whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Nov 24, 2015 8:33:20 GMT -5
Good for you for having such a good attitude! And have no fear - any time you will start a topic here, it will never stay on topic! And will, most likely, get very entertaining! So, keep posting
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 6:29:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2015 9:42:43 GMT -5
And that is why one spouse should never support another. You get screwed in the divorce! This is pretty cynical- it would imply no one would ever stay home with the kids FT, for example. It would also mean I was crazy marrying DH when I was 50 and he was 65. We moved for my job and he did some freelance work but he was in advertising, a field that's notoriously hostile to older workers.
"Support" doesn't have to be in the form of income (although DH did start collecting SS). If you're free to devote more time and energy to your career because a partner is getting the cars repaired, waiting around for the cable guy, taking the kids to the pediatrician and getting dinner ready every night, well, that partner is contributing, too. If DH and I got divorced (not gonna happen), I'd make darn sure he had enough to live decently. If DS and DDIL divorced (they're devout Christians and put "I will never divorce you" in their marriage vows"), I'd think very badly of DS if he didn't support DDIL while she went back to school to upgrade her office skills and get back on her feet, and pay child support. Same goes for my sister, the doctor with the (mostly) stay-at-home husband who worked his rear end off to put her through Med school. It's not "getting screwed"- it's doing what's right.
In the OP's case (and that of my first husband), the "partner" really wasn't a partner and didn't pull their weight. I absolutely agree that you need to select a spouse carefully and not ignore initial warning signs.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 24, 2015 9:57:56 GMT -5
To everyone who commented here. Thank you. I was looking for some financial opinions and got that plus a lot of interesting discourse and a few laughs. Everyone has provided great food for thought, I learned a few things, and I'm working through this one day at a time. As I said before, it is useless to argue whether he deserves what he is getting, I entered into a legal arrangement when I married and with that came risks. Ultimately, it was a bad bet and I'm paying the price. I allowed my situation to go on for too long and while he was (is) lazy, I also let him be lazy because it was easier than fighting all the time. I've learned a valuable, painful and expensive lesson I will not repeat. Let this be a warning to everyone to choose well in your spouse, the little things you notice early on will only get worse. The good news is that unlike many married women divorcing I will not be destitute or financially ruined by this, I will actually continue to live a very nice lifestyle that I have EARNED through my hard work. If the situation were reversed and I were a man and he was the woman the end result would have been (and should have been) the same. He gets a nice start to his new life, I am still very well off and everyone can go back to their respective corners and live whatever life they choose. I already feel lighter both financially and emotionally and I'm ready to kick some financial butt in the coming years!!! Happy Thanksgiving to you all!!!! Good for you. And personally, I suspect karma will be a bitch to your soon-to-be-ex. He'll blow through his divorce settlement and in five years be struggling. While you will have recovered financially and will get to continue your very nice lifestyle without a human millstone around your neck.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 10:51:33 GMT -5
And that is why one spouse should never support another. You get screwed in the divorce! This is pretty cynical- it would imply no one would ever stay home with the kids FT, for example. It would also mean I was crazy marrying DH when I was 50 and he was 65. We moved for my job and he did some freelance work but he was in advertising, a field that's notoriously hostile to older workers.
"Support" doesn't have to be in the form of income (although DH did start collecting SS). If you're free to devote more time and energy to your career because a partner is getting the cars repaired, waiting around for the cable guy, taking the kids to the pediatrician and getting dinner ready every night, well, that partner is contributing, too. If DH and I got divorced (not gonna happen), I'd make darn sure he had enough to live decently. If DS and DDIL divorced (they're devout Christians and put "I will never divorce you" in their marriage vows"), I'd think very badly of DS if he didn't support DDIL while she went back to school to upgrade her office skills and get back on her feet, and pay child support. Same goes for my sister, the doctor with the (mostly) stay-at-home husband who worked his rear end off to put her through Med school. It's not "getting screwed"- it's doing what's right.
In the OP's case (and that of my first husband), the "partner" really wasn't a partner and didn't pull their weight. I absolutely agree that you need to select a spouse carefully and not ignore initial warning signs.
I guess it all depends on what you value in a relationship. I wouldn't value a spouse who stayed home while I worked so I certainly wouldn't want to support him after we divorced. Each to their own.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 6:29:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2015 11:10:23 GMT -5
This is pretty cynical- it would imply no one would ever stay home with the kids FT, for example. It would also mean I was crazy marrying DH when I was 50 and he was 65. We moved for my job and he did some freelance work but he was in advertising, a field that's notoriously hostile to older workers.
"Support" doesn't have to be in the form of income (although DH did start collecting SS). If you're free to devote more time and energy to your career because a partner is getting the cars repaired, waiting around for the cable guy, taking the kids to the pediatrician and getting dinner ready every night, well, that partner is contributing, too. If DH and I got divorced (not gonna happen), I'd make darn sure he had enough to live decently. If DS and DDIL divorced (they're devout Christians and put "I will never divorce you" in their marriage vows"), I'd think very badly of DS if he didn't support DDIL while she went back to school to upgrade her office skills and get back on her feet, and pay child support. Same goes for my sister, the doctor with the (mostly) stay-at-home husband who worked his rear end off to put her through Med school. It's not "getting screwed"- it's doing what's right.
In the OP's case (and that of my first husband), the "partner" really wasn't a partner and didn't pull their weight. I absolutely agree that you need to select a spouse carefully and not ignore initial warning signs.
I guess it all depends on what you value in a relationship. I wouldn't value a spouse who stayed home while I worked so I certainly wouldn't want to support him after we divorced. Each to their own. Sometimes it's the financially prudent thing to do. Both spouses working while they pay for daycare, housecleaning, gardener and eating out all the time because neither has time to do these things may cost more than one spouse staying home to do these things, not to mention the reduced stress. Ex 1.0 will be the first to tell you that he wouldn't have got to where he is in the company if I hadn't been holding down the fort while he traveled all over and worked crazy hours.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 11:40:51 GMT -5
I guess it all depends on what you value in a relationship. I wouldn't value a spouse who stayed home while I worked so I certainly wouldn't want to support him after we divorced. Each to their own. Sometimes it's the financially prudent thing to do. Both spouses working while they pay for daycare, housecleaning, gardener and eating out all the time because neither has time to do these things may cost more than one spouse staying home to do these things, not to mention the reduced stress. Ex 1.0 will be the first to tell you that he wouldn't have got to where he is in the company if I hadn't been holding down the fort while he traveled all over and worked crazy hours. And that's a fair statement...but I still wouldn't support someone. It just isn't in me to do so. If I am ever dumb enough to get married again, it won't be to someone who is looking to support them.
This isn't a bash on anyone who supports a spouse or any spouse that is supported...we all have different priorities in life. Having one spouse stay home might be easiest but it is not something I would ever want to do (even if I was the one being supported...too much risk in that!).
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Nov 24, 2015 11:43:32 GMT -5
And that is why one spouse should never support another. You get screwed in the divorce! This is pretty cynical- it would imply no one would ever stay home with the kids FT, for example. It would also mean I was crazy marrying DH when I was 50 and he was 65. We moved for my job and he did some freelance work but he was in advertising, a field that's notoriously hostile to older workers.
"Support" doesn't have to be in the form of income (although DH did start collecting SS). If you're free to devote more time and energy to your career because a partner is getting the cars repaired, waiting around for the cable guy, taking the kids to the pediatrician and getting dinner ready every night, well, that partner is contributing, too. If DH and I got divorced (not gonna happen), I'd make darn sure he had enough to live decently. If DS and DDIL divorced (they're devout Christians and put "I will never divorce you" in their marriage vows"), I'd think very badly of DS if he didn't support DDIL while she went back to school to upgrade her office skills and get back on her feet, and pay child support. Same goes for my sister, the doctor with the (mostly) stay-at-home husband who worked his rear end off to put her through Med school. It's not "getting screwed"- it's doing what's right.
In the OP's case (and that of my first husband), the "partner" really wasn't a partner and didn't pull their weight. I absolutely agree that you need to select a spouse carefully and not ignore initial warning signs.
I agree with what you are saying. But here is the thing - when there is a divorce many times prior agreements might not matter. My husband was raised by a SAHM and believes with all his heart that children need one parent at home. I am 100% certain that he will never begrudge me for staying home and not making money. HOWEVER! My husband also does not believe in divorce. So....if I were to file for divorce, I am almost 100% sure that he would fight me on any and all support. Not bc he would think that I was "lazy" during the marriage and didn't contribute, but bc he would be pissed off about the divorce.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 11:47:36 GMT -5
This is pretty cynical- it would imply no one would ever stay home with the kids FT, for example. It would also mean I was crazy marrying DH when I was 50 and he was 65. We moved for my job and he did some freelance work but he was in advertising, a field that's notoriously hostile to older workers.
"Support" doesn't have to be in the form of income (although DH did start collecting SS). If you're free to devote more time and energy to your career because a partner is getting the cars repaired, waiting around for the cable guy, taking the kids to the pediatrician and getting dinner ready every night, well, that partner is contributing, too. If DH and I got divorced (not gonna happen), I'd make darn sure he had enough to live decently. If DS and DDIL divorced (they're devout Christians and put "I will never divorce you" in their marriage vows"), I'd think very badly of DS if he didn't support DDIL while she went back to school to upgrade her office skills and get back on her feet, and pay child support. Same goes for my sister, the doctor with the (mostly) stay-at-home husband who worked his rear end off to put her through Med school. It's not "getting screwed"- it's doing what's right.
In the OP's case (and that of my first husband), the "partner" really wasn't a partner and didn't pull their weight. I absolutely agree that you need to select a spouse carefully and not ignore initial warning signs.
I agree with what you are saying. But here is the thing - when there is a divorce many times prior agreements might not matter. My husband was raised by a SAHM and believes with all his heart that children need one parent at home. I am 100% certain that he will never begrudge me for staying home and not making money. HOWEVER! My husband also does not believe in divorce. So....if I were to file for divorce, I am almost 100% sure that he would fight me on any and all support. Not bc he would think that I was "lazy" during the marriage and didn't contribute, but bc he would be pissed off about the divorce. I can say with absolute certainty that the man you divorce (or woman) is not the sweet, loving person that you married. Divorce tends to bring out the worst in people.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 24, 2015 11:58:35 GMT -5
Sometimes it's the financially prudent thing to do. Both spouses working while they pay for daycare, housecleaning, gardener and eating out all the time because neither has time to do these things may cost more than one spouse staying home to do these things, not to mention the reduced stress. Ex 1.0 will be the first to tell you that he wouldn't have got to where he is in the company if I hadn't been holding down the fort while he traveled all over and worked crazy hours. And that's a fair statement...but I still wouldn't support someone. It just isn't in me to do so. If I am ever dumb enough to get married again, it won't be to someone who is looking to support them.
This isn't a bash on anyone who supports a spouse or any spouse that is supported...we all have different priorities in life. Having one spouse stay home might be easiest but it is not something I would ever want to do (even if I was the one being supported...too much risk in that!).
I would guess that if you marry someone who is looking for you to support them, then they are probably going to suck at a SAHP. I have lots of friends who are SAHMs. They all had degrees and worked before having kids. They aren't looking to be supported, but like the SAHP lifestyle which is a little more laid back, a little more pennypinching, a lot less eating out/hiring out and often they are supporting a spouse that has a career that requires them to move at least every so often. It isn't sitting on your ass being pampered, saying sigh "oh support me big strong man because I am a weak woman who can't support myself". My DH wasn't looking for me to support him. We are partners in a marriage. We support each other.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 12:06:18 GMT -5
And that's a fair statement...but I still wouldn't support someone. It just isn't in me to do so. If I am ever dumb enough to get married again, it won't be to someone who is looking to support them.
This isn't a bash on anyone who supports a spouse or any spouse that is supported...we all have different priorities in life. Having one spouse stay home might be easiest but it is not something I would ever want to do (even if I was the one being supported...too much risk in that!).
I would guess that if you marry someone who is looking for you to support them, then they are probably going to suck at a SAHP. I have lots of friends who are SAHMs. They all had degrees and worked before having kids. They aren't looking to be supported, but like the SAHP lifestyle which is a little more laid back, a little more pennypinching, a lot less eating out/hiring out and often they are supporting a spouse that has a career that requires them to move at least every so often. It isn't sitting on your ass being pampered, saying sigh "oh support me big strong man because I am a weak woman who can't support myself". My DH wasn't looking for me to support him. We are partners in a marriage. We support each other. My kids are teenagers...I don't need a SAHP.
Partners are different to everyone and everyone marriage. To me, I will not ever financially support an able-bodied person. Nor would I ever expect to be financially supported by anyone else. What works for me isn't the same as what works for the next person.
I still say that letting someone financially support you is very risky...and financially supporting someone else is also very risky as noted by the OP. Just my opinion
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 24, 2015 12:10:48 GMT -5
Sometimes it's the financially prudent thing to do. Both spouses working while they pay for daycare, housecleaning, gardener and eating out all the time because neither has time to do these things may cost more than one spouse staying home to do these things, not to mention the reduced stress. Ex 1.0 will be the first to tell you that he wouldn't have got to where he is in the company if I hadn't been holding down the fort while he traveled all over and worked crazy hours. And that's a fair statement...but I still wouldn't support someone. It just isn't in me to do so. If I am ever dumb enough to get married again, it won't be to someone who is looking to support them.
This isn't a bash on anyone who supports a spouse or any spouse that is supported...we all have different priorities in life. Having one spouse stay home might be easiest but it is not something I would ever want to do (even if I was the one being supported...too much risk in that!).
It seems to me that there would be a tremendous amount of resentment should a spouse of your's ever become disabled. Or if the roles were reversed and YOU became disabled. For someone that did have a very similar attitude to your's, it is not easy to adjust. There has been more than one circumstance where I hurt myself in attempting to do more than I could physically do because I felt like I wasn't pulling my weight. Even now with going to school attempting to get into the work force, I'm starting to wonder if the amount of energy working would take would put more of a stress on my SO as there will be things I very likely will not be able to do, that were taken care of regularly such that he doesn't need to worry about them (like grocery shopping, laundry, car maintenance and cooking). It's not all so black and white, but various shades of grey.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 12:15:01 GMT -5
And that's a fair statement...but I still wouldn't support someone. It just isn't in me to do so. If I am ever dumb enough to get married again, it won't be to someone who is looking to support them.
This isn't a bash on anyone who supports a spouse or any spouse that is supported...we all have different priorities in life. Having one spouse stay home might be easiest but it is not something I would ever want to do (even if I was the one being supported...too much risk in that!).
It seems to me that there would be a tremendous amount of resentment should a spouse of your's ever become disabled. Or if the roles were reversed and YOU became disabled.For someone that did have a very similar attitude to your's, it is not easy to adjust. There has been more than one circumstance where I hurt myself in attempting to do more than I could physically do because I felt like I wasn't pulling my weight. Even now with going to school attempting to get into the work force, I'm starting to wonder if the amount of energy working would take would put more of a stress on my SO as there will be things I very likely will not be able to do, that were taken care of regularly such that he doesn't need to worry about them (like grocery shopping, laundry, car maintenance and cooking). It's not all so black and white, but various shades of grey. In prior posts I spelled out that I am referring to an able-bodied man. I understand that illness can strike anyone and that is completely different than a man who married me with the expectation that he sits home while I go to work. If he were independently wealthy that is one thing...but to expect me to financially support him while he had the ability to work would not happen.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 24, 2015 12:16:47 GMT -5
I would guess that if you marry someone who is looking for you to support them, then they are probably going to suck at a SAHP. I have lots of friends who are SAHMs. They all had degrees and worked before having kids. They aren't looking to be supported, but like the SAHP lifestyle which is a little more laid back, a little more pennypinching, a lot less eating out/hiring out and often they are supporting a spouse that has a career that requires them to move at least every so often. It isn't sitting on your ass being pampered, saying sigh "oh support me big strong man because I am a weak woman who can't support myself". My DH wasn't looking for me to support him. We are partners in a marriage. We support each other. My kids are teenagers...I don't need a SAHP.
Partners are different to everyone and everyone marriage. To me, I will not ever financially support an able-bodied person. Nor would I ever expect to be financially supported by anyone else. What works for me isn't the same as what works for the next person.
I still say that letting someone financially support you is very risky...and financially supporting someone else is also very risky as noted by the OP. Just my opinion
Also consider that many jobs are mobile. My dad was in the military and we moved every 2-3 years for 20 years. TD knows engineers who have careers like this, so it is not just the military either. For us, it wasn't until the end, where his assignments were a bit longer that it made sense for my mom to go back to work as an accountant. She (and the family) many times are the trailing spouse, where their career, by necessity, takes a back seat to the other's career. Many employers don't want to hire military spouses as they know this (or at least back in the 1970s, where shorter assignments were more common). There are also certain areas of the country/world where it is impossible for a spouse to work - even if they wanted to.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 12:19:54 GMT -5
My kids are teenagers...I don't need a SAHP.
Partners are different to everyone and everyone marriage. To me, I will not ever financially support an able-bodied person. Nor would I ever expect to be financially supported by anyone else. What works for me isn't the same as what works for the next person.
I still say that letting someone financially support you is very risky...and financially supporting someone else is also very risky as noted by the OP. Just my opinion
Also consider that many jobs are mobile. My dad was in the military and we moved every 2-3 years for 20 years. TD knows engineers who have careers like this, so it is not just the military either. For us, it wasn't until the end, where his assignments were a bit longer that it made sense for my mom to go back to work as an accountant. She (and the family) many times are the trailing spouse, where their career, by necessity, takes a back seat to the other's career. Many employers don't want to hire military spouses as they know this (or at least back in the 1970s, where shorter assignments were more common). There are also certain areas of the country/world where it is impossible for a spouse to work - even if they wanted to. I'm not sure why I have to consider that. I don't plan on marrying anyone in the military.
My opinions are what would work for me and any marriage I entered. Obviously other women have different opinions. I wouldn't marry a man in the military as I am not uprooting my life for anyone.
|
|
techguy
Junior Member
Joined: May 1, 2013 15:59:05 GMT -5
Posts: 172
|
Post by techguy on Nov 24, 2015 12:25:24 GMT -5
I like Miss T's attitude.
If only more women had this attitude, this world would be more equal and fair!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 6:29:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2015 12:28:27 GMT -5
I like Miss T's attitude. If only more women had this attitude, this world would be more equal and fair! Yeah, but all the Marines would be single. Wait...that's maybe not a bad thing.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 24, 2015 12:33:35 GMT -5
I would guess that if you marry someone who is looking for you to support them, then they are probably going to suck at a SAHP. I have lots of friends who are SAHMs. They all had degrees and worked before having kids. They aren't looking to be supported, but like the SAHP lifestyle which is a little more laid back, a little more pennypinching, a lot less eating out/hiring out and often they are supporting a spouse that has a career that requires them to move at least every so often. It isn't sitting on your ass being pampered, saying sigh "oh support me big strong man because I am a weak woman who can't support myself". My DH wasn't looking for me to support him. We are partners in a marriage. We support each other. My kids are teenagers...I don't need a SAHP.
Partners are different to everyone and everyone marriage. To me, I will not ever financially support an able-bodied person. Nor would I ever expect to be financially supported by anyone else. What works for me isn't the same as what works for the next person.
I still say that letting someone financially support you is very risky...and financially supporting someone else is also very risky as noted by the OP. Just my opinion
I swear we go round and round on this every time it comes up. I get that it isn't for you. Not saying that it is. You come off so strong negatively about it not being for you that it does come off as an indictment against anyone who does have in particular a SAHH, but a SAHS in general. I get that situation isn't for you. But when I speak in generalities to try to give a broader view, your response comes across as those lazy f#@ks. I also have never gotten the sense that you had a true partnership in your marriage. You see the word support as so one dimensional and when people try to explain it in other words, you say not for me. I'm not talking about SAHPing, but having a spouse that has your back, supports your dreams and desires and is willing to back you up to help you get there. You can have that without the financial element too or it can be missing with or without the financial element.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 12:45:26 GMT -5
I like Miss T's attitude. If only more women had this attitude, this world would be more equal and fair! :-)
|
|
cktc
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 19, 2013 22:15:31 GMT -5
Posts: 3,202
|
Post by cktc on Nov 24, 2015 12:54:44 GMT -5
It seems to me that there would be a tremendous amount of resentment should a spouse of your's ever become disabled. Or if the roles were reversed and YOU became disabled.For someone that did have a very similar attitude to your's, it is not easy to adjust. There has been more than one circumstance where I hurt myself in attempting to do more than I could physically do because I felt like I wasn't pulling my weight. Even now with going to school attempting to get into the work force, I'm starting to wonder if the amount of energy working would take would put more of a stress on my SO as there will be things I very likely will not be able to do, that were taken care of regularly such that he doesn't need to worry about them (like grocery shopping, laundry, car maintenance and cooking). It's not all so black and white, but various shades of grey. In prior posts I spelled out that I am referring to an able-bodied man. I understand that illness can strike anyone and that is completely different than a man who married me with the expectation that he sits home while I go to work. If he were independently wealthy that is one thing...but to expect me to financially support him while he had the ability to work would not happen. I don't think many people get married expecting to support an able bodied spouse, sometimes dynamics just change and it's difficult to tell if it is temporary circumstances or you are being used. I mean, if you don't need the money, your spouse loses their job and the one they replaced it with is 1/4 of what they were bringing in but makes them really happy, do you pull the plug immediately? Issue an ultimatum that they find a better paying job in X time or leave? Wait and see? What if you made less at one point? This is the person that you fell in love with and married, you want to see the best in them, give them the benefit of the doubt, etc... With most users it's more like a frog in a boiling pot, they don't just quit their job and start eating bon-bons as soon as you tie the knot or get a promotion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 6:29:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2015 13:22:39 GMT -5
Nor would I ever expect to be financially supported by anyone else. [/p][/quote] I'm with you on that. Being financially dependent on someone else would scare the crap outta me.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 24, 2015 13:36:12 GMT -5
In prior posts I spelled out that I am referring to an able-bodied man. I understand that illness can strike anyone and that is completely different than a man who married me with the expectation that he sits home while I go to work. If he were independently wealthy that is one thing...but to expect me to financially support him while he had the ability to work would not happen. I don't think many people get married expecting to support an able bodied spouse, sometimes dynamics just change and it's difficult to tell if it is temporary circumstances or you are being used. I mean, if you don't need the money, your spouse loses their job and the one they replaced it with is 1/4 of what they were bringing in but makes them really happy, do you pull the plug immediately? Issue an ultimatum that they find a better paying job in X time or leave? Wait and see? What if you made less at one point? This is the person that you fell in love with and married, you want to see the best in them, give them the benefit of the doubt, etc... With most users it's more like a frog in a boiling pot, they don't just quit their job and start eating bon-bons as soon as you tie the knot or get a promotion. I think there is a huge difference between marrying someone who expects to sit around and eat bon-bons and hang with their friends while you financially support them, and being married to someone where life's circumstances lead to one person being out of work or needing to stay at home to care for a child, parent, etc. Every couple and family have goals, and they have different ways of how they achieve those goals. For some families it will be having a spouse stay at home. For other families it will having multiple incomes. And in many ways I agree with Miss T. My SIL is a SAHM, and I see how much pressure there is on my brother as the sole bread winner. Now, he's not complaining and it's a choice that he and my SIL made together, and I respect that choice. But, I do know I wouldn't want that level of pressure on me. I find it stressful enough being single and knowing that if I lose my job then I'm in trouble, I couldn't imagine (nor do I want to experience) being in that situation when I have other people depending on me for a roof over their head and food on the table. And to be honest, if there was no compelling reason for a spouse to stay at home then I'd be pretty pissed if they spent the money I made on themselves.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 13:38:19 GMT -5
My kids are teenagers...I don't need a SAHP.
Partners are different to everyone and everyone marriage. To me, I will not ever financially support an able-bodied person. Nor would I ever expect to be financially supported by anyone else. What works for me isn't the same as what works for the next person.
I still say that letting someone financially support you is very risky...and financially supporting someone else is also very risky as noted by the OP. Just my opinion
I swear we go round and round on this every time it comes up. I get that it isn't for you. Not saying that it is. You come off so strong negatively about it not being for you that it does come off as an indictment against anyone who does have in particular a SAHH, but a SAHS in general. I get that situation isn't for you. But when I speak in generalities to try to give a broader view, your response comes across as those lazy f#@ks. I also have never gotten the sense that you had a true partnership in your marriage. You see the word support as so one dimensional and when people try to explain it in other words, you say not for me. I'm not talking about SAHPing, but having a spouse that has your back, supports your dreams and desires and is willing to back you up to help you get there. You can have that without the financial element too or it can be missing with or without the financial element. Well thank you for judging my marriage from something you have only seen from the internet. Other than talking about us having separate finances, I don't actually remember talking much about my husband. I can say the same about you...how can you have a true partnership when one spouse is completely dependent on the other? What works for you would never work for me and vice versa
I don't need a broader view. Having or being a SAHS would never work for me. I grew up in poverty because my mom relied on my dad to support us...when that marriage feel apart we went from middle class to poverty overnight. So no thank you...I prefer to always be able to support myself.
I don't know why we have to go round and round...we have different views and neither one of us will convince the other that our way of thinking is right. I state my opinion on what would work for me. No, I would never see the benefit of having a man sit home while I work...but you and others do so that's what works for you.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 13:40:56 GMT -5
I don't think many people get married expecting to support an able bodied spouse, sometimes dynamics just change and it's difficult to tell if it is temporary circumstances or you are being used. I mean, if you don't need the money, your spouse loses their job and the one they replaced it with is 1/4 of what they were bringing in but makes them really happy, do you pull the plug immediately? Issue an ultimatum that they find a better paying job in X time or leave? Wait and see? What if you made less at one point? This is the person that you fell in love with and married, you want to see the best in them, give them the benefit of the doubt, etc... With most users it's more like a frog in a boiling pot, they don't just quit their job and start eating bon-bons as soon as you tie the knot or get a promotion. I think there is a huge difference between marrying someone who expects to sit around and eat bon-bons and hang with their friends while you financially support them, and being married to someone where life's circumstances lead to one person being out of work or needing to stay at home to care for a child, parent, etc. Every couple and family have goals, and they have different ways of how they achieve those goals. For some families it will be having a spouse stay at home. For other families it will having multiple incomes. And in many ways I agree with Miss T. My SIL is a SAHM, and I see how much pressure there is on my brother as the sole bread winner. Now, he's not complaining and it's a choice that he and my SIL made together, and I respect that choice. But, I do know I wouldn't want that level of pressure on me. I find it stressful enough being single and knowing that if I lose my job then I'm in trouble, I couldn't imagine (nor do I want to experience) being in that situation when I have other people depending on me for a roof over their head and food on the table. And to be honest, if there was no compelling reason for a spouse to stay at home then I'd be pretty pissed if they spent the money I made on themselves.That is exactly how I would be. It would cause major resentment on my part and a rift in the marriage. So for me, it would not be a healthy marriage if I had to support an able-bodied man.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 6:29:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2015 13:45:18 GMT -5
I don't know. I'm thinking a guy at home right now while I'm at work would be kind of nice. I'd be cool with feeding them and paying for their cell phone. They couldn't just sit there though...and they'd have to be kind of hot too...just because. It would be awfully nice to come home to dinner made, and the barn chores done. To be able to sit down and play games with the kids instead of doing laundry and cleaning the cat puke up off the carpet. <sigh>
(MPL is very tired lately)
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 24, 2015 13:48:57 GMT -5
I can see both sides. Neither of us want the pressure of a sole bread winner facing a potential lay off but I think we both see the quality of life effects a SAH provides, via the extended leaves I have taken. So to compromise we are saving towards early retirement so we can hopefully both sit on our butts together and eat bon-bons.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 14:08:50 GMT -5
I don't know. I'm thinking a guy at home right now while I'm at work would be kind of nice. I'd be cool with feeding them and paying for their cell phone. They couldn't just sit there though...and they'd have to be kind of hot too...just because. It would be awfully nice to come home to dinner made, and the barn chores done. To be able to sit down and play games with the kids instead of doing laundry and cleaning the cat puke up off the carpet. <sigh> (MPL is very tired lately) LOL! I'm with you on the tired...it isn't easy being a single, working mom
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 14:09:52 GMT -5
I can see both sides. Neither of us want the pressure of a sole bread winner facing a potential lay off but I think we both see the quality of life effects a SAH provides, via the extended leaves I have taken. So to compromise we are saving towards early retirement so we can hopefully both sit on our butts together and eat bon-bons. And that is a very fair compromise...that is what I'm working with, too...but by myself. I don't want to work until I'm 65!
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 24, 2015 14:49:03 GMT -5
I swear we go round and round on this every time it comes up. I get that it isn't for you. Not saying that it is. You come off so strong negatively about it not being for you that it does come off as an indictment against anyone who does have in particular a SAHH, but a SAHS in general. I get that situation isn't for you. But when I speak in generalities to try to give a broader view, your response comes across as those lazy f#@ks. I also have never gotten the sense that you had a true partnership in your marriage. You see the word support as so one dimensional and when people try to explain it in other words, you say not for me. I'm not talking about SAHPing, but having a spouse that has your back, supports your dreams and desires and is willing to back you up to help you get there. You can have that without the financial element too or it can be missing with or without the financial element. Well thank you for judging my marriage from something you have only seen from the internet. Other than talking about us having separate finances, I don't actually remember talking much about my husband. I can say the same about you...how can you have a true partnership when one spouse is completely dependent on the other? What works for you would never work for me and vice versa
I don't need a broader view. Having or being a SAHS would never work for me. I grew up in poverty because my mom relied on my dad to support us...when that marriage feel apart we went from middle class to poverty overnight. So no thank you...I prefer to always be able to support myself.
I don't know why we have to go round and round...we have different views and neither one of us will convince the other that our way of thinking is right. I state my opinion on what would work for me. No, I would never see the benefit of having a man sit home while I work...but you and others do so that's what works for you.
I can't bold on my phone, but we have a true partnership because I am completely dependant on my husband as well. Him staying home has allowed me to work longer hours and make more money. If we both worked, my hours would be substantially less flexible because he would work in the field and would be dependant on getting the job done and not being able to dictate what time he gets off despite me making more money and having upward mobility. So I would be the one to pick up kids from daycare which like it or not would impact my earnings potential. My assumption about your marriage has more to do with how you have characterized your maternity leave with your kids and other comments you have made. It has nothing to do with shared or unshared finances. I would feel differently about your responses if you were a truly equal opportunity hater of the SAHP. But you freely admit that you stayed home for a year with your kids because that is the mom's job. Oh you pay lip service to woman staying at home, but all of your responses are about "men sitting at home on their asses". I am not telling you to go out and get yourself a house husband. I'm telling you to stop generalizing SAHP as lazy f#$ks.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 24, 2015 15:21:44 GMT -5
Let me make it clear that I believe a SAHS/SAHP is something that needs to be agreed upon by both parties. It isn't one party decides unilaterally and it certainly isn't something that someone should backdoor into like the OPs STBX was trying to do. Not to mention that when going to SAHS/SAHP there are lots talk about the budget and spending. No one just sitting around spending money.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
Member is Online
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 24, 2015 16:22:16 GMT -5
Well thank you for judging my marriage from something you have only seen from the internet. Other than talking about us having separate finances, I don't actually remember talking much about my husband. I can say the same about you...how can you have a true partnership when one spouse is completely dependent on the other? What works for you would never work for me and vice versa
I don't need a broader view. Having or being a SAHS would never work for me. I grew up in poverty because my mom relied on my dad to support us...when that marriage feel apart we went from middle class to poverty overnight. So no thank you...I prefer to always be able to support myself.
I don't know why we have to go round and round...we have different views and neither one of us will convince the other that our way of thinking is right. I state my opinion on what would work for me. No, I would never see the benefit of having a man sit home while I work...but you and others do so that's what works for you.
I can't bold on my phone, but we have a true partnership because I am completely dependant on my husband as well. Him staying home has allowed me to work longer hours and make more money. If we both worked, my hours would be substantially less flexible because he would work in the field and would be dependant on getting the job done and not being able to dictate what time he gets off despite me making more money and having upward mobility. So I would be the one to pick up kids from daycare which like it or not would impact my earnings potential. My assumption about your marriage has more to do with how you have characterized your maternity leave with your kids and other comments you have made. It has nothing to do with shared or unshared finances. I would feel differently about your responses if you were a truly equal opportunity hater of the SAHP. But you freely admit that you stayed home for a year with your kids because that is the mom's job. Oh you pay lip service to woman staying at home, but all of your responses are about "men sitting at home on their asses". I am not telling you to go out and get yourself a house husband. I'm telling you to stop generalizing SAHP as lazy f#$ks. I stayed home with my oldest for 11 months but realistically, 4 of those months were me working from home. The other months I was able to stay home because I had saved for it. I took 4 months maternity leave with my youngest. Not sure why you think I took a full year off with both. But that is really neither here nor there. At no point in my life did I expect or allow my husband to support me. I stayed home and lived off of MY savings...a bit different than expecting a man to support me...so no, I actually don't think I'm a hypocrite at all. I was fully self-sufficient even when I was home with our children.
And I'm pretty sure I never said that SAHP were lazy fucks. Just because I don't want to support an able-bodied man doesn't mean I am calling anyone a lazy fuck. My GOAL is to be able to retire because I hate my job with a mother fucking passion....the difference is, as much as I hate my job I wouldn't quit and expect someone else to support me. So I'm just as a lazy as they come, I just believe in being self-sufficient.
I have CLEARLY hit a hot button of yours...but that doesn't mean my opinion is less valid than yours. You are ok with having your husband stay home and that works for your family. That wouldn't work for me and I express my opinion on ME on these boards.
I will continue replying to you but it is rather pointless. We don't agree, we will never agree and it gets us nowhere. You want to insult me, that's fine. But my opinions on what I want in life and in a partner have nothing to do with your life or marriage.
|
|