It's not a government-mandated benefit. It's part of a dissolution of a contract. Most contracts can be dissolved, for a price. Alimony is sometimes the price.
Yes they did. The dark ages as the Islamic empire slayed people from Russia to Spain, they enslaved the people they conquered, they happened to be white in that area
Is there a profit-sharing clause in this fictional 'marriage-contract'? I don't recall seeing one on the marriage license application.. Also, exactly how much is one considered 'paid' for sitting at home and taking care of their children, while a partner shleps his ass to work every morning?
Fine, but don't pretend that it has some legitimacy in the marriage contract itself. You don't negotiate terms AFTER ending a business deal.
I am female. I have the same rights as any man. I find special "women's" days demeaning, like I am some kind of victim. We fought, we won, now time to give up the march. I listened to Hilary Clinton all last year promising to get stuff for women that we already had. She must have thought we were pretty stupid.
I also consider the alimony in case of one spouse working and the other spouse not working a personal matter. That is the stay-at-home spouse's choice. Many years ago, it wasn't a choice, now it is.
It isn't up for negotiations. It's compulsory. It isn't part of the contract is a penalty levied against you by the state.
No it isn't it's punitive. It may have been necessary back when women couldn't work. But today they can.
Rare and mostly prior to American independence. Grumpy is correct though that it was officially indentured servitude, but because of the way service could be extended for any reason, it was in fact, slavery. Having a child while indentured in many cases resulted in the child also be forced into service. http://www.ironbarkresources.com/slaves/whiteslaves09.htm
Still, rare as hen's teeth. I stand by my earlier statements. A couple of rare exceptions does not negate the norm.
↑ Still, rare as hen's teeth. I stand by my earlier statements. A couple of rare exceptions does not negate the norm. Between one-half and two-thirds of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and American Revolution had come under indentures. The point was Free blacks owning white slaves. - THAT was EXTREMELY rare. The thread is about men's rights- women were also indentured.
I do not know as I have never been that situation. So you tell me and please provide source citation that backs your claim.
Come on. No, a man has no say in the birth of his baby. That right is strictly reserved for women Roe v Wade. http://healthcare.findlaw.com/patient-rights/how-did-abortion-become-legal.html
