Why So Few Men Receive Alimony

An article in Forbes from a few years ago, explores why so  few men receive alimony:  

Of the 400,000 people in the United States receiving post-divorce spousal maintenance, just 3 percent were men, according to Census figures. Yet 40 percent of households are headed by female breadwinners -- suggesting that  hundreds of thousands of men are eligible for alimony, yet don't receive it.

The reason? Die-hard gender roles, a bitter fight from breadwinning wives and macho pride, say family attorneys. And in some parts of the country, judges are flat-out sexist.

"Gender equality is a relatively new concept in the span of history, and old stereotypes die hard," says San Francisco Bay area divorce attorney Mark Ressa. "A successful man is considered a breadwinning man, and asking for alimony is considered emasculating."

I certainly did not receive alimony and had to pay child support (which my ex-wife barely if at all used for the kids)  along with all the expenses for the kids who, by the way, chose to live with me.  Clearly two of the reasons she received alimony were her fighting hard, if you classify committing perjury as fighting hard, for alimony and sexist judges. 

What the article misses are the unethical and illegal actions of lawyers and judges in cases involving alimony. Lawyers directly and judges indirectly make lots of money from alimony awards. At a base level alimony awards are a litigious process which means they get paid more than they would otherwise. 

The obstacles in front of a man attempting to receive alimony are nearly insurmountable.

Federal Judges Often Not Held Accountable

From NPR, federal judges have a code of ethics but often aren't held accountable. True, but the article underestimates the issue. First off, it isn't just federal judges and, secondly, the level of outright crime and corruption throughout the legal system as well as the wholesale violations of the lawyers rules of professional conduct by attorneys is astounding. Look here. 

The NPR article does, however, point out a lot of issues, including paid junkets:

So every year, a bunch of different groups like bar associations, nonprofits, law schools, they host what they call judicial education events. And one of the biggest hosts over the decades for these events is George Mason University, which has a conservative-leaning law school. It's based in Virginia. They put together these weeklong seminars for judges on a bunch of legal topics. And they often take place at luxury resorts, five-star hotels. We're talking places like Palm Beach, Fla., around Aspen, Colo., Alaska, even London. And judges get free rooms, free meals and free money towards those travel expenses.

And the events can be pretty ideologically slanted. We found that judges have heard a presentation from a far-right German politician along with corporate CEOs, members of an advocacy group that uses lawsuits to challenge environmental law. 

So Many Lawyers

An Arizona grand jury has indited several people for 2020 election interference. Those indited include many attorneys, including: Rudy Giuliani, Boris Epshteyn, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis and Christina Bobb. 

Attorneys are supposed to be the ones who follow the law. In fact, their code of conduct is incredibly strict. It goes well beyond just following the law.  They also need to always tell the truth and are obligated to report misconduct by fellow attorneys. 

But attorney ethics are an open joke. I cannot find a single incident of an attorney being disciplined for lying (at least in a family law case) or failure to report a fellow attorney's misconduct. Indeed it is almost assumed an attorney will lie if it helps their case. 

It is nice to see a few of them indited especially for what can be argued are actions that are a threat to the very foundation of our country.  

Can Family Court Be Fixed?

Can family court be fixed? Not accounting to Lee Rawles, author of the book, The End of Family Court: How Abolishing the Court Brings Justice to Children and Families.

Rawles' arguments are mostly due to the courts' inability to provide justice for lower class and the racially disadvantaged but, as this site is about, the corruption and inequity which is institutionally prevalent within the family court system runs deep. 

Over the next century, the purpose and purview of family courts expanded and changed. Today, family court judges may consider juvenile criminal offenses, status offenses, custody cases, adoption, the removal of children from their parents and truancy cases. What has remained constant is the uneven enforcement of child safety laws, which fall primarily on poor and minority families.

The Attraction Of Sexist Men

Do women find sexist men attractive? According to this article in Psychology Today, yes.

research suggests that women do in fact find sexist men attractive.

Although I am often sceptical of social science research, this does seem correct to me. I have seen it quite a bit. And how else do you explain Trump's support among women?  

As the article states a lot of research suggests the reason has an evolutionary basis.

They suggest that female interest in sexist men, specifically men who display “benevolent sexism,” may be seen by women as being more an interest in men investing resources in a woman.

Despite aspects of benevolent sexism appearing chivalrous and romantic, previous research has found that women who endorse these beliefs often demonstrate approval of restrictions on women’s freedoms, independence, and autonomy, and may impact women’s support for gender egalitarianism.

Being a good guy is hard. 

Women Talking Like Men Used Too

I've recently noticed women talking a lot like the stereotypical 1950s sexist male. Just in reverse.

On one example a friend of mine stated she was going to two physical therapists. When asked, "Why two?" she replied that for one Medicare paid for it and, more importantly, both were really cute young guys. Imagine if a man stated the same about going to two cute female physical therapists.

On another occasion, a woman  I know in her early 60 went on a kayak tour and, because she did not have a partner, was placed in a kayak with one of the guides. She spent a considerable amount of time telling a group of us, of which I was the only male, how wonderful it was because he was built! 

In both of the examples above, the women are educated and had good careers. Both are also very much feminists and quick to point out sexism in society. At least sexism on the part of males. 

I would feel uncomfortable talking like my friends did even to a bunch of men so it seems really strange to me to hear women talk that way. I wonder if they ever realize they are behaving just like the men they so often criticize?

Just A Reprimand?

The reality of our legal system is often surreal. 

In 1990, S.C. Rep. “Tee” Ferguson took a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, while Ferguson ran for an open judicial seat in South Carolina. A month later, Ferguson was elected without opposition.

He then took another bribe and then was sworn in as a judge. 

Later, after his conviction for corruption as well as pleading guilty to to three counts of possessing cocaine, he was sentenced to prison. 

More than a year after that the state Supreme Court issued a public reprimand. 

A public reprimand. He wasn't even disbarred. 

U.S. Attorney John Barton said of Ferguson: “How such a corrupt drug abuser got elected to the Legislature to begin with is beyond my comprehension. And then to have risen in the esteem of his peers to the point where he got elected to circuit court judge speaks sadly many volumes about the way government was conducted in South Carolina.”

Barton also said he had evidence that Ferguson intended to take bribes as a judge.

Again, the legal system determined his crimes only meritted a reprimand. What is wrong with our legal system?