Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there so much antipathy towards people in marriages who choose to take care of their children as their primary and best use of their time on earth. We only get one shot at parenthood. Children are our legacy on earth when we die. The total lack of respect for people who choose to prioritize their time for their family over earning more money is shocking to me.

Sigh.

Anonymous wrote:Why is there so much antipathy towards people in marriages who choose to take care of their children as their primary and best use of their time on earth. We only get one shot at parenthood. Children are our legacy on earth when we die. The total lack of respect for people who choose to prioritize their time for their family over earning more money is shocking to me.

Anonymous wrote:Why is there so much antipathy towards people in marriages who choose to take care of their children as their primary and best use of their time on earth. We only get one shot at parenthood. Children are our legacy on earth when we die. The total lack of respect for people who choose to prioritize their time for their family over earning more money is shocking to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there so much antipathy towards people in marriages who choose to take care of their children as their primary and best use of their time on earth. We only get one shot at parenthood. Children are our legacy on earth when we die. The total lack of respect for people who choose to prioritize their time for their family over earning more money is shocking to me.

I too find the reaction surprising. I’m assuming it’s just a few extreme posters but who knows.

Life is complicated and families have to do all sorts of things to keep everyone happy and healthy. To say both parents working full time is the only viable option is completely naive. Both DH and I work, but it’s only because we are sr. enough to have flexibility and make enough money to outsource a ton of stuff. Without the flexibility and money it would be extremely difficult.

Anonymous wrote:Why is there so much antipathy towards people in marriages who choose to take care of their children as their primary and best use of their time on earth. We only get one shot at parenthood. Children are our legacy on earth when we die. The total lack of respect for people who choose to prioritize their time for their family over earning more money is shocking to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is my brother and SILs dynamic.

She was a preschool teacher and she quit when she got pregnant. My brother has always been the breadwinner and person who pays for all expenses, bills, everything.

They then had 5 kids (including a set of twins) in 5 years! At one point she was home with all 5 kids for a year before the oldest went to school. Basically for almost ten years she had young kids at home and for half that time she was pregnant and for about 7 years she was breastfeeding.

Then once all the kids were in school - she did all the house and kid stuff that was during the day. She also volunteered and did errands. My brother has always done all the evening and weekend activities.

It works for them in some ways but she is 20 years in and has never worked and really doesn't fully get the money piece. She always wants more money from my brother to redecorate the house or buy new furniture or a plan a trip or get new x y or z. My brother on the other side feels immense pressure to save for college and to have money put aside for any major issue as there is no back up to him.

Well, what exactly did your brother think was going to happen with 5 kids? They would need a full time nanny or someone stays home. Unless his wife makes a lot of money, the cost for a nanny is a wash.

I work, my wife stays home. She is an equal member of the team and if we were to split, she should get half plus alimony for a period of time while she gets her feet under her. Lifetime alimony, no but rehabilitative yes. Her staying home was a mutual decision.

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:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.

When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.

The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.

The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.

Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.

Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).

Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?

maybe she should have thought of that before quitting the workforce.

Unfortunately there are numerous reasons that women drop out of the workforce. The workplace was designed by and FOR men. Many women can’t handle leaving a young infant with someone else so they can return to work. Then they get stuck with all of the household chores and child raising. If they return to work they will now have everything at home plus a job. Returning to work can mean a paycut and/or their spouse balking at childcare costs. They have less flexibility since they are starting a new job. Wait...here comes another baby. Same issue again. Now they have been out of the workforce for 5-7 years. Kids are busy in activities and need transportation. Kids get in trouble and need supervision. Elderly parents need assistance and the male children typically shirk most responsibilities.

I agree women should stay in the workforce. But anyone with common sense is going to understand how and why women quit their jobs.

If you put up with a non-contributing spouse, you will get exactly this dynamic.

How is a non contributing spouse responsible for the lack of paid leave? The problem begins when women don’t receive enough time off from work to recover from birth and bond with their baby before returning to work. So they quit, especially women with a decent or high earning spouse.

Sure, if they enjoy making excuses.

So I should blame my spouse for my company’s maternity leave policy? We don’t work for the same employer. Stop trying to blame women for EVERYTHING. Now you’re blaming women for their husband’s lack of a role in their jobs!!

You know who can implement better maternity policies? Women stay in the workforce. Quitting just reinforces the status quo.

Men could enact paid maternity leave today if they wanted. They do not.

Anonymous wrote:This is my brother and SILs dynamic.

She was a preschool teacher and she quit when she got pregnant. My brother has always been the breadwinner and person who pays for all expenses, bills, everything.

They then had 5 kids (including a set of twins) in 5 years! At one point she was home with all 5 kids for a year before the oldest went to school. Basically for almost ten years she had young kids at home and for half that time she was pregnant and for about 7 years she was breastfeeding.

Then once all the kids were in school - she did all the house and kid stuff that was during the day. She also volunteered and did errands. My brother has always done all the evening and weekend activities.

It works for them in some ways but she is 20 years in and has never worked and really doesn't fully get the money piece. She always wants more money from my brother to redecorate the house or buy new furniture or a plan a trip or get new x y or z. My brother on the other side feels immense pressure to save for college and to have money put aside for any major issue as there is no back up to him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.

When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.

The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.

The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.

Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.

Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).

Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?

maybe she should have thought of that before quitting the workforce.

Unfortunately there are numerous reasons that women drop out of the workforce. The workplace was designed by and FOR men. Many women can’t handle leaving a young infant with someone else so they can return to work. Then they get stuck with all of the household chores and child raising. If they return to work they will now have everything at home plus a job. Returning to work can mean a paycut and/or their spouse balking at childcare costs. They have less flexibility since they are starting a new job. Wait...here comes another baby. Same issue again. Now they have been out of the workforce for 5-7 years. Kids are busy in activities and need transportation. Kids get in trouble and need supervision. Elderly parents need assistance and the male children typically shirk most responsibilities.

I agree women should stay in the workforce. But anyone with common sense is going to understand how and why women quit their jobs.

If you put up with a non-contributing spouse, you will get exactly this dynamic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.

When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.

The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.

The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.

Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.

Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).

Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?

maybe she should have thought of that before quitting the workforce.

Unfortunately there are numerous reasons that women drop out of the workforce. The workplace was designed by and FOR men. Many women can’t handle leaving a young infant with someone else so they can return to work. Then they get stuck with all of the household chores and child raising. If they return to work they will now have everything at home plus a job. Returning to work can mean a paycut and/or their spouse balking at childcare costs. They have less flexibility since they are starting a new job. Wait...here comes another baby. Same issue again. Now they have been out of the workforce for 5-7 years. Kids are busy in activities and need transportation. Kids get in trouble and need supervision. Elderly parents need assistance and the male children typically shirk most responsibilities.

I agree women should stay in the workforce. But anyone with common sense is going to understand how and why women quit their jobs.

If you put up with a non-contributing spouse, you will get exactly this dynamic.

This passive language is so weird. “Here comes another baby!” No. Babies don’t just come. People choose to have them. It is absolutely 100% possible to have kids AND work. Does it mean some household stuff falls by the wayside? Maybe. Does it mean your kids might have to carpool instead of being personally chauffeured by you? Maybe. It also means that if in 20 years your husband leaves you you’re not ass out like OP is because you did unpaid labor all this time for other people and didn’t think to make sure if you were doing work it was work that could actually set you up to be ok in the event you one day had to be.

I have daughters and if they want to stay home when their kids are little, I would support that and I did that. But I will be DAMNED if I or them are ever in a position like OP where they spend their life helping their husband and kids live life 20% more comfortably and have no earnings, no work experience, no skills to show for it. F*ck that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.

When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.

The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.

The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.

Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.

Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).

Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?

maybe she should have thought of that before quitting the workforce.

Unfortunately there are numerous reasons that women drop out of the workforce. The workplace was designed by and FOR men. Many women can’t handle leaving a young infant with someone else so they can return to work. Then they get stuck with all of the household chores and child raising. If they return to work they will now have everything at home plus a job. Returning to work can mean a paycut and/or their spouse balking at childcare costs. They have less flexibility since they are starting a new job. Wait...here comes another baby. Same issue again. Now they have been out of the workforce for 5-7 years. Kids are busy in activities and need transportation. Kids get in trouble and need supervision. Elderly parents need assistance and the male children typically shirk most responsibilities.

I agree women should stay in the workforce. But anyone with common sense is going to understand how and why women quit their jobs.

If you put up with a non-contributing spouse, you will get exactly this dynamic.

How is a non contributing spouse responsible for the lack of paid leave? The problem begins when women don’t receive enough time off from work to recover from birth and bond with their baby before returning to work. So they quit, especially women with a decent or high earning spouse.

Sure, if they enjoy making excuses.

So I should blame my spouse for my company’s maternity leave policy? We don’t work for the same employer. Stop trying to blame women for EVERYTHING. Now you’re blaming women for their husband’s lack of a role in their jobs!!

You know who can implement better maternity policies? Women stay in the workforce. Quitting just reinforces the status quo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alimony is for the pathetic . Support yourself. Gravy train is over. Don’t you have any pride?

....said the angry disgruntled exDH.

Actually I’m a happily married working woman who takes full responsibility for my own financial life. And manages to be an excellent mom at the same time. There are a million of us out there, and a million of us on these boards.

Well you aren't that bright, the op has worked for the business for most of the marriage. She probably didn't take a wage as the business was their family income and if she didn't do it, he would have had to pay someone else a wage and benefits to do the same thing.

Marriage is a partnership. The Op hasn't sat on her butt all day and done yoga. She has contributed, so alimony is fair.