Atlatl Equalizer Hypothesis

The atlatl equalizer hypothesis posits that prehistoric male human hunters lost any advantage they may have had over women due to men's strength advantage, on average, over women with the invention of the atlatl. In essence, the invention of the atlatl made hunting by women as efficient as hunting by men. 

The rational in our current society, even many many women who identify as feminists, that men should do the dangerous jobs of fighting in the military as well as  high risk civilian jobs is also based men's strength advantage, on average, over women. This notion is just as wrong and for the same reason. Technology. Pulling a trigger or pushing a button doesn't require much strength. 

In fact, when it comes to shooting women have an advantage over men. In the Olympics, rifle and pistol shooting was mixed gender until the 1984. They were then separated by gender due to women''s inherent advantage in shooting sports because of their, on  average, lower heart rates.  Just like women don't compete against men in the 100 meter dash due to men's advantage in muscle power. 

Gender Bias

Many, if not most, people are incapable of believing gender bias exists both ways. It is as if somehow stating that yes, men experience gender bias somehow invalidates the idea that women experience gender bias. I despise this way of thinking because it is so shallow. 

The reason Congress and C-level business position are mostly male is societal discrimination. 

The reason nearly all military deaths and the vast majority of workplace deaths and injuries are mostly men is because of societal discrimination. 

The reason it almost always men who pay alimony is societal discrimination. 

Here is a fascinating discussion of gender based discrimination both past and present with Dr. Cory Clark at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Lazzaro Sentenced

Anton “Tony” Lazzaro was recently sentenced to 21 year in jail for sex trafficking. Lazarro, a top Minnesota republican operative and fund raiser ran his operation right under the nose of Ramsey County Attorney John Choi. Oddly Choi, who has a self-appointed and self-professed mission to prosecute sex trafficking, somehow missed the whole operation despite it happening right under his nose. Maybe that is because Choi rarely goes after anyone with power and money. 

Choi's actions, or lack thereof, are in alignment with his decision to blatantly obstruct justice to protect fellow lawyers when he was sent unquestionable evidence of crime by a lawyer. At least he is consistent.  

A Divorce In Ukraine

This story of a divorce in Ukraine is gut puncher. I am not even really sure why as there was no animosity between the parties. 

At the beginning of he war a women and her kids left the country for safety. The husband, a psychologist, stayed to help the soldiers. And keep in mind he could not have left even if he wanted to as men of his age were forbidden to leave due to the general mobilization. 

The woman eventually met another man abroad and sought a divorce. 

Divorces as well as marriages are increase during wars so this isn't unusual but what is hard is that the couple were generally happy together before the war and admit but for the war they would still be together. 

They would go on, like so many Ukrainian men and women, to experience the war very differently. Tetiana was thrust into a whole new world, discovering a new country, a new language and, in a shock to Andrii, a new boyfriend. Andrii found himself on the front lines counseling depressed soldiers and, for the first time since he was a teenager, living alone. He was effectively blocked by law from visiting his family.

Why Do We Still Have Alimony?

As a follow-up to my last post, it is good to look at what the basis of modern alimony is. Why do we have it and how did it develop? 

Alimony, at its essence, is based on the notion that women are the lesser sex and need to be taken care of. Much like children. Wikipedia state:

The modern concept of alimony is derived from English ecclesiastical courts that awarded alimony in cases of separation and divorce. Alimony pendente lite was given until the divorce decree, based on the husband's duty to support the wife during a marriage that still continued. Post-divorce or permanent alimony was also based on the notion that the marriage continued, as ecclesiastical courts could only award a divorce a mensa et thoro, similar to a legal separation today. As divorce did not end the marriage, the husband's duty to support his wife remained intact.

Why would one party have a duty to support another? Because the other party is incapable of doing so for themselves. Why would women be incapable of supporting themselves? Because they are inferior to men. 

No wonder so many feminist intellectuals insisted alimony be eliminated. Women can never be equal to men until they are treated as equal under the law. The fact that 98+ of people receiving alimony are women demonstrates clearly that society does not consider women equal to men. 

AI & DI

Just for fun and because I find AI interesting. I asked the following question to OpenAI's CharGPT:

Question:
Write a magazine length article on early feminist thoughts and writings advocating for the elimination of alimony.

Here is ChatGPT's answer:

-------------------

Title: Redefining Equality: Early Feminist Thoughts on Alimony and its Elimination

Introduction

The feminist movement has witnessed a remarkable evolution throughout history, with women tirelessly fighting for their rights and gender equality. Among the various issues that early feminists addressed, the topic of alimony emerged as a particularly contentious and complex matter. Alimony, traditionally awarded to financially dependent spouses after divorce or separation, was seen by some feminists as perpetuating gender inequalities and reinforcing traditional gender roles. This article delves into the early feminist thoughts and writings that advocated for the elimination of alimony and explored the ramifications of this proposal on women's empowerment.

• The Roots of Alimony

Historically, alimony emerged from English common law as a means to ensure the financial support of wives who were left economically vulnerable after divorce or separation. In patriarchal societies, women were often financially dependent on their husbands due to limited opportunities for employment and property ownership. Alimony was intended to compensate for this economic disparity, albeit reinforcing traditional gender roles and perpetuating women's dependence on men.

• Early Feminist Critiques

Early feminist thinkers recognized the inherent inequality embedded in the alimony system. They argued that alimony perpetuated the notion that women were inherently incapable of financial independence, reinforcing the notion that women's primary role was that of a homemaker and caregiver. This perspective conflicted with the feminist ideals of gender equality and challenged the traditional belief that women's financial well-being was solely dependent on their husbands.

• Charlotte Perkins Gilman and the Economics of Divorce

One of the pioneers of early feminist thought, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, challenged the notion of alimony in her seminal work "Women and Economics" (1898). Gilman argued that alimony created a financial incentive for women to remain married, regardless of their happiness or the presence of abuse in the relationship. By promoting economic dependence, the alimony system hindered women's ability to seek independence and live fulfilling lives outside traditional marital confines.

• Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Radical Propositions

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a key figure in the first-wave feminist movement, went even further by advocating for the complete abolition of alimony. Stanton believed that the alimony system not only hindered women's progress but also perpetuated the idea that marriage was primarily an economic contract. In her landmark "The Woman's Bible" (1895), Stanton argued that alimony undermined the true essence of marriage based on love, mutual respect, and equality. By eliminating alimony, she believed that women could pursue financial independence without fear of being trapped in unhappy marriages.

• Challenges and Opposition

The proposals for eliminating alimony were met with significant opposition from traditionalists who feared that it would disrupt the sanctity of marriage and exacerbate the financial burden on men. Critics argued that alimony was necessary to protect women from economic hardship in cases of divorce or separation. They contended that, without alimony, many women would be left destitute, especially in a society with limited employment opportunities for women.

• A Step Towards Gender Equality

The debate surrounding alimony provided an opportunity for early feminists to redefine gender roles and advocate for greater financial independence for women. While the immediate elimination of alimony faced resistance, the discussions prompted legal reforms that aimed to ensure a fairer distribution of assets and financial support during divorce proceedings.

• Legacy and Contemporary Relevance

The early feminist writings advocating for the elimination of alimony set the stage for ongoing discussions on gender equality within the legal system. In modern times, many jurisdictions have reformed their divorce laws to promote equitable distribution of assets and spousal support, regardless of gender. The focus has shifted from providing alimony based on gender to assessing individual financial needs and contributions during marriage.

Conclusion

The early feminist thoughts and writings on the elimination of alimony marked a critical milestone in the ongoing struggle for gender equality. While their radical propositions were not immediately embraced, they laid the groundwork for significant changes in divorce laws and challenged societal norms regarding the role of women in marriage. Today, the pursuit of gender equality continues, with the legacy of these pioneering feminists guiding the way towards a more just and equitable future.

-------------------

Interesting answer. Also informative. I have certainly read a bit about early feminist arguments against alimony (early on NOW formally sought to end the practice) but don't recall Elizabeth Cady Stanton arguing against it.

As a sidebar, I am one of those people who believes AI is tool not a threat. At least no more of a threat than the invention of the Internet, the Industrial Revolution, or the Gutenberg's printing press. I may have to play around with it more but don't worry, I am still me and the musings on this site will be all mine. 

Wow - Florida Finally Reforms Alimony

After years of trying, Florida has finally reformed it's alimony laws. In essence, they have eliminated permanent alimony.  Reform bills have passed the legislature three times previously only to be vetoed by either current governor Ron DeSantis or former governor Rick Scott. 

Sometimes persistence matters. 

The new law eliminates permanent alimony and sets up a formula for alimony amounts based on the length of marriage. It also sets a five year limit on rehabilitative alimony. Both of these are quite reasonable and, somewhat surprisingly, had the support of the Florida Bar's Family Law Section.

The idea that somehow after a marriage ends and after dividing assets equally, one party is required by the courts to  pay the other is simply sexist. Because it is almost always women who receive the alimony it simply perpetuates the notion that women are less capable than men and need to be supported by men. The concept of alimony is sexist at its core. Many feminists agree.