DIY divorce

[mudskipper]

I was a lot more circumspect the second time around and wasn't just led by my cock!

My point a.

[vetran]

Perhaps you gentlemen should:


b) When kids come along, ensure things are 50/50 - that includes sacrificing career for sleepness nights / childcare.

don't come crying when she needs financial support when it all goes tits up.

Unfortunately (and my wife said I could say this) the difference between the wage levels and the expectations of the job made it very difficult to be the new man. My wife giving up work made little difference to the bills, the food got better though. Now if both of you are high earners it may make sense for you to do 50:50 if you can arrange it.

The cake & eat attitude it of the liberated mummies is difficult to achieve if it means going hand to mouth.

I'm much happier now I am a very hands on Dad but I'm in a fairly well paid job with security, I wasn't in my 20-30's.

The reality of the situation of he/she 'giving up career' is fairly recent development and if they were doing low level admin / shop work and had no expectation of advancement and the partner is earning 3- 4 times that with an expectation for that to rise then its logical for them to give up work .

Interestingly the assumption your career will stall if you take time off for children doesn't seem to fit with the many high flying female execs I know with children. Many of them were just late bloomers.

Does the argument work in reverse? Does being married with kids restrict the success of the husband?
Many rich people are single at least until they are rich because they are married to their work, if I were still single would I be as rich as AtW? Should the 'ex wife' make up the difference for holding me back?

[mudskipper]

Unfortunately (and my wife said I could say this) the difference between the wage levels and the expectations of the job made it very difficult to be the new man. My wife giving up work made little difference to the bills, the food got better though. Now if both of you are high earners it may make sense for you to do 50:50 if you can arrange it.

The cake & eat attitude it of the liberated mummies is difficult to achieve if it means going hand to mouth.

I'm much happier now I am a very hands on Dad but I'm in a fairly well paid job with security, I wasn't in my 20-30's.

The reality of the situation of he/she 'giving up career' is fairly recent development and if they were doing low level admin / shop work and had no expectation of advancement and the partner is earning 3- 4 times that with an expectation for that to rise then its logical for them to give up work .

Interestingly the assumption your career will stall if you take time off for children doesn't seem to fit with the many high flying female execs I know with children. Many of them were just late bloomers.

Does the argument work in reverse? Does being married with kids restrict the success of the husband?
Many rich people are single at least until they are rich because they are married to their work, if I were still single would I be as rich as AtW? Should the 'ex wife' make up the difference for holding me back?

If you're a high earner, and you choose to marry a girl who is in a low paid job, then you've presumably done so because you want a sweet home-maker, not a career girl (and there's nothing wrong with that - I'm not knocking it). It's a choice you've made, so same applies - don't whinge when it goes tits up and you have to support her. Back to point a I think.

[Ticktock]

If you're a high earner, and you choose to marry a girl who is in a low paid job, then you've presumably done so because you want a sweet home-maker, not a career girl (and there's nothing wrong with that - I'm not knocking it). It's a choice you've made, so same applies - don't whinge when it goes tits up and you have to support her. Back to point a I think.

Really?

I'm married to a girl in a low paid job - she works part time in the village shop. I didn't marry her because I wanted a sweet home-maker. If I did I would be sorely disappointed.
I married her because I fell in love with her.

[doodab]

If you're a high earner, and you choose to marry a girl who is in a low paid job, then you've presumably done so because you want a sweet home-maker, not a career girl

I expect filthiness has more to do with it. Most blokes aren't thinking about setting up home when they crack onto someone.

[BrilloPad]

I married her because I fell in love with her.

Idiot

[vetran]

If you're a high earner, and you choose to marry a girl who is in a low paid job, then you've presumably done so because you want a sweet home-maker, not a career girl (and there's nothing wrong with that - I'm not knocking it). It's a choice you've made, so same applies - don't whinge when it goes tits up and you have to support her. Back to point a I think.

I married her for love. If she divorces me lets hope we manage to split amicably.

The point I was making was that the be 50% man is great but not always practical especially at child bearing age when you are building a career. Now I do meetings with grey eyes, but 15 years ago that would get me sacked.

Its you have to support her & 'what about my loss of earnings' that gets me the decision was a joint one. The free provision of bed & board isn't mentioned.

If it were a childless marriage then it would be fair to take what assets we had before out and split the rest down the middle assuming both worked hard throughout and no maintenance.

With children it should be a split and and some maintenance to keep the kids. But with split custody its less of a problem.

what seems to happen is, the wife never goes back to work and the husband has to support her for the rest of her life at a level she could never achieve on her own.

And again the women with older children holding VP positions seem to prove its possible to do both, yet the assumption is that those that were married and had kids were held back by their partners. Maybe they aren't just good enough?

he / she are of course interchangeable.

I know a lady whose husband of a few years beat her, was constantly drunk & unemployed, threatened a pub with a shotgun etc. when they divorced she ended up selling the house she mainly paid for and gave him maintenance for 2 years. They should have just split the assets according to contribution and told him to get a job. Luckily they had no children.

[vetran]

I expect filthiness has more to do with it. Most blokes aren't thinking about setting up home when they crack onto someone.

If I'd married the one who was best in bed at the time then the completely different Mrs V would probably be ex Mrs V, as pointed out elsewhere the mad ones are normally the best in bed.

[mudskipper]

Really?

I'm married to a girl in a low paid job - she works part time in the village shop. I didn't marry her because I wanted a sweet home-maker. If I did I would be sorely disappointed.
I married her because I fell in love with her.

And that's nice. But the point is it's a traditional setup - breadwinner man, homemaker lady, which presumably you're both happy with and is what your relationship is based on. If that's what you go for, it will leave you supporting said lady if the marriage ends. She probably won't be in a position where she can suddenly go and earn £30K even if she wanted to.

[mudskipper]

And again the women with older children holding VP positions seem to prove its possible to do both, yet the assumption is that those that were married and had kids were held back by their partners. Maybe they aren't just good enough?

It's not that he holds her back - it's that they enter a relationship where the income is one-sided for the good of the family unit. It's a joint decision, and one that shouldn't be taken if you're not prepared to stick to it long term, as it's one that's very difficult to reverse.