Why Only the Breadwinner Gets Punished in a Divorce?

[JustK]

I've always worked, except for a year when my youngest was born with some health issues and had nearly daily dr appointments. That was the ONLY year my soon to be ex ever consistently held a job.

He hasn't done a dish or a load of laundry in at least 6 months. He doesn't cook, he doesn't clean, and I've had to initiate sex. At least now I know why that part is.

The agreement we had come to when we got married was that we would both work until we had children, then I would take time off until they were old enough for preschool, take care of our home and keep up with changes in my field so I wouldn't lose my skills. If money were tight I'd work part time and we'd adjust so that our kids didn't have to go to daycare.

Instead, he just doens't hold jobs and bangs strippers.

 

Guess who's going to have to pay HIM support? Me. After supporting him all these years, it appears he is going to be entitled to a percentage of my earnings for the next 8 years. He doesn't want custody, because that would inconvenience him and his party life.

The child support will be based upon HIS earnings, so he already said he'll go off the books and/or quit his job.

 

So tell me again how men get screwed?

[climbergirl]

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.

 

 

I'm glad someone finally mentioned this. And BlackJack obviously doesn't have much experience with children if he believes it's 'lazy' work.

[bentnotbroken]

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

 

 

I would suspect it might have something to do with the same reason that some women have a difficult time with commitment. Because I am pretty sure all men don't have a problem...just some.

[123321]

Alimony is awarded in only 14% of divorce cases ... You read about some celebrity divorce and think it is representative of what is common in divorce.

 

Well almost half a million later and I hope I've learned my lesson and got that "start dust" checked.

[soserious1]

Who takes care of your kids?

 

Back in my 1st marriage, when I was rearing young children,hubby & I worked opposing shifts and/ or paid my sister so that the children wouldn't be left with babysitters.. ever.

 

I reared three children and can count on one hand the number of times that they were cared for by people outside the family... and still have fingers left over.

[soserious1]

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.

 

 

Sigh, I didn't get very much in the way of love, affection or attention during my marriage (unless negative attention counts) the amount of cooking, cleaning, laundry or life support services I received were laughable & the only "contribution" he ever made towards my career was when he agreed to no longer show up at events hosted by my employer, this last was actually a huge improvement because whenever he did show up, he'd generally make a drunken arse of himself in front of my superiors.

 

I'll never get married again, the costs of tying the knot, far, far outweigh any so called benefits of the institution to me.

[climbergirl]

In my former marriage, I was not the 'breadwinner'. 3 kids and 15 years later to a man who thought it unfathomable that his 'wife worked'. And I quote, "No wife of mine will work". Status thing.

 

I was 19 when we married and very little college. 2 kids by the time I was 20.

 

When we divorced, I did get alimony for 5 years. I used that money to put myself through nursing school.

 

But to say the breadwinner is the only one who can get shafted is wrong....that person can also hire the better (or more vicious) attorney. My ex closed our bank account and I was left with only what was in my savings. All the checks to the school that my children attended were bounced. Assets were sold before I had any knowledge.

 

In the end, I chose my kids. I would not subject them to years of turmoil via court appearances and endless amounts of money spent on attorney fees. And he knew I would chose this. The 'breadwinner' doesn't always get 'punished'.

[soserious1]

In my former marriage, I was not the 'breadwinner'. 3 kids and 15 years later to a man who thought it unfathomable that his 'wife worked'. And I quote, "No wife of mine will work". Status thing.

 

I was 19 when we married and very little college. 2 kids by the time I was 20.

 

When we divorced, I did get alimony for 5 years. I used that money to put myself through nursing school.

 

But to say the breadwinner is the only one who can get shafted is wrong....that person can also hire the better (or more vicious) attorney. My ex closed our bank account and I was left with only what was in my savings. All the checks to the school that my children attended were bounced. Assets were sold before I had any knowledge.

 

In the end, I chose my kids. I would not subject them to years of turmoil via court appearances and endless amounts of money spent on attorney fees. And he knew I would chose this. The 'breadwinner' doesn't always get 'punished'.

 

Withdrawing funds in a shared account to the point that the kids school tuition checks bounced is flat out nasty. I'm sorry this happened to you.

 

On the plus side, you did get to be at home with your children to see all those precious "firsts" and he then had to make sure you had 5 years of alimony to get your life back on track. Did you also get 1/2 of the proceeds from the house or any other marital assets?

[climbergirl]

Withdrawing funds in a shared account to the point that the kids school tuition checks bounced is flat out nasty. I'm sorry this happened to you.

 

On the plus side, you did get to be at home with your children to see all those precious "firsts" and he then had to make sure you had 5 years of alimony to get your life back on track. Did you also get 1/2 of the proceeds from the house or any other marital assets?

 

 

I agree on the 'plus sides'. When we were first married and i did work and it killed me to drop my kids off at day care when I was getting less than the amount to cover day care. As far as 1/2...no. Well, let me retract on that. He had another house and our shared house was sold. Proceeds went to pay for bills...mine amounted to 3,000. But I did get some of the proceeds for the downpayment of my house.

 

Bottom line...he started a custody battle. Even though I knew I was ok, it will (according to my attorney) cost 100k. regardless of outcome. Obviously i can't do that.

[SincereOnlineGuy]

 

Why Only the Breadwinner Gets Punished in a Divorce?

 

 

 

Let us guess:

 

You weren't a math major, were you??

[123321]

Withdrawing funds in a shared account to the point that the kids school tuition checks bounced is flat out nasty.

 

Terrible the kids had to go to public schools during the family crisis. I bet they had to sleep on cold stone floors and eat cold oatmeal too.

[musemaj11]

I've always worked, except for a year when my youngest was born with some health issues and had nearly daily dr appointments. That was the ONLY year my soon to be ex ever consistently held a job.

He hasn't done a dish or a load of laundry in at least 6 months. He doesn't cook, he doesn't clean, and I've had to initiate sex. At least now I know why that part is.

The agreement we had come to when we got married was that we would both work until we had children, then I would take time off until they were old enough for preschool, take care of our home and keep up with changes in my field so I wouldn't lose my skills. If money were tight I'd work part time and we'd adjust so that our kids didn't have to go to daycare.

Instead, he just doens't hold jobs and bangs strippers.

 

Guess who's going to have to pay HIM support? Me. After supporting him all these years, it appears he is going to be entitled to a percentage of my earnings for the next 8 years. He doesn't want custody, because that would inconvenience him and his party life.

The child support will be based upon HIS earnings, so he already said he'll go off the books and/or quit his job.

 

So tell me again how men get screwed?

This thread is about why the breadwinner gets punished harsher.

 

I didnt specify any gender although lets get real, over 90% of breadwinners are men.

[Mme. Chaucer]

This thread is about why the breadwinner gets punished harsher.

 

 

I don't think that "punishment" is the intent. It's more like fulfilling a contractual agreement traditionally implicit in marriage.

[zengirl]

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.

 

I explained above why the court cannot order someone to keep doing housework or having sex with a spouse -- it's illegal, under the same basis grounds that court-ordered slavery or human trafficking would be illegal. Whereas court-ordered financial settlements are very, very legal. End-stop.

 

As to why they are legal, I would suggest it's because we still (though people are trying, sadly) live in a society where human freedom and agency are more important than financial assets. And because marriage happens to be seen as a financial arrangement, as well as an emotional one. In fact, it's primary purpose, originally, was financial and organizational.

[sally4sara]

This thread is about why the breadwinner gets punished harsher.

 

I didnt specify any gender although lets get real, over 90% of breadwinners are men.

 

You must have a desperate need to believe this over the shame you felt for having an unemployed father and a working mother. Otherwise you'd not need to resort to making up statistics. Why do you do it? I don't know; your problem.

 

Center for American Progress

 

"Now for the first time in our nation’s history, women are half of all U.S. workers and mothers are the primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in nearly two-thirds of American families. This is a dramatic shift from just a generation ago (in 1967 women made up only one-third of all workers). It changes how women spend their days and has a ripple effect that reverberates throughout our nation. It fundamentally changes how we all work and live, not just women but also their families, their co-workers, their bosses, their faith institutions, and their communities."

 

Keep on griping about a life you're not living........

[bentnotbroken]

This thread is about why the breadwinner gets punished harsher.

 

I didnt specify any gender although lets get real, over 90% of breadwinners are men.

 

 

That's not what the US census bureau says.

[123321]

Men still earn most of the money, and women still spend most of it.

[musemaj11]

I don't think that "punishment" is the intent. It's more like fulfilling a contractual agreement traditionally implicit in marriage.

Thus the point of my question. If one party were still obliged to fulfill his responsibility after the contract is voided, then wouldnt it be fair if the other party were also obliged to fulfill hers?

 

I explained above why the court cannot order someone to keep doing housework or having sex with a spouse -- it's illegal, under the same basis grounds that court-ordered slavery or human trafficking would be illegal. Whereas court-ordered financial settlements are very, very legal. End-stop.

 

As to why they are legal, I would suggest it's because we still (though people are trying, sadly) live in a society where human freedom and agency are more important than financial assets. And because marriage happens to be seen as a financial arrangement, as well as an emotional one. In fact, it's primary purpose, originally, was financial and organizational.

In other words, in the eyes of the law, slavery is illegal but extortion is not.

 

Clearly as I said before, the current matrimonial laws are flawed and marriage rate will keep falling until its fixed. Today most men realize that marriage is bad business.

[climbergirl]

Thus the point of my question. If one party were still obliged to fulfill his responsibility after the contract is voided, then wouldnt it be fair if the other party were also obliged to fulfill hers?

 

 

In other words, in the eyes of the law, slavery is illegal but extortion is not.

 

Clearly as I said before, the current matrimonial laws are flawed and marriage rate will keep falling until its fixed. Today most men realize that marriage is bad business.

 

 

And clearly, being a SAHP is bad business as well.

 

I will agree with you-extortion is considered a legal maneuver. Guess why he dropped the custody dispute? Financial gain. He was willing to put his kids through emotional turmoil just for money. Only when I agreed to his monetary terms did he stop the torture for everyone.

[zengirl]

Thus the point of my question. If one party were still obliged to fulfill his responsibility after the contract is voided, then wouldnt it be fair if the other party were also obliged to fulfill hers?

 

In other words, in the eyes of the law, slavery is illegal but extortion is not.

 

Clearly as I said before, the current matrimonial laws are flawed and marriage rate will keep falling until its fixed. Today most men realize that marriage is bad business.

 

In the eyes of the law, it's not extortion because a marriage contract is a contract that everyone understands has financial implications (like most other contracts) in its dissolution (divorce). Employment contracts are the same. For instance, if I break my employment contract, there are monetary consequences. There CAN be other types of consequences in some contracts, if they are included at the time of signing, but they are limited in scope by basic contract law and what provisions you can put in. I imagine you could create a prenup with similar statutes, though who would sign it, I don't know. Additionally, divorce is considered "mutual" in almost all cases now, so rather than assess punitive measures in any way, courts are just attempting to re-set the individuals, as separate entities, with appropriate financial measures.

 

The "reforms" needed already happened in most places. Lifetime alimony is no longer allowed, prenups and postnups are easy to enforce, and there are plenty of ways to protect your assets in a marriage, if you choose. A law is never going to allow you to put an illegal clause into a contract and enforce it in a court of law, though.

[dreamingoftigers]

Men still earn most of the money, and women still spend most of it.

 

Actually men spend more per capita then women do.

[jwi71]

Thus the point of my question. If one party were still obliged to fulfill his responsibility after the contract is voided, then wouldnt it be fair if the other party were also obliged to fulfill hers?

 

All parties have fulfilled (or are fulfilling) contractual obligations.

Your marriage contract was, to use your term, "voided". As such, both parties are no longer beholden to any requirements stipulated within the contract of marriage(ie cooking, cleaning and providing sexual favors).

 

The divorce decree is a separate and wholly NEW contract between parties. One in which you "the breadwinner" is required to pay some amount to the ex-spouse "the parasite". This contract, the divorce decree, may or may not stipulate that "the parasite" continue to cook, clean and/or provide sexual favors. In absence of such verbiage I fail to see how the divorce contract is being violated by "the parasite".

 

How is the divorce decree being violated?

Answer: it isn't. Both parties are in compliance with the agreed divorce contract.

 

 

In other words, in the eyes of the law, slavery is illegal but extortion is not.

 

If you are unhappy with the terms your ex-spouse offered why did you accept them? Perhaps your state has legal minimums of support and as such you are required to pay x per month for x months. Then, to me, the question becomes: why didn't you educate yourself to the laws before entering a binding and legal contract? Stop blaming the laws for YOUR failure to know and understand the legal risks you would be taking. It's not the statutes fault YOU didn't research it nor is it the statute's fault YOU didn't seek legal advice BEFORE signing the contract.

 

It is patently dishonest of you or anyone to say the law isn't fair having done nothing to educate themselves of the law before signing. And if you DID the research, knew of the risks, and still signed......

 

Consider it a lesson learned - before playing learn the rules.

[soserious1]

All parties have fulfilled (or are fulfilling) contractual obligations.

Your marriage contract was, to use your term, "voided". As such, both parties are no longer beholden to any requirements stipulated within the contract of marriage(ie cooking, cleaning and providing sexual favors).

 

The divorce decree is a separate and wholly NEW contract between parties. One in which you "the breadwinner" is required to pay some amount to the ex-spouse "the parasite". This contract, the divorce decree, may or may not stipulate that "the parasite" continue to cook, clean and/or provide sexual favors. In absence of such verbiage I fail to see how the divorce contract is being violated by "the parasite".

 

How is the divorce decree being violated?

Answer: it isn't. Both parties are in compliance with the agreed divorce contract.

 

 

 

 

If you are unhappy with the terms your ex-spouse offered why did you accept them? Perhaps your state has legal minimums of support and as such you are required to pay x per month for x months. Then, to me, the question becomes: why didn't you educate yourself to the laws before entering a binding and legal contract? Stop blaming the laws for YOUR failure to know and understand the legal risks you would be taking. It's not the statutes fault YOU didn't research it nor is it the statute's fault YOU didn't seek legal advice BEFORE signing the contract.

 

It is patently dishonest of you or anyone to say the law isn't fair having done nothing to educate themselves of the law before signing. And if you DID the research, knew of the risks, and still signed......

 

Consider it a lesson learned - before playing learn the rules.

 

Hey I slip into my high heel steppers & get out there every day to go & get the money the judge ordered me to pay my former pimp, no worries there. I'm an obedient slave, the alimony is paid on time and in full.

 

Oh and I know the rules quite well now, I find men, ride their disco sticks till I'm tired of them & then I dump them so I don't risk getting stuck having to pay their bills.

 

Nothing is quite like watching the excitement fade from a divorced Daddy's eyes when I tell him, that no, our relationship will NOT be moving forward & no, I'm not interested in providing him with free housing in this "awesome space" so he can bring his kids here on weekends.

 

The free lunch wagon is closed! I will "play" without paying thank you very much!

Edited April 5, 2012 by soserious1

[123321]

If you are unhappy with the terms your ex-spouse offered why did you accept them?

 

It was the only way to eventually become disentangled from her, without resorting to murder.