Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim71new
If you really dive into the data, what you find is that only 15% of two-parent families and 22.5% of dual-income families have the wife as the primary earner. While this is notable, and represents larger percentages than in the past, the fact is the vast, vast majority of families and dual-income families rely on the husbands for the larger share of the income."
When only 15% females are the breadwinner, surely someone is marrying up...
You have a twisted sense of "marrying up". If woman decides to stay home more (either full time, part time, or takes a profession with more flexibility and less pay) to be the primary caregiver to the children and therefore earn less than her husband, that doesn't mean that she married up.
A friend is a RN and her husband is a DR. He earns more than she does by a bit... they met at 20 in college and have been together since. They were both broke college students and still in school (grad school) when they married. No one would say she "married up" as the salary differential happened a decade later.
Should he have asked for a pre nup? That would be ridiculous.
If you're serious about the "forever" aspect, why would you need a legal hold onto a man's assets? And men, why would you marry a woman of lesser income without a prenup knowing that they would not do the same for you? The sexist family court system hurts the average man more than it hurts the top 10%.
You already know the answer to this question. Asking it here isn't going to provide you with any useful information.
It's weird how the guys cling to these 1950's stereotypes. It's the 21st Century, people!
Not only that, but it paints a marriage as an adversarial arrangement. While in some cases there is a need to protect assets in case of a divorce, going into a marriage viewing one's spouse as a a potential enemy who is out to bleed you dry doesn't seem to bode well for a happy, trusting partnership.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleetiebelle
Not only that, but it paints a marriage as an adversarial arrangement. While in some cases there is a need to protect assets in case of a divorce, viewing one's spouse as a a potential enemy who is out to bleed you dry doesn't seem to bode well for a happy, trusting partnership.
That's the part that sickens me. I mean, there are times pre nups make sense, we've covered a bunch of those, but it is more for protection of offspring and family than oneself... that seems responsible.
But the inherent mistrust of someone you consider partnering with? Where the heck did that come from? Most couples I know work like teams, not competitors.
Seeing as we live in a country where the man is almost never able to get custody and where females can receive the benefits of marriage (like an income that exceeds their own) after walking out on the marriage... that seems to be sexist. Or then again, maybe you're not even a man and you feel entitled to another person's income. I can't see a man being so submissive to the point where he does not mind someone living off of him and leaving the marriage with more than they came with.
I am a man, but I am a man who has worked in family law, so I have seen how a lot of this plays out first hand.
First of all, only a minority of men even seek full custody of their children. Even fewer seek physical placement. Like a lot of people, you conflate custody, which is a legal status, with physical placement, which is a housing situation. They are not the same thing.
Second, spousal maintenance (commonly called "alimony") is usually temporary and quite limited in scope. To say it entitles women to men's income is a gross exaggeration. The only reason women get maintenance at all is because in most cases, it is the women who forgoes her career and/or education to take care of the house, care for the children, etc. These are all form of unpaid labor that women perform in marriages. It would be obscene for a woman to do so much work for free, often for decades, only to be left destitute after the marriage fails. And the fact is, in the majority of cases, it is the women who see their standard of living decline after divorce, not men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim71new
When only 15% females are the breadwinner, surely someone is marrying up...
Actually, women are now the primary breadwinners in 40% of households, not 15%.
Most women marry up, thus they have nothing to lose. The average marriage isn't rich women to average guy. In fact, women make up less than 20% of six figure earners. The average female earns only 77% of what the average man makes in a year, due to female's tendencies to pick easier majors/careers and working less hours.
The average man doesn't make six figures. Far from it.
Do you know why women tend to pick less demanding careers and work shorter hours? Because they are typically responsible for the lion's share of childcare and housework. Ask Google what the "second shift" is.
Quote:
It takes literally two seconds to type "he wants a prenup" into google, and you'll be flooded by insecure forum posts and articles. Considering that men still acquire better jobs than females, he is the bread winner and is the only one with something to lose.
Here's an example of why your statement is inaccurate. My husband makes about 50% more than I do, and his 401k is twice as large as mine. I could make more, but I work from home so that I can shuttle the kids around and we don't have to pay for daycare. I helped him find the job, which has a significantly better benefit package than mine, including better 401k matching and a pension plan. I took a loan against my 401k a few years ago for a down payment on a newer car for him, because he needed a reliable vehicle and it made better financial sense at the time for me to do it. He goes to school on top of working, which will help him score an even better job; meanwhile, I do way more on the home front so that he can focus on work and studying. There is no his money and my money. It's our money.
Here's an example of why your statement is inaccurate. My husband makes about 50% more than I do, and his 401k is twice as large as mine. I could make more, but I work from home so that I can shuttle the kids around and we don't have to pay for daycare. I helped him find the job, which has a significantly better benefit package than mine, including better 401k matching and a pension plan. I took a loan against my 401k a few years ago for a down payment on a newer car for him, because he needed a reliable vehicle and it made better financial sense at the time for me to do it. He goes to school on top of working, which will help him score an even better job; meanwhile, I do way more on the home front so that he can focus on work and studying. There is no his money and my money. It's our money.
This is such a great point! Your working fewer hours is enabling him to move ahead in his career, for the benefit of both of you. Now that's teamwork!
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia
Here's an example of why your statement is inaccurate. My husband makes about 50% more than I do, and his 401k is twice as large as mine. I could make more, but I work from home so that I can shuttle the kids around and we don't have to pay for daycare. I helped him find the job, which has a significantly better benefit package than mine, including better 401k matching and a pension plan. I took a loan against my 401k a few years ago for a down payment on a newer car for him, because he needed a reliable vehicle and it made better financial sense at the time for me to do it. He goes to school on top of working, which will help him score an even better job; meanwhile, I do way more on the home front so that he can focus on work and studying. There is no his money and my money. It's our money.
Way to marry up, JJ!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleetiebelle
That's the part that a lot of the guys who come over here from the Angry Dude sites seem to forget; they seem to view women in general as annoyances that they have to put up with to get laid. A good relationship works like a team: you want to share with each other; you want to be generous with each other; you want to spend time with each other; you want to have sex with each other. It shouldn't be a power struggle.
Well... there is a time and a place for everything
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
