autumnnight Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 No, no rocket science... but not the big bad boogey man that MRAs want to make it out to be either... where courts are dragging their kids away from them after a divorce, forcing them to pay alimony and child support for kids they never see. I get it that is what a lot of men fear, but it isn't born out by reality. I would wager that if you were the man longing to be with his kids, you'd feel differently. Link to post Share on other sites
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Not in my personal demographic I guess you live in an area where women don't typically work in professional fields. Here (the left coast man!!) is is across the board the higher earner who pays support if support is even granted which is not the norm unless there are kids. Women in my circle of friends often have a better paying job than their husband for example my sister is a veterinarian and her husband is the director of a non-profit community theater, no comparison of wages there! My mom is a physician assistant and my dad a middle school science teacher. Penises have nothing to do with it!! Your friends are atypical, or your perception is colored. Overall in married working couples, 23% of women will earn more, which is a huge increase over historical levels, but far from level as far as playing fields go. Link to post Share on other sites
sweetjasmine Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 ... what IS reality is the fact that taking time away from the workforce, for any reason, has substantial negative effects on someone's career potential for the rest of their lives. Male or female. If it's not shared, it's not fair. Yup. It bears repeating that stepping out of the workforce for years sets you back for life. Even if you're able to go back into the workforce, your lifetime earnings have already been affected, and you'll have to bust your a-- to play catch up. The work gap plus the catch up time lead to lifelong lost earnings, and that's just reality for the vast majority of people who are out of the workforce for an extended period of time, regardless of the reason. So, yes, if a couple decides to have one parent stay at home, that parent is making a serious sacrifice. This is precisely why spousal support even existed in the first place. You don't get to benefit from someone else's sacrifice and then absolve yourself of all responsibility immediately once you split. Based on what I read around here, it seems that men want their wives to make these sacrifices and give up those lost earnings so they can benefit from their wives' labor at home. If the marriage ends, they want the ability to walk away with no obligations to anyone and look for another housekeeper. The ex-wife can simply go out and find a job that pays less than she made at her last job before she quit for her ex-husband, and if she has to put the kids in daycare, then she's being a sh-tty parent, too, because kids are better off never having been born than having to go to daycare. But of course if she seeks another "provider" so she can stay home with the kids some more, she's a golddigging hussy out to get every penny she can from honest, hard-working men. 5 Link to post Share on other sites
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Yup. It bears repeating that stepping out of the workforce for years sets you back for life. Even if you're able to go back into the workforce, your lifetime earnings have already been affected, and you'll have to bust your a-- to play catch up. .... So, yes, if a couple decides to have one parent stay at home, that parent is making a serious sacrifice. This is precisely why spousal support even existed in the first place. You don't get to benefit from someone else's sacrifice and then absolve yourself of all responsibility immediately once you split. Based on what I read around here, it seems that men want their wives to make these sacrifices and give up those lost earnings so they can benefit from their wives' labor at home. If the marriage ends, they want the ability to walk away with no obligations to anyone and look for another housekeeper. Well, in my case she wasn't working when I married her, and she basically took a 20 year vacation where I paid for her hobbies and everything else, and then when the time was right (or whatever) she decided to go and took over $400,000 in cash and assets and I got all the debt. There were no kids. If you can explain how that is fair, you would be the first. If *I* could get that deal, I would do it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
lollipopspot Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Well, in my case she wasn't working when I married her, and she basically took a 20 year vacation where I paid for her hobbies and everything else, and then when the time was right (or whatever) she decided to go and took over $400,000 in cash and assets and I got all the debt. Well you lay out the problem right there. She never worked and you supported her. The gender is not important - the law is gender neutral. You would have gotten that "deal" if you found a woman to support you. This is a lesson to anyone who signs that marriage CONTRACT: if you support your spouse (kids or not) for 20 years, you will likely be supporting them for a time after the marriage too. Not rocket science! This is so that society doesn't suddenly have to start paying for your dependent after the marriage falls apart. Link to post Share on other sites
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Well you lay out the problem right there. She never worked and you supported her. And so, when she decides to leave, she's entitled to all the assets and some travelling money? That's not right. It is the way it is, but full grown adult humans are supposed to be responsible for their OWN needs. And she HAD worked, but she'd quit for over a year when we dated. I didn't take her out of the workforce, I just never insisted on her working. Link to post Share on other sites
lollipopspot Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 And so, when she decides to leave, she's entitled to all the assets and some travelling money? That's not right. It is the way it is, but full grown adult humans are supposed to be responsible for their OWN needs. And she HAD worked, but she'd quit for over a year when we dated. I didn't take her out of the workforce, I just never insisted on her working. You co-created dependency. If you immediately pulled that away, she probably would have had to rely on public assistance (unless she had independent money stashed away). The law splits assets on the dissolution of marriages. Couples need to ensure the other person is contributing financially, or there is this possible consequence. I understand that you're upset, but I don't understand why this is any surprise at all. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Haydn Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 We always split responsibilities according to earning potential at each given time. (And still do since split) We both work in jobs that involve a lot of travel so the youngsters get to travel a lot. Works rather well. I stayed at home with baby and enjoyed (Almost every minute of it) Blokes are just as natural with nurture as women. That`s how i see it in my surrounding circle of mates as well. My mother was not terribly good at nurture as i recall.... Childcare in London is stupidly expensive even with people on good salaries. Couple of my mates are paying min 700 quid monthly. The government awards 15 free hours a week (I think, it could have changed) Personally it should be 50-50. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
Woggle Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I think that men can be just nurturing as women when it comes to children but the dirty little secret is that in many cases women start losing attraction to these men. Ideally I prefer an equal relationship and I have one but most of the marriages I have seen that ended in divorce or are utterly miserable are not the traditional ones. I had a coworker going through a nasty divorce and his now ex wife admitted that when she saw him doing things like changing diapers she no longer saw him as a man. The way I see it if I have to be a traditional man in order for her not to divorce me or distance herself I would rather be with a woman who embraces it fully and openly than a confused cafeteria feminist. Link to post Share on other sites
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 You co-created dependency. If you immediately pulled that away, she probably would have had to rely on public assistance (unless she had independent money stashed away). The law splits assets on the dissolution of marriages. Couples need to ensure the other person is contributing financially, or there is this possible consequence. I understand that you're upset, but I don't understand why this is any surprise at all. When you say 'splits assets' does that commonly mean she gets the assets and he gets the debts? Link to post Share on other sites
lollipopspot Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 When you say 'splits assets' does that commonly mean she gets the assets and he gets the debts? If someone got debts with no ability to pay them off - because they haven't been working for 20 years - it wouldn't make much sense. Why is any of this surprising? Why do people enter into one of the biggest decisions of their lives (marriage) without thinking through finances? Link to post Share on other sites
Haydn Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I think that men can be just nurturing as women when it comes to children but the dirty little secret is that in many cases women start losing attraction to these men. Ideally I prefer an equal relationship and I have one but most of the marriages I have seen that ended in divorce or are utterly miserable are not the traditional ones. I had a coworker going through a nasty divorce and his now ex wife admitted that when she saw him doing things like changing diapers she no longer saw him as a man. The way I see it if I have to be a traditional man in order for her not to divorce me or distance herself I would rather be with a woman who embraces it fully and openly than a confused cafeteria feminist. Really? Always been the complete reverse for me. She sounds horrible. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I think that men can be just nurturing as women when it comes to children but the dirty little secret is that in many cases women start losing attraction to these men. I can't relate to that. Seeing my H getting his "daddy" on makes me want to climb him like a tree There is nothing sexier than a big, strong man who knows how to be gentle with babies, children, and animals 4 Link to post Share on other sites
serial muse Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Really? Always been the complete reverse for me. She sounds horrible. When my husband changes a diaper I think "yay, he changed a diaper, one less for me". I don't know that the diaper-changing specifically speaking is a turn-on, but it's certainly not a turn-off. He and my son are very close and it's beautiful to see. He's a very involved daddy. And I think it's because H makes a point to spend time with the kiddo and has primary care of him at times, just as I do. He didn't take as much time off as I did when the baby was born, but he did take some. That responsibility changes your relationship to the child. We share child care, if not quite 50-50 then at least to a very large degree. Both work, kiddo in daycare, it's working for us. Haters gon' hate, is all. Edited May 27, 2015 by serial muse 1 Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I won't apologize for not being a girly man....No "dad-bod" either... Hate to let you all down.... TFY Link to post Share on other sites
serial muse Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I won't apologize for not being a girly man....Hate to let you all down.... TFY I don't think anybody expects an apology, TFY. But then I'm not putting out there that I think you've made wrong choices, or that mine are better. So I don't know if it's a disappointment to you, but I certainly won't apologize for being happy with my choices, or for thinking that involved daddies aren't girly at all. I don't really understand why people feel the need to judge others for stuff like this, but I don't really care to understand it, either. Like I said, haters gon' hate. 5 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Men who take care of babies are girly? No, they're fathers. My own father was a steelworker. My husband is a Harley guy. Both of them are expert baby soothers. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
sweetjasmine Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Men who take care of babies are girly? No, they're fathers. Exactly! I find it weird when men argue that their only value to the family is serving as the walking ATM. My dad worked, and my mom stayed at home, but my dad was involved and helped take care of us. He didn't do the laundry or cook dinner, but he'd put me to bed and comfort me when I was upset or had skinned my knee and would push me on the swing and read to me and teach me things. I cherish the time he spent with us and the effort he put into helping to raise us, and all his work helped shape who I am. It makes me sad to think that other men would shy away from being involved fathers because it's "girly." 1 Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Jeez....Can anyone take a joke around here...??? PS...Ive changed my share of diapers and probably can clean a house better than any woman on here... I cant cook worth a shyt, though.... TFY 2 Link to post Share on other sites
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 If someone got debts with no ability to pay them off - because they haven't been working for 20 years - it wouldn't make much sense. Why is any of this surprising? Why do people enter into one of the biggest decisions of their lives (marriage) without thinking through finances? And women wonder why men are avoiding marriage. Link to post Share on other sites
autumnnight Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 If someone got debts with no ability to pay them off - because they haven't been working for 20 years - it wouldn't make much sense. Why is any of this surprising? Why do people enter into one of the biggest decisions of their lives (marriage) without thinking through finances? I think you are missing the point. If I am understanding correctly, she got assets, but she was not responsible to use any of those assets to pay off THEIR debt. That was on him. If that is the case....then that IS unfair. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
lollipopspot Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 And women wonder why men are avoiding marriage. I think the ones who don't understand what a marriage contract entails should avoid marriage. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
autumnnight Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I think the ones who don't understand what a marriage contract entails should avoid marriage. And I think if a woman expectsto get half a man's assets in a divorce because it's their money, then she should shoulder half the debt because it's their debt. Link to post Share on other sites
Haydn Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I don`t think it`s girly to care for your kids by doing all the things that are NORMAL, changing nappies, cleaning up various bodily messes. Giving love. Playing `my little pony` Multiple times... (Well that one.....) Although when i`m in a toy shop i do tend to say... `We don`t have the one with complete stable set` (And stable lad:eek:) Iv`e made endless loom band creations. Knitted with the girls. And enjoyed most minutes of it. I doubt my `manliness` has taken a hit. I still drink pints and go to football, talk bollocks in the pub.... Admire mates `workshops` and discuss the benefits of a good `lathe` (Also no dad bod, just look like i`m cut from steel) Well on Friday nights anyway.... 4 Link to post Share on other sites
lollipopspot Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 And I think if a woman expectsto get half a man's assets in a divorce because it's their money, then she should shoulder half the debt because it's their debt. That's a blanket statement without much meaning without actual numbers, which is why I didn't respond to it before. If you get 50K in debts and 50K in assets, and you haven't worked for 20 years, it doesn't make much sense. The law is gender neutral, although people can't seem to wrap their minds around that. It is designed in part so YOU don't have to pay for some person's spouse who the couple decided didn't need to work for 20 years. People don't think about the consequences of their contracts. It's unfortunate. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts