Divorce corp

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=6packscaredy]When I look at an attractive woman not my wife all I can think is good Lord what a pain in the ass she’d be or as Charles bukowski put it I’d rather drive from Los Angeles to Manhattan in reverse than start over with another woman.[/quote]

And you know that it is a pain in the ass because the first time was pain enough? You got the kinks worked out already that you don’t want to start over from the beginning.

Is this a process where the beginning is a pain and it gets better afterwards?[/quote]

I would guess that most people who are happily married after many years would agree that the beginning years are the most difficult. Once you get into a groove, it gets pretty easy as long as both people are relatively considerate and low maintenance.

[CA renter]

[quote=joec]I think one point that should be kept in mind is that there isn’t an answer for everyone. It really depends on the 2 people to see what will work out for them. Most of this is dependent on what they grew up with or what they “see” as good/acceptable, etc…Like some people split all bills, some people share, etc…

One thing I have sorta noticed is for both men and women who want to, but aren’t married after 40+, usually there is some issue with them and they may not even realize it. I saw it with guy co-workers who were too “greedy” or was too “worried” about their finances to not lose it all. Maybe they just haven’t met the one they are willing to take the chance on, but pretty common in guys I think if they make decent money…It’s certainly a concern, but it’s to the point of too worried to leap I see.

I could understand if you’re Zuckerberg and you’re a billionaire, but most people aren’t that well off.

All the generalizations of someone should ask for this, do that just doesn’t really make any sense for each individual couple since everyone views things with different importance.

Here’s an interesting read on women making more than men.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/index1.html

Read the comments too. The problem with that situation is that society isn’t too kind towards this type of setup. Growing up, I think most guys never expected to be a SAHD or taken care of, but if that happens, society is extremely mean to the guy. Also, you rarely hear of guys telling a wife that she’s a “loser” for not making more money…Just not done really since that’s ingrained in our historical traditional view of the sexes.

Over the long term, I think more men will be sahd since it’s slowly getting more common and women, already make up the majority of college graduates and medical and many other graduate studies. Women will continue to advance in education since girls are generally better able to study/sit still, are less hyper, etc…than boys

In the old days, it was expected that you had to get married to get the sex…Now, that’s totally not the case so more men AND women will probably prefer to be single. There is still the thought of some that marriage is good for the kids and I agree with that too, but you already have people not married and together with kids.

To the parent who stayed together for the kids, I think you didn’t do what’s best for you (clearly), but you did what was best for your kids so that was a sacrifice you did to try to have a stable environment at home.

As strangely as it sounds, I want to watch some old episodes of Married with Children since I think a lot of it is actually relevant to married men. With kids, unless you plan to screw your family over, all the women out there are sorta a waste of time since there’s no point when you are a parent no matter how bad a marriage is.

That said, for divorced parents, other kids are mean and boys, especially without a dad (wife could get re-married and move) are in extremely high risk to end up in jail.

Girls, just guessing, will end up being porn stars…

I think if someone did a poll here, also a lot more people are divorced than people realize. I think at one of my old jobs, nearly ALL (maybe 75%) the other managers in my group were divorced in the past.

That was a long ramble…[/quote]

While I don’t agree that women (or men) are worthless, the rest is probably true. Different strokes for different folks. Lots of couples find alternative arrangements that work best for them. OTOH, what’s right for kids tends to be pretty clear: an intact household with both of their parents living there, and if they’re married, all the better.

[CA renter]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=6packscaredy][quote=CA renter][quote=6packscaredy]Stay at home dad’s give up their most study handsome years?[/quote]

No, but they do give up major income earning potential when they are SAHDs.[/quote]

Speculative.[/quote]
Definitely speculative.[/quote]

Not speculative at all. It’s very well documented.

Not only has the SAHP put the breaks on the career trajectory (usually during the most important years), but staying out of the workforce for even a few years will affect things like vesting for retirement or other benefits, service credit for retirement (for jobs with defined benefits), continuing education/licensing requirements, career experience, outdated knowledge when re-entering the paid workforce, etc. In the vast majority of cases, it will PERMANENTLY affect the SAHP’s income earning potential.

[scaredyclassic]

Speculative for any particular person though.

Why is the worker compelled to keep working to provide for the non worker?

That’s not right: everyone needs to adapt.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=CA renter][quote=6packscaredy]Short term alimony not so bad. Longterm Or lifetime alimony feels like it motivates ineptitude and victimhood.

Basically when you get Married you need a real heavy duty partner.

Anything less, skip it.[/quote]

Lots of SAHPs are real heavy duty partners. They do EVERYTHING around the house, and take care of all the family members’ needs in addition to raising well-behaved, responsible, successful children. Many times, they end up taking care of the children, grandchildren, and parents/in-laws over many years.

This is in no way equivalent to “not working,” and it should never be treated or referred to as such.[/quote]

true. But there’s plenty I know where the dude comes home to fucking crazy town and the SAhm is like fuck it your shift and he’s doing child stuff and throwing dinner and laundry together and wondering what the Fucks been going on all day.

probably the SAhm is actuslky busy all day but it’s not like some tight ship in every sahp housrhold. Many suck at the job, just like regular workers suck…Low energy, inefficient etc…

plus shitloads of complaining….leading up to divorce and longterm financial payouts…

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=6packscaredy]Speculative for any particular person though.

Why is the worker compelled to keep working to provide for the non worker?

That’s not right: everyone needs to adapt.[/quote]

That’s what the judge said during a friend’s divorce. Everyone needs to adapt to changing circumstances.

[scaredyclassic]

Just cause you’re a lawyer and made 250k last year don’t mean you have the will to make 250 next year. But tthe law doesn’t necessarily care about your flagging will. Pay up!

[CA renter]

[quote=6packscaredy][quote=CA renter][quote=6packscaredy]Short term alimony not so bad. Longterm Or lifetime alimony feels like it motivates ineptitude and victimhood.

Basically when you get Married you need a real heavy duty partner.

Anything less, skip it.[/quote]

Lots of SAHPs are real heavy duty partners. They do EVERYTHING around the house, and take care of all the family members’ needs in addition to raising well-behaved, responsible, successful children. Many times, they end up taking care of the children, grandchildren, and parents/in-laws over many years.

This is in no way equivalent to “not working,” and it should never be treated or referred to as such.[/quote]

true. But there’s plenty I know where the dude comes home to fucking crazy town and the SAhm is like fuck it your shift and he’s doing child stuff and throwing dinner and laundry together and wondering what the Fucks been going on all day.

probably the SAhm is actuslky busy all day but it’s not like some tight ship in every sahp housrhold. Many suck at the job, just like regular workers suck…Low energy, inefficient etc…

plus shitloads of complaining….leading up to divorce and longterm financial payouts…[/quote]

Yes, I’ve seen these households, too. But understand that there are pros and cons to every situation. Personally, I’m known for running a very tight ship (always have, both professionally and in my personal life). Fortunately, my husband and I both like the same things and have the same beliefs and philosophies regarding running a household and parenting. But part of having a wife (or husband) who runs a tight ship is dealing with a very controlling personality; it’s part of that personality profile. I’m very friendly and loving, but have very specific expectations of everybody (including myself), and I handle all the cleaning, shopping, bills, medical/dental stuff, manage all the finances/investments (and have made well into the six digits over the past decade or so just from this), handle all legal matters, general household work, etc. And, as you know, I manage all of our childrens’ academic work — classes, curriculum, extracurricular activities, etc. — because we homeschool. It really gets me fired up when I hear someone insinuate that I “don’t work” or that my contributions aren’t worth anything because I’m a SAHP.

A husband who wants to come home to a wife who has no rules or expectations from him (things like: no shoes, pick up everything you put down, a place for everything and everything in its place, behavioral expectations, etc.), will not likely be able to have a wife who has a well-run, highly functional household.

There are many women (and men) out there who are very artistic, crafty, and creative. This can be incredibly valuable where children are concerned, especially. But these spouses are more likely to have chaotic, messy households with children running around all over the place; and dinner may or may not be there…or might consist of Goldfish crackers and apples with peanut butter. These women (and men) will probably be more laid-back and relaxed, and will not have as many expectations of their spouses. But these spouses are every bit as hard-working as the more functional, organized spouses with well-mannered children and clean homes.

Of course, as you’ve noted, there are some spouses who truly are pretty worthless. Who stay home, even when the kids are at school, and still can’t manage to do even the most basic cleaning or manage laundry or shopping, etc. I’m not making excuses for them.

[CA renter]

[quote=6packscaredy]Just cause you’re a lawyer and made 250k last year don’t mean you have the will to make 250 next year. But tthe law doesn’t necessarily care about your flagging will. Pay up![/quote]

That depends on whether or not the wage earner intentionally reduced his/her income in order to have lower alimony/child support payments. The courts frown on that, as they should.

If they are legitimately making less, then they can petition the court to re-asses the support awards.

[CA renter]

[quote=6packscaredy]Speculative for any particular person though.

Why is the worker compelled to keep working to provide for the non worker?

That’s not right: everyone needs to adapt.[/quote]

Again, the SAH spouse “pre-paid” into the marriage. Alimony awards are more akin to deferred compensation. No intelligent woman would give up her whole outside/professional life in order to have and rear children who bear the name of a man who hates her and feels no obligation toward her.

[CA renter]

Which brings me to my next question…

If SAH spouses and alimony awards are “relics from days gone by” and no longer appropriate, would you agree that the tradition of a woman taking a man’s name and naming her children after him is equally inappropriate? After all, these traditions are carried forward from times when women and their children were the property of men. There is far less justification for this tradition than for alimony awards for SAHPs.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, whatever schemes you come up to protect stay at home parents, whom you believe to be mostly women who offer youth beauty and fertility, depend on the cooperation of men. The whole thing falls apart with equality of the sexes and when men and women say “screw it, what’s good for the other sex is good for me too.”[/quote]

Brian, marriage and family have always been about the cooperation of both sexes. Ideally, both spouses bring to the marriage things that the other spouse doesn’t have. They are supposed to complement each other.

Of course, everyone can just do their own thing, like I mentioned in this thread already. They can have their “own” children, either by using a sperm donor or for-profit surrogate, and they can hire other people to do all the work that SAH spouses have traditionally done (though most people could not afford it).

Savings are the ultimate form of income (no taxes!), and having a SAH spouse will offer far more savings than most other arrangements. There is a very real economic value to the work they do.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=6packscaredy]
Because it’s better for kids to have parents who are happy together. And all people are somewhat unreasonable.

It seems like less of a sacrifice to try to be happy with a crazy spouse than to be dead. So if you’re willing to die for your kids you ought to bexwillkng v to try to be happy even if diffivult[/quote]

Is it better for kids to have parents that are miserable together or happy apart? What if kids are all growed up? (Full disclosure: I stayed married until the kids were grown, and I don’t regret it, but I’m not sure that was the right decision.)[/quote]

There is a lot of research regarding this, too. Like it or not, most kids couldn’t care less about their parents’ “happiness.” The only exception is when there is major abuse in the home (which isn’t just about a parents’ happiness). The kids care most about their own stability and lifestyle. In the vast majority of cases, children of divorce suffer a dramatic decline in lifestyle, financial status and security, and they have less interested and involved parents because the parents are grieving too much, working longer hours, and/or because they devote themselves to new romantic relationships. Top all of that with the tendency to force children to become permanent transients, constantly moving between “mom’s house” and “dad’s house,” and never having a place to refer to as “home” and it’s easy to see why children of divorce don’t do as well as their peers from intact families. Why in the world would anyone think that a parent’s “happiness” would concern children more than these things?

And, all too often, the “happiness” of one parent is completely offset by the depression and sadness of the other, if not more so. Not exactly something a kid would desire.

Study after study shows that divorce is bad for children, even adult children.

[CA renter]

[quote=6packscaredy]The thought of being a stay at home dad makes me feel ill.

Although I loved Alternadad by Neal pollock.

But I wouldn’t be as opposed to caring for grandchildren.

I would prefer to work though.[/quote]

The point is that every couple should be able to make the choices that best suit them.

And I want to clarify something about my own situation. Before we got married (before we were even engaged), we had numerous discussions about our beliefs and philosophies regarding family, running a household, financial arrangements, parenting styles, wage earning, etc. I told my husband that I would either be a wage earner with no children or a SAHP, but not both; and he would be the one who could make the decision (or decide not to marry, altogether). He was thrilled to find out that I would be willing to stay home, so made the decision for us. Because of his decision, though, I insisted on some extra legal protections via a nuptial agreement. That’s how all of that came about. I realized, right from the beginning, that being a SAHP was very high risk. It’s incredibly naive and ignorant to insist that the wage-earning spouse is the one who takes all the risks; the research shows that it’s quite the opposite.

[CA renter]

[quote=6packscaredy]I’m glad I was young and broke when I met my wife.[/quote]

Most men are young and broke when they meet their first wives.

[Author]

Posts