this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
399 points (98.1% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
8395 readers
21 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out:
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah one question. I said I was a bartender and waiter. I made about 20 maybe 30 grand gross probably a year with tips. It was a while ago, granted, but the cost of everything increased quite disproportionately to wages since then anyway and you seem like you're trying real hard to prove something.
So my questions is, what the fuck are you on about?
Were you raising kids? You're making this super passive aggressive comment about the wife getting alimony and shit in a relationship where she's the main caregiver for the kids. The whole thing comes across as super sexist. So what I'm "on about" is not only is your comment super sour and sad sounding, its also way out of whack with economic realities on the ground. So what are YOU on about is what I'm trying to figure out?
Why does it come across as sexist? Which part is untrue? Tell me about the "economic realities on the ground", and the experience you've had that makes you an expert in this field.
I just gave you economic data from the federal government, I'm not an expert but its basic shit.
Rent here is like $1600 per month for a two bedroom apartment. How are you going to afford that plus feeding two children on about $3000 per month the after tax? Add on car, heat, electricity, food, internet, and any other expenses.
Why does your original comment come across as sexist? Hmm maybe its the giant generalization that a traditional spouse would have alimoney child payment in a way that comes across as super sarcastic. What's wrong with a spouse who is the primary childcare provider in a relationship being entitled to those things when that relationship ends? The kids and spouse still need to eat and have their expenses fulfilled, that doesn't change because a relationship ends which is why those things exist in the first place.
How about this, how about you explain what your original comment meant? How about you explain how its not sexist?
"How about you explain how it's not sexist?"
Because if it was a guy who chose to be a stay at home dad and his bread-winner-wife divorced him and he cried about it on the internet, I'd also say he'd get child support and alimony.
Give your balls a tug.