[DominikR]

> It's essentially unemployment benefits owed by the marriage as an association.

1) You don't get unemployment benefits for life. There is usually a limit. It is a free ride.

2) Women today expect men to share work at home equally. Not every couple does that but many do and most women do return to their jobs a few years after child birth. So what exactly should the women be reimbursed for?

[icebraining]

Like I said, implementations vary and I don't mean to defend them all, just the core idea. And I'm not even necessarily a supporter of alimony at all; a system where such spouses got actual unemployment and other state benefits instead is probably preferable.

[exstudent2]

I could see how the state paying may seem preferable at first glance but as a tax payer I absolutely do not want to be paying to support people post-divorce.

[DominikR]

We must change the legal framework so that women cannot effectively marry the state anymore. They are responsible for their own life choices just as any other person so I don't see why they should get a free ride.