Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, you didn't really want to work all that much and preferred being home with the kids rather than enduring corporate or office drudgery. It's a totally fine and understandable preference, but own it. You were relieved that husband's high salary could accommodate that lifestyle preference even if it could potentially end up in a result like this. Well, welcome to the result...

Time to start taking accountability for your choices and preferences and, ultimately, life by probably getting a job now rather than fretting too much over a spousal support settlement.

STOP THIS MISOGYNISTIC BS. IT’S SO GOD DAMNED TIRED.

Sorry the truth hurts. Most of these women would work dead end retail jobs for the rest of their lives.

This area is the most highly educated in the country. Many women who stay home have graduate and professional degrees. It is super common. Your circle must be a huge outlier if that is what you think about women in this area.

At look at the attrition rate of women who finish medical school and then are ready to downgrade or drop out of the profession after 5 years. Education and credentials do not change the original premise that the preference for a lot of these women is to not work outside of the home. They dress it up it whatever language about "sacrifice" they need to to save face because the prevailing zeitgeist and their peers would look down upon them making such a choice. Easier to shift those negative feelings toward big, bad hubby.

It’s not “after five years.” It’s “after having children.”
And I can guarantee you that it’s not a “preference to be home.” It is the hubby who pays lip service to helping out, but he doesn’t.
It doesn’t even have to be your husband. It might be your chair who thinks that women are going to want to be home with their kids, and so he takes the program you started or the fellowship you put into place or the multi-site research study you initiated and got through the IRB and puts a man in charge of it and gives you a secondary role.

Read the book “Opting Out.”

Nope, you're wrong. 40% leave altogether or go part time within 6 years (not 5) of leaving residency. Look at that mountain of excuses you're rolling out.

Yes. People finish residency at about 30 years old. Six years after that, they are 36. That’s. when. women. have. babies.

What’s the mountain of excuses? I gave you a book to read. Did you read it?

"It's not after 5 years". Maybe you need to read a book...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, you didn't really want to work all that much and preferred being home with the kids rather than enduring corporate or office drudgery. It's a totally fine and understandable preference, but own it. You were relieved that husband's high salary could accommodate that lifestyle preference even if it could potentially end up in a result like this. Well, welcome to the result...

Time to start taking accountability for your choices and preferences and, ultimately, life by probably getting a job now rather than fretting too much over a spousal support settlement.

STOP THIS MISOGYNISTIC BS. IT’S SO GOD DAMNED TIRED.

Sorry the truth hurts. Most of these women would work dead end retail jobs for the rest of their lives.

This area is the most highly educated in the country. Many women who stay home have graduate and professional degrees. It is super common. Your circle must be a huge outlier if that is what you think about women in this area.

At look at the attrition rate of women who finish medical school and then are ready to downgrade or drop out of the profession after 5 years. Education and credentials do not change the original premise that the preference for a lot of these women is to not work outside of the home. They dress it up it whatever language about "sacrifice" they need to to save face because the prevailing zeitgeist and their peers would look down upon them making such a choice. Easier to shift those negative feelings toward big, bad hubby.

It’s not “after five years.” It’s “after having children.”
And I can guarantee you that it’s not a “preference to be home.” It is the hubby who pays lip service to helping out, but he doesn’t.
It doesn’t even have to be your husband. It might be your chair who thinks that women are going to want to be home with their kids, and so he takes the program you started or the fellowship you put into place or the multi-site research study you initiated and got through the IRB and puts a man in charge of it and gives you a secondary role.

Read the book “Opting Out.”

Nope, you're wrong. 40% leave altogether or go part time within 6 years (not 5) of leaving residency. Look at that mountain of excuses you're rolling out.

Yes. People finish residency at about 30 years old. Six years after that, they are 36. That’s. when. women. have. babies.

What’s the mountain of excuses? I gave you a book to read. Did you read it?

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s the mutual decision to remain married when one spouse is SAH. In New York it’s the wives who pay higher CS and alimony in 40% cases

If a spouse disagrees with one income situation they can divorce early on and stop making babies

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, you didn't really want to work all that much and preferred being home with the kids rather than enduring corporate or office drudgery. It's a totally fine and understandable preference, but own it. You were relieved that husband's high salary could accommodate that lifestyle preference even if it could potentially end up in a result like this. Well, welcome to the result...

Time to start taking accountability for your choices and preferences and, ultimately, life by probably getting a job now rather than fretting too much over a spousal support settlement.

Anonymous wrote:Well, I certainly hope that he and his future wife stay together till death. But the reality is that most marriages will end in divorce. I've seen too many men who are successful at work end up screwed by wives who don't want to work, even when they don't have children with their husbands. I truly hope that this sort of attitude fades out with the next generation and ceases to be the norm, and that our laws are rewritten in a wayn that's based on modern expectations and norms. But till then, I warn all my married & family male friends to not reside in VA.

One thing that people don't get is that the current prevailing beliefs about marriage and family used by courts creates huge disincentives for wives to work to their true financial potential. When I divorced, I was earning over $100K, which meant zero alimony for me. Had I "known" that I would get free housing and living expenses for another decade if I just quit my job, I might have done so. I probably wouldn't have, but I wish I'd made those decisions knowingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia is the wild west when it comes to divorce and predictability. In general, the courts favor the lower earning or non working spouse, regardless of the actual circumstances, so long as it's the wife. I will never let my son live in VA out of fear that he'd one day get divorced there.

Did you just say you will not allow your adult child to live in Virginia for fear of his eventual divorce? Solid chance your hypothetical future DIL cites a controlling MIL as a huge part of the problem. Yikes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

Why is it always assumed that the “sacrificing” spouse furthered the other spouse’s career? I worked in government, my career trajectory was pretty much set. In my specific situation, my ex was more of a detriment to my career. Not only did I work full time, but I also did most of the cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. Yet I would still hear the same argument about what my spouse “gave up,” when in reality they could have gone back to work at any time during the marriage and chose not to.

Because they do. My DH has never taken kids to doctors, any other appointments, parent-teacher conferences, any school functions, sport practices, nothing at all. Doesn't know teachers, coaches, doctors. Has never met any. Doesn't cook nor clean, has no idea about house management, repairs, taxes, mortgage. One of our kids got accepted to gifted program and I had to drive them to-and-from as this wasn't covered by a school bus. When kids were little, he regularly stayed in his office until 11 pm so that he didn't have to do anything. I wish I didn't get married and had a career instead as I did before getting married! No, I didn't know nor did we agree that everything will to be done by me.

So he cooked and cleaned and paid bills while you were dating? And when the first one was born and he didn't do anything with them you decided to have more kids?

I actually stopped at one. Yes, he cooked and cleaned and was paying bills when we were dating. I have a graduate degree. But I am an immigrant, had no work permit (a spousal visa did not allow work) and no family to help out. He literally checked out after the kid was born.

So (a) you're not the PP because she said kidS and (b) you couldn't work here anyway, so how is your comment relevant?

Anonymous wrote:Virginia is the wild west when it comes to divorce and predictability. In general, the courts favor the lower earning or non working spouse, regardless of the actual circumstances, so long as it's the wife. I will never let my son live in VA out of fear that he'd one day get divorced there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

Why is it always assumed that the “sacrificing” spouse furthered the other spouse’s career? I worked in government, my career trajectory was pretty much set. In my specific situation, my ex was more of a detriment to my career. Not only did I work full time, but I also did most of the cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. Yet I would still hear the same argument about what my spouse “gave up,” when in reality they could have gone back to work at any time during the marriage and chose not to.

Because they do. My DH has never taken kids to doctors, any other appointments, parent-teacher conferences, any school functions, sport practices, nothing at all. Doesn't know teachers, coaches, doctors. Has never met any. Doesn't cook nor clean, has no idea about house management, repairs, taxes, mortgage. One of our kids got accepted to gifted program and I had to drive them to-and-from as this wasn't covered by a school bus. When kids were little, he regularly stayed in his office until 11 pm so that he didn't have to do anything. I wish I didn't get married and had a career instead as I did before getting married! No, I didn't know nor did we agree that everything will to be done by me.

So he cooked and cleaned and paid bills while you were dating? And when the first one was born and he didn't do anything with them you decided to have more kids?

Everyone cooks and cleans and pays bills when dating.

And if you have already mommy-tracked yourself or decided to be home outside of school hours to take care of one kid, why not have more?

Um, because more kids are more work? If you wanted more kids with a useless husband then go ahead and do it but stop complaining about it.

Pp here. I’m not scared of work. I just cannot physically be at work and be home at the same time. If DH is more or less gone or at least not predictably around, then I have to be home outside of daycare hours or the hours a decent nanny is willing to work. Whether I can’t work because I have to be home with one kid or five kids is irrelevant. And if your husband isn’t predictably home, it’s nice to have a few more faces talking and joking around the dinner table.

Sure, if you're talking a singleton versus quintuplets, but I assume the five kids would be spaced out. I don't know how to help you if you can't figure out that you'd be out of work for much longer with five kids than you would with one. And the fact that you'd have more kids so that you would be less lonely since your husband isn't home is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read on here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, you didn't really want to work all that much and preferred being home with the kids rather than enduring corporate or office drudgery. It's a totally fine and understandable preference, but own it. You were relieved that husband's high salary could accommodate that lifestyle preference even if it could potentially end up in a result like this. Well, welcome to the result...

Time to start taking accountability for your choices and preferences and, ultimately, life by probably getting a job now rather than fretting too much over a spousal support settlement.

STOP THIS MISOGYNISTIC BS. IT’S SO GOD DAMNED TIRED.

Sorry the truth hurts. Most of these women would work dead end retail jobs for the rest of their lives.

This area is the most highly educated in the country. Many women who stay home have graduate and professional degrees. It is super common. Your circle must be a huge outlier if that is what you think about women in this area.

At look at the attrition rate of women who finish medical school and then are ready to downgrade or drop out of the profession after 5 years. Education and credentials do not change the original premise that the preference for a lot of these women is to not work outside of the home. They dress it up it whatever language about "sacrifice" they need to to save face because the prevailing zeitgeist and their peers would look down upon them making such a choice. Easier to shift those negative feelings toward big, bad hubby.

It’s not “after five years.” It’s “after having children.”
And I can guarantee you that it’s not a “preference to be home.” It is the hubby who pays lip service to helping out, but he doesn’t.
It doesn’t even have to be your husband. It might be your chair who thinks that women are going to want to be home with their kids, and so he takes the program you started or the fellowship you put into place or the multi-site research study you initiated and got through the IRB and puts a man in charge of it and gives you a secondary role.

Read the book “Opting Out.”

Nope, you're wrong. 40% leave altogether or go part time within 6 years (not 5) of leaving residency. Look at that mountain of excuses you're rolling out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why 50/50 on assets plus child support isn’t what you should expect. Alimony is an injustice to any person. The marriage is over, but then financially everyone pretends like it isn’t?

Except that one spouse is forced to absorb all the downside of supporting and sacrificing for the other’s career opportunities while the other harvests all the upside. You can’t make it be over unless you have a magical time machine that resets the spouse’s age and opportunities to where they were before they had to stop working. Alimony recognizes the impossibility of that.

Why is it always assumed that the “sacrificing” spouse furthered the other spouse’s career? I worked in government, my career trajectory was pretty much set. In my specific situation, my ex was more of a detriment to my career. Not only did I work full time, but I also did most of the cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. Yet I would still hear the same argument about what my spouse “gave up,” when in reality they could have gone back to work at any time during the marriage and chose not to.

Because they do. My DH has never taken kids to doctors, any other appointments, parent-teacher conferences, any school functions, sport practices, nothing at all. Doesn't know teachers, coaches, doctors. Has never met any. Doesn't cook nor clean, has no idea about house management, repairs, taxes, mortgage. One of our kids got accepted to gifted program and I had to drive them to-and-from as this wasn't covered by a school bus. When kids were little, he regularly stayed in his office until 11 pm so that he didn't have to do anything. I wish I didn't get married and had a career instead as I did before getting married! No, I didn't know nor did we agree that everything will to be done by me.

So he cooked and cleaned and paid bills while you were dating? And when the first one was born and he didn't do anything with them you decided to have more kids?

Everyone cooks and cleans and pays bills when dating.

And if you have already mommy-tracked yourself or decided to be home outside of school hours to take care of one kid, why not have more?

Um, because more kids are more work? If you wanted more kids with a useless husband then go ahead and do it but stop complaining about it.

Pp here. I’m not scared of work. I just cannot physically be at work and be home at the same time. If DH is more or less gone or at least not predictably around, then I have to be home outside of daycare hours or the hours a decent nanny is willing to work. Whether I can’t work because I have to be home with one kid or five kids is irrelevant. And if your husband isn’t predictably home, it’s nice to have a few more faces talking and joking around the dinner table.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, you didn't really want to work all that much and preferred being home with the kids rather than enduring corporate or office drudgery. It's a totally fine and understandable preference, but own it. You were relieved that husband's high salary could accommodate that lifestyle preference even if it could potentially end up in a result like this. Well, welcome to the result...

Time to start taking accountability for your choices and preferences and, ultimately, life by probably getting a job now rather than fretting too much over a spousal support settlement.

STOP THIS MISOGYNISTIC BS. IT’S SO GOD DAMNED TIRED.

Sorry the truth hurts. Most of these women would work dead end retail jobs for the rest of their lives.

This area is the most highly educated in the country. Many women who stay home have graduate and professional degrees. It is super common. Your circle must be a huge outlier if that is what you think about women in this area.

At look at the attrition rate of women who finish medical school and then are ready to downgrade or drop out of the profession after 5 years. Education and credentials do not change the original premise that the preference for a lot of these women is to not work outside of the home. They dress it up it whatever language about "sacrifice" they need to to save face because the prevailing zeitgeist and their peers would look down upon them making such a choice. Easier to shift those negative feelings toward big, bad hubby.

It’s not “after five years.” It’s “after having children.”
And I can guarantee you that it’s not a “preference to be home.” It is the hubby who pays lip service to helping out, but he doesn’t.
It doesn’t even have to be your husband. It might be your chair who thinks that women are going to want to be home with their kids, and so he takes the program you started or the fellowship you put into place or the multi-site research study you initiated and got through the IRB and puts a man in charge of it and gives you a secondary role.

Read the book “Opting Out.”