So, when a couple with children split, one spouse has made significant career advances while the other has not. Though one spouse earns more money, it is the other spouse’s sacrifices that have allowed him/her to be that level of earner, and that is worth something financially. When the marriage dissolves, particularly if the higher-earning spouse initiates or otherwise causes (i.e. through adultery or abuse) the dissolution, the lower-earning spouse is left swinging. Do we want the lower-earning spouse on public assistance? No! S/he is entitled to continue in the lifestyle to which s/he has become accustomed, at least for a little while until s/he can recover the value on the job market that was lost through marital sacrifice.
This is not about women leeching on their ex-husbands (or men leeching on their ex-wives, for that matter). This is about equalizing the partners in a marriage when one of the partners has made intangible contributions that cannot be enumerated but are economically significant to the success of the other spouse.
Perhaps the only truly egalitarian marriage can be one in which there are no children and either 1. the society does not discriminate against its women by paying them less or 2. both partners are the same sex. When there are children, no matter the sexes of the spouses, there will likely be an economic differential – and the lower-earning party must be compensated for his/her contributions to increasing the earning potential of the other spouse. That's the point of alimony.
Also, in most cases (unless the marriage was very long, etc.), the alimony arrangement is temporary, not permanent, and is a way for the lower-earning spouse to begin to recover the earning potential that was lost in the process of making economic sacrifices for the higher-earning spouse.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-31 02:26 pm (UTC)This is not about women leeching on their ex-husbands (or men leeching on their ex-wives, for that matter). This is about equalizing the partners in a marriage when one of the partners has made intangible contributions that cannot be enumerated but are economically significant to the success of the other spouse.
Perhaps the only truly egalitarian marriage can be one in which there are no children and either 1. the society does not discriminate against its women by paying them less or 2. both partners are the same sex. When there are children, no matter the sexes of the spouses, there will likely be an economic differential – and the lower-earning party must be compensated for his/her contributions to increasing the earning potential of the other spouse. That's the point of alimony.
Also, in most cases (unless the marriage was very long, etc.), the alimony arrangement is temporary, not permanent, and is a way for the lower-earning spouse to begin to recover the earning potential that was lost in the process of making economic sacrifices for the higher-earning spouse.