Just remember the stats I’ve pulled up only apply to regular alimony, which isn’t all that rare as they show. What I SUSPECT is that “lifetime” alimony is as prevalent in MA as “normal” alimony is in most states, meaning probably 10 to 15 percent, varying by income bracket.

But that’s all I got right now.

I’ve tried to find those stats and failed. All I came up with was national rates of 15 percent claimed by the ABA. The other useful thing I found out and this was on the Mass Reform site where they have a link to an Excel of IRS data is that nationally alimony varies among income groups being awarded over 20 percent of the time in some cases. That’s it. Other than that, no information. Based on what I’m reading I would tend to think that alimony is ordered in more than the national average of cases in MA due to the fact that the law is written so broadly, but I have no idea if that intuition is true.

That does not mean there are not exceptions. Nor does it mean the law is always applied fairly. I have no doubt it is not. As I’ve said many times, I have known many men and many women who have been treated unfairly by divorce courts.

And I already said Massachusetts is an outlier in terms of alimony. I have asked someone to give me actual statistics on what percentage of cases award lifetime alimony even in the state of Massachusetts, where all reports are that it is less rare. But I have yet to see any; I could not find any myself when I looked.

I like to deal in facts, not speculation.

For example, regarding lifetime alimony, it is exceedingly rare.

But but, if I put references, you will cut them down!!!!!!!!!!!!

And we will illustrate how women perceive reality through the missives of other women and the ether not facts..

Lets see how RARE it is, and if it has parity

Lets start with this one way trick…

Massachusetts Appeals Court has held that a probate court judge may consider the income or assets of a second spouse where the income of such spouse contributes to the support of the household, giving the obligated spouse more or his own money with which to satisfy alimony . Cooper v. Cooper, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 55, 55 (1997).

ah… so, if he is stupid enough to remarry before the court sets lifetime alimony (Which is NOT RARE, but common), then they can use the new wife’s assets to take more from the man!!!!!!!!!!!

if its in the letter of the law, its NOT RARE…

Read the case..
Carniece Pierce, the ex-wife, quit her $95,000 job just before the trial!!!
Yes, women who earn 95k a year need alimony, right?

For the two years prior to the trial on the modification complaint, the [first] Wife was employed as a development officer where she last earned $95,000 a year, more than double her salary at the time of the divorce. [PY 32, 33; RA 95, 1463 On the first day of trial the Husband learned that the Wife unexpectedly quit that job about six weeks before the trial because of work demands that she felt were too tiring at her age (64 years old).

By the way, want to know HOW I know these things?
Well the men cant talk since the judges make it illegal to do so (bet you didn’t know that)

But the NEW WIVES can, and they are about the only ones fighting this injustice
As well as SISTERS and MOTHERS… but not because of any sense of real right or wrong or justice, because they didn’t oppose it until after they wre married or had felt the outcomes.

FLORIDA’S ALIMONY LAW §61.08 allows permanent alimony

The New Art of Alimony
Long viewed as payment for life, divorce settlements are facing strict new limits as some ex-spouses–primarily men–protest the endless support of a former partner. For richer, for poorer, forever?
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505700448957522.html

RARE wouldn’t be printed…

In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed “to waive any right to past, present or future alimony.”
But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife.

Hows that for a ruling..
They break up amicably… she goes her way, he goes his
She doesn’t save for a future, he does
Now he has to pay her

onspiracy of oppression against women.

[edited for length by n-n]

Why do you consider the assets exclusively property of a husband, anyway?

so your saying that after only two or so years of marraige the ex wife of paul mccartney deserves over 100 million?

why does she deserve anything if she is equal? he doesnt get hers and they are equal, no?

THATS why…

that if women who earned more ALWAYS paid alimony to men, and then didnt complain when the men decided to have endless strings of girlfriends and a non union so that they can keep getting the alimony..

then men might think that equal means equal ratehr than equal meanign wahts yours is mine whats mine is mine and have a nice day .

A unanimous Court of Appeals panel determined that Montgomery County Circuit Judge Michael D. Mason appropriately consulted the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers’ guidelines in awarding Cynthia Seixas $3,000 per month in indefinite alimony.

The court added in a footnote that the court may also use the Kaufman Alimony Guidelines, a project of the Women’s Law Center of Maryland Inc., and any other “legitimate and neutral guidelines, helpful to judges making alimony awards in Maryland.”

so Cynthia, gets a prize that is higher than some of the lottery offerings..

and all she had to do, was walk the isle, and crap on the mans memory regardless of any validity.

mine faked her murder..
hows that for extreme but unpunishable?

why did Mr Golf have to pay more for infidelity when women don’t have to? oh yes. his dipping his wick is selfish pleasure and her jumping the pole is love.

by the way… US GUYS think its wrong for guy richie to get 50 million from maddona…

ie… we think its morally wrong if either side does it
and women think is morally wrong only if guys get it and assume that we are like them and like it when women dont and guys do!

wrong.. but then again, women tell women what men think… why listen to a man?

personally i am pretty much done describing the OUTCOME… as the inputs are more important.

So Tatyana… you can tell us how the soviet union turned out doing the SAME NO FAULT DIVORVE AND FAMILY DESTRUCTION PLANS WE HAVE IMPLREMENTED

go ahead…

[edited for length by n-n]

I find it sad and troubling, although it does not surprise me.

As for sergey’s remarks, I could go through his comments and say which ones I agree with and which ones I disagree with, but that would take too long. Suffice to say I agree with some and disagree with some. I didn’t find the exact phrase you wrote, but I found this:

They forget that independence is an yoke, and that leadership is even more so, and that voluntary submission can be a very rewarding and fair price to pay for being led, protected and cared for. Here the insane and utopian strife for equality – the scourge of our times – destroys everything it touch. Any society and each societal institution is built on inequality, on hierarhy, on leadership and followship. Men are hierarhycal beings by nature, and every man wants to be master of his own house at the very least. Men are evolutionary hardwired for this. And women are evolutionary hardwired for submission, do they understand this or not. And when this natural order of things is disturbed and undermined, nothing good will follow.

I assume that’s what you’re referring to.

I could write a treatise in response, and have neither the time nor the inclination to do so, but this will be my quick answer. I think that he is harking back to a supposedly better/clearer time when a hierarchy existed in the family in which everyone knew his/her place, where society was far more homogeneous and rules-bound, and those were the general rules (partly based on Biblical teachings).

Even then, however, rules were rules and people were people, and there have always been dominant wives and henpecked husbands, and everyone knew it. Our society has always been more egalitarian (the frontier spirit, those frontier women), but others were less so.

I believe that sergey is correct in two ways, however. The first is that such societies were more stable; ours is presently more chaotic and unstable, and it is not necessarily better for children. The second is that there are biological differences, and many women (not all, but many) are attracted to the so-called Alpha males who are dominant types. That seems to be biologically driven, and can cause conflict, because those same women do not see themselves as needing to be submissive in their marriages.

That’s one of the reasons “nice guys” lament the fact that they often finish last among the women. There is a certain truth to that, at least in many cases (certainly not all). It is one of the problems inherent in the man-woman relationship—we are governed by feelings rather than reason, and a lot of our impulses can be contradictory.

That doesn’t mean I think we should go back to the traditional marriage model where the wife submits to the husband, the one sergey is promoting. It’s fine if people choose to do that for religious reasons or otherwise, and it’s mutually agreed-on. But it would not be my choice.

That said, I certainly don’t believe everything in a marriage should be equal. In my marriage, we carved out domains of influence, as it were. We each had specialties, and in many cases they fell along traditional male-female lines. No problem. I believe in flexibility and compromise on both parts. And I think marriage often entails sacrifice of personal wishes in favor of the wishes of the other. In good marriages, it happens on both sides. And in good marriages, no one keeps exact score.