Why Only the Breadwinner Gets Punished in a Divorce?

[Black Jack]

Not always..my sister is paying spousal support to her parasite..7yrs of marriage and no children. Yes, he is a parasite.

 

True. Those are just very rare cases. Unfortunately it happens sometimes.

[frozensprouts]

( i know I am going to regret getting involved in this debate but I just can't help myself:laugh:)

 

Questions for OP and BlackJack ( lease accept my apologies for singling you our, but you both seem very adamant in your views)...

 

(a) is every spouse who stays at home or who goes to school while their spouse works or who works but doesn't earn as much as their spouse a "parasite", or are you only talking about what happens when a marriage ends and a spouse gets paid spousal support?

 

(b) Am I a "parasite" because I stay at home with our children?

 

© under what circumstances is a spouse not a "parasite"? when both spouses earn exactly equal amounts of income? when both spouses contribute exactly equal amounts of income into the "joint financial pool" ( probably worded that poorly...sorry)? Is money the only thing that a spouse contributes that matters?

 

i am not trying to be snide or pick an argument...I just want to understand your point of view and why you feel the way you do a bit better...would anything ever make you change your mind?

[zengirl]

Because divorce is predominantly a financial proceeding. Slavery has been ruled as an illegal and unconstitutional practice, and all those other things you've listed are akin to human trafficking.

 

The truth is being the breadwinner in a marriage is often seen by the courts as having agreed to financially support the person forever. When the "forever" contract is broken, some financial support is required. The solution is simple: Don't enter into a 1-income household if that risk is problematic for you.

 

Personally, I'm against "lifelong" alimony in MOST cases, the exception being a marriage that has been together for a considerable amount of time where the supported spouse is over 40 and has never worked or acquired any marketplace skills or lost their skills to decades of disuse because of his/her SAH role. Particularly if that person has raised children in the home. The truth is, that person doesn't have much of a shot in the marketplace, and it's partially because of the breadwinner.

 

Most alimony should be the "get him/her on his/her feet" type temporary arrangement.

[findingnemo]

Those are good questions, FS. I want to add:

 

1) What do you think of stay-at-home dads? Are they contributing to the household income?

2) what do you think they should get in case of a D?

 

In my experience, men have been getting a raw deal primarily because child custody is given to the woman. I know a lot of Dads who are better parents than the moms. Yet there remains a bias towards women to have at least physical/residential custody. Then when the kids are young, the mother decides to stay home. Enter alimony.

 

Women historically have been getting a raw deal because it is very easy for their spouses to hide marital assets. Even when child support and alimony is granted, there are way too many dead-beat dads and...what do you call the men who don't pay alimony?

 

In the battle of sexes, injustice many times has no favorites. It simply exists. It's an equal opportunity thing.

[maybealone]

Personally, I'm against "lifelong" alimony in MOST cases, the exception being a marriage that has been together for a considerable amount of time where the supported spouse is over 40 and has never worked or acquired any marketplace skills or lost their skills to decades of disuse because of his/her SAH role.

 

I wonder how many places even allow lifelong alimony. Most places that I am familiar with have a maximum of half of the marriage. That alimony also has a maximum of whatever it takes to "equalize" income. So if one spouse wasn't working, the other one could -- in an absolute worse-case scenario -- have to fork over 50% of their income.

 

Considering how much the nonworking spouses are painted as blood-sucking parasites, I'm surprised none of these posters think that 50% is far less than the 100% they hand over while married.

 

Also, I wonder how many of these "breadwinners" had absolutely no say in whether or not they would have any kids and how staying home with the children vs. working would be handled. I thought most people nail down those issues before they ever get married.

[carhill]

SAHS's are super-rare in my social circle, even amongst the children of friends who have children themselves. I'm the son of a SAHM and would never consider such people to be 'parasites'. Times have changed though and perhaps my perspective is antiquated. I still see such household managers as hard-working, equal contributors to the family, with their work product devoid of a 1099/W2/paycheck or any quantification of its value other than that assigned by the couple themselves. When the family is torn apart by divorce, everyone loses. Speaking strictly by the numbers of money, someone can always be deemed 'the winner', but that's a simplistic view of the totality of divorce. Looking back now, the money was relatively insignificant. I can always make more money and replace 'stuff'. Time, love and commitment are not so easy to replace, breadwinner or not.

[Black Jack]

( i know I am going to regret getting involved in this debate but I just can't help myself:laugh:)

 

LMFAO

 

Questions for OP and BlackJack ( lease accept my apologies for singling you our, but you both seem very adamant in your views)...

 

(a) is every spouse who stays at home or who goes to school while their spouse works or who works but doesn't earn as much as their spouse a "parasite", or are you only talking about what happens when a marriage ends and a spouse gets paid spousal support?

 

Unless those people have a legitimate reason for staying home, both spouses should be working.

 

There's nothing wrong with one spouse staying home and studying while the other works. But when said spouse is sitting on their arse at home and looking at those books, they should be grateful to have a spouse who's willing to let them stay without pressure to get a part-time job on top of their school work instead of whining because their spouse won't share every cent of their money with them.

 

So no not every stay at home spouse is a leech, but the majority of them are.

 

A stay at home mom who has four kids and decides to divorce their husband of 20 years with no cheating or abuse involved should not be trying to go after every cent he's worth, when they were the ones who decided to sit on their asses. They should only go after child support, and let him see his kids every week. They need to get their own jobs instead of going after "alimony," which is another term for "I deserve your money you worked hard for!"

 

Don't be trying to go after his pension and his other accounts.

 

Leeches and cheaters make a bad name for marriage.

 

 

(b) Am I a "parasite" because I stay at home with our children?

 

No you're not, considering you've been cheated on, and your kids, you'd be well within your rights to use the rigged system to your advantage to clean him out financially, should you two ever divorce (not saying you would divorce).

 

© under what circumstances is a spouse not a "parasite"?

 

That's subjective. It depends on who's been striking the blows in the marriage.

 

when both spouses earn exactly equal amounts of income?

 

If they both have equal amounts of income and one of them has been abused and/or cheated on, then they have the right to try and clean them out.

 

when both spouses contribute exactly equal amounts of income into the "joint financial pool" ( probably worded that poorly...sorry)?

 

They can only take their half out of the joint account should it comes to divorce.

 

Is money the only thing that a spouse contributes that matters?

 

Nope.

 

i am not trying to be snide or pick an argument...I just want to understand your point of view and why you feel the way you do a bit better...would anything ever make you change your mind?

 

No I understand your questions. You want me to see the other angles and I have and will continue to acknowledge it isn't always "black/white."

 

The only way I would change my mind, is if I meet a loving woman who can convince me otherwise.

[Black Jack]

Those are good questions, FS. I want to add:

 

1) What do you think of stay-at-home dads?

 

Again if they have a good reason to stay at home, such as disability, or cannot find employment, then every spouse needs to be on their feet working.

 

Are they contributing to the household income?

 

Depends on their situation, but there's not a lot of stay-at-home dads out there. Most of the men out there are working.

 

2) what do you think they should get in case of a D?

 

Again it depends on the situation.

 

But most stay-at-home dads are looked down upon by their feminist "alpha female" working wives and the wife ends up cheating on him with her powerful "alpha male" boss.

 

If that is the case then the man deserves everything he can get his hands on.

 

If they've done nothing but sit around the house and have their wife come home to no cooked meal and a messy house, don't bother to rub their wife's feet after she's had a hard day of work then they get nothing.

[maybealone]

SAHS's are super-rare in my social circle, even amongst the children of friends who have children themselves. I'm the son of a SAHM and would never consider such people to be 'parasites'. Times have changed though and perhaps my perspective is antiquated. I still see such household managers as hard-working, equal contributors to the family, with their work product devoid of a 1099/W2/paycheck or any quantification of its value other than that assigned by the couple themselves. When the family is torn apart by divorce, everyone loses. Speaking strictly by the numbers of money, someone can always be deemed 'the winner', but that's a simplistic view of the totality of divorce. Looking back now, the money was relatively insignificant. I can always make more money and replace 'stuff'. Time, love and commitment are not so easy to replace, breadwinner or not.

 

So true.

 

And in my opinion, working is much better than being a SAHS. I get 15 paid sick days a year. My stay-at-home mother got none.

 

A stay at home mom who has four kids and decides to divorce their husband of 20 years with no cheating or abuse involved should not be trying to go after every cent he's worth, when they were the ones who decided to sit on their asses.

 

Who are these men that let their wives make a unilateral decision against their wishes to get pregnant multiple times and not work? I'd be a little ticked off if my spouse never, ever discussed this issue with me and it just came as a big surprise that my paycheck was the only one coming in.

 

They should only go after child support, and let him see his kids every week. They need to get their own jobs instead of going after "alimony," which is another term for "I deserve your money you worked hard for!"

 

I know an equal amount of men with primary custody receiving child support as I do women. I don't know any divorced man with less than 50% custody of their kids. And I don't believe I even know anyone paying or receiving alimony.

 

In short, I'm beginning to think there is a common trait among LS members -- hiring really crappy attorneys. Seriously.

[zengirl]

In my experience, men have been getting a raw deal primarily because child custody is given to the woman. I know a lot of Dads who are better parents than the moms. Yet there remains a bias towards women to have at least physical/residential custody.

 

It's getting better! The norm in most courts is shared/joint custody now, rather than one parent getting primary custody. Of course, that assumes it's possible and both parents want custody, etc. I do agree that men/fathers should be given adequate consideration in divorce court. It helps the children as well.

 

Of course, if a family had a SAHP situation (mom or dad), I could see a court awarding full custody to the SAHP.

 

SAHS's are super-rare in my social circle, even amongst the children of friends who have children themselves. I'm the son of a SAHM and would never consider such people to be 'parasites'. Times have changed though and perhaps my perspective is antiquated. I still see such household managers as hard-working, equal contributors to the family, with their work product devoid of a 1099/W2/paycheck or any quantification of its value other than that assigned by the couple themselves. When the family is torn apart by divorce, everyone loses. Speaking strictly by the numbers of money, someone can always be deemed 'the winner', but that's a simplistic view of the totality of divorce. Looking back now, the money was relatively insignificant. I can always make more money and replace 'stuff'. Time, love and commitment are not so easy to replace, breadwinner or not.

 

All good points. I don't think your view is antiquated, except that we have to allow for SAHDs too. The only SAH parents I know (I know 2) personally -- not counting parents of kids I've taught, etc -- are Dads. Both of them are AWESOME Dads. One does a little work from home (he's a graphic designer) when his daughter is at pre-school; the other has a newborn baby so he doesn't get to do anything at the moment, but he will probably do some programming from home eventually as well. Both are great husbands and Dads and have wives with very demanding careers. They provide a great home environment that allow my friends (the women are my original friends; their husbands are my friends by extension, in both cases) to really achieve in their own careers and have children, which they wouldn't have found possible without the contribution from their husbands. I don't think the hubbies are viewed as parasites.

[Black Jack]

Who are these men that let their wives make a unilateral decision against their wishes to get pregnant multiple times and not work? I'd be a little ticked off if my spouse never, ever discussed this issue with me and it just came as a big surprise that my paycheck was the only one coming in.

 

Those husbands do not control their wives. Those women are grown and ultimately make the decision themselves not to work.

 

If my wife was pregnant with my children I'd be completely okay with her getting a couple months to relax and gather her strength. But that's it. Gotta get back to work.

 

I know an equal amount of men with primary custody receiving child support as I do women. I don't know any divorced man with less than 50% custody of their kids. And I don't believe I even know anyone paying or receiving alimony.

 

In short, I'm beginning to think there is a common trait among LS members -- hiring really crappy attorneys. Seriously.

 

So because you don't know those men who are getting shafted then it is not true.

 

Okay, gotcha.

[carhill]

I personally know a couple of IT consultants who operate primarily out of their home and also are SAHD's with working spouses. Who's the 'breadwinner' who would be 'punished'? Who would get primary custody of the children in a contested D? Who would get child support? Alimony? Should the gender of the SAHS matter? Does it matter? I'm remembering my exW filling out the FL100 (divorce petition in Cali) and the motions available with that filing. How would I fill it out as a SAHD? Interesting.

[maybealone]

Those husbands do not control their wives. Those women are grown and ultimately make the decision themselves not to work.

 

I...have no words. Well, "Grow a pair" comes to mind but that's about it.

 

So because you don't know those men who are getting shafted then it is not true.

 

Okay, gotcha.

 

I never said it wasn't true. But based on my experience, it is hard to believe that it is as common as it is portrayed here. Unless, of course, the legal representation used is very poor.

[zengirl]

I personally know a couple of IT consultants who operate primarily out of their home and also are SAHD's with working spouses. Who's the 'breadwinner' who would be 'punished'? Who would get primary custody of the children in a contested D? Who would get child support? Alimony? Should the gender of the SAHS matter? Does it matter? I'm remembering my exW filling out the FL100 (divorce petition in Cali) and the motions available with that filing. How would I fill it out as a SAHD? Interesting.

 

If they're consultants and generating income, they probably wouldn't get alimony (maybe very temporary) but they would likely get child support if they retained primary custody, which seems reasonably possible.

 

I don't think the gender should matter. To me, a SAHD should be protected the same way a SAHM should be and it should depend, on a case-by-case basis, on how much/quickly they can begin making their own income, comparative to the lifestyle had together.

 

As for children, courts are supposed to do (and generally do IMO) what's in the best interest of the children and today understand that joint custody is preferred in most cases. Statistics do suggest today that men/fathers are less likely to request primary custody than women/mothers and more likely to agree that their spouse should have primary custody (a lot of these "weekend Dads" CHOOSE to be weekend Dads---I don't think it's because they don't love their kids; personally, I think it's because they're overwhelmed during a divorce and really feel they'd be inadequate alone, as either parent probably would, and a woman is much less likely to admit having the kids all the time alone is overwhelming due to socialization). Joint custody is being pushed more and more and has become the norm, which is GREAT for kids and parents IMO.

[Black Jack]

I...have no words. Well, "Grow a pair" comes to mind but that's about it.

 

The leeches need to "grow a pair."

 

I never said it wasn't true. But based on my experience, it is hard to believe that it is as common as it is portrayed here. Unless, of course, the legal representation used is very poor.

 

Understandable you don't believe it. It's just not your experience.

[maybealone]

The leeches need to "grow a pair."

 

If someone is able to control a spouse to that degree, I'm guessing they'd already have a pair. And no one can walk all over someone without that someone being completely willing to be walked over.

[carhill]

As for children, courts are supposed to do (and generally do IMO) what's in the best interest of the children and today understand that joint custody is preferred in most cases. Statistics do suggest today that men/fathers are less likely to request primary custody than women/mothers and more likely to agree that their spouse should have primary custody (a lot of these "weekend Dads" CHOOSE to be weekend Dads---

I've seen some examples of your assertions, notably a couple of close male friends, and they indeed were successful, even many years ago, in pursuing primary or joint custody. Back then, they did get punished monetarily, whether via settlement, alimony or child support even as primary custodian due to extant law but, by pursuing it, the court sat up and took notice and applied the law wrt custody. Those children are now in their thirties and forties. OTOH, further in the past, my father didn't pursue it and all I had left to represent who might have been my siblings was a stack of child support checks over 15 years, from 1946 until around the time of my birth. Different times, different perspectives, different laws. Hopefully, evolution in such will continue upon a positive and inclusive path.

[zengirl]

I've seen some examples of your assertions, notably a couple of close male friends, and they indeed were successful, even many years ago, in pursuing primary or joint custody. Back then, they did get punished monetarily, whether via settlement, alimony or child support even as primary custodian due to extant law but, by pursuing it, the court sat up and took notice and applied the law wrt custody. Those children are now in their thirties and forties. OTOH, further in the past, my father didn't pursue it and all I had left to represent who might have been my siblings was a stack of child support checks over 15 years, from 1946 until around the time of my birth. Different times, different perspectives, different laws. Hopefully, evolution in such will continue upon a positive and inclusive path.

 

Yes, when I was a child (I'm 27), joint custody was not the norm. I had some friends who had JC situations, but they were atypical among divorced kids. And, yes, most children lived with their mothers, though my cousins (via my aunt on my Dad's side -- neither my Aunt nor my father wanted joint or primary custody when they divorced; interesting, I suppose, and my Aunt was certainly judged far more harshly for it than my father!) lived with their father and saw their mother as rarely as I saw my father. They lived down the street from me once we moved in with my StepDad, ironically.

 

With kids today, JC seems far more common. A good step!

[Black Jack]

If someone is able to control a spouse to that degree, I'm guessing they'd already have a pair.

 

Not really.

 

And no one can walk all over someone without that someone being completely willing to be walked over.

 

It's not really walking over someone if they allow it now is it?

[maybealone]

It's not really walking over someone if they allow it now is it?

 

Sure it is, that's where the term "doormat" comes from.

 

So we are talking about men who have so little input into their marriages that their wives can make unilateral decisions to get pregnant and announce that they will never, ever hold down a job. The husbands intended that the wives would continue working after the kids came along and made that known before the wedding day, but when the time came and the wives quit working, the husbands sat there and said nothing. Possibly even with dumbfounded looks on their faces as this came as a complete surprise to them out of nowhere.

 

It's now clear to me why these marriages are ending in divorce. And why these husbands aren't fighting against alimony.

[Black Jack]

Sure it is, that's where the term "doormat" comes from.

 

Not really. That's from people who are bullies.

 

So we are talking about men who have so little input into their marriages that their wives can make unilateral decisions to get pregnant and announce that they will never, ever hold down a job. The husbands intended that the wives would continue working after the kids came along and made that known before the wedding day, but when the time came and the wives quit working, the husbands sat there and said nothing. Possibly even with dumbfounded looks on their faces as this came as a complete surprise to them out of nowhere.

 

And where did you get this information from, that the husbands just sat there?

 

It's now clear to me why these marriages are ending in divorce. And why these husbands aren't fighting against alimony.

 

First you said you had no experience with this, now you do.

[The Blue Knight]

Oh let me answer plllleeeeaaaasssse. I (the parasite) was exposed to STD's by him (the breadwinner), he (the breadwinner)brought a woman into our home and bed. I (the parasite) asked more than once if something was going on. He(the breadwinner) told me I was crazy and that I should just drink myself to sleep. Which I (the parasite)did and he (the breadwinner)went out to do the do with the OW. I (the parasite) earned half of what he had acquired since I (the parasite) supported him (the breadwinner)while he was getting his degree. Then at his (the breadwinner) request I (the parasite) stopped working to be a stay at home.

 

Currently, he(the breadwinner) is coping with the hand he dealt me (the parasite). And the law says that I (the parasite) do not owe him sex, cleaning , cooking or even the spit that might aid him if his azz was on fire and the nearest hydrant was a mile away. I hope I was able to answer your question.

 

Good points made by several people on both sides of the issue.

 

The problem is that we have no-fault divorce now throughout most of the states and as such, the courts don't spend any time looking at behavior that led to the break-up.

 

Many years ago after my wife had cheated on me I saw an attorney to find out where I stood since I had three small children at the time and I knew (at least back then) that I stood to lose custody of the kids so I wanted to find out from a family attorney what my options were.

 

He said, based on the kids ages I probably wouldn't have custody because they were still young, but I'd only have visitation rights. Keep in mind, I spent more time with the kids than she did up to that point so this seemed highly unfair to me. I was just a more involved Dad than she was a Mom, but I had also learned that she had seen this other guy a few evenings when I was working and she had left the kids home by themselves and they were ages 5 to 11 at the time.

 

When I mentioned to the attorney, "what about the adultery" he replied, "she could sleep with every guy in the county and the courts won't care."

 

Therein lies the problem in my opinion.

 

Bad behaviors, choices, and values in marriage lead to divorces but the courts no longer want to hear about who did this and who did that even though this is often what led to the divorce.

 

My opinion is that in cases like bentnotbroken, she's due alimony because of her ex-husband's behavior. But if you're familiar with soserious and her dud of an ex-husband who took her to the cleaners, you'd also understand that he should have walked away with nothing.

 

I know a guy who 17 years ago met a girl, they had a baby so he added a second job so she could stay home. Eventually they added a mortgage and a third child so he took a third job so she could stay home and watch the kids. Soon thereafter, she cheated on him and demanded a divorce. The courts ordered him to pay alimony, child support, and keep all three jobs so that he could pay the mortgage for her to stay in the house. He has lived like a pauper for the past 12 or so years. His only break will come when all the kids are 18. Now how is that fair?

 

The system is highly unfair as it currently is and too many individuals are walking away feeling literally raped by the family courts as things stand right now. There needs to be a happy medium and behaviors in the marriage need to be reintroduced in the family courts and be relevant to the outcomes.

[The Blue Knight]

I was the breadwinner of my marriage. We also had a prenup.

 

Unfortunately when my exH did leave and took things, well most of the stuff it was just cheaper to buy then to take him to court to try and get the stuff back prenup or not. Oddly, I still find things that are missing. Just the other day I realized he had taken the mop

 

That shows just how much I use the mop... he took the shovel too but that's just weird... and all the spoons

 

He didn't parasite off of me though, we both worked hard I just made more money. We both contributed pretty equally to the bills and cleaning.

Duckduck, your marriage was one of those that seemed to come out okay. Maybe due to the prenup. Hard to say. Contributing equally throughout and having reasonably close incomes helps these things come out more acceptable. Unfortunately, this is the exception I believe rather than the rule.

[zengirl]

The problem is that we have no-fault divorce now throughout most of the states and as such, the courts don't spend any time looking at behavior that led to the break-up.

 

I believe (someone can feel free to correct me, but I researched it once while watching Mad Men, years ago) that the origin of "No Fault" divorce was more to change the rules that actually restricted people from having reasonably prompt divorces without proof of misconduct when they were in disagreement over divorcing (i.e. one partner wants to leave, and the other says, "You can't -- you haven't any proof I've mistreated you."). In that way, I think it's good because that sounds frustrating.

 

What it has become is odd. I agree that there should be some parameters where a small subset of things like adultery and abuse are considered. I'm surprised her leaving the kids home by themselves at those ages wouldn't be considered in court, though. Usually the courts do look into stuff with children, better than stuff that happened in the marriage.

[The Blue Knight]

I trust his perspective would be markedly different, at least based on the posts of yours I've read. Whether it passes the smell test is another matter entirely. I've had similar moments, trust me, but reality won out. Divorce is tough on everyone, even those we think are uncaring, pragmatic Hoovers. That's *our* perspective.

I'm going to have to disagree carhill and most things I find that I agree with you on.

 

Divorce isn't nearly as tough on the individuals who cheated throughout the marriage; or who gambled away income; or who became boozers; or who decided sex was no longer part of the marriage equation. Those individuals made choices that put their marriages second to whatever their individual desires were. How can divorce be as tough on them when they decided long before the actual divorce that their spouse, the kids, the marriage itself, were pushed down the list behind whatever selfish pursuits they were after?

 

While I agree that there are times when both parties contribute to a divorce nearly equally, the truth is that typically one side is more to blame because of poor choices and bad behaviors. I've seen people broken and a mess after they found a spouse serial cheating and the divorce just added to their misery after all the betrayal. The other spouse? They were living it up with girlfriends and living the single-man's dream. If they were hurting, they certainly buried it deep down inside.