Sunday, October 25, 2020

Feminist View Of Alimony

Feminists are often the most vocal opponents of alimony. Which makes a lot of sense because alimony in all but the most unusual circumstances treats women as less capable than men. Additionally, it often burdens second wives with the cost of alimony to a first wife. 

Unfortunately, many feminists do not understand that the reality of alimony does not reflect their modernist views. In an article on Mom's For Shared Parenting, it is stated that:

Thankfully, family courts are slowly turning this around, with lifetime alimony all but gone, judges (especially female judges, who fought their assess off for their own professional success, and have little sympathy for women who chose to perpetuate this sexist model) increasingly expect both parties to be responsible for both the financial and time cost of child rearing, as shared parenting is moving through state legislatures around the United States.

I wish. The problem is that no one knows how many people are subject to lifetime alimony because data is not kept on it. 

Think how crazy it is that I am paying lifetime alimony. The custody evaluator ruled that parenting was joint during the marriage, although joint custody was awarded the children spent the vast majority of time with me post-divorce, my ex-wife has never spent a dime of her earned income pre or post divorce on the kids, she divorced me, she took the majority of marital assets,  and she clearly committed crimes during the divorce. It is surreal, it is wrong. 

Sunday, October 18, 2020

Interpreting Suicide Statistics

People read what they want into statistics. For example, statistics show that men who are divorced are  nine times more likely to die by suicide compared to divorced women. Why is not so clear so everyone just makes a guess and usually that guess aligns with their own experience and worldview. 

The author of an article in Psychology Today quotes: 

Dr. Kposowa, a sociologist at the University of California–Riverside, suggested that society has undervalued the strength of paternal-child bonds, and thus underestimated the traumatic effect of severing those bonds through our typical custody arrangements. Further, we fail to appreciate the catastrophic financial impact of divorce on men, and the anger and resentment engendered by losses of both property and status in the wake of a divorce settlement. 

but also states:

I suspect that something else is afoot. Couldn't it be that the personality and social factors that contributed to the failure of the marriage also contribute to excess suicide risk afterward? Couldn't the risk factors for divorce in men be related to the risk factors for suicide in divorced men? Female dissatisfaction with the marriage is a stable predictor of an eventual divorce. Perhaps we should consider marital behaviors that might lead to such dissatisfaction.

which is just an opinion. 

I, quite unsurprisingly, think that a combination of financial obligations (alimony is paid by the man in 98+ of cases), loss of contact with their children, and the crime rewarding nature of our family court system lead more men than women to commit suicide after a divorce because they are most often the victim. No one has the evidence to prove or disprove that in general but it is certainly true, and supported by the evidence, in my case.

Saturday, October 10, 2020

The Future Of Civil Marraige

Why do we have marriage? It is time that more people asked themselves that. For civil marriages, it provides or various benefits and costs which differ from the non-married. Benefits include certain tax advantages, social security benefits, legal decision making and inheritance. Disadvantages include certain tax disadvantages, legal obligations to the spouse, and legal and financial costs stemming from  dissolution. 

In this day when marriage can be between any two people regardless of gender and many companies extend marriage-like benefits to domestic partners, one wonders why we need civil marriage at all. 

Eliminating civil marriages would be a huge benefit to society. The tax and legal codes become much simpler and fair. People could still get married but it would be as part of a religious or private commitment ceremony. Husband and wife would be just terms anyone could use as they please. 

My guess is that  more and more people will choose to not marry which in turn will cause a general weakening of the benefits of marriage until at some point marriage as a civil institution will fade away. That will be a good thing. 

Saturday, October 3, 2020

The History And Future of Marriage

I ran across an informative and quite humorous video on the history of marriage along with some speculation on its future. It is well worth watching. 

"Law 142 of the Code of Hammurabi (ancient Babylon) states that if a wife could demonstrate that her husband neglected her while she had no guilt, she had the right to take her dowry back and regress to her father’s home."

was a lot better than paying alimony till death as I have to!

Reddit discussion here

Friday, September 25, 2020


Perhaps the most unlikely superhero ever has passed. Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice and cultural icon. She was an amazing person. Incredibly smart, witty, and so nice she became best friends with Judge Antony Scalia even thought he often was on the other side in judicial opinions. 

Most of all she was a champion of equal rights. Not just for women and minorities but also men. Indeed I once wrote her to state that the best path to eliminating discrimination against women in society was to focus on discrimination against men as much as women.  As I have often said, we will never see women making up  half our political and business leaders until they also make up half our military deaths and alimony payers. (although eliminating alimony entirely would be better and everyone wants fewer military deaths) 

The most iconic memory I have of Ginsburg is when she said her exercise routine included push-up. Not girly push-up but real ones. She was in her 80's at the time. Amazing. 

Her passing is sad especially now so close to the election. 


Thursday, September 17, 2020

Truth - How It Is Supposed To Work

Lawyers are not supposed to lie in court nor allow their clients to lie if they know they are not telling the truth. In fact, lawyers are obligated to inform the court if they know their client is lying. That is supposed to be how it works as this article states. Sadly, as the facts in my case demonstrate, that is simply not the case. Lawyers are so rarely held accountable for lying in court (in Minnesota a lawyer has never been disciplined for lying in family court) let alone allowing their clients to lie that there is essentially zero risk to lying in court. Furthermore there is a huge incentive to lie as it wins cases, especially when the opposing side is honest. It is all about money. 

How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? When his lips are moving.

That may be a joke, but many believe it. They believe that lawyers will do or say anything that will help their client win.

Wednesday, September 9, 2020

Lies in Court

Modern Law has a brief but interesting article on lying by litigants in family court. It is a bit optimistic in that it assumes that judges will make the right decision which in my case was simply not true. 

If you can relate to these questions, there are four things you need to know:

  1. Yes, if the opposing party has lied under oath, they have committed perjury, which is a crime;
  2. Family court is separate from criminal court, to be charged with perjury, a prosecutor has to take an interest in the case;
  3. I have never heard of a party to a family law case being charged with perjury;
  4. It still matters.

Unfortunately nothing is said about lawyers lying in court. Which reminds me of the old joke:

        How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? When his lips are moving.