Why Only the Breadwinner Gets Punished in a Divorce?

[The Blue Knight]

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.

I've been enjoying your "grow a set" theme back and forth. I have a family story related to this somewhat.

 

Both my sister and her husband worked the first seven or so years of their marriage equally. When they decided to have kids, she made the decision she was going to be a stay at home Mom. Mind you, he never "had a set to begin with" so what edicts she threw out, were pretty much the law of the land.

 

Later they added another child.

 

From the moment the first child came along, his sex life was all but non-existent, except for procreative purposes. She decided from that moment on that sex just wasn't very important any longer now that kids were in the picture. He (lacking a set) was frustrated, but seldom protested.

 

Eventually, he had an affair and wanted out. I have never subscribed to an affair "is the answer" but you could see it coming. The man was sexually deprived and starved.

 

He got hit with spousal support, child support, and several other "support" features in the divorce.

 

Whose to blame? Well, both of them pretty much contributed to the demise of the marriage in their own dysfunctional ways.

 

Personally, I would have never let her stay at home with the kids. I would have said 60 days and then back to your job. I say that only because years ago, I could see this all coming long before it actually occurred.

 

Had he put his foot down and told her she was returning to work after the baby, he wouldn't have been in this mess. But then I don't think she would have listened anyway because she was used to telling him how things were going to be. She was used to telling him what to do, where to go, what to think, what to say, etc. He was like a big wind-up toy and she was pulling all the strings.

[maybealone]

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

 

You told me:

 

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

 

So it stands to reason that after making the unilateral decision to stop working, at some point they did mention it, at least in passing, to their husbands. And since they did not return to work, I can only come to the conclusion that the husbands said nothing or, in other words, "just sat there."

 

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

 

Nope, no experience. I'm basing this on what you have posted.

 

He was like a big wind-up toy and she was pulling all the strings.

 

My sympathies to what he went through, it certainly wasn't fair. But he could have cut those strings at any time, and then she would have had nothing to pull.

[The Blue Knight]

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.

 

You're correct zen that one spouse could somewhat block a divorce from occurring if they sought too. Additionally, back in the day, divorces allowed to be introduced as evidence behaviors of the spouses that led to the divorce. It was messy and rather unsavory. Additionally, it was jamming up the civil court process and was costly.

 

As I work in law enforcement, I can tell you that kids being left home is a tricky one. I've taken kids out of households many times only to see the county return them and it's quite frustrating.

 

Because of my kids ages at the time (5 to 11) the 11 year old could be able to watch the younger kids. My issue was more about leaving the kids for the purposes of meeting with the other man, but it was apparently irrelevant in the attorney's mind. Age 5 to me is a bit young for an 11 year old to deal with. But the ages weren't like 2 and 4 which would have been a different situation all together.

[zengirl]

Age 5 to me is a bit young for an 11 year old to deal with. [/i]

 

This is what I was thinking. I know it happens, but it's not really quite appropriate if it's not for an important purpose (i.e. parents who really need to work to put food on the table and are working that late) and it also depends for how long. I was a latchkey kid, which I think is fine, but leaving an 11 year old alone in the house for, say, 6 hours at night is a different story than a few hours after school. And having one watch another late at night is different from in the afternoon. Also dependent would be factors like do they have support in the form of a neighbor to call, can they reach their parents via phone, etc.

 

I would say the reason and time of day would potentially have an impact in family court, but depends on the state. Showing which parent prioritizes the children is often done in FC, as I understand.

[FitChick]

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

Very successful men often want their wives to stay home not just to take care of kids but to relieve them of mundane, daily tasks and crises that crop up. The last thing an executive needs after a long, stressful day is to come home and (for example) have to clean up a flooded laundry room because the hose on the washing machine broke and now he has to find a plumber at 9pm. Wives of such men are usually in charge of their social lives as well. I've known a few of these men who say they couldn't totally focus on their job without the wife handling all the annoying details of their lives that crop up everyday. Wasn't it Gloria Steinem who said she wished she had a wife for that reason?

 

I think people should have choices and how they choose to live is none of my business.

[zengirl]

Very successful men often want their wives to stay home not just to take care of kids but to relieve them of mundane, daily tasks and crises that crop up. The last thing an executive needs after a long, stressful day is to come home and (for example) have to clean up a flooded laundry room because the hose on the washing machine broke and now he has to find a plumber at 9pm. Wives of such men are usually in charge of their social lives as well. I've known a few of these men who say they couldn't totally focus on their job without the wife handling all the annoying details of their lives that crop up everyday. Wasn't it Gloria Steinem who said she wished she had a wife for that reason?

 

I think people should have choices and how they choose to live is none of my business.

 

This is also very true. The SAHD with the newborn I mentioned has been a SAHH for four years, even before they had the child, and it is basically how my friend made partner at her law firm. She admits to everyone that she wouldn't be where she was today without being able to kick up her game a notch when she had a House Hubby.

 

I don't think anyone should be made a HH/HW or Breadwinner without wanting to be and that couples need to discuss it, but I don't see any use judging other couples for their mutual choices.

[Black Jack]

You told me:

 

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

 

So it stands to reason that after making the unilateral decision to stop working, at some point they did mention it, at least in passing, to their husbands. And since they did not return to work, I can only come to the conclusion that the husbands said nothing or, in other words, "just sat there."

 

But you're claiming that those husbands told them to get back to work. Where's the evidence?

 

Nope, no experience. I'm basing this on what you have posted.

 

So you're just making assumptions.

 

My sympathies to what he went through, it certainly wasn't fair. But he could have cut those strings at any time, and then she would have had nothing to pull.

 

It would've never matter when he cut her off, he was still going to get screwed. It's inevitable.

[Black Jack]

Very successful men often want their wives to stay home not just to take care of kids but to relieve them of mundane, daily tasks and crises that crop up. The last thing an executive needs after a long, stressful day is to come home and (for example) have to clean up a flooded laundry room because the hose on the washing machine broke and now he has to find a plumber at 9pm. Wives of such men are usually in charge of their social lives as well. I've known a few of these men who say they couldn't totally focus on their job without the wife handling all the annoying details of their lives that crop up everyday. Wasn't it Gloria Steinem who said she wished she had a wife for that reason?

 

I think people should have choices and how they choose to live is none of my business.

 

Not ever successful man wants a lazy wife.

[norajane]

Not ever successful man wants a lazy wife.

 

Then he will need to pay for child care so his "not lazy" wife can also work. In the end, it's often a financial wash in terms of extra salary v child care costs. And those children get raised by strangers. Many people choose together not to go down the child care road.

[Lauriebell82]

A parasite??? I hope to God my husband never refers to me by that name.

 

How sad that must be for you OP. I have no advice other then the hope that the bitterness will somehow decrease and you will think like a caring human being again.

[Black Jack]

Then he will need to pay for child care so his "not lazy" wife can also work.

 

Uhhh sorry he shouldn't be the only one coughing up ridiculous amounts of child support.

 

And she needs to support her darn self instead of leaning on him. It's not attractive when a woman's gold-digger side comes raving out of the shadows.

 

If the roles were reversed she'd be leaving his broke ass for her "alpha male" boss.

 

"Oh forget my broke ass husband! He's so weak! I need a real man!":rolleyes:

 

Why can't a woman just love him for who he is instead of his salary? No win-win for many men out there.

 

In the end, it's often a financial wash in terms of extra salary v child care costs. And those children get raised by strangers. Many people choose together not to go down the child care road.

 

Doesn't mean the husband has to always foot the bill.

[Lauriebell82]

Uhhh sorry he shouldn't be the only one coughing up ridiculous amounts of child support.

 

And she needs to support her darn self instead of leaning on him. It's not attractive when a woman's gold-digger side comes raving out of the shadows.

 

If the roles were reversed she'd be leaving his broke ass for her "alpha male" boss.

 

"Oh forget my broke ass husband! He's so weak! I need a real man!":rolleyes:

 

Why can't a woman just love him for who he is instead of his salary? No win-win for many men out there.

 

 

 

Doesn't mean the husband has to always foot the bill.

 

A suggestion BlackJack. A lot of your posts come from your own personal experience which has instilled some bitterness in you. HOWEVER, someone may actually be taking your advice and considering it. Therefore it may be a good idea to try and take a more objective look at the situation instead of automatically making your position completely from the perspective of your own divorce. Not everyone on this board is in the same position you were or has had their divorce turn out the same way your's did. Try thinking about the person you are giving advice to, and not your own personal agenda.

[Woggle]

It's not true that successful men all want a stay at home wife. I am pretty successful and I would never want to be the sole breadwinner. My boss is more successful than I am and his wife has her own career as well. Most men today want an equal partnership much more than people think.

 

Assets should be split down the middle and people should support their children but there is no reason that a person should have to keep supporting an able bodied adult just because a marriage did not work out. It's simply absurd and I am glad that some states have alimony reform laws ready to be signed.

[zengirl]

It's not true that successful men all want a stay at home wife. I am pretty successful and I would never want to be the sole breadwinner. My boss is more successful than I am and his wife has her own career as well. Most men today want an equal partnership much more than people think.

 

Assets should be split down the middle and people should support their children but there is no reason that a person should have to keep supporting an able bodied adult just because a marriage did not work out. It's simply absurd and I am glad that some states have alimony reform laws ready to be signed.

 

I didn't think FitChick said "all." But many do. Truly. Or someone to help them build their own business. Or whatever. Many uber-successful women want that as well nowadays, which is great (Holy equality, Batman! ). I think most men and women do expect to be part of a dual-earner family today, as that's become the norm, but I don't think the SAHP model is going away for good anytime soon.

[Black Jack]

A suggestion BlackJack. A lot of your posts come from your own personal experience which has instilled some bitterness in you. HOWEVER, someone may actually be taking your advice and considering it.

 

A lot of your posts come from your own experiences too, doesn't make a difference based on the facts.

 

And you're assuming I'm bitter because I'm not like the men in the social circle you hang around with. Which is fine but just saying how one is bitter, bitter, bitter because they don't agree with you gets old after a certain point, no offense. I could easily just assume that you're ignorant to men who have been screwed over, and see the whole world in a peachy light. That would not make me a better person or father to my son. If someone is taking my advice as you say they might be, why should I change my view now? There's no reason to do that.

 

Therefore it may be a good idea to try and take a more objective look at the situation

Someone else's view isn't "more objective" than another.

 

instead of automatically making your position completely from the perspective of your own divorce.

I'm not making my position known completely from my past. If you actually take a look around this board, most of the men here are divorced and paying out of their rectums to their selfish exes.

 

So no I don't want to change my stance. I've already seen "the other side" and it's pretty jacked up.

 

Not everyone on this board is in the same position you were or has had their divorce turn out the same way your's did.

I never said my divorce turned out like most of them men's divorces on this site so again, you're reaching for straws. If you want to know, my ex did try to take me for everything I had and she failed. Most of it was because there was a judge out there, who actually took the time to see my side of the story instead of condemning me to financial hell and forcing me to lick my ex's toes for the remainder of my life.

 

Try thinking about the person you are giving advice to, and not your own personal agenda.

We can agree to disagree.

[Lauriebell82]

Wow, I figured you'd get defensive BlackJack, but come on now. Sheesh.

 

It's actually been MY experience that men have been the ones screwing me over..but I'm not bitter in one bit, I've learned from the experience and am thankful I was smart enough to get out of the situation.

 

So instead of being angry/bitter-or whatever emotion you feel for your ex wife-a suggestion (and it is just that, a suggestion) is to let go of whatever it is and try to move on and forward with your life. Again, just a friendly suggestion.

[Black Jack]

Wow, I figured you'd get defensive BlackJack, but come on now. Sheesh.

 

No one is defensive here so I don't know what you speak of.

 

It's actually been MY experience that men have been the ones screwing me over..but I'm not bitter in one bit, I've learned from the experience and am thankful I was smart enough to get out of the situation.

And I got out of a bad situation also, but I don't go around calling others bitter or ignorant because they do not agree with me. That's not how I conduct a formal argument.

 

So instead of being angry/bitter-or whatever emotion you feel for your ex wife-a suggestion (and it is just that, a suggestion) is to let go of whatever it is and try to move on and forward with your life. Again, just a friendly suggestion.

 

Again you keep persisting that I'm bitter when I'm not because my view isn't parallel to yours. It's just have different tastes. I have a life and a son but that doesn't mean I will ignore the obvious fixed system of divorce courts. So like I said earlier, lets agree to disagree.

[Feliciti]

It's not true that successful men all want a stay at home wife. I am pretty successful and I would never want to be the sole breadwinner. My boss is more successful than I am and his wife has her own career as well. Most men today want an equal partnership much more than people think.

 

I do understand why some people would prefer it that way, though. Imagine a couple both working 70 hours a week, while having a child. That child would be utterly neglected, and probably won't ever experience a very pleasant childhood. Being showered with money by your parents does not, by any means, make the situation better. So that's why some succesful people would prefer a spouse who stays at home. That way, the child at least has 1 parent who takes care of her/him on a daily basis. This is not to say it couldn't work with a more standard 8am-4pm job, so there isn't any real excuse for wanting to stay at home.

 

Assets should be split down the middle and people should support their children but there is no reason that a person should have to keep supporting an able bodied adult just because a marriage did not work out. It's simply absurd and I am glad that some states have alimony reform laws ready to be signed.

 

I don't understand this either. It's especially aggravating when the supported part, this so-called "Parasite", get's a new spouse. I know of a case with a schoolmate, let's call her Kim, whose mom has full parental rights to her, and her dad still pays her mom, after 7 years after the divorce. Kim is 19, but she still lives with her mother, which apparantly means her mother "deserves" child support.

 

But that's not the main issue. The main issue is that Kim's mother has found a new man. They aren't married, but he's a doctor and earns quite a bit a month, something he apparently likes to brag about. But Kim's father still pays child support. According to Kim, the only reason her mother isn't getting remarried, is because she doesn't want to lose the child support. It would have been hillariously stupid, if it wasn't for the fact that her father is a construction worker, with a really poor salary, and the fact that he has had to move in and out of his mothers home, because he couldn't afford to pay the rent for an appartment. This man's life is ruined, for no other reason than his ex-wife's greed, and a horribly broken law system that allows such things to happen.

[Woggle]

I do think that a person should pay child support though the courts should do their best to assure equal custody unless there is a good reason not to but lifetime alimony is just absurd. Divorce should mean the end of a marriage and everything that goes along with the marriage.

[maybealone]

But you're claiming that those husbands told them to get back to work. Where's the evidence?

 

No, I'm claiming those husbands said nothing based on your claim that they had no control over their wives.

 

So you're just making assumptions.

 

Yes, based on what you are posting.

 

It would've never matter when he cut her off, he was still going to get screwed. It's inevitable.

 

If he lived in a state that doesn't even allow alimony unless the marriage lasted at least ten years (like mine), it would have mattered a lot. And no one forced him to have two children with her, especially since it sounds like things went downhill a lot after the first one.

[sad puppy]

Amongst my married friends, most of the guys that have a sahw are making well over $200K a year, some over $400K. The stay at home wives, came into the marriage with assets (some with big assets), typically from working after college. At $200K plus, a couple with 2 kids can manage pretty well.

 

My other married friends, where the wife is working, is working primarily to fund the college education funds, pay for vacations, and because they actually derive enjoyoment from their careers. Almost everyone I know falls into one or the other scenario.

 

I do know of a couple where they have 2 kids, the wife has not worked although has a Master's, and their income is $150K. They have a big mortgage on a not-expensive house, little to no savings for the kids' college, yet take at least 3 vacations a year. The kids are 11 & 15, and wife doesn't want to work. I, frankly, find it appalling that she won't even work to help fund their educations. She drives a nice car, the husband drives an old beater. She doesn't volunteer in the community, does nothing as far as charity efforts, frankly, I have no idea what she does.

 

And if they divorce, in our state it's 28% child support for 2 kids, then maybe, and I don't know, they would split the rest 50-50. So that leaves $42,000 for child support plus another $54,000 (her 50%) for a total of $96,000, income, and he would get his 50% = $54,000. Shared custody. Does not seem quite fair to me. I mean, when the kids are in school all day for years, you should be capable of contributing something, to someone - the poor, the illiterate, the homeless, the food pantry, .... something.

 

$96,000 - nice income if you can get it not working.

 

Me? I will have an iron clad prenup if I ever get married. You betcha.

[Black Jack]

No, I'm claiming those husbands said nothing based on your claim that they had no control over their wives.

 

You don't know those husbands so how can you know?

 

Yes, based on what you are posting.

 

Right.

 

If he lived in a state that doesn't even allow alimony unless the marriage lasted at least ten years (like mine), it would have mattered a lot.

 

Well we don't know what state he's in so unless you have proof it's just an assumption.

 

And no one forced him to have two children with her, especially since it sounds like things went downhill a lot after the first one.

 

So what? That doesn't mean what she did was right.

[The Blue Knight]

Assets should be split down the middle and people should support their children but there is no reason that a person should have to keep supporting an able bodied adult just because a marriage did not work out. It's simply absurd and I am glad that some states have alimony reform laws ready to be signed.

 

Agree. And while I have no issue with those who choose (as a couple) to have a stay at home parent, my wife and I never had a stay at home option and we never had the extra $$$ for daycare. I worked overnights most of those years, came home and slept the best that I could with a newborn or toddler in the same room.

 

My wife did likewise, working days and staying up with the kids as late as she could so I could get at least a few hours sleep in the a.m. when I'd come home to go to bed. It sucked, but we got through those years.

 

There are lots of creative options, although people often fail to realize that.

 

I would never be in favor of a stay at home wife myself. First off, we need the extra income since we invested in a fairly large house with land, but even if we made it on my salary, with the kids now a little older it makes little sense for her to be home.

 

Besides, this way if our marriage ever failed, at least I feel like she and I contributed somewhat equally to whatever assets we have.

[maybealone]

You don't know those husbands so how can you know?

 

If you are going to present things as fact, then I am going to use the information as thought it is factual.

 

So what? That doesn't mean what she did was right.

 

No, what she did is not right. But he chose her to marry, he decided to have two kids with her, and he made a conscious decision each and every day to let her do whatever the hell she wanted to do without consequences. So he is far from an innocent bystander.

 

On another note, I would love a list of places that have this "lifetime alimony" I keep reading about. I tried Googling but all I am finding is alimony ranging from a three-year maximum to a maximum of the length of the marriage. And all have a lot of hoops to jump through, which is why I still believe that having a really good lawyer is the most important thing.

[Black Jack]

If you are going to present things as fact, then I am going to use the information as thought it is factual.

 

I never said it was a fact.

 

No, what she did is not right. But he chose her to marry, he decided to have two kids with her, and he made a conscious decision each and every day to let her do whatever the hell she wanted to do without consequences.

 

Because he loved her that makes him wrong for continuing to stay with her in hopes that it'll get better.

 

Come on, now.

 

So he is far from an innocent bystander.

 

If he got cleaned out by his selfish ex, than that is the perfect meaning of innocent bystander. She's the perpetrator.

 

On another note, I would love a list of places that have this "lifetime alimony" I keep reading about. I tried Googling but all I am finding is alimony ranging from a three-year maximum to a maximum of the length of the marriage. And all have a lot of hoops to jump through, which is why I still believe that having a really good lawyer is the most important thing.

 

The gold-diggers should get lawyers?