Reply to Belle Burden’s “Strangers”

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "Belle Burden’s “Strangers”"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.

While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar. [/quote]

Yeah, no. I know those NYC finance types well and they choose that lifestyle for themselves for the money but also because they are “so important.” Family is exclusively taken care of by the wife, no matter how educated she was prior to marriage. As in, these dudes may barely even show up for a newborn.

And we don’t know all the details of the finances. It sounds like she contributed significantly with her trust and he got to walk away with a big net worth and big career thanks to her contributions (financial and caregiving). Even if he was slaving away to support her and the kids, in these scenarios the wife EARNS her 50% of that because she literally raises the kids and does everything domestically. Whether or not you think these women are “vapid” there is no doubt that the men in these relationships willing choose to offload all the domestic labor on their wives so that they can gratify themselves with their oh-so-important deals. [/quote]

The NYT excerpted some of the book where she explains how Davis screwed her in the prenup.  Basically, he insisted all the properties be in both their names (even though they were houses she had from her far wealthier family.) And then he put in the prenup that all earned income would be in the name of the earner only, and she got screwed because she had stopped working to take care of the kids.

She said she saw it was uneven at the time, but she was in love...so she signed.[/quote]

I can't imagine agreeing to the terms of thus prenuptial. How did no one, family or lawyer talk her out of it? Did they not find it suspicious he wanted this prenup when he was coming into the marriage with far less? It sounds like she would have been better off with no prenup at all.[/quote]
She says she knows better now.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics