It’s usually not surprising that men’s rights groups cross the line.
Perhaps it’s not surprising that men’s rights groups are crossing the line. It is apparently their raison d’etre.
But the Florida Family Law Reform PAC Crossed more than one limit on Monday.
The group used the inspiring story of Haley Moss, the first openly autistic attorney to be admitted to the Florida Bar Association as fodder for his ongoing drive to abolish permanent alimony.
The Facebook post got off to a harmless start: “We’re celebrating this woman’s achievement. She set a goal and achieved it, even though she had to work harder for it. “
But then it turns a cent and shows the biting change of mood typical of the committee and its ilk: “Even lifelong maintenance recipients should read this heartwarming story and be inspired to achieve goals in order to become self-sufficient and independent after the divorce.”
There’s always an angle, isn’t there?
The Florida Family Law Reform PAC is one of a handful of groups pushing for an end to permanent livelihood for years, and every year this attempt has failed. A bill calling for “forever alimony” from Florida law even got on the governor’s desk, just to be hit by the veto hammer.
Are you leaving unsolicited advice to the eternal losers, Amirite?
Still, there is one more thing to reveal in this short post.
Her far from skillful use of the accomplishments of an autistic Floridian to inspire dependents into self-sufficiency is only the surface. Among them is a noticeable lack of self-esteem.
Take a 30,000-foot look at the battle for maintenance reform.
On one side are the maintenance payers – mostly men – who say they shouldn’t spend their hard-earned money ad aeternum. On the flip side are the recipients – mostly women – who say these payments are necessary to keep them afloat when they return to work, sometimes after years of housework and child-rearing.
It could be said that these recipients were key to giving an illusion to their reluctant exes. An illusion of where they were, how should you put it … self-sufficient?
Post views:
375
Comments are closed.