Do men deserve spousal support?

Gender should have nothing to do with it. The person earning the big money should pay apousal to the person who doesn't earn as much.

In this case, it seems obvious. Of course men should get spousal support.

For years women have always said "take a man for everything he's got" as long as they were on the receiving end. But when the tables are turn then it's now not fair.

No one on the receiving end ever thinks it's fair. Gender has nothing to do with it.

Her husband was a manager and partner in their business which is now dissolving so getting support is perfectly reasonable. I also don't think the payment is really significant to Clarkson. It is not even close to half her net worth.

I believe it should always depend on individual circumstances. In the cited incident I believe it was reasonable.

Say husband and wife both work. Husband makes $30k a year and wife makes $40k a year. He sues for spousal support and is awarded. Still fair? Granted, Kelly Clarkson has the means and she probably really won't miss the $200k but what about this average husband and wife?

Are there kids involved? Debt? If both spouses work, make comparable salaries and there aren't kids involved, normally they just split the assets, but if your point is that it matters who makes more money, it doesn't. The answer is the same regardless of which spouse makes $40k. I think most here will agree that gender doesn't matter.

You are generalizing that all women think this way which is wrong -

I agree that whichever spouse is the head of house, may need to pay spousal support - gender does not factor into this. In more recent years we have seen husbands that are stay at home dads, for their particular family, this works best for the household. In that situation, if the couple were to divorce, the man gave up his career/work situation outside the home to raise the children and care for the house...as a result even if he were able to work, he likely gave up years of outside work experience and as a result will earn less money than the woman in this particular situation. So yes, this could result in spousal support.

I suspect the due to the fact that Kelly Clarkson earns significantly more money, and perhaps her husband supported her without working outside (i.e. traveling with her, staying home with their kids or dogs or whatever to care for them while she traveled or any number of things that we cannot see) - so in other words he quite possibly gave up a number of years of his career to support her - then yes, it makes sense even if he were to go out and work, to provide some spousal support.

I do believe in a divorce that after the divorce that both individuals do work - as it really is not fair that one gets to stay home and just collect cash, however, I also support the fact that one of the individuals does get spousal support if there is a large inequity between the two earnings especially if the couple was married for a good number of years. I can see one spouse though staying home if they have children and they both decide this is best for the situation and the other spouse then provides more in support (this additional support of course would be to compensate for caring for the children).

That was a long answer - but the short part - yes it does not matter your gender whether you should get support or not; more of your role within your relationship. And most women that are reasonable would agree (any that I know) - that a man is not soft if they get spousal support.

The other thing that is wrong with statements you (not necessarily you personally) are saying - is just the overall judging of this couple - we don't know them, we don't know their personal situation; I would imagine it is tough enough for the two of them without people making heartless comments like these.

Incorrect! I do not know one woman that I am friends with that would say this or think this.

Of course there are some - but I am sure there are some men that would also think the same.

No, generally speaking not all women say that but let's face it. This has been the norm in society for a number of years. The woman getting half and simply because the man was the breadwinner whether she worked or not she was the one usually awarded spousal support. I would love to see it where spousal support is only granted for a number of years then after that the person receiving the money should have been able to get back up on their feet and actually get a job. Child support stops at 18 or there about depending on certain situation so why should an ex spouse be allowed to not work for years and years and years just sitting back and just collect a check? Again, set a number of years on spousal support. I've heard of a number of cases where a woman is getting spousal support and starts dating a new guy. They even move in together but she won't marry him so the spousal support will continue.

It had been the norm, but it was also the norm for women to stay at home and not have the same career opportunities as men and when they did work and do the same job they were paid less and less likely to get promoted.

Now things are changing and improving towards equality on both sides so you are seeing more of this where men are getting spousal support as it should be.

I agree that spousal support should be reviewed so if the spouse receiving the support can be self sufficient to the level that is in line within reason to the other spouse that support is adjusted accordingly. Just remember though if a couple were to be married for a number of years - the spouse may never reach a level of earning even while working - given they gave up years of experience to work at home and support the family in that manner.

I believe (at least from those I know in this situation) that support is revisited either regularly, or when there is a major lifestyle change or if one spouse feels there is a major change that would warrant it.

In Massachusetts when I got divorced there were two formulas You plug in your number of kids, what percentage each parent is responsible for tge kids, and the annual income for each parent as well as the number lf years married. Out pops two numbers, one for child support the other for apousal support.

The judge has the power to change the number, but they made it clear that they don't like to do this without a very good reason. The plaintive attempta by my ex-wifes lawyer to increase support were met with an almost comical stern look from the judge.

Gender was not a part of it.