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: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.

I don't agree but whatever the case, the issue is really control over how the money is spent. I am much happier having custody and making sure my money is actually spent on my children for things I think they need, rather than write a big check to my ex who then decides what to spend it on or maybe doesn't spend it on the kids at all.

When I was married, I already paid for everything the kids did, so being divorced didn't change anything.

As for college, the fact of the matter is that when you divorce, you are now paying to maintain two households, which means that you have less money in total. That means less money available for retirement and college, among other things. If the money isn't there for college, it isn't there. That's just part of the damage you do to your kids when you get divorced.

I was coming from a place where my attorney said guys argue over childcare so they can pay less but then don't use their days. The mom rarely argues because she wants the kids the house so will take the reduced paycheck. I don't really understand the college issue in DCUM world. It's a given that most of the jobs around here require college degrees and most of the adults in this area have them. So your child should have them too. Who else is going to take over your IT position if not your child when you retire? So college when both parents went to college should be part of the equation unless you qualify for aid. And the average salary on DCUM is something like $200k so there is definitely money for college. If you can pay childcare for K-18 you can pay at least that same amount for the college years.

It is true that parents should pay for college if they can, and most parents want to do so. That being the case, it doesn't need to be a legal obligation.

I certainly wouldn't want to be in a position where the kid could say, "I am going to attend a stupidly expensive college and study something useless and take eight years to graduate and there's nothing you can do about it because the court will make you pay." You need to have that leverage to say if you do something really dumb, you will pay for it not me.

I am the parent that gets $10,000 for two kids for childcare (full custody mind you so that would be $2500 for each kid with half custody? Who lives on this a year? It's our monthly spending per person so now my ex pays for about 2 months worth of expenses and I pay the other 10 -fair right? Guys are such victims right?). I'm simply advocating that if kids go to school they can't pay for basics like food and clothing and so those should be covered automatically. The same cost of child care. It should end at 21 or 22, not 18.

That's ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

People always say this. How you you say it with a straight face, when SAHMs get alimony, while WOHMs (who statistically do many of the things SAHMs do, while also working) get nothing?

Exactly. Once the child is in school what's the purpose of a woman staying home all day? To cook and clean? I don't get it, it just sounds like pure laziness to me. It's all good until the husband leaves or wants a divorce and then they complain about not having a career. Smh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

People always say this. How you you say it with a straight face, when SAHMs get alimony, while WOHMs (who statistically do many of the things SAHMs do, while also working) get nothing?

Exactly. Once the child is in school what's the purpose of a woman staying home all day? To cook and clean? I don't get it, it just sounds like pure laziness to me. It's all good until the husband leaves or wants a divorce and then they complain about not having a career. Smh.

You know, most children come home at 2 or 3pm from school: are they supposed to play video games or not do any after school activities? Most jobs require overtime, including low paying. And it's hard to go back into job market after employment gap. But in general as a SAHM who worked part time I agree there is no point to stay at home 100%

To me it's much more enjoyable to be in the office now vs being SAHM. And WAY easier. Particular when there are several kids each with their own interests and after school activities and you feel like a free driver without any life of your own

[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:It depends. I got alimony for life. I was married for 24 years. I was a SAHM. My ex is a doctor with a high salary.

Which state and percentage of his salary were you awarded, age at the time of divorce?

Age, 48. I get $120,00 a year tax free for the first 8 years. My alimony goes down every year till I reach the age of 65. After that I get $36,000 a year tax free.

He makes $650,000 a year.

My a..hole exH was "fired" just as I filed for divorce. Then went back to the same company as a "consultant", right after signing the settlement agreement.

How do you plan for your retirement? It's a nice alimony but without assets or savings after 65 y.o. it will be tight..

You need to work. There’s no reason an able bodied 48 year old can’t get a job.

I work and happy without his alimony. But I was just lucky to secure a job after 10 years SAHM. This doesn't change the fact that he's a a-hole. Who "fires" himself and gets severance at 54, just so he didn't have to pay alimony and higher CS? He basically ripped off his own child.

His income 1st year after divorce was settled is $2mm/year. I am taking him back to court for a different child support in the fall. If I make 150K and he makes $2mm, there is something wrong with him paying only $1300/month in CS!

Most judges would not have called him out on the timing of his "firing." Also, most lawyers would have hired a professional to determine his earning potential. I'd go back to court on this one.

Meant: Most judges would have called him out

My salary is higher than what his alimony would have been, and I am building my resume. Going to court back than trying to call him out meant missing another 2 years of my life, work history and health, in addition to $200K in legal fees. He also could had forced sale of marital assets causing me even higher financial harm vs me just loosing his alimony. So I settled and got marital assets I wanted intact.

I know that alimony cannot be changed after I signed MSA, but I am taking him back to court for the child support. He's incredibly cheap with our son, and refuses to pay his college expenses.

What state did you divorce in?

DC

Oh I thought DC covers college? Or is it just that CS continues through 21?

No DC doesn't cover college, only CS through 21. But as everyone goes to college and CS is based on the child's needs, the college becomes a need. That's what I am going to argue when I take my ex back to court this fall. Son is finishing HS next year

This is what I think VA and MD should do at a minimum. It really is unfair that the child is now at college and can't pay for their own living expenses and one parent has to foot that bill entirely even just for food and other basics.

Really? Child support to age 21? A friend pays a lot of CS and alimony to her exH. They have 50/50 but he's worthless and she makes a good income. So she should keep paying CS to exH through age 21 even though she will be paying all of the kid's college expenses? That sounds like double or triple taxation.

I have a friend in the same situation. Her ex-H took some low paying job, lives in a huge house w/the AP he left her for and she has to pay the jerk child support.

[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:It depends. I got alimony for life. I was married for 24 years. I was a SAHM. My ex is a doctor with a high salary.

Which state and percentage of his salary were you awarded, age at the time of divorce?

Age, 48. I get $120,00 a year tax free for the first 8 years. My alimony goes down every year till I reach the age of 65. After that I get $36,000 a year tax free.

He makes $650,000 a year.

My a..hole exH was "fired" just as I filed for divorce. Then went back to the same company as a "consultant", right after signing the settlement agreement.

How do you plan for your retirement? It's a nice alimony but without assets or savings after 65 y.o. it will be tight..

You need to work. There’s no reason an able bodied 48 year old can’t get a job.

I work and happy without his alimony. But I was just lucky to secure a job after 10 years SAHM. This doesn't change the fact that he's a a-hole. Who "fires" himself and gets severance at 54, just so he didn't have to pay alimony and higher CS? He basically ripped off his own child.

His income 1st year after divorce was settled is $2mm/year. I am taking him back to court for a different child support in the fall. If I make 150K and he makes $2mm, there is something wrong with him paying only $1300/month in CS!

Most judges would not have called him out on the timing of his "firing." Also, most lawyers would have hired a professional to determine his earning potential. I'd go back to court on this one.

Meant: Most judges would have called him out

My salary is higher than what his alimony would have been, and I am building my resume. Going to court back than trying to call him out meant missing another 2 years of my life, work history and health, in addition to $200K in legal fees. He also could had forced sale of marital assets causing me even higher financial harm vs me just loosing his alimony. So I settled and got marital assets I wanted intact.

I know that alimony cannot be changed after I signed MSA, but I am taking him back to court for the child support. He's incredibly cheap with our son, and refuses to pay his college expenses.

What state did you divorce in?

DC

Oh I thought DC covers college? Or is it just that CS continues through 21?

No DC doesn't cover college, only CS through 21. But as everyone goes to college and CS is based on the child's needs, the college becomes a need. That's what I am going to argue when I take my ex back to court this fall. Son is finishing HS next year

This is what I think VA and MD should do at a minimum. It really is unfair that the child is now at college and can't pay for their own living expenses and one parent has to foot that bill entirely even just for food and other basics.

Really? Child support to age 21? A friend pays a lot of CS and alimony to her exH. They have 50/50 but he's worthless and she makes a good income. So she should keep paying CS to exH through age 21 even though she will be paying all of the kid's college expenses? That sounds like double or triple taxation.

I have a friend in the same situation. Her ex-H took some low paying job, lives in a huge house w/the AP he left her for and she has to pay the jerk child support.

She should file for reduction of CS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. I got alimony for life. I was married for 24 years. I was a SAHM. My ex is a doctor with a high salary.

Which state and percentage of his salary were you awarded, age at the time of divorce?

Age, 48. I get $120,00 a year tax free for the first 8 years. My alimony goes down every year till I reach the age of 65. After that I get $36,000 a year tax free.

He makes $650,000 a year.

My a..hole exH was "fired" just as I filed for divorce. Then went back to the same company as a "consultant", right after signing the settlement agreement.

How do you plan for your retirement? It's a nice alimony but without assets or savings after 65 y.o. it will be tight..

You take half the marital assets and use those as your retirement starting point.

Which is usually half a house or so, not enough for a good retirement!

You really think the person whose spouse makes 650k only had a house as an asset? If you’re worried about splitting retirement assets and not having enough, then that’s a sign you can’t afford not to work.

650K is not whole lot and also depends on how the family was spending and saving.I worked and our combined income was close to $1mm. We have 3 houses and pensions. But if it was $600K I think it would be half a house each and half a pension which is not enough for retirement

My husband makes a lot less ($400k) and we own our house outright and have $3M saved. We are not divorcing, but if we did, half would be $2M at least, and more each year that goes by.

You must be extremely frugal as these are not typical savings for under $400K income.

All you need to do is have a mortgage under 2,500 and don't do stupid things like private schools, luxury cars and vacays for Instagram.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

People always say this. How you you say it with a straight face, when SAHMs get alimony, while WOHMs (who statistically do many of the things SAHMs do, while also working) get nothing?

Exactly. Once the child is in school what's the purpose of a woman staying home all day? To cook and clean? I don't get it, it just sounds like pure laziness to me. It's all good until the husband leaves or wants a divorce and then they complain about not having a career. Smh.

You know, most children come home at 2 or 3pm from school: are they supposed to play video games or not do any after school activities? Most jobs require overtime, including low paying. And it's hard to go back into job market after employment gap. But in general as a SAHM who worked part time I agree there is no point to stay at home 100%

To me it's much more enjoyable to be in the office now vs being SAHM. And WAY easier. Particular when there are several kids each with their own interests and after school activities and you feel like a free driver without any life of your own

Yes, I do know. I am a working mother. My son never got out of school at 2pm, and he was in an aftercare program when his school day was done. I adjusted my work schedule so that I could pick him up every day while he was in elementary school. I never had an employment gap, my ex-husband and I both worked. I couldn't imagine just being home all day not working or engaging with other people. Where is the fulfillment in that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

People always say this. How you you say it with a straight face, when SAHMs get alimony, while WOHMs (who statistically do many of the things SAHMs do, while also working) get nothing?

Exactly. Once the child is in school what's the purpose of a woman staying home all day? To cook and clean? I don't get it, it just sounds like pure laziness to me. It's all good until the husband leaves or wants a divorce and then they complain about not having a career. Smh.

You know, most children come home at 2 or 3pm from school: are they supposed to play video games or not do any after school activities? Most jobs require overtime, including low paying. And it's hard to go back into job market after employment gap. But in general as a SAHM who worked part time I agree there is no point to stay at home 100%

To me it's much more enjoyable to be in the office now vs being SAHM. And WAY easier. Particular when there are several kids each with their own interests and after school activities and you feel like a free driver without any life of your own

Yes, I do know. I am a working mother. My son never got out of school at 2pm, and he was in an aftercare program when his school day was done. I adjusted my work schedule so that I could pick him up every day while he was in elementary school. I never had an employment gap, my ex-husband and I both worked. I couldn't imagine just being home all day not working or engaging with other people. Where is the fulfillment in that?

If you have kids in travel sports you can't just offload them in daycare. I was engaging with coaches, other parents when I had to be around for my child's training after school. But it's what both of us agreed and a luxury for most

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

People always say this. How you you say it with a straight face, when SAHMs get alimony, while WOHMs (who statistically do many of the things SAHMs do, while also working) get nothing?

Exactly. Once the child is in school what's the purpose of a woman staying home all day? To cook and clean? I don't get it, it just sounds like pure laziness to me. It's all good until the husband leaves or wants a divorce and then they complain about not having a career. Smh.

You know, most children come home at 2 or 3pm from school: are they supposed to play video games or not do any after school activities? Most jobs require overtime, including low paying. And it's hard to go back into job market after employment gap. But in general as a SAHM who worked part time I agree there is no point to stay at home 100%

To me it's much more enjoyable to be in the office now vs being SAHM. And WAY easier. Particular when there are several kids each with their own interests and after school activities and you feel like a free driver without any life of your own

Yes, I do know. I am a working mother. My son never got out of school at 2pm, and he was in an aftercare program when his school day was done. I adjusted my work schedule so that I could pick him up every day while he was in elementary school. I never had an employment gap, my ex-husband and I both worked. I couldn't imagine just being home all day not working or engaging with other people. Where is the fulfillment in that?

If you have kids in travel sports you can't just offload them in daycare. I was engaging with coaches, other parents when I had to be around for my child's training after school. But it's what both of us agreed and a luxury for most

Travel sports as you say are a luxury, and most of us would agree an unnecessary one. But why on earth did you see "engaging with coaches and other parents" a viable use of your time? It wasn't as important as you thought it was. It would have been smarter for you to stay engaged in the workforce, or at the very least have some kind of needlepoint shop on Etsy or something.

[Anonymous]

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!

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

People always say this. How you you say it with a straight face, when SAHMs get alimony, while WOHMs (who statistically do many of the things SAHMs do, while also working) get nothing?

Exactly. Once the child is in school what's the purpose of a woman staying home all day? To cook and clean? I don't get it, it just sounds like pure laziness to me. It's all good until the husband leaves or wants a divorce and then they complain about not having a career. Smh.

You know, most children come home at 2 or 3pm from school: are they supposed to play video games or not do any after school activities? Most jobs require overtime, including low paying. And it's hard to go back into job market after employment gap. But in general as a SAHM who worked part time I agree there is no point to stay at home 100%

To me it's much more enjoyable to be in the office now vs being SAHM. And WAY easier. Particular when there are several kids each with their own interests and after school activities and you feel like a free driver without any life of your own

Yes, I do know. I am a working mother. My son never got out of school at 2pm, and he was in an aftercare program when his school day was done. I adjusted my work schedule so that I could pick him up every day while he was in elementary school. I never had an employment gap, my ex-husband and I both worked. I couldn't imagine just being home all day not working or engaging with other people. Where is the fulfillment in that?

If you have kids in travel sports you can't just offload them in daycare. I was engaging with coaches, other parents when I had to be around for my child's training after school. But it's what both of us agreed and a luxury for most

Travel sports as you say are a luxury, and most of us would agree an unnecessary one. But why on earth did you see "engaging with coaches and other parents" a viable use of your time? It wasn't as important as you thought it was. It would have been smarter for you to stay engaged in the workforce, or at the very least have some kind of needlepoint shop on Etsy or something.

I opened my real estate property management company with $0.4mm annual revenue and was keeping myself busy with taxes and clients while waiting in the lobby and chatting with parents. I didn't say I wasn't employed: I was part time employed. But thanks for Etsy idea.

[Anonymous]

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!

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

People always say this. How you you say it with a straight face, when SAHMs get alimony, while WOHMs (who statistically do many of the things SAHMs do, while also working) get nothing?

Exactly. Once the child is in school what's the purpose of a woman staying home all day? To cook and clean? I don't get it, it just sounds like pure laziness to me. It's all good until the husband leaves or wants a divorce and then they complain about not having a career. Smh.

You know, most children come home at 2 or 3pm from school: are they supposed to play video games or not do any after school activities? Most jobs require overtime, including low paying. And it's hard to go back into job market after employment gap. But in general as a SAHM who worked part time I agree there is no point to stay at home 100%

To me it's much more enjoyable to be in the office now vs being SAHM. And WAY easier. Particular when there are several kids each with their own interests and after school activities and you feel like a free driver without any life of your own

Yes, I do know. I am a working mother. My son never got out of school at 2pm, and he was in an aftercare program when his school day was done. I adjusted my work schedule so that I could pick him up every day while he was in elementary school. I never had an employment gap, my ex-husband and I both worked. I couldn't imagine just being home all day not working or engaging with other people. Where is the fulfillment in that?

If you have kids in travel sports you can't just offload them in daycare. I was engaging with coaches, other parents when I had to be around for my child's training after school. But it's what both of us agreed and a luxury for most

Travel sports as you say are a luxury, and most of us would agree an unnecessary one. But why on earth did you see "engaging with coaches and other parents" a viable use of your time? It wasn't as important as you thought it was. It would have been smarter for you to stay engaged in the workforce, or at the very least have some kind of needlepoint shop on Etsy or something.

Sometimes kids have talents they are born with or run in the families (singing, writing music, poems, being notably better than others in certain sports). It becomes obvious at certain age when they get admission to elite teams, music schools etc. Then it becomes a priority for parents to support it. My father was on a basketball team playing internationally; my son secured an athletic invite from Stanford in a different sport. But the point is athleticism is hereditary: both are extremely tall (my son is 6'4 at 17) and have specific body features like huge arms span, reaction speed and flexibility that help them excel. I can't tell competing in his sport was useless for my son at all. But for most people who are 5'8 for example it will be.

[Anonymous]

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!

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

People always say this. How you you say it with a straight face, when SAHMs get alimony, while WOHMs (who statistically do many of the things SAHMs do, while also working) get nothing?

Exactly. Once the child is in school what's the purpose of a woman staying home all day? To cook and clean? I don't get it, it just sounds like pure laziness to me. It's all good until the husband leaves or wants a divorce and then they complain about not having a career. Smh.

You know, most children come home at 2 or 3pm from school: are they supposed to play video games or not do any after school activities? Most jobs require overtime, including low paying. And it's hard to go back into job market after employment gap. But in general as a SAHM who worked part time I agree there is no point to stay at home 100%

To me it's much more enjoyable to be in the office now vs being SAHM. And WAY easier. Particular when there are several kids each with their own interests and after school activities and you feel like a free driver without any life of your own

Yes, I do know. I am a working mother. My son never got out of school at 2pm, and he was in an aftercare program when his school day was done. I adjusted my work schedule so that I could pick him up every day while he was in elementary school. I never had an employment gap, my ex-husband and I both worked. I couldn't imagine just being home all day not working or engaging with other people. Where is the fulfillment in that?

If you have kids in travel sports you can't just offload them in daycare. I was engaging with coaches, other parents when I had to be around for my child's training after school. But it's what both of us agreed and a luxury for most

Travel sports as you say are a luxury, and most of us would agree an unnecessary one. But why on earth did you see "engaging with coaches and other parents" a viable use of your time? It wasn't as important as you thought it was. It would have been smarter for you to stay engaged in the workforce, or at the very least have some kind of needlepoint shop on Etsy or something.

I opened my real estate property management company with $0.4mm annual revenue and was keeping myself busy with taxes and clients while waiting in the lobby and chatting with parents. I didn't say I wasn't employed: I was part time employed. But thanks for Etsy idea.

Hilarious.

[Anonymous]

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!

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

People always say this. How you you say it with a straight face, when SAHMs get alimony, while WOHMs (who statistically do many of the things SAHMs do, while also working) get nothing?

Exactly. Once the child is in school what's the purpose of a woman staying home all day? To cook and clean? I don't get it, it just sounds like pure laziness to me. It's all good until the husband leaves or wants a divorce and then they complain about not having a career. Smh.

You know, most children come home at 2 or 3pm from school: are they supposed to play video games or not do any after school activities? Most jobs require overtime, including low paying. And it's hard to go back into job market after employment gap. But in general as a SAHM who worked part time I agree there is no point to stay at home 100%

To me it's much more enjoyable to be in the office now vs being SAHM. And WAY easier. Particular when there are several kids each with their own interests and after school activities and you feel like a free driver without any life of your own

Yes, I do know. I am a working mother. My son never got out of school at 2pm, and he was in an aftercare program when his school day was done. I adjusted my work schedule so that I could pick him up every day while he was in elementary school. I never had an employment gap, my ex-husband and I both worked. I couldn't imagine just being home all day not working or engaging with other people. Where is the fulfillment in that?

If you have kids in travel sports you can't just offload them in daycare. I was engaging with coaches, other parents when I had to be around for my child's training after school. But it's what both of us agreed and a luxury for most

Travel sports as you say are a luxury, and most of us would agree an unnecessary one. But why on earth did you see "engaging with coaches and other parents" a viable use of your time? It wasn't as important as you thought it was. It would have been smarter for you to stay engaged in the workforce, or at the very least have some kind of needlepoint shop on Etsy or something.

I opened my real estate property management company with $0.4mm annual revenue and was keeping myself busy with taxes and clients while waiting in the lobby and chatting with parents. I didn't say I wasn't employed: I was part time employed. But thanks for Etsy idea.

Hilarious.

You are hilarious. Using mm vs mln reveals someone who reads a lot about financial markets and maybe studied in UK

[Anonymous]

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!

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

People always say this. How you you say it with a straight face, when SAHMs get alimony, while WOHMs (who statistically do many of the things SAHMs do, while also working) get nothing?

Exactly. Once the child is in school what's the purpose of a woman staying home all day? To cook and clean? I don't get it, it just sounds like pure laziness to me. It's all good until the husband leaves or wants a divorce and then they complain about not having a career. Smh.

You know, most children come home at 2 or 3pm from school: are they supposed to play video games or not do any after school activities? Most jobs require overtime, including low paying. And it's hard to go back into job market after employment gap. But in general as a SAHM who worked part time I agree there is no point to stay at home 100%

To me it's much more enjoyable to be in the office now vs being SAHM. And WAY easier. Particular when there are several kids each with their own interests and after school activities and you feel like a free driver without any life of your own

Yes, I do know. I am a working mother. My son never got out of school at 2pm, and he was in an aftercare program when his school day was done. I adjusted my work schedule so that I could pick him up every day while he was in elementary school. I never had an employment gap, my ex-husband and I both worked. I couldn't imagine just being home all day not working or engaging with other people. Where is the fulfillment in that?

If you have kids in travel sports you can't just offload them in daycare. I was engaging with coaches, other parents when I had to be around for my child's training after school. But it's what both of us agreed and a luxury for most

Travel sports as you say are a luxury, and most of us would agree an unnecessary one. But why on earth did you see "engaging with coaches and other parents" a viable use of your time? It wasn't as important as you thought it was. It would have been smarter for you to stay engaged in the workforce, or at the very least have some kind of needlepoint shop on Etsy or something.

Sometimes kids have talents they are born with or run in the families (singing, writing music, poems, being notably better than others in certain sports). It becomes obvious at certain age when they get admission to elite teams, music schools etc. Then it becomes a priority for parents to support it. My father was on a basketball team playing internationally; my son secured an athletic invite from Stanford in a different sport. But the point is athleticism is hereditary: both are extremely tall (my son is 6'4 at 17) and have specific body features like huge arms span, reaction speed and flexibility that help them excel. I can't tell competing in his sport was useless for my son at all. But for most people who are 5'8 for example it will be.

Brag much. We got the point after the first sentence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

after someone marries, you cannot make them work.