Feed on

Comment Of The Week

Reader BC gives some historical perspective to the alimony issue. (“Historical whaaa? I’m a feminist, I know not of such things. Please to dress it up in snark so that I can properly menstruate in the comments section at Jizzebel.”)

In Olde Timey days — like, medieval England, we’re talking about — a husband gained ownership of all his wife’s property (her dowry) when they married, and did not relinquish it when they divorced. Since women didn’t work [ed: in a cubicle] back then, the result was that a divorce would frequently leave the woman totally destitute. Alimony was a way to avoid that: a divorced man kept the dowry, but incurred an obligation to feed, house, clothe, and otherwise support his ex-wife until she remarried or died.

Two things upended the applecart. First, we started dividing marital assets at divorce. That’s a subject about which entire books could be (and have been) written, but the key point is that ex-wives ceased to be penniless; they took (oftentimes substantial) assets with them when they left a marriage. Second, women fully entered the workforce as primary wage-earners in their own right, and there ceased to be any good reason why they couldn’t support themselves.

Together, those two developments have pretty thoroughly undermined the policy rationale for alimony, and in a sane world it would have become a historical footnote occasionally pressed into service to avoid injustice in truly extraordinary cases. Instead, the American family law system in which I toil has been marinating in femcunt ideology since the sixties, and while there are a few scattered efforts at reform, the result is that alimony largely persists — not as necessary spousal support, but to make it more financially convenient for women to abandon the beta providers they swore to love, honor, and obey.

One thing you have to understand about the divorce industrial complex if you want to know how and why things traveled this far down the circles of post-nuptial hell: The spiteful degenerates who advocated for no-fault divorce and punitive alimony and child support, and the blood-sucking parasites who inevitably followed in their wake, never had fairness in mind. What they wanted, ultimately, was the reconstruction of society to extend and enshrine total female freedom of access and removal of accountability in the marital and sexual markets, while restricting and regulating as much as possible male access to the sexual market, particularly beta male access, and placing upon men responsibility for the consequences of both men’s and women’s actions within those markets.

And that is why I declare a guy like this a justifiable American hero who, if the West were ever to regain its sanity, would have a monument erected in his honor. Or at least a Truck Nutz dedicated in his name.


Comments are closed.