Why Only the Breadwinner Gets Punished in a Divorce?

[maybealone]

I never said it was a fact.

 

So these husbands are made up?

 

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

 

Huh, when a woman hopes that a man will change she gets chastised.

 

The gold-diggers should get lawyers?

 

No, these made-up husbands should.

 

In all seriousness, as much as I hate to generalize, I do think husbands sometimes drop the ball when it comes to finding good legal representation. I don't know why, maybe it's guilt over the marriage not working out or something, but it seems like a lot of men don't bother hiring good attorneys. And then they spend years talking about how screwed they got in the divorce.

[Black Jack]

So these husbands are made up?

 

Are those wives made up?

 

Huh, when a woman hopes that a man will change she gets chastised.

 

Like you said about the husband, she knew what she was getting into. She had no business trying to change him.

 

That's another thing women are always trying to do, especially if they know the guy has a promiscuous past. They think marrying their fantasy will be so good until they get screwed over and they want to act shocked it happened. Total delusion.

 

No, these made-up husbands should.

 

They're not made up. They're real. Look at the separation and divorce forum.

 

In all seriousness, as much as I hate to generalize, I do think husbands sometimes drop the ball when it comes to finding good legal representation. I don't know why, maybe it's guilt over the marriage not working out or something,

 

That is one reason why but it's subjective. There are many lawyers out there who only want to get paid instead of doing their job.

 

But that can be easily said for the women who hire "good" legal representation, and it's only good because she probably ended up blowing the lawyer in his office, along with the fat check she promised him. Lawyers are know for being dirty and dishonest too.

 

but it seems like a lot of men don't bother hiring good attorneys. And then they spend years talking about how screwed they got in the divorce.

 

Whether they had a good attorney or not, the whole court system itself is still rigged against men so it really wouldn't matter either way. Most of them will still get chewed up and spat out.

[soserious1]

Try being a married man, walking into a court room, standing before a judge & saying "your honor I threw her out because she wouldn't get a job or return to work after her maternity leave as we had agreed upon & couldn't pay her fair share of our household expenses"

 

You can tell your spouse that you aren't in agreement with them being a stay at home spouse, you can make it fiscally uncomfortable for them to stay at home against your wishes but you run the risk of being accused of spousal abuse. In short, you can't force an unwilling person to go get a job, your only option is to leave & then risk being accused of abandonment or to have them removed from the home. The only way to legally remove a non-contributing spouse from the home? Own that home outright.

Edited March 21, 2012 by soserious1

[carhill]

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.

Those who do behave poorly, cheat, abscond, etc, have the *perspective* that divorce is hard on them. I've heard it. Does it pass the reality smell test?

 

That was the important lesson of MC; perspective. We each have our own and it's valid for each of us. Each person must live in their own skin until they are dead. It's impossible to do anything but that. The law may adjudicate 'right and wrong' and 'responsibility', but that still doesn't change the person's perspective. You've probably arrested enough people to see how it works. They'll proclaim their innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence. In divorce, there's no prosecutor, jury, and hangman. No one to adjudicate perspectives, rather just settle equations and divide assets and apportion time with children. The 'bad' person can still 'win', as noted in anecdotes in this thread, including one you shared. Sure, we see them as 'wrong' and 'bad' but do you really think they see themselves that way? LOL

[Feliciti]

Try being a married man, walking into a court room, standing before a judge & saying "your honor I threw her out because she wouldn't get a job or return to work after her maternity leave as we had agreed upon & couldn't pay her fair share of our household expenses"

 

I would probably find someone to rephrase that, a bit less... straightforward. I'm sure any lawyer would be capable of finding a perfect way of phrasing it that would make the case to start out in your favor.

 

In general, Lawyers are manipulative beings. I've heard of one who managed to get out of such a relationship with everything, somehow making the court accept the reasoning that since she didn't contribute to the household income, she didn't deserve a penny of what was inside the house. They didn't have kids, but were married, so it must be possible, just requiring a pretty in-depth knowledge of the laws and how to twist and turn them in their favor.

 

Edit:

 

Those who do behave poorly, cheat, abscond, etc, have the *perspective* that divorce is hard on them. I've heard it

 

Just by reading on this site, I've found a couple of reasons to support that statement. If the wife stops all sexual interactions, and the man doesn't accept that? He cheats. Not necessarily because he didn't like his wife, but because the wife pushed him in that direction. (Disclaimer: There are a bunch of other options, but some people find this to be the easiest solution, for better or for worse)

 

I could see these people believing justice prevailed if they got the best deal out of the divorce. Regardless of what others may think.

 

There's a reason for everything, and never just 1 perspective. The world is built on grey and grey morality.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Feliciti

[maybealone]

Like you said about the husband, she knew what she was getting into. She had no business trying to change him.

 

Now this sounds like you don't agree, but you used it as justification for the husband's behavior. Which is it?

 

They're not made up. They're real. Look at the separation and divorce forum.

 

So they're real but not factual?

 

You can tell your spouse that you aren't in agreement with them being a stay at home spouse, you can make it fiscally uncomfortable for them to stay at home against your wishes but you run the risk of being accused of spousal abuse. In short, you can't force an unwilling person to go get a job, your only option is to leave & then risk being accused of abandonment or to have them removed from the home.

 

It's highly unlikely that a person would go from being someone who enjoyed work and acted like an equal partner in a relationship to someone who would refuse to work or even be able to make adult decisions with their spouse about finances. In most of these cases, I would bet the red flags were there long before the couple ever got married, and that the other spouse chose to ignore them.

 

In other words, if you marry someone who is immature and unwilling to be a partner, then don't cry when the role is fulfilled. And if you really were completely and utterly duped, then get that spouse to Hollywood to make the big bucks as an actor.

 

In general, Lawyers are manipulative beings. I've heard of one who managed to get out of such a relationship with everything, somehow making the court accept the reasoning that since she didn't contribute to the household income, she didn't deserve a penny of what was inside the house.

 

I know someone with an awesome lawyer. He got the kids, the house, and child support. And now that he's unemployed, I'm betting he went back for alimony and I bet his lawyer will get it for him.

[Black Jack]

Now this sounds like you don't agree, but you used it as justification for the husband's behavior. Which is it?

 

And what behavior are you referring to?

 

So they're real but not factual?

 

Are your claims factual?

 

It's highly unlikely that a person would go from being someone who enjoyed work and acted like an equal partner in a relationship to someone who would refuse to work or even be able to make adult decisions with their spouse about finances. In most of these cases, I would bet the red flags were there long before the couple ever got married, and that the other spouse chose to ignore them.

 

Do you have proof of this assumption? Otherwise it's just sexist speculation.

 

In other words, if you marry someone who is immature and unwilling to be a partner, then don't cry when the role is fulfilled. And if you really were completely and utterly duped, then get that spouse to Hollywood to make the big bucks as an actor.

 

Gold-diggers have ways to implement themselves masterfully in society.

 

I know someone with an awesome lawyer. He got the kids, the house, and child support. And now that he's unemployed, I'm betting he went back for alimony and I bet his lawyer will get it for him.

 

Again he's a rare case, just like I was. But the majority of men are still screwed over.

[zengirl]

Try being a married man, walking into a court room, standing before a judge & saying "your honor I threw her out because she wouldn't get a job or return to work after her maternity leave as we had agreed upon & couldn't pay her fair share of our household expenses"

 

You can tell your spouse that you aren't in agreement with them being a stay at home spouse, you can make it fiscally uncomfortable for them to stay at home against your wishes but you run the risk of being accused of spousal abuse. In short, you can't force an unwilling person to go get a job, your only option is to leave & then risk being accused of abandonment or to have them removed from the home. The only way to legally remove a non-contributing spouse from the home? Own that home outright.

 

In most cases, the courts don't assign alimony (and certainly not longterm alimony) in cases where the partner has worked recently. If you have a partner who disagrees with you on significant life and marriage choices, I don't suggest staying in them long enough for those to become the "norm" and divorcing years later when it doesn't change, no.

 

How can you be accused of abandonment in a no-fault divorce?

[findingnemo]

How can you be accused of abandonment in a no-fault divorce?

 

Good question...

[maybealone]

And what behavior are you referring to?

 

The behavior I am referring to is that 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. This response of yours:

 

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

 

Come on, now."

 

sounded like you were justifying the husband letting the wife walk all over him and make unilateral decisions about their finances. If I misunderstood, please explain.

 

Are your claims factual?

 

Which claims? And this doesn't answer my question.

 

Do you have proof of this assumption?

 

Like your responses, this response is based on many posts I have read here on LS.

 

In most cases, the courts don't assign alimony (and certainly not longterm alimony) in cases where the partner has worked recently. If you have a partner who disagrees with you on significant life and marriage choices, I don't suggest staying in them long enough for those to become the "norm" and divorcing years later when it doesn't change, no.

 

I agree. I asked my attorney if I had any recourse with my husband in a divorce to get back some of the tens of thousands in savings he burned through when he didn't feel like working now that he is working. The answer, of course, is no. I should have left a long, long time ago.

[Black Jack]

sounded like you were justifying the husband letting the wife walk all over him and make unilateral decisions about their finances. If I misunderstood, please explain.

 

Sounded like you were trying to justify a gold-digger's heartless actions.

 

Which claims? And this doesn't answer my question.

 

The claims you made "based off my posts."

 

Like your responses, this response is based on many posts I have read here on LS.

 

Okay.

[maybealone]

Sounded like you were trying to justify a gold-digger's heartless actions.

 

Oh, absolutely not. I was just saying that he is not an innocent bystander because he allowed her behavior. I think it's wrong that she was allowed to behave that way with no consequences, and I don't think "hoping it will get better" is ever the way to go in a relationship unless steps are being taken to improve things.

 

The claims you made "based off my posts."

 

Well, then, I don't know. You said your posts were based on real husbands but you did not say they were factual. My posts are based on your posts, so you decide whether or not they are factual. (Still doesn't answer my question, though.)

[frozensprouts]

i think a lot of people know of situations where a spouse got "screwed over". i know of one where a guy is really getting the shaft, and one where things worked out well for both parties

( these are a bit "off topic" of breadwinner vs. non-bread winner, but i hope that's okay...if not, someone can give me a virtual "kick in the arse" )

 

(a) a guy i know and his wife have several kids. he was working, and she went back to school. not sure of the details, but she got into an affair, and followed this guy to another province and wanted nothing to do with her kids. this other guy paid for plastic surgery for her, etc., and she joined the army, only to get sent "home" (here)2 weeks into basic because she's pregnant with this other guys child.

now she's living with her ex-husband ( but won't agree to a separation) , talking with her new guy via skype every night,and spending little time with her kids. a room was found for her in barracks, but she won't move out, and, legally, he can't make her. so he's got to put up with all this cr@p and doesn't know what to do. he's still paying for the bills she was supposed to pay before they split up, but she never did. I feel bad for him, and have done what little i can to help (mostly finding out information he might be able to use). she says she wants to be in the house to be near her kids,yet she spends 0 time with them.

i think it's a rotten thing that she's doing, and their kids are the ones who are getting hurt the most.

 

(b) when my brother and his wife divorced, he was making a lot more income than she was, mostly because she'd worked log hours full time to help pay for him to go back for his MBA so he could get a better job. he did, but they had to move away, and she was really unhappy in their new area ( to the point of it becoming pathological). He was also unhappy, and after a few years, they divorced. Because she was the mother of his kids, he wanted her ( and them) to be happy, so he helped her out with buying a house and offered to help her go back to school.

 

he has since remarried, and is very happy with his new wife, and he and his ex are on very good terms with each other. he paid her spousal support, but she decided not to go back to school, as she found a good job in a place she liked.

 

i think part of what helped with that is they didn't see each other as adversaries, but rather two people who couldn't be together anymore, but wanted things to be as good as possible for their kids, and each other.

 

i know not every divorce can be like that, but it's too bad more aren't.

[Black Jack]

Oh, absolutely not. I was just saying that he is not an innocent bystander because he allowed her behavior.

 

Again where's your proof?

 

He couldn't stop her behavior if he wanted to. She's grown woman.

 

I think it's wrong that she was allowed to behave that way with no consequences, and I don't think "hoping it will get better" is ever the way to go in a relationship unless steps are being taken to improve things.

 

Okay so if you feel that way then you'd understand husbands protecting themselves from future harm from their wives. If you were honestly in a relationship, you'd do everything you can before throwing it away like a piece of garbage.

 

Well, then, I don't know. You said your posts were based on real husbands but you did not say they were factual. My posts are based on your posts, so you decide whether or not they are factual. (Still doesn't answer my question, though.)

 

You already answered your own question.

[maybealone]

Again where's your proof?

 

He couldn't stop her behavior if he wanted to. She's grown woman.

 

He's also a grown man who was not forced to procreate or stay.

 

Okay so if you feel that way then you'd understand husbands protecting themselves from future harm from their wives.

 

And vice versa. Believe me, I wish I had taken steps to protect myself from future harm from my husband.

 

You already answered your own question.

 

Fair enough.

[Black Jack]

He's also a grown man who was not forced to procreate or stay.

 

And she's also a grown woman who chose to stay and procreate, then she decided that she was going to become his worst nightmare.

 

What's up with women always blaming the guy for having sex with them when the relationship goes south? She chose to lay there and get knocked up.

 

And vice versa. Believe me, I wish I had taken steps to protect myself from future harm from my husband.

 

Only vice versa for a few women.

 

Fair enough.

 

K.

[maybealone]

What's up with women always blaming the guy for having sex with them when the relationship goes south? She chose to lay there and get knocked up.

 

He has no control over the whole getting-knocked-up thing? I think someone might need some education on birth control.

[Black Jack]

He has no control over the whole getting-knocked-up thing? I think someone might need some education on birth control.

 

I never said it was completely her fault. I was just saying it's not all the man's fault.

[Feliciti]

He has no control over the whole getting-knocked-up thing? I think someone might need some education on birth control.

 

Lying about using birth-control? Most relationships are build on trust - If the man trusts his wife, which he should be able to, then it's fairly easy to just break that trust in half and decieve him.

 

Although admittedly, if it happens more than once, you're beginning to come off as a bit naive...

[musemaj11]

It seems everyone misses the whole point of my question.

 

This thread is not about whether alimony is wrong or not.

 

Im just saying if the breadwinner is ordered to keep on providing money permanently or temporarily after the marriage is over as he did during the marriage, isnt it also fair for the the other party to be obliged to keep on cleaning and cooking for him and giving him sex after the marriage is over as she did during the marriage?

 

I mean as it is now, divorce is multiple times more punishing toward the breadwinner.

 

On the one hand, not only he still has to work as hard to keep providing to the ex-wife, he also has to bear the extra burden of doing domestic chores which he has to do himself now.

 

On the other hand, for the parasite a divorce is like getting a lottery ticket. She is relieved of any duty while the dough keeps on coming.

 

Very unfair.

[123321]

Unless you're referring to child support, not alimony, in which case it's because the breadwinner needs to pony up and pay for his own spawn.

 

So why are his spawn not staying with him? Why are they taken away, and then he is forced to pay for them? Why not just let the parent who can support the kids have them except in cases of abuse?

[123321]

.... 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.

 

I don't get it, why are men so hesitant to commit? It's a real puzzle.

[musemaj11]

As long as the marital law remains as it is, the rate of marriage will keep on falling.

 

Many women would like us to believe that the fall of the number of people getting married is due to women today being more independent.

 

Yeah right. No matter what they have, its still the fantasy of most women since they were little girls to have the perfect wedding.

 

The fact is that the fall of marriage is due to less and less men willing to do it.

[sally4sara]

Alimony is awarded in only 14% of divorce cases. Of those, just shy of half avoid paying it. Instances of it keep going down and men are being awarded t more often now because some of them are actually going for sole custody of children where prior, they wouldn't bother.

 

You've got start dust in your eyes. You read about some celebrity divorce and think it is representative of what is common in divorce.

 

And.........you're not even dating anyone. Why so worried about you getting celebrity treatment over the end of a marriage you haven't even begun?

[PlumPrincess]

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.

Who takes care of your kids?