One person wants a prenup and the other does not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's with these women who insist we don't live in the fifties in terms of the role of women but yet expect for men to provide for them as if they were wives from the fifties?

THIS sums up the issue I have with so many of these posts. The women want the equality AND the option to quit and just stay home, which the rationale of "it's best for the family." That requires the man to be the provider. How does a husband say no to this without pissing the wife off? Yet if a husband said they wanted to quit their job "because it's best for the family" and forsake contributing to the family's income, that would be viewed by many -- not all -- women as unacceptable. Double standard.

Bleh.

Just insist on a prenup that weights the division of property heavily against either spouse who does not contribute to the family income unless both parties agree that for a time one will not work for whatever reason eg to be a SAHM or if one of the parties is going to pursue grad school, etc. But it has to be clearly defined and both parties must agree to it. If the SAHM decides that she will not go back to work, she will be penalized in the prenup or if the person chooses to go and study without the agreement of both husband and wife that individual will be similarly penalized.

Here is the best prenup: work, do not contribute a penny to household income, have no claims on the house, do minimal housework, save all your money. It's free room and board in exchange for, I dunno, light housework and sex. No children.

This is actually not a bad idea, and very close to the Shariah approach to money in marriage: man pays for 100% of family expenses, including the needs of the wife and the children. The woman is not expected to contribute to the family income at all, whether she works or not. (That's not to say that Muslim women do not work or contribute to family income; just that Shariah does not expect it of them.) Her money is all her own. She has no claims to the husband's assets or income in case of divorce; she does, however, retain a full right to her own income and expenses plus whatever she received as payment in her marriage contract. Payment is a mandatory element of the marriage contract. Not a bad setup - if you continue to work!

[Anonymous]

Right, Shariah Law is not a bad set up for women.
WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right, Shariah Law is not a bad set up for women.
WTF?

It's good because the wife doesn't have to work or anything, and in exchange, she can get stoned to death whenever she wants! It's a win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right, Shariah Law is not a bad set up for women.
WTF?

You must admit that in this particular case, it's not a bad setup.

And be honest. If your husband cheated, you'd want to stone him, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right, Shariah Law is not a bad set up for women.
WTF?

I guess it would be a good set up IF:

wife is content to be completely obedient, subservient, and stay at home and not have a career

the marriage is perfect, and wife never has a reason to be disobedient

the marriage stays intact and there is never a divorce

Under Sharia, it is true, a wife is not required to contribute financially at all to the marriage. However, in a divorce, she is not entitled to ANY marital property except for her mahr/bride price that the husband gave her upon the marriage contract being signed. That is why so many women stay in crappy marriages in Muslim countries, because if they do divorce they usually have no other options but to move back home with their parents.

In a divorce, if the children are not young, they are considered the husband's property and he gets sole custody. The wife gets custody if they are still very young, but then custody reverts to the ex husband once they reach a certain age. If the wife re-marries, she also looses custody, no matter the age of the child.

In Sharia, the only way a wife can seek a divorce is to ask her husband to divorce her (Talaq). A wife cannot initiate a divorce. If he refuses to give triple Talaq, her only recourse is to seek Khula with the Sharia court, and if she is granted Khula, she must pay her husband back her Mahr/bride price, so she is left with absolutely nothing at all.

Of course, if the marriage stays intact, the wife must make sure not to be disobedient, because under sharia, if the wife is disobedient, the husband is allowed to withhold maintenance (food, clothing, money), or hit her, until she submits.

There is also no such thing as marital rape in Sharia, as the wife is not legally allowed to refuse her husband for sex unless she has a valid Sharia reason (obligatory prayer or fasting, menstruation, or injury)

Yep, sounds like a wonderful thing. /sarc

[Anonymous]

Oh jeez, did someone strike a nerve? Did you see that I referred only to the financial arrangements? Besides, your stereotypes are getting the better of you:

Under Sharia, it is true, a wife is not required to contribute financially at all to the marriage. However, in a divorce, she is not entitled to ANY marital property except for her mahr/bride price that the husband gave her upon the marriage contract being signed. That is why so many women stay in crappy marriages in Muslim countries, because if they do divorce they usually have no other options but to move back home with their parents.

It works both ways. Exorbitant dowry amounts are also a reason men don't get married till late, and if the dowry is deferred (common practice), it becomes the reason men stay in crappy marriages, too. Besides, women move back with their parents not because they're poor, but because it is socially unacceptable to live alone, even for rich women.

In a divorce, if the children are not young, they are considered the husband's property and he gets sole custody. The wife gets custody if they are still very young, but then custody reverts to the ex husband once they reach a certain age. If the wife re-marries, she also looses custody, no matter the age of the child.

There is no uniform stance on child custody in Shariah. Every country and school handles it differently. In some countries, maternal grandparents are a preferred custody choice over the father.

In Sharia, the only way a wife can seek a divorce is to ask her husband to divorce her (Talaq). A wife cannot initiate a divorce. If he refuses to give triple Talaq, her only recourse is to seek Khula with the Sharia court, and if she is granted Khula, she must pay her husband back her Mahr/bride price, so she is left with absolutely nothing at all.

Write the privilege to divorce at any time into your contract, and you're done. Besides, if she worked all this time and put her money away, it's hardly nothing. Double besides, deferred dowry payment impedes husband-initiated divorces.

Understand that I'm not advocating Shariah - I'm simply pointing out a particular provision of that system that favors the wife financially. Besides, it amuses me to see you froth at the mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. No businesses owned. He makes more money than I. Any businesses that he creates in the marriage, he wants. No alimony. If I contribute, say 20 percent towards house bills, then in a divorce, that's what I get towards the house.

Dump his sorry ass

OP here. I can't just walk away from love. I'm assuming there is no compromise though. I understand protecting a family business, but there isn't one. I get it's his own but if I'm still helping financially, and for the up keep up the house, and working, and raising kids, then it should account for something. I'm beyond torn

Then put in the prenup that he will pay you a salary for homemaking. Squirrel the money away, make sure it is protected in the prenup.

Two can play this game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. No businesses owned. He makes more money than I. Any businesses that he creates in the marriage, he wants. No alimony. If I contribute, say 20 percent towards house bills, then in a divorce, that's what I get towards the house.

I give the chances that your marriage will last 10 years less than 50%.

[Anonymous]

Divorced woman here. If I ever marry again, I will insist on a prenup. I think it's best to make all these arrangements about who-gets-what while everyone is in a good mood.

The problem with OP's fiancé is that he does not want to assign a financial value to "women's work" - if OP stays home, raises kids, does his laundry, etc. I WOHM and would never want to be a dependent, SAHM. But if my daughter wanted that, I say, good for her. But she'd be a fool to be a SAHM for years only to be dumped later and find herself, as others said, eating cat food.

Tell him you are fine with a pre nup but that it has to build in protections for you against poverty in old age. That if he is so worried about divorce someday, you have to make sure that you have something to live on, too.

Or just WOHM full time and make both parties pay equally for the nanny, cook, housekeeper, etc. Make as much money as you can, and he gets what did you say, 20%???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Divorced woman here. If I ever marry again, I will insist on a prenup. I think it's best to make all these arrangements about who-gets-what while everyone is in a good mood.

The problem with OP's fiancé is that he does not want to assign a financial value to "women's work" - if OP stays home, raises kids, does his laundry, etc. I WOHM and would never want to be a dependent, SAHM. But if my daughter wanted that, I say, good for her. But she'd be a fool to be a SAHM for years only to be dumped later and find herself, as others said, eating cat food.

Tell him you are fine with a pre nup but that it has to build in protections for you against poverty in old age. That if he is so worried about divorce someday, you have to make sure that you have something to live on, too.

Or just WOHM full time and make both parties pay equally for the nanny, cook, housekeeper, etc. Make as much money as you can, and he gets what did you say, 20%???

Amen.

Before you have kids, it is so tough to imagine how. much. work there is....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't contribute anything to the income or contribute only a small percentage or you choose not to work, what is your justification for expecting half the assets?

Staying home with the children and providing full-time childcare is a contribution. You already know this, of course.

If she has such low earning power, it is doubtful that she could out earn a nanny. Lets say she earns typical wages for a recent graduate- which she isn't BC she is still in school. But lets assume she earns 35 k. That is what a nanny earns. To justify her not staying home, she needs to be earning 60k minimum, but preferably 90k and up. That is not going to happen.... So she really has no choice whatsoever in this scenario. She has no choice but to be a SAHM, and she has no real choice but to sign his prenup.

But he is not controlling, at all.....

OP here. Who said I was in school? I'm not...so not sure why that keeps coming up. Also, I'm not wanting to be a stay at home mom forever, only a year, after the child is born. This, we both agree on.

PP here. I thought somewhere in the thread you mentioned you were in school and that was part of the difference in income. As for staying home a year with the kids, you just never know. Depending on your career, there are no guarantees you can get your old job back or find a new job easily. Also, when I was pregnant with my first, two woman at my job gave birth prematurely, one had a child later diagnosed with Asperger's, another had preeclampsia/bed rest. Many chose to continue working after the crisis had passed but if you are on bed rest or have a premie or special needs child you may need to take unpaid leave or decide to stay home longer.

I think if you are going to have kids, there are so many variables that are hard to predict. By splitting up any future assists strictly by monetary contribution, there is a devaluation of the things that can inhibit monetary contributions when it comes to kids. If it is just you and him, you are really can be only responsible for yourself. If you want to make more money and that involves being a consultant and traveling M-F, your choice doesn't create additional work for your spouse. You can decide it isn't worth your time to grocery shop and cook and instead spend more money eating out while your DH chooses to cook and eat at home. He can do his own laundry and you can do yours. Either person can decide it's worth more to outsource the chore than do it themselves and can outsource so only the person paying gets the benefit. The minute you add kids to the mix, someone has to grocery shop, do laundry, take time off if the kids are sick etc. on behalf of the kids. You are no longer just responsible for yourself. Lots of time this division of labor isn't equal for a number of reasons. Sometimes couples make the decision that the person earning more or perhaps works the longer hours gets to do less of the household work but the idea is that it's part of supporting each other and a shared future. It would seem to make less sense to take on more household items, even if your spouse made more, if your spouse is saying that had zero value should you split up some day.

Like other people have mentioned you literally have to outsource everything household and child related everything and split the cost in half, which may cost more in real money if you stay together, in order to truly make the claim that his success in the future was not due to even an hour of uncompensated labor on your part and vice versa. That also means if you decide you wanted a second job on the weekend to earn extra money, he would need to help pay 50% of the cost of childcare while you work same as you would end up doing if he decided to travel for work or work long hours.

[Anonymous]

Get a good lawyer and negotiate a much more favorable agreement.

[Anonymous]

Lawyer here. Since you will be at home raising HIS child and cleaning HIS house, you are enabling him to go out and work. This is why you are entitled BY LAW to half of the assets that are accumulated during the marriage. There are good reasons why this is the law and really special circumstances need to come up to justify his requiring you to give up your legal rights.

An example that would justify a prenup is when Donald Trump marries his third wife and he already has his business empire which continues to grow during the marriage - that would not have much to do with his third wife.

[Anonymous]

Do not marry a meal ticket. Marry your equal.
Problem solved

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do not marry a meal ticket. Marry your equal.
Problem solved

So true.