alimony, as separate from child support, is a little strange and i do not understand at all how it makes complete sense in a post-christian (i.e. marriage is not a remedy against sin intended to last almost but not quite unto the age of ages) or feminist (i.e marriage is not a means of managing male property in and responsibility for women) understanding of divorce.
English courts seem to have a sensible moderate view on the matter. It is still a little old-fashioned, I think because marriage in English law is still only approaching a post-Christian feminist form and a lot of divorcees were married back when societal expectations were that a marriage *was* at least vaguely Christian and patriarchal. It is interesting to observe that no-fault, non-adversarial divorce proceedings filed by mutual consent were only introduced *this year*.
The guidance above is funny because it refers to an antique financial instrument called a “pension” which existed in Christian patriarchy times and explicitly included payments to spouses in case of death and so on. In our prostrwtions to the marketplace we have matured beyond such things 🤲
Sadly though what I get reading from this is that although there are cases involving pensioners, bad health, abject poverty, complicated children situations, equity in businesses, there is definitely some element that alimony is meant for failwives:
judgments like the above seem to be about maintaining middle class egos as much as anything. it is funny too mee to imagine an existence where not having a “well remunerated employment (!), carrying with it a good pension (!!!)” is one of abject dependency. it is much the same kind of bourgeois amour propre that calls a man a failson for also failing to get… “well remunerated employment carrying with it a good pension”.