It’s mentioned 9 times in The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas.

Definitely it had its mind share so it was possibly a tad bit overhyped.

This portrayal is far from the truth.

Alimony is awarded in approximately 10% of divorce cases[0] and varies quite a bit in length, amount etc. and it’s done a practice that ref elects most commonly when one partner in a marriage contributes significantly less monetarily than the other. There’s also threshold circumstances that need to be met in most cases.

Now child support is not alimony, it’s support for your child(ren) that is paid to the parent that is the primary caretaker and for their needs.

Both have much different justifications and serve purposes that can’t really be boiled down to some form of nefarious “extraction” and in the case of alimony is far from widely granted

[0]: Judith McMullen has written good works on this topic but unfortunately I can’t find an unpaid link

> This portrayal is far from the truth.

Your arguments don't form a rebuttal. Alimony does make divorce easier, and child support makes it easier for the children to go to the mother; courts predominantly assign children to her, which is indeed sexist. And there are still quite a few families with a single provider, so it does contribute, and when you go back in time, that effect is more pronounced, which contributed to the social acceptance of divorce.

I do not share the GP's opinion about divorce, implied in terms like "cash out," though, if only because that would be rather hypocritical.

The laws are more unfair to men in states with more patriarchal cultures. Liberal states have way more equitable arrangements for them. Places like Alabama, practically the only way women can get ahead is to either move out of state or keep marrying up.

"Places like Alabama, practically the only way women can get ahead is to either move out of state or keep marrying up."

This sounds like an assumption that a woman could not have a career or get ahead of her own accord without relying on a man. Is that the thrust or did I misinterpret? And if so is it because the culture of that state is so patriarchal that a woman cannot have opportunities? I'm American but I haven't been to Alabama.

As utterly terrible as divorce is, it’s preferable to being murdered. Although it might not seem like it at the time.

I wonder how much the rate of spousal murder has declined as divorce has become easier.

No-fault divorce probably saves a lot of lives, in other words. Good!

So get a prenup? You have options.

I wouldn’t present it as a fact. Note that even the article is uncertain how much of that was urban legend or moral panic - perhaps fueled by comments like the parent comment.

> “This elaboration of claims resulted in belief in a poison that was very widely feared, but never actually existed,” Dash wrote. He further suggests that many deaths attributed to Aqua Tofana were likely due to natural causes and that its notorious reputation was largely the result of a moral panic.

Arsenic poisoning are well documented, and leave traces even after centuries. Saying "never actually existed" is quite a stretch.

But that is not the point. We should not whitewash murder, and celebrate murderers. Even today murderers are celebrated and rewarded, for adding bleach or rat poison to food!

Some of these'll be genuine murders, sure.

Some will be self-defense by battered spouses in an situation where divorce was not really a option.

I read it as motive rather than an excuse.

Is 'AI-generated' the term we use now for content we don't like?

What a killjoy you are.