Given that we’re both breadwinners, and that we both want children, what’s the advice?[/quote]
Daycare. One does mornings so the other can go to work early and leave in time to get the kids from daycare. The one doing mornings can then work later in the evening to compensate.
Nothing wrong with both working.
My wife went down to three days a week with our daughter being born because we can afford it, and my earning potential far outweighs hers, long term. She also has a much more flexible job in terms of time off for sick kids, doctors, etc. (As a result of our son who doesn’t need that kind of attention at 16.)
The only problem with daycare is the guilt you’ll feel, lol. So be sure to spend your non-work time on your kids.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Given that we’re both breadwinners, and that we both want children, what’s the advice?[/quote]
My husband and I were married for ten years before we had our first child. We both had full -time professional jobs, with me making slightly less than him. I quit my job when we had our first. I wanted the full-on mothering experience and truly believe no one will love and enrich kids as much as their own parents.
So I am a big advocate of a stay-at-home parent. I went back to work part-time when my kids were little at a job where I could take them with me. They’re teens now, but still not driving. I have a “real” job but have total flexibility with my hours, which allows me to drive them around and be present for all their important life experiences (school stuff, sporting events, sick days, etc.).
I am so fortunate to be married to a man who truly believes that parenting is a supremely important role and respects me immensely for my contributions to the household.
Whatever you decide, LoRez, good luck and enjoy the ride.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Given that we’re both breadwinners, and that we both want children, what’s the advice?[/quote]
My husband and I were married for ten years before we had our first child. We both had full -time professional jobs, with me making slightly less than him. I quit my job when we had our first. I wanted the full-on mothering experience and truly believe no one will love and enrich kids as much as their own parents. So I am a big advocate of a stay-at-home parent. I went back to work part-time when my kids were little at a job where I could take them with me. They’re teens now, but still not driving. I have a “real” job but have total flexibility with my hours, which allows me to drive them around and be present for all their important life experiences (school stuff, sporting events, sick days, etc.). I am so fortunate to be married to a man who truly believes that parenting is a supremely important role and respects me immensely for my contributions to the household.
Whatever you decide, LoRez, good luck and enjoy the ride.[/quote]
Lorez, FWIW, I’m with her ^ on this.[/quote]
X3 My wife just finished nursing school about the same time we had our first. She had mixed feelings about staying at home but I wanted her personally wanted her to and hoped that was the decision that she would make. I truly do believe that a woman’s greatest contribution to the household is not the money that they bring in (this even applies if she is making more than you) but in raising your children. I truly believe that children are much better off in the long run when raised by a stay at home mom, as long as she is actively engaged with them, but I do understand that it isn’t always possible.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Given that we’re both breadwinners, and that we both want children, what’s the advice?[/quote]
My husband and I were married for ten years before we had our first child. We both had full -time professional jobs, with me making slightly less than him. I quit my job when we had our first. I wanted the full-on mothering experience and truly believe no one will love and enrich kids as much as their own parents. So I am a big advocate of a stay-at-home parent. I went back to work part-time when my kids were little at a job where I could take them with me. They’re teens now, but still not driving. I have a “real” job but have total flexibility with my hours, which allows me to drive them around and be present for all their important life experiences (school stuff, sporting events, sick days, etc.). I am so fortunate to be married to a man who truly believes that parenting is a supremely important role and respects me immensely for my contributions to the household.
Whatever you decide, LoRez, good luck and enjoy the ride.[/quote]
Lorez, FWIW, I’m with her ^ on this.[/quote]
I think that’s great. There is a lot of criticism of modern marriage in this thread, and I believe rightly so, the divorce laws are totally fucked. But I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s worth the risk. I see friends of mine take their sons and sometimes daughters hunting, I see the old timers on the Fire Dept watch their sons rise up to fill their shoes and I think that’s as good as it gets.
I have friends whose fathers were taken from them by divorce when they were children and too young to know what was happening who have forged great relationships with their fathers. Some of whom have disowned their mothers.
Now I don’t shit. Ain’t been married, ain’t been divorced, don’t think I have any kids (none confirmed anyway) but if I found a good woman I wouldn’t let fear hold me back.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If a woman is married to a somewhat wealthy man,[/quote]
Okay so lets boil it down to two situations then:
Couple get married and both are at the bottom of their earning potential. While not poor, they couldn’t be considered wealthy by any stretch.
Couple get married in the middle or just past their earning potential and one spouse is considered on most scales wealthy.
Fact pattern:
One spouse doesn’t work in both situations, the non-wealthy one in option 2.
Neither marriage had children involved (we can get to that later.)
Both were married for 15 years.
Both divorced
What is “fair” in a divorce settlement for option 1 is very different than option 2, speaking in general terms.
Now I say this because couple in situation 1, built their life and wealth together, while couple two did not. In fact one spouse had the wealth coming into the agreement.
Do you agree with me so far or no?
Is hours in really the best metric to use? I’m not saying it isn’t but for shit and giggles, what other ways would there be to measure input into, what the state and you by signing onto the marriage contract, agree is shared assets?
Very much agreed.
Sure it does. If you add kids into situation 1 above, your perception of the stay at home spouse’s investment into the and family and career doesn’t change?
No, you are correct, but let’s not pretend if you had a partner that handled the doctor’s visits, sick days, facilitation, lunches, cloths, laundry, pickup and drop off at football practice, etc, so you didn’t have to take time off work to do that, and instead took your time for games, fun times, vacations, work later during the week to have weekends, etc etc etc, it wouldn’t be easier.
She either does on average or she doesn’t on average, lol. ANd if we take single parent households out, I would say, yes on average, women tend to do more of the facilitation and logistical work with kids.
Agreed. Just like it was everyone’s choice to get married, have the kids, and invite the state into their lives.
Well that’s the thing. A large portion of the paygap myth is the fact that family focused choices tend to put women into roles in the workforce that have lower monetary pay. (Typically have better benefits like insurance and flex time, but dollar per hour are lower.)
So yes, while it is choice, it is often harmful to a career for a women to have a couple kids. IT’s a trade off, economics.
I think the scenarios you just painted raise the most obvious problem: these assessments should be contextual, something I can see you agree with.
But, just for the sake of argument, assuming your buddy did divorce, do you think he would get as fair a shake as a similarly situated woman?
For the record, I think divorce should always be, at first instance, resolved with mediation and compromise.
The default, however, is currently adversarial. Ireland recently published some statistics that painted a grim tale of our system. 95% of “joint custody” battles ended in mothers being awarded sole custody. This experience was similar to Canada and New Zealand.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If a woman is married to a somewhat wealthy man,[/quote]
Okay so lets boil it down to two situations then:
Couple get married and both are at the bottom of their earning potential. While not poor, they couldn’t be considered wealthy by any stretch.
Couple get married in the middle or just past their earning potential and one spouse is considered on most scales wealthy.
Fact pattern:
One spouse doesn’t work in both situations, the non-wealthy one in option 2.
Neither marriage had children involved (we can get to that later.)
Both were married for 15 years.
Both divorced
What is “fair” in a divorce settlement for option 1 is very different than option 2, speaking in general terms.
Now I say this because couple in situation 1, built their life and wealth together, while couple two did not. In fact one spouse had the wealth coming into the agreement.
Do you agree with me so far or no?
[/quote]No. It still gives too much power to the woman. What if she refused to work? My good friend Paul was married for 20 years. He begged and pleaded for his wife to work, but she refused. A few years ago, he started a business. She “stole” 200K from his business over the course of two and a half years. He proved that she took the money in court, but since they were married, it was “hers”. Never mind that she spent the money behind his back on a man she cheated on him with. Fast forward to the final verdict. She left, filed for divorce, took half his shit, got the house, he pays her 2K a month in alimony. She finally got a job and is living in his house with the guy she was fucking while they were married. So NO, I DO NOT agree with you that if they “built it together” she is entitled to half. She got a free fucking ride, that’s it. [quote]
Is hours in really the best metric to use? I’m not saying it isn’t but for shit and giggles, what other ways would there be to measure input into, what the state and you by signing onto the marriage contract, agree is shared assets?
[/quote]Assets should be equitably divided. She keeps her car, she keeps her clothes, jewelry, and any gifts. If she didn’t work, she doesn’t get the house. [quote]
Very much agreed.
Sure it does. If you add kids into situation 1 above, your perception of the stay at home spouse’s investment into the and family and career doesn’t change?
[/quote]Kids go to school once they are 5. So any “sacrifice” on her part is a maximum of five years. Sure, let him pay her alimony for those five years. But then it’s OVER and cheating bitch has to support herself. [quote]
No, you are correct, but let’s not pretend if you had a partner that handled the doctor’s visits, sick days, facilitation, lunches, cloths, laundry, pickup and drop off at football practice, etc, so you didn’t have to take time off work to do that, and instead took your time for games, fun times, vacations, work later during the week to have weekends, etc etc etc, it wouldn’t be easier.
[/quote] But you are assuming SHE DOES ALL THOSE THINGS… That’s a BIG assumption! There are so many lazy bitches that don’t do SHIT but lay around getting fat and watching TV. But they still get half. It’s WRONG. [quote]
She either does on average or she doesn’t on average, lol. ANd if we take single parent households out, I would say, yes on average, women tend to do more of the facilitation and logistical work with kids.
Agreed. Just like it was everyone’s choice to get married, have the kids, and invite the state into their lives.
Well that’s the thing. A large portion of the paygap myth is the fact that family focused choices tend to put women into roles in the workforce that have lower monetary pay. (Typically have better benefits like insurance and flex time, but dollar per hour are lower.)
So yes, while it is choice, it is often harmful to a career for a women to have a couple kids. IT’s a trade off, economics.
Basically, regarding the assets, all the non-working party should get is one of the vehicles (including the payment if they are not paid off) and their clothes and personal belongings - they didn’t buy ANY of that shit, the WORKER did! So why should the NON-Worker get anything else?
The non worker should get a period of time to get back on their feet. That’s it.
A “fair” settlement would seem to be very much more case by case than the current laws allow for.
My best friend got married. His spouse worked but he made 3x what she did and they had a “his is theirs, hers is hers” type of financial arrangement. They bought the old character house that she wanted and he spent the majority of his free time and cash renovating according to her desires. He bought the old car she wanted and invested in parts and wrenched on it until it was road worthy (only for her to decide she didn’t like driving old cars). He paid for 2 or more major holidays a year. He did the majority of the cooking (and the dude’s a gourmet cook) when he wasn’t out in the wilds of wherever working to support that lifestyle.
Flash forward, wife goes crazy. Not “man, my buddy’s ex is crazy” kind of crazy, like “my buddy’s wife is in the hospital again” kind of crazy. She then had an affair, filed for divorce and took half of everything, including the dog (well, she took the whole dog, but it was his dog).
Conversely, my boss’ wife doesn’t work outside the home. She is the primary caregiver for their 4 kids. She is heavily involved in their school, sports, Guides, church activities etc. She cooks cleans, shops, chauffeurs, launders etc. She co-ordinates family activities, occasionally fields phone calls for the business, takes care of some of the paperwork and generally makes a significant contribution to everyone’s quality of life. I think that arguing that her “job” is as difficult, specialized or financially valuable as my employer’s is a little unrealistic, but her output is infinitely higher than my buddy’s ex.
She never developed a career of her own as it was jointly decided that providing their kids with the benefit of a stay at home mom had greater value. In the unfortunate event that they were to split she would have no marketable skills or experience and a reasonable argument could be made for her entitlement to a significant portion of the household assets. I realize that theirs is no longer the typical model of marriage/home life, but there it is.
That the above wives would both receive similar treatment in a divorce settlement (taking child support etc out of the picture) is grievously unjust to the point of being ludicrous. So how do we place a fair financial valuation on a spouse’s contribution to a marriage?
[quote]batman730 wrote:
A “fair” settlement would seem to be very much more case by case than the current laws allow for.
My best friend got married. His spouse worked but he made 3x what she did and they had a “his is theirs, hers is hers” type of financial arrangement. They bought the old character house that she wanted and he spent the majority of his free time and cash renovating according to her desires. He bought the old car she wanted and invested in parts and wrenched on it until it was road worthy (only for her to decide she didn’t like driving old cars). He paid for 2 or more major holidays a year. He did the majority of the cooking (and the dude’s a gourmet cook) when he wasn’t out in the wilds of wherever working to support that lifestyle.
Flash forward, wife goes crazy. Not “man, my buddy’s ex is crazy” kind of crazy, like “my buddy’s wife is in the hospital again” kind of crazy. She then had an affair, filed for divorce and took half of everything, including the dog (well, she took the whole dog, but it was his dog).
Conversely, my boss’ wife doesn’t work outside the home. She is the primary caregiver for their 4 kids. She is heavily involved in their school, sports, Guides, church activities etc. She cooks cleans, shops, chauffeurs, launders etc. She co-ordinates family activities, occasionally fields phone calls for the business, takes care of some of the paperwork and generally makes a significant contribution to everyone’s quality of life. I think that arguing that her “job” is as difficult, specialized or financially valuable as my employer’s is a little unrealistic, but her output is infinitely higher than my buddy’s ex.
She never developed a career of her own as it was jointly decided that providing their kids with the benefit of a stay at home mom had greater value. In the unfortunate event that they were to split she would have no marketable skills or experience and a reasonable argument could be made for her entitlement to a significant portion of the household assets. I realize that theirs is no longer the typical model of marriage/home life, but there it is.
That the above wives would both receive similar treatment in a divorce settlement (taking child support etc out of the picture) is grievously unjust to the point of being ludicrous. So how do we place a fair financial valuation on a spouse’s contribution to a marriage?[/quote]
This is the heart of the situation that I think both sides are trying to convey. Great post.
The problem is that, in practice, it would be extremely difficult, time consuming and costly to go through every marriage on a case by case basis like this, and both sides would have incentive to lie or at least stretch the truth on their role in the marriage. I’m not sure there is a perfect answer, but I agree current laws don’t seem just.
the feminist movement and women in general want to paint MGTOW as a fringe group of sniveling, bitter, fat neckbeards who have no chance whatsoever of getting laid, so they have elected to swear off the female breed so as to disguise their sexual conquest failures.
in reality, MGTOW is an increasingly large body of men that are waking up and beginning to realize what a raw deal they have as men, especially when it comes to marriage.
men spend years of their lives in prison for false accusations of rape, where there has been absolutely NO evidence provided by the prosecution (evidence that proves innocent is abundant yet disregarded).
women have coached their very young children to say that their father sexually abused them (women are actually encouraged by their lawyers to either do this, or make up stories of domestic abuse). this is referred to as “the silver bullet”… that’s right, it happens so often, there’s actually a name for it. women do this unspeakably evil act because it guarantees them virtually EVERYTHING.
men spend decades of their lives trying to build a livelihood for themselves and their families, only to be forced to give half to their cheating wife + child support + spousal support + alimony (in California, if you are married to a woman for 10 years, you owe her alimony for the rest of your life). A man could be making six figures a year, but unable to afford a one bedroom apartment because he made the mistake of getting married. but wait, there’s more. Those alimony rates do not change, so if he loses his job, and is unable to pay alimony, he goes to jail.
women initiate 70% of divorces in this country…and who could blame them? they get all the money, the house, AND the kids.
did you know that in france and germany it’s actually ILLEGAL for a man who have the paternity of his child teste? it’s illegal…unless the mother gives consent. if he does it in secret, he faces a 15,000 Euro fine, and a year incarceration.
picture this, you are a white man, married to a white woman in france, and your child comes out half Asian. you would think this is unusual…so you want the paternity tested, but your wife (of course) refuses to give consent. so you attempt to perform in secretly. You are caught, fined, and put in jail…all the while being forced to pay child support for the kid who is obviously not yours.
it really is amazing to me that ANY man is willing to get married these days.
MGTOW is not a group of jealous, griping losers…just men who are apprehensive about making the biggest mistake of their lives
Assets accumulated during the marriage belong to the couple.
Alimony is used to support a non-working spouse so that they can (ideally) develop the skills necessary to support themselves after the dissolution of the marriage.
If you are a man and are getting married and want a stay-at-home wife, then know going in that if you do get divorced she will most likely get her half of the family assets, plus alimony since she set her career aside to take care of the kids, plus she will receive some benefit from the child support you pay.
If you don’t like this deal, then don’t get married. Easy peasy.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
This seems to be unnecessarily complicated.
Assets accumulated during the marriage belong to the couple.
Alimony is used to support a non-working spouse so that they can (ideally) develop the skills necessary to support themselves after the dissolution of the marriage.
If you are a man and are getting married and want a stay-at-home wife, then know going in that if you do get divorced she will most likely get her half of the family assets, plus alimony since she set her career aside to take care of the kids, plus she will receive some benefit from the child support you pay.
If you don’t like this deal, then don’t get married. Easy peasy.
[/quote]
Sure, that’s how it is and that’s the premise guys should make their decisions based on. But is it a fair arrangement? If nobody talks about what is and what isn’t equitable in our society then nothing changes.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Sure, that’s how it is and that’s the premise guys should make their decisions based on. But is it a fair arrangement? If nobody talks about what is and what isn’t equitable in our society then nothing changes.[/quote]
I completely agree. However, there seemed to be a lot of confusion over what exactly the purpose of the dissolution of assets is for. It’s not to compensate the stay-at-home spouse for the economic value of cooking, cleaning, and fucking. It’s to acknowledge that pre-divorce those assets belonged to the couple jointly and she (assuming it’s a she for our purposes) had the use of those assets.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Sure, that’s how it is and that’s the premise guys should make their decisions based on. But is it a fair arrangement? If nobody talks about what is and what isn’t equitable in our society then nothing changes.[/quote]
I completely agree. However, there seemed to be a lot of confusion over what exactly the purpose of the dissolution of assets is for. It’s not to compensate the stay-at-home spouse for the economic value of cooking, cleaning, and fucking. It’s to acknowledge that pre-divorce those assets belonged to the couple jointly and she (assuming it’s a she for our purposes) had the use of those assets.
[/quote]
Understood. It’s (thankfully) not my area of expertise. I find it very “confusing” that things still get done the way they do in divorce world. I’ve got a clear enough picture of how it goes down, but the why kind of eludes me. Possibly because it makes no sense?..
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Sure, that’s how it is and that’s the premise guys should make their decisions based on. But is it a fair arrangement? If nobody talks about what is and what isn’t equitable in our society then nothing changes.[/quote]
I completely agree. However, there seemed to be a lot of confusion over what exactly the purpose of the dissolution of assets is for. It’s not to compensate the stay-at-home spouse for the economic value of cooking, cleaning, and fucking. It’s to acknowledge that pre-divorce those assets belonged to the couple jointly and she (assuming it’s a she for our purposes) had the use of those assets.
[/quote]
I agree, but it doesn’t answer the question I think most of the men in this thread are griping about. It’s not about whether the woman had use of those assets, it’s whether the wife is equally responsible for acquiring those assets. Consider the Kobe example as an extreme, but scale it down and it can effect a man with a 6 figure salary or less much more than it will affect Kobe.
I agree, but it doesn’t answer the question I think most of the men in this thread are griping about. It’s not about whether the woman had use of those assets, it’s whether the wife is equally responsible for acquiring those assets. Consider the Kobe example as an extreme, but scale it down and it can effect a man with a 6 figure salary or less much more than it will affect Kobe. [/quote]
She’s not “equally responsible” for earning the money, but from the Court’s perspective it doesn’t matter. The Court is agnostic about who earns the money. The assets belong to the couple from the moment a dollar is earned.
Imagine this scenario: Guy is making $150k/year, wife stays at home watching the kids. Wife decides to play Lotto and wins $65 million, calls hubby up and tells him she wants a divorce. Is there any doubt that that winning ticket would be split up?
I agree, but it doesn’t answer the question I think most of the men in this thread are griping about. It’s not about whether the woman had use of those assets, it’s whether the wife is equally responsible for acquiring those assets. Consider the Kobe example as an extreme, but scale it down and it can effect a man with a 6 figure salary or less much more than it will affect Kobe. [/quote]
She’s not “equally responsible” for earning the money, but from the Court’s perspective it doesn’t matter. The Court is agnostic about who earns the money. The assets belong to the couple from the moment a dollar is earned.
Imagine this scenario: Guy is making $150k/year, wife stays at home watching the kids. Wife decides to play Lotto and wins $65 million, calls hubby up and tells him she wants a divorce. Is there any doubt that that winning ticket would be split up?
It, like all of his earnings, is a marital asset.
[/quote]
Agree, but I think the overriding question is - is that fair?
As far as your scenario, I’m not sure winning the lotto and spending years or decades accumulating wealth are comparable. Either way, I’m not entirely sure what is “fair” in either scenario and I think a case by case basis would be better, although I’m not sure how practical.
