  For bearing the man’s children and giving him a family?  …  She would have been entitled to a lifetime pension for maintaining rather than undermining his connection with his children and for preserving his family.  This is the idea of marriage — why it is a lifetime contract.  So she is not giving him children and a family, she is taking them away from him — depriving him of most of what gives his life meaning.  And for this she imagines herself entitled to a lifelong pension from the man she victimizes.

Send mail to Webmaster  with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2017 Men's Defense Association
Last modified: March 30, 2017