Stefan MolyneuxVerified account

It is a fair question: if a woman stays at home for two decades caring for the children, while he builds his career, doesn't he have a duty to her?

They both have a duty to each other. Breaking everything down to "his" and " hers" only conflates the issue. Are there bad husband's? Yes. Are there bad wives? Yes. We can't use the outliers as the standard that we judge all on.

You are dodging the issue. In the scenario I present, she held up her end of the bargain, at the expense of her earning potential. She can never get it back. He has a duty to continue to provide for her, even if he doesn't like her anymore, or finds another woman.

You are dodging the issue putting the end of the marriage squarely on the man. Which goes right back to what I was saying. And since that by what your saying is the man's duty then what is she raises a kid poorly. Then doesn't she owe him? That line goes both ways.

I created a hypothetical situation under which a man would have a duty to pay alimony. You got your panties in a bunch because you thought I was attacking men in general. Obviously, there would also be scenarios where she would have to pay him. That supports my point.

Well let's count how many men pay versus how many women pay. And saying my "panties are in a bunch" because I added a hypothetical to yours doesn't help. My thought is that when we enter a marriage with the predisposition as to "how much do I get when it ends" is a bad argument.

Before we continue, are you arguing that alimony is always wrong? If not, there is no reason for us to disagree. I agree with you that the current system exploits and demonizes men. My only point is that there are some situations where alimony is moral.