Of course, if the woman decides to divorce him, she’s a heartless succubus who only married him for the alimony payout and stole his kids (even though he didn’t contest it in court).
Alimony is increasingly disfavored in the US. It is - when available - primarily a matter of numbers. Given that most couples are dual-earning, along with the general trend against (ex-) spousal support, the whole notion of crushing alimony as a men’s problem is a boogeyman.
Also note that determination of alimony is a gender-neutral analysis.
The nationwide trend is to award support in fewer and fewer cases, and to keep the duration pretty short. In cases where the spouses are both employed and there isn't a large disparity in their incomes, it's unlikely any support would be awarded at all.
That ^ has links to each state’s laws/general bent on alimony. I pulled Indiana at random:
Most—if not all—states have taken steps to revamp their alimony laws, especially by limiting how long alimony may last. The overarching goal now is to help supported spouses become self-sufficient. But Indiana has outpaced many other states in restricting not only the duration of alimony payments, but also the circumstances in which a judge may award maintenance. Unless you meet one of the sets of conditions discussed below, you won't be able to receive any alimony in Indiana.
Looking at a few other random states, the overwhelming approach to alimony - if any is made at all, which is, again, rarer and rarer because households frequently have two earners - is towards what’s typically called “rehabilitative alimony” - alimony for a short period of time for someone who was out of the workforce for years raising kids, typically, to get training/time to renter the workforce as a self-sustaining person. From what I’ve anecdotally seen, this is typically 1-2 years, max, even when significant earning power differentials exist. After that, everyone is on their own. Different states have different analyses, but whether and to what extent alimony is granted is generally a consideration of many factors, and courts typically have a lot of leeway.
35-55 Isn't just lowered sperm counts, that's also advanced paternal age. So it's not just that they're less fertile, it's also that the milk is sour and they're more likely to produce children who have autism, genetic dwarfism, and a number of serious genetic disorders associated with skull and cranial deformities.
Go ahead moids, I'm sure more autism and midgets will help you "save the white race" or whatever.
Can we retire this shit? Yes, there is statistical info that both older women
and older men having children can produce more defects, but if you look at the numbers the increase/resulting percentages are minuscule.
Here’s some random man hate.
Anybody else scared to send their daughter to work? Like 16 year old wants to get her first job with her friends at the local fast food place on weekends for pocket money job.
I don’t mind them working like every other weekend for some cash. But fucking scared to death cause I remember being 16 and all the older manager dudes being fucking perverts. And even customers sometimes.
I feel like I wouldn’t worry as much if I sent a son. But because it’s a daughter I just fucking know some pervert dude is gonna hit on her at 16.
Thoughts?
“Scared to death”? That is retarded.
how did you know? I was a hostess and it was the line cook who wouldnt stop hassling me
