The other day I posted a piece about how some women in Florida are pressing for a change in the alimony laws… because they’re paying alimony to ex-partners, not receiving it from them. The story didn’t surprise me, because it only confirms the eternal social paradigm that money and other resources must flow from men to women, and not vice-versa.
It remains the social paradigm even though women have had the same job opportunities as men for many years, and a minority of women are now out-earning their partners and former partners. But the blog post attracted far more ‘hits’ than I’d expected, so I thought I’d put up a new post on the matter, prompted by a piece in the Miami Herald of 26 April 2013:
An extract from the piece:
Florida Governor Rick Scott has less than a week to sign or veto a controversial alimony bill, ‘SB718’. SB 718 would put an end to permanent alimony, and require judges to split custody evenly between divorcing parents, unless one parent could make a convincing case otherwise. One key point of contention appears to be whether it could affect contracts made in the past.
On Friday, two dozen women urged him to ‘dust off his veto pen’. ‘If the governor wants to look pro-family, he should definitely veto this bill,’ said women’s rights activist Barbara DeVane.
A google search of ‘Barbara DeVane’ led me to:
Feminists evidently have no shame in recruiting very young girls to drive emotion-laden rather than reason-based narratives. We shouldn’t be surprised. Feminists have no shame in any areas, so far as I can see. The ends always justify the means.
Let me see if I have Ms DeVane’s position clear. ‘Pro-family’ means:
– denying fathers equal custody of their children; and
– forcing men to support ex-wives until the day they die regardless of the reasons for the breakdown of the relationship. In old parlance, women continue to demand a ‘meal ticket for life’, even though they’ve long had the same employment opportunities as men.
So, what impact did feminist opposition to the bill have? As we’d expect, Governor Rick Scott vetoed the bill:
While paying lifetime alimony to a future ex-wife remains a possibility, you have to ask yourself the $64,000 question, don’t you?
Why would any American man marry?
Any American man planning to marry – along with men in a similar position in many other countries, to be fair – must be mad. Howling-at-the-moon mad. The possibility of lifelong alimony payments is just one consequence of that madness. We can only hope that one day a bill like SB718 passes, and sanity starts to gain some traction in Florida, and in time the rest of the world.