Pendente Lite Guideline vs Actual Spousal Support (in VA) -- How did it compare in your case? SAHM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at this thread. Never get married fellas!

This thread and all the others on here. Financial predators.

Then don’t. Don’t have kids, don’t get married, go play XBox. No one needs you.

Interesting how some grown women think that they should be taken care of financially. Be a feminist and get a job.

This is because you don't see work outside of the house as work. It's actual work. More work most of the time. It never ends. And yes stay at home parents have more time to shop and cook for you, take care of your kids (a nanny alone charges $15 an hour per kid around here), and pets, clean your room and do your laundry. Handle finances and pay taxes, and handle appointments and vacation planning. Buy gifts. Coordinate friend get-togethers. This is also why men want another women right after. They know they don't want to handle this work. But it's actual work. There are actually ways you can outsource this stuff and you can see how it all adds up financially.

I’m a WOHM. You need to be a bit more objective. The childcare part, yes. You covered — his half. You would have had to cover your half from your paycheck if you worked because it’s your child also. So take that $15 and make it $7.50. The rest of the stuff WOHMs do too. You think someone else buys the gifts? Plans the vacations and holidays? I’m folding a load of laundry every other night.

It is not a good financial deal for women to SAH. Not for the husband, not for the wife. There are other intangibles but if you get divorced recognize you had the privilege of not working for many years and that’s what it was. I am not saying there should not be child support and bridge alimony. But a man is not a plan. You can’t plan to live off someone else’s job and never support yourself in life.

100% this.

I 100% recognize this now but I didn't at the time. Since that is the situation, should I forever be up against a financial wall? My earning potential suffered while he never had to miss a meeting, a work dinner, or a business trip. His continued to contribute to retirement while I stayed at home. I took a job earning the same amount as I was making 8 years prior when I left the workforce. I'm happily working full-time now and would not expect spousal support but what about the 1/2 of the retirement contributions and interest for the period that I was at home?

Yes, that’s what you chose when you decided to SAH. I’m not being mean, that’s just life. It’s a trade off and the woman assumes a lot of the risk in that scenario. I would never recommend it to my daughter unless she had a great prenup and even then — why? Life is uncertain, don’t put your eggs in one basket.

It is always important for women to look out for themselves. Many women sell themselves down the river for a Hallmark card slogan one day of the year. If it was such a good deal to stay at home and so valuable and important, men would do it.

I mean sort of except alimony DOES exist for women who make this choice, and rightfully so.

Permanent alimony is only available in 14 states. Taking alimony means you're depending on your ex to pay. My only point is that it's a position of relative vulnerability, which is why you rarely see men taking it. Men look out for themselves. The whole thing is very tricky. I will advise my daughter never to marry someone who isn't willing to make career sacrifices to the same extent that she does. Both parents need to be involved in raising the kids, and both need to take the career hits. Otherwise you're taking a real risk with your financial future, unless you are independently wealthy.

I totally agree with the statement above. A man who is not willing to equally sacrifice his career for kids is not considering his wife an equal. He should contribute equally even if she makes $50K and he makes $500K. It's not about the money, it's about considering the wife a true equal and valuing her work in the office and at home.
My income was not that far from my exH when I was 25 ($85K at 25 vs his $170 at 30+). But when I took the setback, he did not and by the end of the marriage I had zero independent income while he had a $1mm/year. And he decided he was god and I was nobody, cheated on me and we divorced.

This shows in fact how much professional women can loose if they sacrifice themselves for kids and receive no support.

Most wives are not "true equals" from the career standpoint and should not be considered as such. You are a case in point. You were making about half what he did when you started. Then when you got divorced he was making $1m a year. If you hadn't gotten married you would not be making $1m a year. Your career was in no respect equal to his, get outta here with that nonsense.

"He should contribute equally even if she makes $50K and he makes $500K." -- another absolutely ridiculous example. These people are not even close to equal and it is absurd to insist that he should consider her one. If the genders were reversed, she was making $500k and him $50k, let's not even pretend she would consider him an equal. Indeed, they'd be so unequal that she'd never even consider marrying him in the first place.

The cold hard fact is that women don't want to marry an equal - they want to "marry up" - but at the same time they want the man to pretend she is his "true equal". Which is fine if that makes her feel happy during the marriage, but when it comes to making a financial settlement during divorce, nope, forget that sht, you were NOT his equal and you shouldn't be treated as one.

I disagree with all you said. I was making 85K while being 10 years younger when he was making 170K. He had 10 years already in his career thus he was making more (and he started at 25 at $35K vs my 85K). If I continued working in my field and he supported me equally at home, his income would be $500k and my probably around $350K by the time of divorce. He would have never made it to $1mm as it took him to travel extensively (100 days out of country every year), meet with business partners, attend conferences etc. He had this luxury thanks to ME. If he was driving around our child to massages and therapies in DC he would have grown in a different pace and won't be an executive business owner. He would be still working for others, at a high profile corporate career.

Any man who thinks the way you think will be a "slacker" with household duties and kids and not a marriage material. I have friends where the husband is making 700K and she makes 70K and husbands still do their best to be with famlies

You're just further supporting my point that you were not equal to the man you married. He was older and making more, so of course you were not his equal. That undoubtedly contributed to your decision to marry him. If you married a guy the same age and salary as you, then you would have been equal. But you didn't. And sorry, if he hadn't married you then he'd still be making $1m now. He might not have kids or he'd have them with a different woman but he'd be there. You are grossly exaggerating your importance as bitter ex-wives invariably do.

"I have friends where the husband is making 700K and she makes 70K and husbands still do their best to be with famlies" -- ok that's great but it has absolutely nothing to do with them being equals. And in those cases they are clearly not "true equals", the husband is superior to the wife for all that he takes time to "be with his family".

You can turn it either way: he didn't marry his pier of same age either, as he didn't want a woman who is too much into her career and wouldn't make sacrifices for HIS career.

Yes but he was not and is not pretending you were his equal when he married you. He didn't want an equal and you weren't one.

"It's absolutely a team work that he made it $1mm/year." -- uh huh, no doubt you think so, but it certainly wasn't an equal team as you like to pretend.

"statistically men who have a SAHM wives are more successful in their careers" -- correlation not causation. Highly successful men can afford to have SAHMs, while less-successful men cannot, but those highly successful men would have been highly successful whether they had a SAHM wife, a working wife, or no wife at all.

"Women take much harder financial hit due to child birth and career setbacks vs men, and that's a proven statistical fact" -- they weren't going to have superstar careers so the "hit" is knocking them from a low level to a somewhat lower level, and meanwhile they spent years having all their food, clothing, and shelter paid for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at this thread. Never get married fellas!

This thread and all the others on here. Financial predators.

Then don’t. Don’t have kids, don’t get married, go play XBox. No one needs you.

Interesting how some grown women think that they should be taken care of financially. Be a feminist and get a job.

This is because you don't see work outside of the house as work. It's actual work. More work most of the time. It never ends. And yes stay at home parents have more time to shop and cook for you, take care of your kids (a nanny alone charges $15 an hour per kid around here), and pets, clean your room and do your laundry. Handle finances and pay taxes, and handle appointments and vacation planning. Buy gifts. Coordinate friend get-togethers. This is also why men want another women right after. They know they don't want to handle this work. But it's actual work. There are actually ways you can outsource this stuff and you can see how it all adds up financially.

I’m a WOHM. You need to be a bit more objective. The childcare part, yes. You covered — his half. You would have had to cover your half from your paycheck if you worked because it’s your child also. So take that $15 and make it $7.50. The rest of the stuff WOHMs do too. You think someone else buys the gifts? Plans the vacations and holidays? I’m folding a load of laundry every other night.

It is not a good financial deal for women to SAH. Not for the husband, not for the wife. There are other intangibles but if you get divorced recognize you had the privilege of not working for many years and that’s what it was. I am not saying there should not be child support and bridge alimony. But a man is not a plan. You can’t plan to live off someone else’s job and never support yourself in life.

100% this.

I 100% recognize this now but I didn't at the time. Since that is the situation, should I forever be up against a financial wall? My earning potential suffered while he never had to miss a meeting, a work dinner, or a business trip. His continued to contribute to retirement while I stayed at home. I took a job earning the same amount as I was making 8 years prior when I left the workforce. I'm happily working full-time now and would not expect spousal support but what about the 1/2 of the retirement contributions and interest for the period that I was at home?

Yes, that’s what you chose when you decided to SAH. I’m not being mean, that’s just life. It’s a trade off and the woman assumes a lot of the risk in that scenario. I would never recommend it to my daughter unless she had a great prenup and even then — why? Life is uncertain, don’t put your eggs in one basket.

It is always important for women to look out for themselves. Many women sell themselves down the river for a Hallmark card slogan one day of the year. If it was such a good deal to stay at home and so valuable and important, men would do it.

I mean sort of except alimony DOES exist for women who make this choice, and rightfully so.

Permanent alimony is only available in 14 states. Taking alimony means you're depending on your ex to pay. My only point is that it's a position of relative vulnerability, which is why you rarely see men taking it. Men look out for themselves. The whole thing is very tricky. I will advise my daughter never to marry someone who isn't willing to make career sacrifices to the same extent that she does. Both parents need to be involved in raising the kids, and both need to take the career hits. Otherwise you're taking a real risk with your financial future, unless you are independently wealthy.

I totally agree with the statement above. A man who is not willing to equally sacrifice his career for kids is not considering his wife an equal. He should contribute equally even if she makes $50K and he makes $500K. It's not about the money, it's about considering the wife a true equal and valuing her work in the office and at home.
My income was not that far from my exH when I was 25 ($85K at 25 vs his $170 at 30+). But when I took the setback, he did not and by the end of the marriage I had zero independent income while he had a $1mm/year. And he decided he was god and I was nobody, cheated on me and we divorced.

This shows in fact how much professional women can loose if they sacrifice themselves for kids and receive no support.

Most wives are not "true equals" from the career standpoint and should not be considered as such. You are a case in point. You were making about half what he did when you started. Then when you got divorced he was making $1m a year. If you hadn't gotten married you would not be making $1m a year. Your career was in no respect equal to his, get outta here with that nonsense.

"He should contribute equally even if she makes $50K and he makes $500K." -- another absolutely ridiculous example. These people are not even close to equal and it is absurd to insist that he should consider her one. If the genders were reversed, she was making $500k and him $50k, let's not even pretend she would consider him an equal. Indeed, they'd be so unequal that she'd never even consider marrying him in the first place.

The cold hard fact is that women don't want to marry an equal - they want to "marry up" - but at the same time they want the man to pretend she is his "true equal". Which is fine if that makes her feel happy during the marriage, but when it comes to making a financial settlement during divorce, nope, forget that sht, you were NOT his equal and you shouldn't be treated as one.

I disagree with all you said. I was making 85K while being 10 years younger when he was making 170K. He had 10 years already in his career thus he was making more (and he started at 25 at $35K vs my 85K). If I continued working in my field and he supported me equally at home, his income would be $500k and my probably around $350K by the time of divorce. He would have never made it to $1mm as it took him to travel extensively (100 days out of country every year), meet with business partners, attend conferences etc. He had this luxury thanks to ME. If he was driving around our child to massages and therapies in DC he would have grown in a different pace and won't be an executive business owner. He would be still working for others, at a high profile corporate career.

Any man who thinks the way you think will be a "slacker" with household duties and kids and not a marriage material. I have friends where the husband is making 700K and she makes 70K and husbands still do their best to be with famlies

You're just further supporting my point that you were not equal to the man you married. He was older and making more, so of course you were not his equal. That undoubtedly contributed to your decision to marry him. If you married a guy the same age and salary as you, then you would have been equal. But you didn't. And sorry, if he hadn't married you then he'd still be making $1m now. He might not have kids or he'd have them with a different woman but he'd be there. You are grossly exaggerating your importance as bitter ex-wives invariably do.

"I have friends where the husband is making 700K and she makes 70K and husbands still do their best to be with famlies" -- ok that's great but it has absolutely nothing to do with them being equals. And in those cases they are clearly not "true equals", the husband is superior to the wife for all that he takes time to "be with his family".

You can turn it either way: he didn't marry his pier of same age either, as he didn't want a woman who is too much into her career and wouldn't make sacrifices for HIS career.

Yes but he was not and is not pretending you were his equal when he married you. He didn't want an equal and you weren't one.

"It's absolutely a team work that he made it $1mm/year." -- uh huh, no doubt you think so, but it certainly wasn't an equal team as you like to pretend.

"statistically men who have a SAHM wives are more successful in their careers" -- correlation not causation. Highly successful men can afford to have SAHMs, while less-successful men cannot, but those highly successful men would have been highly successful whether they had a SAHM wife, a working wife, or no wife at all.

"Women take much harder financial hit due to child birth and career setbacks vs men, and that's a proven statistical fact" -- they weren't going to have superstar careers so the "hit" is knocking them from a low level to a somewhat lower level, and meanwhile they spent years having all their food, clothing, and shelter paid for.

But you act like the career is the only thing negoiated in a divoce and the only thing the man has gained over the years is this money and no other skills or responsibilities or gifts. So why is obsessed with money then? It's the men. I don't really see why men think that somehow they were put here on earth and somehow should earn this paper just for them. It's just paper. The reason money is used as monetization for work is so it can be traded and used for the greater population. Women doing most of the work with the greater population. It just burns if you light a fire to it. The money is not just supposed to go to you as if women and children and the elderly are self sufficient and you're not. It's supposed to go to women and children who build and maintain society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all these posts but my wife and I are heading for divorce and it's a total fiction that she gave up some high powered job to be a SAHM. She will come out the other side far more wealthy than if she stayed single, with about 1.5m in the back at age 44. She has an undergrad in sociology.

I have no problem with short term alimony while she gets back on her feet and no problem with child support. That she isn't going to have the same lifestyle as me going forward is just the price of exit. Life isnt fair. I didn't want the be divorced either and while I recognize my faults, she is just as at fault for us not working out.

This. Hardly being thrown into poverty.

But she could have had a healthy salary of $100K and nice retirement of her own. PP, why didn't she work? How many kids did you have, did you help her around the house? What caused the divorce?

She recently got a job making 65k. In her field, 100k is possible but that's about the ceiling. She decided not to go back to work, I supported the decision, I didn't pressure her either way. I helped around the house but of course most fell on her. I acknowledge her being at home was an assist, perhaps a big assist to me but I was going to be successful either way, not taking away her contribution, of course.

What caused divorce, no one thing, we let a decade of resentment build up but got to the point where we were tired of working on our relationship. Yes, sexless marriage which is sad for two healthy fun people, but it's a symptom and a cause. She now doesn't want to divorce but she doesn't like living in DC either. She frankly doesn't know what she wants but at some point I am allowed to be free of her pathos as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at this thread. Never get married fellas!

This thread and all the others on here. Financial predators.

Then don’t. Don’t have kids, don’t get married, go play XBox. No one needs you.

Interesting how some grown women think that they should be taken care of financially. Be a feminist and get a job.

This is because you don't see work outside of the house as work. It's actual work. More work most of the time. It never ends. And yes stay at home parents have more time to shop and cook for you, take care of your kids (a nanny alone charges $15 an hour per kid around here), and pets, clean your room and do your laundry. Handle finances and pay taxes, and handle appointments and vacation planning. Buy gifts. Coordinate friend get-togethers. This is also why men want another women right after. They know they don't want to handle this work. But it's actual work. There are actually ways you can outsource this stuff and you can see how it all adds up financially.

I’m a WOHM. You need to be a bit more objective. The childcare part, yes. You covered — his half. You would have had to cover your half from your paycheck if you worked because it’s your child also. So take that $15 and make it $7.50. The rest of the stuff WOHMs do too. You think someone else buys the gifts? Plans the vacations and holidays? I’m folding a load of laundry every other night.

It is not a good financial deal for women to SAH. Not for the husband, not for the wife. There are other intangibles but if you get divorced recognize you had the privilege of not working for many years and that’s what it was. I am not saying there should not be child support and bridge alimony. But a man is not a plan. You can’t plan to live off someone else’s job and never support yourself in life.

100% this.

I 100% recognize this now but I didn't at the time. Since that is the situation, should I forever be up against a financial wall? My earning potential suffered while he never had to miss a meeting, a work dinner, or a business trip. His continued to contribute to retirement while I stayed at home. I took a job earning the same amount as I was making 8 years prior when I left the workforce. I'm happily working full-time now and would not expect spousal support but what about the 1/2 of the retirement contributions and interest for the period that I was at home?

Yes, that’s what you chose when you decided to SAH. I’m not being mean, that’s just life. It’s a trade off and the woman assumes a lot of the risk in that scenario. I would never recommend it to my daughter unless she had a great prenup and even then — why? Life is uncertain, don’t put your eggs in one basket.

It is always important for women to look out for themselves. Many women sell themselves down the river for a Hallmark card slogan one day of the year. If it was such a good deal to stay at home and so valuable and important, men would do it.

I mean sort of except alimony DOES exist for women who make this choice, and rightfully so.

Permanent alimony is only available in 14 states. Taking alimony means you're depending on your ex to pay. My only point is that it's a position of relative vulnerability, which is why you rarely see men taking it. Men look out for themselves. The whole thing is very tricky. I will advise my daughter never to marry someone who isn't willing to make career sacrifices to the same extent that she does. Both parents need to be involved in raising the kids, and both need to take the career hits. Otherwise you're taking a real risk with your financial future, unless you are independently wealthy.

I totally agree with the statement above. A man who is not willing to equally sacrifice his career for kids is not considering his wife an equal. He should contribute equally even if she makes $50K and he makes $500K. It's not about the money, it's about considering the wife a true equal and valuing her work in the office and at home.
My income was not that far from my exH when I was 25 ($85K at 25 vs his $170 at 30+). But when I took the setback, he did not and by the end of the marriage I had zero independent income while he had a $1mm/year. And he decided he was god and I was nobody, cheated on me and we divorced.

This shows in fact how much professional women can loose if they sacrifice themselves for kids and receive no support.

Most wives are not "true equals" from the career standpoint and should not be considered as such. You are a case in point. You were making about half what he did when you started. Then when you got divorced he was making $1m a year. If you hadn't gotten married you would not be making $1m a year. Your career was in no respect equal to his, get outta here with that nonsense.

"He should contribute equally even if she makes $50K and he makes $500K." -- another absolutely ridiculous example. These people are not even close to equal and it is absurd to insist that he should consider her one. If the genders were reversed, she was making $500k and him $50k, let's not even pretend she would consider him an equal. Indeed, they'd be so unequal that she'd never even consider marrying him in the first place.

The cold hard fact is that women don't want to marry an equal - they want to "marry up" - but at the same time they want the man to pretend she is his "true equal". Which is fine if that makes her feel happy during the marriage, but when it comes to making a financial settlement during divorce, nope, forget that sht, you were NOT his equal and you shouldn't be treated as one.

I disagree with all you said. I was making 85K while being 10 years younger when he was making 170K. He had 10 years already in his career thus he was making more (and he started at 25 at $35K vs my 85K). If I continued working in my field and he supported me equally at home, his income would be $500k and my probably around $350K by the time of divorce. He would have never made it to $1mm as it took him to travel extensively (100 days out of country every year), meet with business partners, attend conferences etc. He had this luxury thanks to ME. If he was driving around our child to massages and therapies in DC he would have grown in a different pace and won't be an executive business owner. He would be still working for others, at a high profile corporate career.

Any man who thinks the way you think will be a "slacker" with household duties and kids and not a marriage material. I have friends where the husband is making 700K and she makes 70K and husbands still do their best to be with famlies

You're just further supporting my point that you were not equal to the man you married. He was older and making more, so of course you were not his equal. That undoubtedly contributed to your decision to marry him. If you married a guy the same age and salary as you, then you would have been equal. But you didn't. And sorry, if he hadn't married you then he'd still be making $1m now. He might not have kids or he'd have them with a different woman but he'd be there. You are grossly exaggerating your importance as bitter ex-wives invariably do.

"I have friends where the husband is making 700K and she makes 70K and husbands still do their best to be with famlies" -- ok that's great but it has absolutely nothing to do with them being equals. And in those cases they are clearly not "true equals", the husband is superior to the wife for all that he takes time to "be with his family".

You can turn it either way: he didn't marry his pier of same age either, as he didn't want a woman who is too much into her career and wouldn't make sacrifices for HIS career.

Yes but he was not and is not pretending you were his equal when he married you. He didn't want an equal and you weren't one.

"It's absolutely a team work that he made it $1mm/year." -- uh huh, no doubt you think so, but it certainly wasn't an equal team as you like to pretend.

"statistically men who have a SAHM wives are more successful in their careers" -- correlation not causation. Highly successful men can afford to have SAHMs, while less-successful men cannot, but those highly successful men would have been highly successful whether they had a SAHM wife, a working wife, or no wife at all.

"Women take much harder financial hit due to child birth and career setbacks vs men, and that's a proven statistical fact" -- they weren't going to have superstar careers so the "hit" is knocking them from a low level to a somewhat lower level, and meanwhile they spent years having all their food, clothing, and shelter paid for.

It was an absolutely equal team unless you think that me taking care of our SN child, co-sining business loans with him was not as important while him sitting at negotiations making money at that same moment of time. And no, he did not tell me he didn't want to be an equal partner. For the first few years he was very supportive of my career, but when he realized that child care was burdensome he told me that I would step over his dead body for my work. And that HE was unhappy about me traveling and be unavailable. So I became SAHM.
You also have no clue: my 85K at age 25 in 2007 was in fact a stellar career start. You downgrade women in your post, but statistically women begin out earning men, when they are not tied up to marriage. Not my exH would not have made it to $1mm a year without a spouse who was willing to contribute her income into joint business.
He was married before me, his first wife was older than him making more than him. It was a total waste of his time and salary as she preferred spending HER $170k on expensive cars, traveling and partying. His career took off on the 2nd marriage with a "joint pot" of money.

You are shallow and all about power and money like most men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all these posts but my wife and I are heading for divorce and it's a total fiction that she gave up some high powered job to be a SAHM. She will come out the other side far more wealthy than if she stayed single, with about 1.5m in the back at age 44. She has an undergrad in sociology.

I have no problem with short term alimony while she gets back on her feet and no problem with child support. That she isn't going to have the same lifestyle as me going forward is just the price of exit. Life isnt fair. I didn't want the be divorced either and while I recognize my faults, she is just as at fault for us not working out.

I am an early 40s SAHM who gave up teaching so yeah, I get what you're saying, but being a team means your success didn't happen in a vacuum. I paid off my husband's debts when we first got married. I supported him as he bounced around jobs paying $25k a year 15-20 years ago. I managed to save $500/month of my salary so even though I only worked 8 years, so I have 6 figures in my 401k. I convinced him not to open a bookshop (the odds of that succeeding were obviously slim) and encouraged him to get into a career with high potential and finally just when our first kid was born after 5 years of marriage, he started making more money than I did. Today he makes nearly 7 figures. Would he be here without me? No one can say, but long term vision and stick-to-it-ness have never been his strong suits (which is OK, because his zest for life and spontaneity add to my life too!).

Now that we're pretty wealthy it's hard to imagine thinking I could survive on a teacher's salary, but at the time my life was very comfortable. And if we got divorced I would try to relish the opportunity to live a simpler life. But I also object to the idea that I'm some freeloader who just luckily attached herself to some high earner. We are a team and it's by complementing each other that we are better together than apart. This is why it's really hard to quantify these things which of course is exactly what divorce courts need to do.

I would call you manipulative not a freeloader. Hopefully you chose well for your husband and he is happy in his job….

^^ The misogyny in this thread is unbelievable. Much of it coming from women, too. PP, you explained very well that it is a team - that's what marriage is all about and why all family efforts are worthy.

I'm the PP and I think I was right that as a partner I should have a say in how we spend our money (which at the time nearly all came from me), but I do think I could have been more emotionally supportive of his dream. Today we are part-owners of several shops (not books but other things that DH loves) which we were able to do because we increased our cash reserves, and when he has suggested helping someone open a shop I have been as supportive as I can be. But at the time it would have been all of our savings and probably would have ruined us.

Yeah, he's happy in his career, mostly because of the pay-off TBH. He's not super suited for a 9 to 5 in general and he scratches his itch for newness through hobbies or side business ventures. Obviously I am very proud of what he's been able to accomplish by leaning in to his strengths and troubleshooting his weaknesses.

Women are often the drivers behind their husbands' careers. I was the driver behind my exH quest to become financially independent business owner, too. When we got married he was a research PdD type not a business type. It took years of formation, my being in the same field with him and same business. He's very happy in his career now but of course he thinks it's "his" achievement and I had nothing to do with it

My now exW hurt my career. She's obnoxious and has a big mouth and embarrassed me several times at work-social events.

[Anonymous]

Women take much harder financial hit due to child birth and career setbacks vs men, and that's a proven statistical fact" -- they weren't going to have superstar careers so the "hit" is knocking them from a low level to a somewhat lower level, and meanwhile they spent years having all their food, clothing, and shelter paid for.

Stop stating things as fact that just aren’t. When I quit to be a SAHM - which my husband and I agreed upon - my DH and I were both in BigLaw and I earned more. Yep, for 15 years my DH has paid for my food and clothing and our houses, as well as tons of travel, gifts, private school and college tuition for our kids, and everything else in our life. I gave up a huge salary and significant retirement savings, and that’s a fact - I probably outearned you because I was statistically in the top 5%, so definitely not the “low level” you imagine of SAHM. I have friends who stay home and who were also lawyers, doctors and C Suite execs in their past. You are clearly misogynistic so could not attract the kind of woman who achieved a lot in her own life before becoming a SAHM. Too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Women take much harder financial hit due to child birth and career setbacks vs men, and that's a proven statistical fact" -- they weren't going to have superstar careers so the "hit" is knocking them from a low level to a somewhat lower level, and meanwhile they spent years having all their food, clothing, and shelter paid for.

Stop stating things as fact that just aren’t. When I quit to be a SAHM - which my husband and I agreed upon - my DH and I were both in BigLaw and I earned more. Yep, for 15 years my DH has paid for my food and clothing and our houses, as well as tons of travel, gifts, private school and college tuition for our kids, and everything else in our life. I gave up a huge salary and significant retirement savings, and that’s a fact - I probably outearned you because I was statistically in the top 5%, so definitely not the “low level” you imagine of SAHM. I have friends who stay home and who were also lawyers, doctors and C Suite execs in their past. You are clearly misogynistic so could not attract the kind of woman who achieved a lot in her own life before becoming a SAHM. Too bad.

Thank you for commenting, and in addition to what you said, an average age difference when couples get married is 2-3 years. The difference in incomes could easily come from the fact that husbands already had 3 years of professional careers by the time they get married! It easily translates into 20-40K salary gap, since men on average are offered higher salaries when they begin careers just because of gender discrimination.
Then, the wife gives birth and presumably takes 6 months at home with the baby. She's already out of consideration for a promotion in highly competitive places like law firms or finance. So add up all these differences, the woman falls behind 5 years from the start. Then, if husband's career requires more overtime/travel or they have a SN child, ultimately it's the woman for whom it makes mores sense to become a part-time or a SAHM

It's highly discriminatory and disrespectful to women stating that they went SAHM because "they didn't have stellar careers to begin with". What a jerk that male PP is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all these posts but my wife and I are heading for divorce and it's a total fiction that she gave up some high powered job to be a SAHM. She will come out the other side far more wealthy than if she stayed single, with about 1.5m in the back at age 44. She has an undergrad in sociology.

I have no problem with short term alimony while she gets back on her feet and no problem with child support. That she isn't going to have the same lifestyle as me going forward is just the price of exit. Life isnt fair. I didn't want the be divorced either and while I recognize my faults, she is just as at fault for us not working out.

This. Hardly being thrown into poverty.

But she could have had a healthy salary of $100K and nice retirement of her own. PP, why didn't she work? How many kids did you have, did you help her around the house? What caused the divorce?

She recently got a job making 65k. In her field, 100k is possible but that's about the ceiling. She decided not to go back to work, I supported the decision, I didn't pressure her either way. I helped around the house but of course most fell on her. I acknowledge her being at home was an assist, perhaps a big assist to me but I was going to be successful either way, not taking away her contribution, of course.

What caused divorce, no one thing, we let a decade of resentment build up but got to the point where we were tired of working on our relationship. Yes, sexless marriage which is sad for two healthy fun people, but it's a symptom and a cause. She now doesn't want to divorce but she doesn't like living in DC either. She frankly doesn't know what she wants but at some point I am allowed to be free of her pathos as well.

I think the fact that you state that you would have been successful anyway says a lot to me. I work out of home and one of the reasons I do it because I think it’s harder to stay at home. If you were going to do right by your kids, your career would have taken a hit because raising kids when they are young takes time and effort just as your career takes time and effort. This tells me you don’t really know what it takes to do all that your wife does. Very arrogant. Your wife deserves the compensation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all these posts but my wife and I are heading for divorce and it's a total fiction that she gave up some high powered job to be a SAHM. She will come out the other side far more wealthy than if she stayed single, with about 1.5m in the back at age 44. She has an undergrad in sociology.

I have no problem with short term alimony while she gets back on her feet and no problem with child support. That she isn't going to have the same lifestyle as me going forward is just the price of exit. Life isnt fair. I didn't want the be divorced either and while I recognize my faults, she is just as at fault for us not working out.

This. Hardly being thrown into poverty.

But she could have had a healthy salary of $100K and nice retirement of her own. PP, why didn't she work? How many kids did you have, did you help her around the house? What caused the divorce?

She recently got a job making 65k. In her field, 100k is possible but that's about the ceiling. She decided not to go back to work, I supported the decision, I didn't pressure her either way. I helped around the house but of course most fell on her. I acknowledge her being at home was an assist, perhaps a big assist to me but I was going to be successful either way, not taking away her contribution, of course.

What caused divorce, no one thing, we let a decade of resentment build up but got to the point where we were tired of working on our relationship. Yes, sexless marriage which is sad for two healthy fun people, but it's a symptom and a cause. She now doesn't want to divorce but she doesn't like living in DC either. She frankly doesn't know what she wants but at some point I am allowed to be free of her pathos as well.

I think the fact that you state that you would have been successful anyway says a lot to me. I work out of home and one of the reasons I do it because I think it’s harder to stay at home. If you were going to do right by your kids, your career would have taken a hit because raising kids when they are young takes time and effort just as your career takes time and effort. This tells me you don’t really know what it takes to do all that your wife does. Very arrogant. Your wife deserves the compensation.

Yes, and also his wife appears to be extremely well educated and smart, if she was able to get a 65K job with a social worker degree, after such a long break in employment. I got the same being a lawyer with NY Bar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the courts doesn't seem to be alimony. It seems to be childcare. The childcare stipend someone has to pay to support children is way too small and does not cover college at all. And people will fight custody just so they don't have to pay it which is weird because actually having custody is more expensive.

+1. Not in VA but in MD. I don’t pay alimony because I pay all of the childcare costs and then some and have primary custody. But the “credit”
I get for covering 100% of our children’s expenses, inclusive of college savings / college does not cover the actual costs. I’m a woman, by the way. That said, SAHMs should at the minimum get in alimony what a teacher or high-end nanny makes - or maybe a combo of both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all these posts but my wife and I are heading for divorce and it's a total fiction that she gave up some high powered job to be a SAHM. She will come out the other side far more wealthy than if she stayed single, with about 1.5m in the back at age 44. She has an undergrad in sociology.

I have no problem with short term alimony while she gets back on her feet and no problem with child support. That she isn't going to have the same lifestyle as me going forward is just the price of exit. Life isnt fair. I didn't want the be divorced either and while I recognize my faults, she is just as at fault for us not working out.

I am an early 40s SAHM who gave up teaching so yeah, I get what you're saying, but being a team means your success didn't happen in a vacuum. I paid off my husband's debts when we first got married. I supported him as he bounced around jobs paying $25k a year 15-20 years ago. I managed to save $500/month of my salary so even though I only worked 8 years, so I have 6 figures in my 401k. I convinced him not to open a bookshop (the odds of that succeeding were obviously slim) and encouraged him to get into a career with high potential and finally just when our first kid was born after 5 years of marriage, he started making more money than I did. Today he makes nearly 7 figures. Would he be here without me? No one can say, but long term vision and stick-to-it-ness have never been his strong suits (which is OK, because his zest for life and spontaneity add to my life too!).

Now that we're pretty wealthy it's hard to imagine thinking I could survive on a teacher's salary, but at the time my life was very comfortable. And if we got divorced I would try to relish the opportunity to live a simpler life. But I also object to the idea that I'm some freeloader who just luckily attached herself to some high earner. We are a team and it's by complementing each other that we are better together than apart. This is why it's really hard to quantify these things which of course is exactly what divorce courts need to do.

I would call you manipulative not a freeloader. Hopefully you chose well for your husband and he is happy in his job….

^^ The misogyny in this thread is unbelievable. Much of it coming from women, too. PP, you explained very well that it is a team - that's what marriage is all about and why all family efforts are worthy.

I'm the PP and I think I was right that as a partner I should have a say in how we spend our money (which at the time nearly all came from me), but I do think I could have been more emotionally supportive of his dream. Today we are part-owners of several shops (not books but other things that DH loves) which we were able to do because we increased our cash reserves, and when he has suggested helping someone open a shop I have been as supportive as I can be. But at the time it would have been all of our savings and probably would have ruined us.

Yeah, he's happy in his career, mostly because of the pay-off TBH. He's not super suited for a 9 to 5 in general and he scratches his itch for newness through hobbies or side business ventures. Obviously I am very proud of what he's been able to accomplish by leaning in to his strengths and troubleshooting his weaknesses.

You speak of him like you are grading him on a report card.

Good point, I should have stayed on topic . . . grading WOMEN on a report card.

I’ll let my stay at home husband know he is responsible for my career (even though I had it before we met and am in a government job and have chosen not to persue management)!

He contributes a LOT to our household and way of life, but he wouldn’t say he is responsible for my career.

Just another perspective. If you see manipulating as a “woman’s” trait, I would disagree.

If you wanted to quit your job and open a bookshop today, would your husband have any say in that decision? If so, would you call his concern that this might be a poor use of joint funds "manipulation"? It's very interesting that you frame someone acting as a partner who gets as a say as taking over responsibility for their partner. But hey, maybe this stance keeps your husband from making waves . . .

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe women have no shame in asking alimony.

I would never marry in VA

Ha ha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe women have no shame in asking alimony.

I would never marry in VA

Ha ha

Why would they? The guy wanted a stay at home wife to raise his kids. What changed in terms of raising his kids? It’s a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe women have no shame in asking alimony.

I would never marry in VA

Ha ha

Why would they? The guy wanted a stay at home wife to raise his kids. What changed in terms of raising his kids? It’s a job.

Very few men “want” their wife to stay home. Most Of my guy friends felt the need to tiptoe the delicate line, and usually say “I support you no matter what you want to do.” Most women I know who stayed home really wanted to - they had excellent degrees and were five ish years out of grad school but career sort of in the limbo before it really took off. The women left their jobs because it was the easy time to exit before really stepping it up before the next phase of their job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe women have no shame in asking alimony.

I would never marry in VA

Ha ha

Why would they? The guy wanted a stay at home wife to raise his kids. What changed in terms of raising his kids? It’s a job.

Very few men “want” their wife to stay home. Most Of my guy friends felt the need to tiptoe the delicate line, and usually say “I support you no matter what you want to do.” Most women I know who stayed home really wanted to - they had excellent degrees and were five ish years out of grad school but career sort of in the limbo before it really took off. The women left their jobs because it was the easy time to exit before really stepping it up before the next phase of their job.

Oh they just don't know what it takes to raise kids and don't care about them that much. If they did, they would have a serious discussion about finances and care and make something work that they actually bought into.