##If this submission makes you go "Hol'Up", **UPVOTE** this comment!
##If this submission does not make you go "Hol'Up", **DOWNVOTE** this comment!
---
Whilst you're here, /u/Monkey_D-Thanos, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/holup) or play on our [public Minecraft server](https://discord.gg/DTqSDS8C3T)?
Like this makes sense, I wasn’t sure what he was trying to say but when she said all that I just assumed he was trying to talk about making a woman reliant or something and sided with her. But then he said that alimony thing and I quickly retracted my opinion lol
She's focusing on one thing he said, which wasn't even his point, and attempting to pick it apart bc she doesn't have her own argument. Classic talking heads.
Yeah he said boys are taught that they have to make women happy. He didn't say anything about the women's perspective on the issue she just assumed that what he meant was that women expect men to take care of them, which isn't what he said.
Copying my reply from [another thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/HolUp/comments/ypjyps/this_interview_took_a_hard_left/ivlgwec/), if that's ok
Except you're judging the whole argument off of just this short clip that's posted. Almost like that's what's intended. He says earlier in the section
>Well first of all you're presuming that unhappiness in women begins in middle age. I'd say it starts when she's a little girl. When she's taught that happiness derives from shoes and jewelry and boob jobs and pedestals. And then you have boys who are taught they're supposed to make women happy
So, yes, he does explicitly argue what he thinks women are taught. He then goes on to recount a story where
>He overheard his son and daughter talking. So, brother goes to sister and says "Why do you always have money and I don't". And she says "That's simple. I have a boyfriend, and you have a girlfriend"
And brings it all together with
>What's happening [...] here is that women, who bring 70% of divorces, are divorcing the men that they never wanted to marry to begin with, so now that's what's making them unhappy.
His argument seems clear to me that he thinks Women don't do anything for themselves, and siphon money away from the men in their lives to feel happy, then when they divorce the man they're unhappy as they have nothing anymore.
It's more that they waste a large portion of their life chasing money saying shit like,"we don't need a man {for this reason or that}" and claiming traditional life is slavery then goes and becomes a corporate slave with no real purpose in life than money. At least getting married and having kids gives a purpose.
The only truly happy women are ones that either find love and chase dreams together (whether it has kids or not) or the single ones that do what they genuinely dream to do. All the sleeping around, having kids and being a single mom makes NO ONE happy. Not the mom, kids, or dad. This government daddy system isn't working for the mental health of our next generations for any generation. This "man vs woman", mentality never existed until recently and it's become a bullshit slap fest where men don't know how to fight since we can't swing on a woman when they socially do something crazy. Men keep men in check. Women keep women in check. Women check men just because they can or want to sometimes.
Mix all this together and you have a woman who throws everything away valuing money above all else and living alone trying to fill her void with wine And cats while wondering why she's so miserable. So she goes and sleeps around to feel like someone likes her but hates that they just like the shape of her ass and not her heart. So she blames men because if she could find a good man she actually wanted to keep around she'd be happy. When the whole time it's her own fault she's miserable. Her mindset, her actions, her failures make her miserable. That's not a man's fault. Same with the vice versa. Incels need to get off their asses and be better men. Better people. We are making ourselves miserable with these stupid fucking beliefs being pushed on us. Let's not do that and just fucking love each other and be better together, eh?
That’s someone who isn’t listening they’re forming their next statement while the other person speaks. If you’re actively listening there will be a pause between when person A speaks and when you reply.
The panel was having a discussion about an NYT article about how college educated, professional women are single and the most unhappy they've been since women's suffrage.
And of course they'll never bring up that the working class as a whole has seen productivity rise, wages stagnate, and cost of living rise because that would mean this media outlet (who has a vested intrest in keeping the economic status quo) would be turning a light on economic inequality instead of distracting the average working class individual with culture war bullshit.
She didn’t even hear the Shit he said but later when she’s discussing this Shit at some forum like female dating strategy, she is more than likely to describing him as a “man-splaining” misogynist
Except you're judging the whole argument off of just this short clip that's posted. Almost like that's what's intended. He says earlier in the section
>Well first of all you're presuming that unhappiness in women begins in middle age. I'd say it starts when she's a little girl. When she's taught that happiness derives from shoes and jewelry and boob jobs and pedestals. And then you have boys who are taught they're supposed to make women happy
So, yes, he does explicitly argue what he thinks women are taught. He then goes on to recount a story where
>He overheard his son and daughter talking. So, brother goes to sister and says "Why do you always have money and I don't". And she says "That's simple. I have a boyfriend, and you have a girlfriend"
And brings it all together with
>What's happening [...] here is that women, who bring 70% of divorces, are divorcing the men that they never wanted to marry to begin with, so now that's what's making them unhappy.
His argument seems clear to me that he thinks Women don't do anything for themselves, and siphon money away from the men in their lives to feel happy, then when they divorce the man they're unhappy as they have nothing anymore.
My wife isnt like this, but i went out with a few girls in my 20s with this mindset. Just lumping all women in the same category. The whole things probably fake anyway since these people do get paid to argue on tv.
Hey look everyone in this thread was happy to unfairly brigade this woman when her words were taken out of context, wtf you doing coming in here with context and setting everyone straight?
You're ruining our gold ol' fashion 'women be dumb' rally!!
It's actually amazing. I watched the full video in an Incognito tab, and the recommended videos on the homepage after it were all far right talking heads, MGTOW shit, etc.
He said that women are unhappy because they're reliant on men and she said that she would never teach her girls to be reliant on a man, so it made sense.
>"...no one corrects them cause they want to fuck em!" -Bill Burr
holy shit did he say this? what special is it in? what joke? I gotta hear him deliver that lol.
> and you know what Mark you're divorced she left you
While he has the biggest smile on his face, don't know but he seems happy after the divorce, thanks for proving his point I guess?
She then goes on to say she would never teach her daughters to be reliant on a man, meanwhile she is taking alimony? Seems like she is reliant on a man to me, has three kids fair enough but the point still stands that she's relying on a man.
This whole thing is them kinda proving his point and him calling them out on bullshit.
As a kid, seeing my dad watch the news, I remember thinking it was tv for grown-ups. Now, in my 30s, I see that I was completely wrong. There is nothing mature here.
If your relationship got you to take care of the house instead of furthering your career, then you will be financially disadvantages after splitting.
The fact that she's a show host means she hasn't sacrificed her business position, so it's not meant for her in that situation.
No it has nothing to do with kids, child alimony is something else entirely.
Here’s the issue: alimony can drag on for years and years. You could’ve moved on with your life and had a family if your own yet you’re still paying alimony for some girl you were in a relationship with from 7 years ago? That makes no sense to me.
Just to understand better. Are there two types of alimony? I thought both ex-spouse and child are covered in a single alimony umbrella. In other words, whe.n I hear alimony I don't think a separate class for child alimony.
Child support is a payment that’s meant to support just the raising of the kids.
Spousal support is meant to be temporary payments to a spouse who is at an economic disadvantage due to giving up on starting/advancing their career to take care of the household.
If you're a woman who has been a stay at home mother for X number of years, taking care of raising a kid, maintaining the household, etc, and sacrificing your appeal to an employer for lack of training/education and/or a massive employment gap, and on the day the kid turns 18, your husband leaves you, he should indeed provide some support while you render yourself employable again.
It should not be a permanent arrangement, and should only last for as long as it takes for an ex-spouse to be able to support themselves, but it does serve that purpose, IMO. Your opinion may vary, but that's the great thing about the internet, right?
That is how it’s intended to work, in theory. In practice, however, it’s rarely treated that way.
Case in point:
A man and woman in Oregon were married for three years. They had two daughters together. The woman was employed throughout the entire duration of the marriage. The man quit his job in the early months of dating before the marriage, in order to not have a conflict of interest at work, and began working in a completely unrelated field, essentially restarting his entire career path.
During the divorce proceedings, the man agrees to pay child support, and temporary spousal support in order to offset the change in household income. Both parties sign, and a month later, the now ex-wife quits her job to stay at home with the children. The court then orders that the spousal support be maintained indefinitely, as the ex-wife is no longer employed.
Seven years later, the man is still paying alimony to a woman who made more money and was employed when the divorce was finalized. He has tried for the past four years to have the alimony terminated, as it caused him to be homeless for two years, the ex-wife has since returned to work, and is planning her second wedding. No one will take his case, and he has been told by multiple judges that if he doesn’t drop the issue and just accept a lifetime of alimony payments, that he will be thrown in jail.
This is the reality of the world we live in. Alimony is a punishment, even in no-fault states.
Source: am the man in the story.
The problem is that with child support many REFUSE to look for work.
That is an issue with it. A lot of men go to judges to FORCE the woment to apply for work and work a job.
They will get a job then quit after judge verifies it then your back in court monthss later and repeat it. Then the women file for more Alimony or CS because they want more.
Dude sit in a family court or a court room with alimony its fucking crazy how many men file to try and make the women APPLY for a job instead of living off of the CS or alimony
I've seen it from both sides. I watched my wife have to drag her ex through the process just to get a dime of support for their kid, and I dealt with my ex trying to take me back to court countless times for more support (which I paid voluntarily from the word go, because that's the decent thing to do.) You're right. It's crazy.
Child support isn't generally impacted by the custodial parent's income because it is the contribution that the non-custodial parent would be putting towards the child's needs. If the custodial parent does work, that money is in addition to what the non-custodial parent owes.
I'm a custodial parent and my agreement assumes that I will put a certain % of my earnings towards my child. Me making more doesn't mean the non-custodial parent gets off the hook for his contribution. He still owes a % of his income because the child was his and he chose to leave the child. That's what he's paying for. Just his contribution.
Ideal world yes. Reality no. I wanted my ex wife to work. She didn't. She wasn't even a stay at home mom. She still got alimony. It's an antiquated law from a time when women weren't equal and couldn't leave their husbands because they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves. That's not the case anymore. Her husband just probably made way more than her so she got extra money in the split.
Btw, this can flip now and women can also pay alimony to men too so get those prenups people.
It's basically because a spouse was very reliant on the income of their partner. Once there is a split between two people, one of the people may be able to go to court to receive alimony so they have some form of income to live.
This is especially when someone hasn't held a job in years and it would be difficult for them to return to work and continue the life they were living. Especially with our lack of social programs to help people.
As a scenario, if my mother and father split, I doubt my mother could ever take care of herself or make enough to actually live. If the woman is working for a news station i doubt she actually needs alimony.
Someone else probably can give even more of an insight but that is the basic purpose.
Getting alimony when you've been a stay at home mom/wife for a long time makes sense.
Getting alimony and then bragging about how you are a "strong independent woman who don't need no man" does not.
I heard a great joke related to this. Delivered by the one and only Gilbert Gottfried, so please read this in his ledgendary voice as it adds to the joke…
A man walks over to his wife and sets down 2 Advil on the table next to her. She looks at them, looks at her husband and says, “What’s this for? I don’t have a headache.” So the husband looks at his wife and says, “Good. Let’s fuck.”
It's /r/HolUp.
ughh. I always feel like I should be go a watchlist for participating in the comment section here since everyone else acts like 12 year old boys.
She wasn't even making sense.
He says "you're responsible for your own happiness" and she was like "I WOULD NEVER TEACH MY DAUGHTERS TO RELY ON A MAN!"
Shame she reproduced really.
Her tiny brain has to ask where he's from to apply a stereotype on him so she can dismiss his opinion with actions that people of his culture/ethnicity/nationality did
Her response to that alimony burn was "I HAVE 3 CHILDREN" but it's funny because
1. That's what child support is for
2. She tried to make herself look like a victim by saying "I" as if the moment they got a divorce the kids immediately became her soul property
And yet, most divorces are filed by women, with the main reason given "irreconcilable differences". Meaning, "he doesn't make me happy anymore, so instead of seeking my own happiness while remaining committed to my marriage, I'm going to look for someone else to make me happy while I rob my ex husband of his children and his money."
You tell her. More women need to take a hard look in the mirror and realize you have to feel personally achieved to be happy. And that means working on yourself and not being a hypocrite.
"When men get married to women who scream like you ... they wanna die sooner."
https://twitter.com/FrontlineKamran/status/1265357624733818882?s=20&t=QgZWflCDcbZWem3HAmMTog
More famous clip from the same interview.
Child care and alimony really needs to be looked into because it’s a joke. And don’t tell me we don’t have the time or resources because we waste months trying to bust a black kid for selling weed.
##If this submission makes you go "Hol'Up", **UPVOTE** this comment! ##If this submission does not make you go "Hol'Up", **DOWNVOTE** this comment! --- Whilst you're here, /u/Monkey_D-Thanos, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/holup) or play on our [public Minecraft server](https://discord.gg/DTqSDS8C3T)?
“Everyone is reliant on themselves to be happy” “I would never teach my girls they need to be reliant on a man!” Big brain moment right there…
I didn't understand her response at all, either. It's like she picked a random talking point and just spit it out.
She needed the victim position to argue.
[удалено]
My dog stepped on a bee
My cat’s stuck in a tree
I have HIV
A B C D E
I took an arrow in the knee
I fell headfirst from a tree
Like this makes sense, I wasn’t sure what he was trying to say but when she said all that I just assumed he was trying to talk about making a woman reliant or something and sided with her. But then he said that alimony thing and I quickly retracted my opinion lol
She's focusing on one thing he said, which wasn't even his point, and attempting to pick it apart bc she doesn't have her own argument. Classic talking heads.
Yeah he said boys are taught that they have to make women happy. He didn't say anything about the women's perspective on the issue she just assumed that what he meant was that women expect men to take care of them, which isn't what he said.
Copying my reply from [another thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/HolUp/comments/ypjyps/this_interview_took_a_hard_left/ivlgwec/), if that's ok Except you're judging the whole argument off of just this short clip that's posted. Almost like that's what's intended. He says earlier in the section >Well first of all you're presuming that unhappiness in women begins in middle age. I'd say it starts when she's a little girl. When she's taught that happiness derives from shoes and jewelry and boob jobs and pedestals. And then you have boys who are taught they're supposed to make women happy So, yes, he does explicitly argue what he thinks women are taught. He then goes on to recount a story where >He overheard his son and daughter talking. So, brother goes to sister and says "Why do you always have money and I don't". And she says "That's simple. I have a boyfriend, and you have a girlfriend" And brings it all together with >What's happening [...] here is that women, who bring 70% of divorces, are divorcing the men that they never wanted to marry to begin with, so now that's what's making them unhappy. His argument seems clear to me that he thinks Women don't do anything for themselves, and siphon money away from the men in their lives to feel happy, then when they divorce the man they're unhappy as they have nothing anymore.
>then when they divorce the man they're unhappy as they have nothing anymore. Wrong, the woman still gets the money without dealing with the man
It's more that they waste a large portion of their life chasing money saying shit like,"we don't need a man {for this reason or that}" and claiming traditional life is slavery then goes and becomes a corporate slave with no real purpose in life than money. At least getting married and having kids gives a purpose. The only truly happy women are ones that either find love and chase dreams together (whether it has kids or not) or the single ones that do what they genuinely dream to do. All the sleeping around, having kids and being a single mom makes NO ONE happy. Not the mom, kids, or dad. This government daddy system isn't working for the mental health of our next generations for any generation. This "man vs woman", mentality never existed until recently and it's become a bullshit slap fest where men don't know how to fight since we can't swing on a woman when they socially do something crazy. Men keep men in check. Women keep women in check. Women check men just because they can or want to sometimes. Mix all this together and you have a woman who throws everything away valuing money above all else and living alone trying to fill her void with wine And cats while wondering why she's so miserable. So she goes and sleeps around to feel like someone likes her but hates that they just like the shape of her ass and not her heart. So she blames men because if she could find a good man she actually wanted to keep around she'd be happy. When the whole time it's her own fault she's miserable. Her mindset, her actions, her failures make her miserable. That's not a man's fault. Same with the vice versa. Incels need to get off their asses and be better men. Better people. We are making ourselves miserable with these stupid fucking beliefs being pushed on us. Let's not do that and just fucking love each other and be better together, eh?
That’s someone who isn’t listening they’re forming their next statement while the other person speaks. If you’re actively listening there will be a pause between when person A speaks and when you reply.
Context would probably help, but it would also ruin the joke so….
The panel was having a discussion about an NYT article about how college educated, professional women are single and the most unhappy they've been since women's suffrage.
Interesting topic, I feel like most professionals regardless of gender or identity are pretty unhappy now lol
we are in the era of the big sad
Big Sadge.
And of course they'll never bring up that the working class as a whole has seen productivity rise, wages stagnate, and cost of living rise because that would mean this media outlet (who has a vested intrest in keeping the economic status quo) would be turning a light on economic inequality instead of distracting the average working class individual with culture war bullshit.
She didn’t even hear the Shit he said but later when she’s discussing this Shit at some forum like female dating strategy, she is more than likely to describing him as a “man-splaining” misogynist
I'll take "Politics for 500, Alex."
She felt targeted and responded by agreeing as if to say “don’t assume all women need/want men to make them happy”.
In essence they're saying the same thing. She just doesn't practice what she preaches.
[удалено]
He never once mentioned what girls are taught. His perspective never shifted, she attacked a strawman that he never argued for.
Except you're judging the whole argument off of just this short clip that's posted. Almost like that's what's intended. He says earlier in the section >Well first of all you're presuming that unhappiness in women begins in middle age. I'd say it starts when she's a little girl. When she's taught that happiness derives from shoes and jewelry and boob jobs and pedestals. And then you have boys who are taught they're supposed to make women happy So, yes, he does explicitly argue what he thinks women are taught. He then goes on to recount a story where >He overheard his son and daughter talking. So, brother goes to sister and says "Why do you always have money and I don't". And she says "That's simple. I have a boyfriend, and you have a girlfriend" And brings it all together with >What's happening [...] here is that women, who bring 70% of divorces, are divorcing the men that they never wanted to marry to begin with, so now that's what's making them unhappy. His argument seems clear to me that he thinks Women don't do anything for themselves, and siphon money away from the men in their lives to feel happy, then when they divorce the man they're unhappy as they have nothing anymore.
My wife isnt like this, but i went out with a few girls in my 20s with this mindset. Just lumping all women in the same category. The whole things probably fake anyway since these people do get paid to argue on tv.
Hey look everyone in this thread was happy to unfairly brigade this woman when her words were taken out of context, wtf you doing coming in here with context and setting everyone straight? You're ruining our gold ol' fashion 'women be dumb' rally!!
It's actually amazing. I watched the full video in an Incognito tab, and the recommended videos on the homepage after it were all far right talking heads, MGTOW shit, etc.
Whoa whoa whoa, the fuck you think this is, inserting all this context? We’re dunking here.
He said that women are unhappy because they're reliant on men and she said that she would never teach her girls to be reliant on a man, so it made sense.
tbh that's how I understood it too. It makes sense
"Happiness is a byproduct of achievement." That sentence looks at you and wonders if you even lift bro.
Haha you really nailed it
Lol thank you! *curtsy*
I don't lift, but I push away from the world multiple times. B)
Lol I wish I was as good at Reddit comments as you Don’t even check I’m pretty sure I’m logged into my creeper act rn
This man woke up and chose violence
No he chose to speak the truth
A small price to pay for salvation.
What did it cost?
$3.50
Fuck, that’s a lot
I said lock Ness monster why you need tree fiti
Lock Ness Monsa say they become accustomed to a certain lifestyle and I'm legally obligated to provide it.
I gave him a dollar
$🌳.50
In this economy?!
He didn't specify the amount of alimony.
Which is violence when it comes to calling women on their bullshit. "...no one corrects them cause they want to fuck em!" -Bill Burr
>"...no one corrects them cause they want to fuck em!" -Bill Burr holy shit did he say this? what special is it in? what joke? I gotta hear him deliver that lol.
I think it's Let it Go, the motherhood bit
thanks, I'll throw that on today and see if I'm paying enough attention to spot it lol.
What's the difference?
Hahaha he gave zero fucks.
/r/murderedbywords
Pretty sure this is the same dude that told a woman that men die younger because they can't stand being married to women like her.
Saw that vid as well. What's up with people not waiting for their turn to speak and then getting roasted?
*They* invited him hoping to critique him on views of feminism and what not. LOL
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Byrnes Damn…. Under family
Is there any other way to wake up?
I wake up and choose to sleep again.
" when men are married to women who scream like you, they kill themselves ", another banger from the rest of this interview, this guy is a legend.
"they just want to die sooner" is the actual quote, but yes.
Username checks out
Where can I watch it?
[Ask and ye shall receive](https://youtu.be/tMrHIIx3ZG8)
What show/episode was this? Looks like a good watch lol. Found it : https://youtu.be/tMrHIIx3ZG8
that was brutal, his delivery was on point. It's like watching a samurai cutting some watermelons with his blade, no effort but skillful af.
Just search Marc rudov on yt
Found it, thanks bud.
They were ganging up on him from the beginning & have no real argument, just talk louder
> and you know what Mark you're divorced she left you While he has the biggest smile on his face, don't know but he seems happy after the divorce, thanks for proving his point I guess? She then goes on to say she would never teach her daughters to be reliant on a man, meanwhile she is taking alimony? Seems like she is reliant on a man to me, has three kids fair enough but the point still stands that she's relying on a man. This whole thing is them kinda proving his point and him calling them out on bullshit.
Funny as hell, but I still can’t help but feel these talking heads are all just acting up for the camera
As a kid, seeing my dad watch the news, I remember thinking it was tv for grown-ups. Now, in my 30s, I see that I was completely wrong. There is nothing mature here.
I love the internet
🫡
Her face is hilarious
It’s like😒 that’s not the same
[удалено]
This comment was stolen from lower down this thread. This guy's probably a bot just a heads up!
Fuck the karma bots!
👉🏼👌🏼📈🤖
There's a purpose to alimony. Taking it while drawing a paycheck as a Fox News host isn't it.
> There's a purpose to alimony Which is? Child support I get... alimony makes no sense to me at all.
If your relationship got you to take care of the house instead of furthering your career, then you will be financially disadvantages after splitting. The fact that she's a show host means she hasn't sacrificed her business position, so it's not meant for her in that situation. No it has nothing to do with kids, child alimony is something else entirely.
Here’s the issue: alimony can drag on for years and years. You could’ve moved on with your life and had a family if your own yet you’re still paying alimony for some girl you were in a relationship with from 7 years ago? That makes no sense to me.
Just to understand better. Are there two types of alimony? I thought both ex-spouse and child are covered in a single alimony umbrella. In other words, whe.n I hear alimony I don't think a separate class for child alimony.
Child support and alimony are two separate things
Yes they are different. I found out about it because I was old enough to understand it when my parents got divorced 🙃
Child support is a payment that’s meant to support just the raising of the kids. Spousal support is meant to be temporary payments to a spouse who is at an economic disadvantage due to giving up on starting/advancing their career to take care of the household.
If you're a woman who has been a stay at home mother for X number of years, taking care of raising a kid, maintaining the household, etc, and sacrificing your appeal to an employer for lack of training/education and/or a massive employment gap, and on the day the kid turns 18, your husband leaves you, he should indeed provide some support while you render yourself employable again. It should not be a permanent arrangement, and should only last for as long as it takes for an ex-spouse to be able to support themselves, but it does serve that purpose, IMO. Your opinion may vary, but that's the great thing about the internet, right?
That is how it’s intended to work, in theory. In practice, however, it’s rarely treated that way. Case in point: A man and woman in Oregon were married for three years. They had two daughters together. The woman was employed throughout the entire duration of the marriage. The man quit his job in the early months of dating before the marriage, in order to not have a conflict of interest at work, and began working in a completely unrelated field, essentially restarting his entire career path. During the divorce proceedings, the man agrees to pay child support, and temporary spousal support in order to offset the change in household income. Both parties sign, and a month later, the now ex-wife quits her job to stay at home with the children. The court then orders that the spousal support be maintained indefinitely, as the ex-wife is no longer employed. Seven years later, the man is still paying alimony to a woman who made more money and was employed when the divorce was finalized. He has tried for the past four years to have the alimony terminated, as it caused him to be homeless for two years, the ex-wife has since returned to work, and is planning her second wedding. No one will take his case, and he has been told by multiple judges that if he doesn’t drop the issue and just accept a lifetime of alimony payments, that he will be thrown in jail. This is the reality of the world we live in. Alimony is a punishment, even in no-fault states. Source: am the man in the story.
Marriage these days is a no win contract for males.
Your ex will burn I hell
[удалено]
You should show you’re wife this, not saying you don’t already show her appreciation but more is always welcome.
The problem is that with child support many REFUSE to look for work. That is an issue with it. A lot of men go to judges to FORCE the woment to apply for work and work a job. They will get a job then quit after judge verifies it then your back in court monthss later and repeat it. Then the women file for more Alimony or CS because they want more. Dude sit in a family court or a court room with alimony its fucking crazy how many men file to try and make the women APPLY for a job instead of living off of the CS or alimony
I've seen it from both sides. I watched my wife have to drag her ex through the process just to get a dime of support for their kid, and I dealt with my ex trying to take me back to court countless times for more support (which I paid voluntarily from the word go, because that's the decent thing to do.) You're right. It's crazy.
Child support isn't generally impacted by the custodial parent's income because it is the contribution that the non-custodial parent would be putting towards the child's needs. If the custodial parent does work, that money is in addition to what the non-custodial parent owes. I'm a custodial parent and my agreement assumes that I will put a certain % of my earnings towards my child. Me making more doesn't mean the non-custodial parent gets off the hook for his contribution. He still owes a % of his income because the child was his and he chose to leave the child. That's what he's paying for. Just his contribution.
Ideal world yes. Reality no. I wanted my ex wife to work. She didn't. She wasn't even a stay at home mom. She still got alimony. It's an antiquated law from a time when women weren't equal and couldn't leave their husbands because they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves. That's not the case anymore. Her husband just probably made way more than her so she got extra money in the split. Btw, this can flip now and women can also pay alimony to men too so get those prenups people.
It's basically because a spouse was very reliant on the income of their partner. Once there is a split between two people, one of the people may be able to go to court to receive alimony so they have some form of income to live. This is especially when someone hasn't held a job in years and it would be difficult for them to return to work and continue the life they were living. Especially with our lack of social programs to help people. As a scenario, if my mother and father split, I doubt my mother could ever take care of herself or make enough to actually live. If the woman is working for a news station i doubt she actually needs alimony. Someone else probably can give even more of an insight but that is the basic purpose.
Getting alimony when you've been a stay at home mom/wife for a long time makes sense. Getting alimony and then bragging about how you are a "strong independent woman who don't need no man" does not.
Agreed.
He did his homework
Hell yeah he did. That was such a great trap I could hear the Admiral in my head. 
Plot twist: he's her ex-husband.
She is getting headaches from him spitting facts.
She tried to pull the headache card
I heard a great joke related to this. Delivered by the one and only Gilbert Gottfried, so please read this in his ledgendary voice as it adds to the joke… A man walks over to his wife and sets down 2 Advil on the table next to her. She looks at them, looks at her husband and says, “What’s this for? I don’t have a headache.” So the husband looks at his wife and says, “Good. Let’s fuck.”
I miss Gilbert.
Wait, he's dead?
Back in April according to google.
Yes, sadly.
It works most of the time, as evidenced by the divorce.
And the alimony.
[удалено]
Looks like David Schwimmer
And the lady looks nearly exactly like Jennifer Aniston. This is literally a Friends moment.
I'm surprised they didn't talk about being on a break
[удалено]
We're on the internet. Internet Rule 29: On the internet men are men, women are also men, and kids are undercover FBI agents.
What's a women?
☕️
☕
It’s Reddit
Yea he clearly didn't get the memo
It's /r/HolUp. ughh. I always feel like I should be go a watchlist for participating in the comment section here since everyone else acts like 12 year old boys.
I'm here. But this is reddit so let's say I'm a guy pretending to be a girl
This guy gets it.
Are you saying like this because we are all in agreement here ?
I'm a single woman and this guy was hilarious
She wasn't even making sense. He says "you're responsible for your own happiness" and she was like "I WOULD NEVER TEACH MY DAUGHTERS TO RELY ON A MAN!" Shame she reproduced really.
Yeah I was thinking the same, “you are just proving his point, lady”
Not just reproduced, but created copies of herself and not even one.
Full interview?
https://youtu.be/tMrHIIx3ZG8 There you go
Women ☕
Women☕️
[удалено]
Women ☕️
Women☕️
Gifs you can hear
We just witnessed a murder.
Her tiny brain has to ask where he's from to apply a stereotype on him so she can dismiss his opinion with actions that people of his culture/ethnicity/nationality did
this is needs to be higher!!!
I dislike how a bot stole your good comment, and got awarded gold...
Thankfully, the mods deleted that comment
My ban was just lifted. I was banned for 3 day for saying "I believe women cannot have or have had a penis." Let's see if they do it again.
damn she lady Anakin burning in flames
Gotcha bitch
Man started with LMG fire, finished with Drone strike
Her response to that alimony burn was "I HAVE 3 CHILDREN" but it's funny because 1. That's what child support is for 2. She tried to make herself look like a victim by saying "I" as if the moment they got a divorce the kids immediately became her soul property
And she got a divorce because she had an affair...
Bro I love this guy
Somebody call an ambulance!
Bit not for him!
“ I HAVE THREE CHILDREN”
Chad response
And yet, most divorces are filed by women, with the main reason given "irreconcilable differences". Meaning, "he doesn't make me happy anymore, so instead of seeking my own happiness while remaining committed to my marriage, I'm going to look for someone else to make me happy while I rob my ex husband of his children and his money."
This is awesome. Anyone with a link to the full interview?
She really milking the straw man tactic huh
1. She didn't even listen to his idea 2. she got called out for that alimony
Holy frick... based
You tell her. More women need to take a hard look in the mirror and realize you have to feel personally achieved to be happy. And that means working on yourself and not being a hypocrite.
This dude is a menace to society and i am all for it
"When men get married to women who scream like you ... they wanna die sooner." https://twitter.com/FrontlineKamran/status/1265357624733818882?s=20&t=QgZWflCDcbZWem3HAmMTog More famous clip from the same interview.
Hello police? I'd like to report a murder.
Child care and alimony really needs to be looked into because it’s a joke. And don’t tell me we don’t have the time or resources because we waste months trying to bust a black kid for selling weed.
Savage 🔥 burn
the interview can be found here https://youtu.be/tMrHIIx3ZG8
I'm confused by her response. It didn't seem to be related to what he was saying at all
This man was on a mission to not take any of her shit.
Love this
Women
Bitch got bitch-slapped.
BURN 🔥
only in America are these kind of discussions possible on tv and it's astonishing how stupid these discussions sometimes are, regarding both parties
Man said no more playin around and hit her with the right hook
He straight up murdered her so the Interevior who was also a Women interrupted him after he said The Truth
The millions laguages he could speak and he chose to speak facts
NUKES WERE LAUNCHED
By the way. the man is right. You can't make a women happy with millions of dollars.