The Daily Mail writes:
The rise of manimony: Meet the women making huge sacrifices to pay thousands in alimony to their former husbands
By Clare Goldwin
When novelist Milly Johnson divorced her husband it was an apparently straightforward split. She kept the family home, got custody of their young sons and her maintenance payments came to about £1,000 a month.
A fairly modest sum, you might think, when you factor in the expense of clothing, feeding and raising two boys.
Except this was not money Milly received from her husband, but financial support she was paying to him. The 47-year-old mother of two found herself in the unexpected, but increasingly common, position of having to pay alimony — or ‘manimony’ as it has been dubbed — to her cash-strapped ex-husband after their marriage broke down.
No Clare, it was not an apparently straightforward split. It was the usual ordinary crime against the father and the children for the emotional profit of the mother. It was the usual crime against the natural and interminable rights of a father and of his children.
So it was and still is a straightforward crime, and nothing less. And the judge as well as the mother ought to be punished for committing it.
And again, no Clare. Alimony was never dubbed womanimony, and therefore there is not the least of rights to now call it manimony. And that you even make it an issue for an article is a flagrant offense against husbands and fathers and an equally flagrant elating of mothers over fathers, a sexual racist spitting.
What a piece of slandering vindictive lard the whining ex-wife is shows the following:
‘My ex-husband was a self-employed window fitter but by the end of our marriage he was bringing hardly any money at all into the home. He’d tell me that contractors owed him and I believed him, although I suspect that he was setting off for work and then going to the pub.’
Why did you not interview the ex-husband and give him a chance to utter some equivalent to the above put-down. What are you, a journalist or a campaigner to derogate men?
So with more women than ever being the main breadwinner — figures from the Office for National Statistics showed this week how women in their 20s are surging ahead of men in the pay stakes — it’s not surprising more are having to pay out when marriages unfortunately fail.
Oh, sure. That is why you make an article of it?
‘For women it’s like rubbing salt into the wound that they not only have to deal with the emotional fallout of divorce, but they have to pay out money too. It’s like signing up to a hire purchase and then realising the goods are shoddy but you still having to pay for them.
What a yucky jerk, this woman! What do you think, it has been for men, forever? Different? In what way?
‘I am not prepared to carry on funding a man who is perfectly able to work and has been simply living off me since the divorce.’
Yep. That’s exactly what millions of men do think year after year, since eternity!
‘And women feel very strongly that they’ve already had to do it all by supporting the family financially and keeping the plates spinning at home, so it makes them very angry with their ex husbands.’
Yeah, honey, men did that for not only decades but centuries. So woman up and gulp it down and pay! And, give the custody to him, so that you know how it really feels to be a divorced man and father, that you get a real feel of equality!
Aren’t you all for equality, more than the Pope is for God?
And what is the worst, all of the three arrogant cows depicted have the custody of the children though they have no time to care for them as they are too busy to make money.
To repeat it, babes: You will only know what it means to be treated equally to a man, if he got the custody of the children and you have to pray to God that he does not get the idea to prevent you from seeing them!