I meet women over the age of 55 who are Shipt delivery drivers. They make 7% of the order, which must be at least a $35 order. And then most people hopefully tip 20%. I was having car trouble, and I had my groceries delivered instead of picking them up myself. Both my Shipt delivery drivers were older women. They had on shorts and a Shipt tee shirt. They made at least $15 cash tip just from me. If they had more than one delivery that hour, it's around $30 an hour, not bad money to supplement a retirement. One said she likes it and has had over 4,000 deliveries. She likes the flexibility and being able to set her own hours. I met another woman over 55 who was a retired lawyer, working as a bartender. She said she enjoyed it. When I taught community college, I'm also a woman over 50, I had a lot of returning students who were divorced women. The divorce convinced them to return to school. 3,000 women living in the state of Florida receiving permanent alimony is not a large number, so that's probably why they got sucker punched. I really hate that the Republicans went after that. I see a lot of stupid older men marrying much younger women, like 30 years younger then they are. The older divorced women don't want these older divorced men. The women think the older men want a nurse and a purse.

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are in your bubble and are thinking of Nannies and high earners and bs like that but that is not who we are talking about here.

Imagine an uneducated nail technician cheating on her hardworking civil servant husband for years but stretches out the marriage to make it to the ten year mark so she can get half of his pension (woohoo I won the lottery!) for eternity. She also gets “full custody” of the kids (=child support $) but decides to take that money and run off to West Virginia with her new boyfriend, lots of vacations to Cancun and a giant new pickup truck while the courts require her to keep paying even as he raises the kids himself, pays for braces etc . Alternative scenario a lady used to being supported her whole married life is now divorced at 55 but does not feel like getting an actual job so prefers remaining “dependant” in spite the fact that it means her husband can never actually retire, as he will be Paying for the rest of time.


Yes I am a feminist but a lot of times really get the shitty end of the stick and usually it is men with fewer of course.

How is a woman of 55 that spent almost all her career building years being a SAHM supposed to support herself on minimum wage since she has no skills to get any other kind of job? Coincidently society doesn’t believe we should raise minimum wage since only teenagers should be working those kinds of jobs so now what? She’s 10ish years from retirement, retirement benefits won’t pay crap no health care and supposed to afford living in any capacity on 7.25/hr.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are in your bubble and are thinking of Nannies and high earners and bs like that but that is not who we are talking about here.

Imagine an uneducated nail technician cheating on her hardworking civil servant husband for years but stretches out the marriage to make it to the ten year mark so she can get half of his pension (woohoo I won the lottery!) for eternity. She also gets “full custody” of the kids (=child support $) but decides to take that money and run off to West Virginia with her new boyfriend, lots of vacations to Cancun and a giant new pickup truck while the courts require her to keep paying even as he raises the kids himself, pays for braces etc . Alternative scenario a lady used to being supported her whole married life is now divorced at 55 but does not feel like getting an actual job so prefers remaining “dependant” in spite the fact that it means her husband can never actually retire, as he will be Paying for the rest of time.


Yes I am a feminist but a lot of times really get the shitty end of the stick and usually it is men with fewer of course.

Cool story I guess?

PP is an MRA but doesn’t want anyone to know. Now you know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a bad thing. I think it will penalize women that invest in running their family while their husband builds a career. I WFT and always have but have plenty of friends that stayed home as SAHMs for a long stint and are now back at lower paying jobs to stay flexible. This is part of how some marriages work. It should be possible to recognize that.

It is bad thing because it is telling the earning ex-spouse that they are unable to ever retire since they are required to keep alimony payments going forever.
Why does one person get to retire but other person is not allowed just so she doesn't have to get a job? How is that fair?
Kids are in school by the time a woman is in her 40's and out of the nest by the time most women are in their early fifties. Law states that they get 75% for the term of the marriage. If you cannot make that work, or heaven forbid get a job for the remaining time before SS kicks in, than you are a lazy taker that needs to be cut off.
Act like a grown up, not a dependent child.

“Florida Family Fairness is pleased that the Florida Legislature and Gov. DeSantis have passed a bill that ends permanent alimony and codifies in statute the right to retire for existing alimony payers,” Buhler said in a statement “Anything that adds clarity and ends permanent alimony is a win for Florida families.”

Wow, the MRA freaks who created a PAC solely to end alimony are excited by this? Color me surprised.

And wooooow could you be any more of a closet misogynist? People have patiently explained to the small minds why permanent alimony is a thing. But some men just gotta turn the screws in order to feel powerful.

There are good people on both sides.

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are in your bubble and are thinking of Nannies and high earners and bs like that but that is not who we are talking about here.

Imagine an uneducated nail technician cheating on her hardworking civil servant husband for years but stretches out the marriage to make it to the ten year mark so she can get half of his pension (woohoo I won the lottery!) for eternity. She also gets “full custody” of the kids (=child support $) but decides to take that money and run off to West Virginia with her new boyfriend, lots of vacations to Cancun and a giant new pickup truck while the courts require her to keep paying even as he raises the kids himself, pays for braces etc . Alternative scenario a lady used to being supported her whole married life is now divorced at 55 but does not feel like getting an actual job so prefers remaining “dependant” in spite the fact that it means her husband can never actually retire, as he will be Paying for the rest of time.


Yes I am a feminist but a lot of times really get the shitty end of the stick and usually it is men with fewer of course.

Cool story I guess?

Fewer resources i mean

So many of you are in your bubble and are thinking of Nannies and high earners and bs like that but that is not who we are talking about here.

Imagine an uneducated nail technician cheating on her hardworking civil servant husband for years but stretches out the marriage to make it to the ten year mark so she can get half of his pension (woohoo I won the lottery!) for eternity. She also gets “full custody” of the kids (=child support $) but decides to take that money and run off to West Virginia with her new boyfriend, lots of vacations to Cancun and a giant new pickup truck while the courts require her to keep paying even as he raises the kids himself, pays for braces etc . Alternative scenario a lady used to being supported her whole married life is now divorced at 55 but does not feel like getting an actual job so prefers remaining “dependant” in spite the fact that it means her husband can never actually retire, as he will be Paying for the rest of time.


Yes I am a feminist but a lot of times really get the shitty end of the stick and usually it is men with fewer of course.

Practically speaking, now the burden on the government versus individuals, especially families who had their first children later in life (around 40). Distribute the wealth, distribute the burden. In the end, the rich win as always.

Anonymous wrote:So wouldn't this bill encourage all those so-called Christian moms to say no to the "traditional" arrangement of dad goes to work and mom stays home with the kids? Because they are the ones who will get screwed the most with this type of law.

Or will those same Christian women support this type of law because they grew up in a patriarchal society that they think they wouldn't deserve alimony or that their dear husbands/leaders of their family would never divorce them?

This. They think they will never get divorced because it's not "Christian."

And then they will struggle financially for decades.

Anonymous wrote:So wouldn't this bill encourage all those so-called Christian moms to say no to the "traditional" arrangement of dad goes to work and mom stays home with the kids? Because they are the ones who will get screwed the most with this type of law.

Or will those same Christian women support this type of law because they grew up in a patriarchal society that they think they wouldn't deserve alimony or that their dear husbands/leaders of their family would never divorce them?

That's cute. Now do all the progressive women here on DCUM that haven't worked since their first pregnancy and feel that staying home is their birth right.

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a bad thing. I think it will penalize women that invest in running their family while their husband builds a career. I WFT and always have but have plenty of friends that stayed home as SAHMs for a long stint and are now back at lower paying jobs to stay flexible. This is part of how some marriages work. It should be possible to recognize that.

Ok. So why should a woman essentially be able to retire in her 50's but the exDH is required to continue working into his 70's just to pay her alimony? Divorce has consequences and if you chose to be a dependent and retire in your 40's you are taking a gamble. No one deserves a life of leisure by forcing servitude of another human.

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a bad thing. I think it will penalize women that invest in running their family while their husband builds a career. I WFT and always have but have plenty of friends that stayed home as SAHMs for a long stint and are now back at lower paying jobs to stay flexible. This is part of how some marriages work. It should be possible to recognize that.

It is bad thing because it is telling the earning ex-spouse that they are unable to ever retire since they are required to keep alimony payments going forever.
Why does one person get to retire but other person is not allowed just so she doesn't have to get a job? How is that fair?
Kids are in school by the time a woman is in her 40's and out of the nest by the time most women are in their early fifties. Law states that they get 75% for the term of the marriage. If you cannot make that work, or heaven forbid get a job for the remaining time before SS kicks in, than you are a lazy taker that needs to be cut off.
Act like a grown up, not a dependent child.

“Florida Family Fairness is pleased that the Florida Legislature and Gov. DeSantis have passed a bill that ends permanent alimony and codifies in statute the right to retire for existing alimony payers,” Buhler said in a statement “Anything that adds clarity and ends permanent alimony is a win for Florida families.”

So wouldn't this bill encourage all those so-called Christian moms to say no to the "traditional" arrangement of dad goes to work and mom stays home with the kids? Because they are the ones who will get screwed the most with this type of law.

Or will those same Christian women support this type of law because they grew up in a patriarchal society that they think they wouldn't deserve alimony or that their dear husbands/leaders of their family would never divorce them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long term alimony is on the way out for the vast majority of women divorcing now and in the near future, given that women now make up a large percentage of the workforce and are not dramatically less likely to have earning potential than men; however, this was not the case for today’s elderly women. It’s unfair for this change to affect divorce settlements that are already in effect. It should only affect ones that go into effect starting now, so people can negotiate and set their budgets accordingly.

I don’t understand the State’s interest in ending permanent alimony. Won’t this result in some more people on the public dole?

I know, right? If you are a young woman divorcing today, you are highly unlikely to get permanent alimony. Those who built their lives when society was different should be offered different protections. I have no idea what problem the man is trying to solve here. I guess the cruelty is the point, again.

It’s really a shame so many of you seem unable to read. This will not affect existing alimony agreements.

“Senate bill sponsor Joe Gruters, R-Sarasota, tried to assure lawmakers that the 2023 version would not unconstitutionally affect existing alimony settlements.”

Although lawmakers didn’t write a bill that automatically ends permanent alimony that is currently in effect, as one’s financial circumstances change, existing settlements can be modified. This bill doesn’t have airtight language that says that if you already have permanent alimony, it will remain permanent despite any other future modifications, so the stage is set for this to happen.