Skip to main content

View Diary: Yep. Fox's Bill O'Reilly, Traditional Marriage Advocate, Recently Got a Nasty Divorce. (206 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have a friend who, along with her husband, (16+ / 0-)

    concluded that her continuing to work would be losing proposition since her salary would barely cover childcare, clothes for work and transportation to a job--she's  secretary. And in case you live in a different reality than the rest of us, childcare for a newborn is highly expensive. SO she stayed home and has raised three kids--by mutual consent. She has a high school diploma and her  contribution as mother and housekeeper allowed him to work late hours without worrying about having to worry about picking up kids from daycare, fixing meals and doing laundry./ He made close to 200K before he got downsized/

    If they divorce she BETTER get 50% of marital assets--but unless you live in a community property state instead of the far more common "equitable distribution" stat (which means the wife gets screwed because she didn't work, as if housework, cooking, and fulltime childcare don't count--you get what the court decides--and it is seldom 50%.

    I can see aluimony to allow the woman to retrain, though at 50+ and with a kid under 12, she's unlikely to get a job at her age--oh, and hubby;s job requires him to be gone 5 days out of seven, and there is a child.

    Methinks you have issues with SaH Moms, without understanding how much a nanny or even just daycare from 6:30 t0 6pm costs.

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:56:30 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  that's close to what i see (0+ / 0-)

      if alimony has to exist.. i see it as more like unemployment insurance than a pension.

      It's simply find it disgusting that divorce court can add financial incentive for divorce in the form of alimony. Divorce should be a permanent break in a relationship with no more legal, personal, or financial obligations to the other.

      •  You're an idiot and clueless about (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook, Onomastic, samddobermann

        hwo women are treated.  And if that marriage includes children, as most do, it is NOT a permanent break.  You have children in common and most (decent) men love their kids and want to see them--so you're still linked. And I bet you just hate child support too--even though they are HIS kids as well as hers.

        ALlmony was NEVER common (and I've doen the research)--even in the 50s.  You read about large alimony payments with celebrities, but average women dhaven't gotten it for decades, except as temporary maintenace for retraining.  

        NEWSFLASH: if my friend dumps her husband (though it's more likely he would do the dumping), she will never be able to get more than a part-time retail job. She's 50+ and they're not hiring older people. She's also been out of the work force for nearly 30 years. One of her children is only 11.  He damned well better p.--and she does work a coupel of days a week  but not enough to amtter

        Your view of divorce has nothing to do with reality. My  younger sis-in-law has been divorced form her ex for over ten years. The bastard cheated on her (with the woman who became WIfe #4). He INSISTED on a juryt trial. He leid on the stand and the jury hated him when that was pointed out; they also weren't fond of his arrogance and condescension. They awarded her 50% more child support.  SHe works, always has, so alimony was not part of the divorce. But this asshole takes her to court every year or two over something. SHe's 40K in debt to her lawyer, and she makes MAYBE 40K a year.  SO, contrary to your theory, divorce does NOT means a permanent break, not when the ex is an asshole and abusive.  He has filed flase claims with the Dept. of Family and CHild services against her mother who runs a Pre-K. He's used our religion (Wicca) as an excuse for a restraining order then mouthed off to the judge (luckily we got a judge who grasped that the 1st amendment covers all faiths, not just christianity--his mouthing off didn't help and he almost went to jail for contempt).  He's lied and bribed cops and generally invaded her life with useless suits.   ANd yeah, that happens more often than you realize.

        The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

        by irishwitch on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:16:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site