clv0116 Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I think most of the bitching I've heard from other men centers around child support more than anything. More to the point that the money they provide in support doesn't go to the child.... It's a very good point to raise. Several guys I know who are paying support would love to have a law passed where the expenditures are required to be accounted for. I think it's a reasonable idea, and actually the only ones who think it's NOT reasonable are probably abusing they child support money they are getting. I don't know a single man who actually resents providing for their child(ren) but yes, that's a different topic.
Trialbyfire Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Prenups aren't that expensive, especially compared to what you can potentially lose. I agree that it builds trust, rather than takes away from it. Personally, I think any man who suggests it to me, is a smart man. As for child support, that's predetermined by a legal formula, based on annual income and custody rights.
Sam Spade Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 We are not getting a prenup and I would never marry a man with a prenup. If I'm going to sacrifice my career to stay home and raise his children, clean his house, and have dinner on the table every night, then I will not be left high and dry if he leaves me. That's the main reason I'd never marry a stay at home mom . 1 year at home after each kid (*tops*), then back to work. So, the above reasoning is fine (except for the part that you're "serving" him :rolleyes:), except in cases when women with jobs all of a sudden decide they'd rather be moms, knowing full well the above safety net. So my safety net is a working wife . I would aks for a prenum anyway, but it would be something pretty mellow and fair and amicable anyway - no touching of premarital assets, no touching of pensions, no responsibility of other's debt, fair division of jointly ackuired assets etc.
Untouchable_Fire Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 It's a very good point to raise. Several guys I know who are paying support would love to have a law passed where the expenditures are required to be accounted for. I think it's a reasonable idea, and actually the only ones who think it's NOT reasonable are probably abusing they child support money they are getting. I don't know a single man who actually resents providing for their child(ren) but yes, that's a different topic. Well, I think that if Mom isn't eating that hurts the kids similar to if they are not eating. So, I believe that women are entitled to some discretion as to the use of that money. I would also like to see a law that requires an explanation of how that money is spent. Ultimately it goes into one big pot, so the goal is to make sure that the children are actually receiving the benefit of the money... not to stop mom from buying Jimmy Choo shoes.
Sam Spade Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 You can buy anything you want from an attorney. BUT unless you have major assets, there really is no point and an honest attorney will tell you this. In the event you do have major assets , it would be sounder to incorporate yourself and your assets. I thought I need a prenum precisely because I don't have major assets . I would be ****ed if my wife divorces me and gets away with half of my retirement money and emergency savings - the only real assets i have (and that would accumulate during the mariage).
Art_Critic Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 That's the main reason I'd never marry a stay at home mom . 1 year at home after each kid (*tops*), then back to work. So, the above reasoning is fine (except for the part that you're "serving" him :rolleyes:), except in cases when women with jobs all of a sudden decide they'd rather be moms, knowing full well the above safety net. So my safety net is a working wife . till you have your own kid one day and after that one year mark you look at the possibility of that stay at home Mom because it is better for the child... Who do you want raising your child .. your wife or a day care worker ? I chose my wife.. she is a stay at home Mom right now.. and it is killing her as she has worked a 50+ hour a week job her whole life.. but she loves being home raising him, teaching him everything he learns.. I don't see her staying at home forever but she can for all I care and if she doesn't and raises our son and if by chance one day we would divorce I can guarantee you I won't have a problem paying tons of child support to make sure my child lives a great life...
Trialbyfire Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Well, I think that if Mom isn't eating that hurts the kids similar to if they are not eating. So, I believe that women are entitled to some discretion as to the use of that money. I would also like to see a law that requires an explanation of how that money is spent. Ultimately it goes into one big pot, so the goal is to make sure that the children are actually receiving the benefit of the money... not to stop mom from buying Jimmy Choo shoes. I don't know which country you live in but in Canada, child support is intended to equalize living standards between ex-spouses, so that the child isn't "unfairly" influenced to live with one parent or the other.
bean1 Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 How am I serving him? If he's working 4 10hr shifts per week with a 1hr commute each day so that I can stay home, the least I can do is keep the house clean and have dinner ready. I agree with Art Critic. I was a latchkey kid, my mom worked 60 hours a week. I will never do that to my child. She did what she thought was best and I don't resent her for that, but it would have been nice to have a mom around.
clv0116 Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Well, I think that if Mom isn't eating that hurts the kids similar to if they are not eating. So, I believe that women are entitled to some discretion as to the use of that money. I think the 'acceptable' uses for the CS money is as you note pretty broad, but for instance, the bulk of the recipients life expenses shouldn't be paid for out of CS. It's just not right, particularly after the child is of school age.
Sam Spade Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 till you have your own kid one day and after that one year mark you look at the possibility of that stay at home Mom because it is better for the child... Who do you want raising your child .. your wife or a day care worker ? I chose my wife.. she is a stay at home Mom right now.. and it is killing her as she has worked a 50+ hour a week job her whole life.. but she loves being home raising him, teaching him everything he learns.. I don't see her staying at home forever but she can for all I care and if she doesn't and raises our son and if by chance one day we would divorce I can guarantee you I won't have a problem paying tons of child support to make sure my child lives a great life... sure, but 1) I believe that is is much better for the child to socialize from an early age (rather than be stuck at home with mom in a sterile environment with much less stimulation) and 2) there is a difference between child support and alimony. I would consider paying alimony if I wanted the divorce or screwed in some way, but if she decides to divorce me out of the blue, I'd rather go broke fighting it rather than pay her alimony
bean1 Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 sure, but 1) I believe that is is much better for the child to socialize from an early age (rather than be stuck at home with mom in a sterile environment with much less stimulation) Whahhhh???
Sam Spade Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Whahhhh??? Yeah, you can tell the whiny kids that can't cope with anything from a mile away .
bean1 Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Yeah, you can tell the whiny kids that can't cope with anything from a mile away . So, you know people with toddlers or pre-school aged children? Children under age 8 look to their parents for bonding and social skills ... that changes around the age of 9 or 10. If you think that staying home with mom is a sterile/unstimulating environment, especially compared to daycare socialization, I suggest you get started on a groundbreaking thesis because that's a new revelation in child development, linguistics, and psychology!
Untouchable_Fire Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I don't know which country you live in but in Canada, child support is intended to equalize living standards between ex-spouses, so that the child isn't "unfairly" influenced to live with one parent or the other. That is stupid. Who on earth came up with that dumb idea? I hope it doesn't work like that down here in the states. It's not the governments JOB to force the parents into equal life styles. How am I serving him? If he's working 4 10hr shifts per week with a 1hr commute each day so that I can stay home, the least I can do is keep the house clean and have dinner ready. I agree with Art Critic. I was a latchkey kid, my mom worked 60 hours a week. I will never do that to my child. She did what she thought was best and I don't resent her for that, but it would have been nice to have a mom around. Support is more than just cleaning the house and making dinner. In fact I would not even consider those things important. Being financially responsible, taking care of the children, and being emotionally supportive are much, much higher on my list. In fact I would be willing to do the vast majority of the housework and cooking for those things.
Trialbyfire Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 That is stupid. Who on earth came up with that dumb idea? I hope it doesn't work like that down here in the states. It's not the governments JOB to force the parents into equal life styles. It doesn't matter who's idea it is, it's just something to take into account, when deciding on marriage or not, prenup or not, children or not. I understand both sides of this. I just happen to agree with the prenup side and if my fiance didn't agree to sign a prenup, we wouldn't be getting married.
Sam Spade Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 So, you know people with toddlers or pre-school aged children? Children under age 8 look to their parents for bonding and social skills ... that changes around the age of 9 or 10. If you think that staying home with mom is a sterile/unstimulating environment, especially compared to daycare socialization, I suggest you get started on a groundbreaking thesis because that's a new revelation in child development, linguistics, and psychology! I'd like my kids to be able to relate to human beings other than mommy from an early age. Also, unless the mom is an early childhood education professional (in which case she'd be out working ), she is simply not qualified to consistently provide age appropriate intellectual stimulation. I take offense in the stance that daycare suxx by definition . Also with the issue that if your child is in daycare you aren't spending time with him . Boo! More to the point, I make a solid middle class salary in a pretty secure job. While I could relatively comfortably support a family on my income alone, there would be no any long term cushion/financial security. So, there is no way that I'd agree to spend 10 years of my life always stressing about money. That, while ALSO running the risk that my wife could decide to pack and leave me with the alimony bill . Hence, not marrying aspiring SAHMs .
Sam Spade Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 How am I serving him? If he's working 4 10hr shifts per week with a 1hr commute each day so that I can stay home, the least I can do is keep the house clean and have dinner ready. I agree with Art Critic. I was a latchkey kid, my mom worked 60 hours a week. I will never do that to my child. She did what she thought was best and I don't resent her for that, but it would have been nice to have a mom around. Yeah, something is very, very off here: is he only serving *himself* busting his azz at work to provide for the family? Of course not. If so, why should he pay you after you divorce him and NO LONGER cook and clean. More importantly, you will have no husband to cook and clean for, so go out and find a job . That'd be fair.
Untouchable_Fire Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 It doesn't matter who's idea it is, it's just something to take into account, when deciding on marriage or not, prenup or not, children or not. I understand both sides of this. I just happen to agree with the prenup side and if my fiance didn't agree to sign a prenup, we wouldn't be getting married. LOL... Yeah, I can see you demanding a prenup from a guy! I honestly think he is going to respect you more for that. I would! Your right... it doesn't matter who the idiot is that made a law like that... but they need to change it. Child support should be a set amount based on the area you live, and an agreed upon standard of living for the children. Maybe that is why I hear guys bitch about it so much. Also why there are so many bitter deadbeat dads. If you use Child Support to play Robin Hood instead of actually supporting the kids... I'd blow a gasket too!
wuggle Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 if my fiance didn't agree to sign a prenup, we wouldn't be getting married. True love really is a wonderful thing isn't it
Trialbyfire Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 LOL... Yeah, I can see you demanding a prenup from a guy! I honestly think he is going to respect you more for that. I would!It was an interesting discussion, where for the first time ever, he was stuck for words for at least 30 seconds! Considering his occupation, it was well worth the price of admission to have this historical moment!
bean1 Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I'd like my kids to be able to relate to human beings other than mommy from an early age. Also, unless the mom is an early childhood education professional (in which case she'd be out working ), she is simply not qualified to consistently provide age appropriate intellectual stimulation.. Well, as someone who has a degree in education (which is 4 years extra university in addition to an ECE/Early Childhood Education certificate), I call bull on that. Daycare is a late 20th century invention. Mothers can and do provide stimulation and love (and socialization) without college training. My specialization is linguistics - the mother's voice nurtures and stimulates the baby more than anyone or anything, even outside of the womb. Mothers have been doing it for millions of years.
Sam Spade Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 Well, as someone who has a degree in education (which is 4 years extra university in addition to an ECE/Early Childhood Education certificate), I call bull on that. Daycare is a late 20th century invention. Mothers can and do provide stimulation and love (and socialization) without college training. My specialization is linguistics - the mother's voice nurtures and stimulates the baby more than anyone or anything, even outside of the womb. Mothers have been doing it for millions of years. That's not an argument at all. The internet and aeroplanes too are 20th century inventions. That doesn't mean that the old forms for long distance communication or transportation are superior just because they were there first. From my point of view, SAHM-ism is often unsustainable and unnecessary, especially when the line between sound and obsessive parenting is crossed. This doesn't make it bad, simply inapprorpiate for me since there are legitimate reasons to question it, such as the crazy marginal cost vs. very limited marginal benefit. Staying with a kid at home for 10 years will make about as much difference as sending him to a private versus public school and could easily cause as much harm as good. Oh, and if the mother is the most important factor for kid's intellectual development, doesn't that negate the need for your field altogether , eh? What's the point of studying child development if nothing but the mom can stimulate it?
Woggle Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 Any man that marries without a prenup is playing russian roulette with his life. With the walkaway wife epidemic and the way women turn on men these days why would any man want to marry without some protection? It's funny how most of the women in this thread are against prenups when they aren't the ones getting left in droves because there husband was bored and just doesn't feel it anymore and they aren't the ones getting screwed in family court. They have nothing to lose when they leave their men because they are bored and have an affair with some jerk. Thumbs up though to Trialbyfire who is one of the fairminded women on here.
missdependant Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 Yes we're getting a prenup, because we're equally successful. Neither of us want to be left high and dry, neither want to be taken advantage of. Also, the divorce rate in this country is above 50%. So really, ANYTHING could happen. Yes, I love him now and probably always will. I'm hoping for the best, but people change and things change. Divorce COULD happen for anyone. Might as well play it safe.
bean1 Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 That's not an argument at all. The internet and aeroplanes too are 20th century inventions. That doesn't mean that the old forms for long distance communication or transportation are superior just because they were there first. From my point of view, SAHM-ism is often unsustainable and unnecessary, especially when the line between sound and obsessive parenting is crossed. This doesn't make it bad, simply inapprorpiate for me since there are legitimate reasons to question it, such as the crazy marginal cost vs. very limited marginal benefit. Staying with a kid at home for 10 years will make about as much difference as sending him to a private versus public school and could easily cause as much harm as good. Oh, and if the mother is the most important factor for kid's intellectual development, doesn't that negate the need for your field altogether , eh? What's the point of studying child development if nothing but the mom can stimulate it? Saying mothers are unable to provide stimulating environments for children without the use of daycare does not compare to the invention of the internet. You aren't looking at social, linguistic, intellectual, emotional developments. The heartbeat of the mom and proven emotional reactions, the role of the mother in the correction of grammar development and the various stages before age 4, etc. Although I wouldn't expect someone who didn't have 4-6 years of university on childhood development to know those things, maybe you should have the basics if you want to basically call the mother's role as inadequate. Intellectual development and emotional development (ie. "whiny" kids) are two different things, btw. They are linked of course (like all other development) but they are certainly not the same. Development at a pre-school age and development at 10 years old are very VERY different. I'm assuming you don't have children because that is an obvious difference (as I already said, social attachments to mom at 8 as opposed to peer network attachments are different than 10) Like I said, you should start writing a groundbreaking thesis in the field of childhood development because your theory contradicts all 100+ (20th century) research (and older!) into the role of the mother and childhood development. And based on what, exactly? Your observations of kids at a preschool, as opposed to the consistently substantiated findings from those who have 20-30+ years observing clinical trials, researching, and actually raised a kid or 2? Well I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
Recommended Posts