Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>A more stark sort of dissonance is that inherent in the different
>ways alimony, child support, and public assistance are regarded.
>Privately financed alimony or child support never raises
>questions about the character of the recipients.
HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!
i BEG to differ. there is plenty of shame shame shame on you heaped on women who receive alimony these days. ya kiddin'??
not to mention that the RECIPIENT of child support [child/children] is often confused with the primary caretaker. and obviously plenty of eyebrows raise on someone's part when you consider that only [last i knew] about 1/3 of children of divorce receive child support payments from non-custodial parent. this rate holds whether non-custodial parent is male or female. somehow, the non-custodial parent always seems to think that not living with the child and divorce is reason enough to judge them unworthy of the private financial support.
see the marvelous Divorce, American Style--hilarious flick--for a parody of alimony in an era when only about 1/3 of wives rec'd alimony to begin with.
another more common idiocy though is that parents who receive welfare and other social services because they are poor are distinguished from parents who receive social security benefits for themselves and children when a spouse dies. death is legitimate reason for being unable to make ends meet as a single parent, but divorce is not.
kelley