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.
As a long time married woman and long time SAHM who will soon be getting divorced I see it this way; my H was free to focus on his career while I was free to focus on family and kids. It was a great set-up, and without me he wouldn't be where he is, wouldn't have completed all those professional class, wouldn't have gone back to school for his MBA, couldn't have hit the books at the library or put in extra hours if I wasn't watching the kids and paying the bills and generally making his life work...you see where this is going.
Now that he is in his mid 50's he wants to do everything he missed out on while he was climbing the corporate ladder (partying, clubbing, traveling, etc.) He certainly has the resources to do it in style and I'd be totally on board with that...only he want's to do it all with a young gal from work.
I will take half the 401K and his company pension without guilt. I will draw SS equal to 1/2 of his benefit when I reach retirement age because whatever job I get now will never pay as much into the system as his 35 years (and counting) of work history has..and he will still get 100% of his SS benefit for himself. I will also take Spousal Support, as much as I can get for as long as I can get it, and not lose any sleep over it. He will get everything else PLUS the neverending love of his two grown, happy, healthy children. It's a fair trade for me losing out on the future I was supposed to have.
As a long time married woman and long time SAHM who will soon be getting divorced I see it this way; my H was free to focus on his career while I was free to focus on family and kids. It was a great set-up, and without me he wouldn't be where he is, wouldn't have completed all those professional class, wouldn't have gone back to school for his MBA, couldn't have hit the books at the library or put in extra hours if I wasn't watching the kids and paying the bills and generally making his life work...you see where this is going.
Now that he is in his mid 50's he wants to do everything he missed out on while he was climbing the corporate ladder (partying, clubbing, traveling, etc.) He certainly has the resources to do it in style and I'd be totally on board with that...only he want's to do it all with a young gal from work.
I will take half the 401K and his company pension without guilt. I will draw SS equal to 1/2 of his benefit when I reach retirement age because whatever job I get now will never pay as much into the system as his 35 years (and counting) of work history has..and he will still get 100% of his SS benefit for himself. I will also take Spousal Support, as much as I can get for as long as I can get it, and not lose any sleep over it. He will get everything else PLUS the neverending love of his two grown, happy, healthy children. It's a fair trade for me losing out on the future I was supposed to have.
In this case I think it's more than fair for you to get 1/2 of ALL the assets including the 401K and alimony (possibly even for life).
As a long time married woman and long time SAHM who will soon be getting divorced I see it this way; my H was free to focus on his career while I was free to focus on family and kids. It was a great set-up, and without me he wouldn't be where he is, wouldn't have completed all those professional class, wouldn't have gone back to school for his MBA, couldn't have hit the books at the library or put in extra hours if I wasn't watching the kids and paying the bills and generally making his life work...you see where this is going.
Now that he is in his mid 50's he wants to do everything he missed out on while he was climbing the corporate ladder (partying, clubbing, traveling, etc.) He certainly has the resources to do it in style and I'd be totally on board with that...only he want's to do it all with a young gal from work.
I will take half the 401K and his company pension without guilt. I will draw SS equal to 1/2 of his benefit when I reach retirement age because whatever job I get now will never pay as much into the system as his 35 years (and counting) of work history has..and he will still get 100% of his SS benefit for himself. I will also take Spousal Support, as much as I can get for as long as I can get it, and not lose any sleep over it. He will get everything else PLUS the neverending love of his two grown, happy, healthy children. It's a fair trade for me losing out on the future I was supposed to have.
That's bull. I have a mother who worked full-time alongside my father, who worked full time, and both retired with pensions on their own right, and I turned out alright. This idea that raising a kid is this big job that equals the opportunity cost of chasing a career is bunk. My mother's case study is an illustration that your argument is a cop out. That you're indignated by your SOs mid life crisis has nothing to do with your attempt at monetizing what should be the non-economic joint responsibility of watching over a kid. Put simply, you figured pushing the agenda that "raising a kid was a profession" was an easier out than having to juggle raising kids and showing up at work. Women like my mother would probably have a word or two about the "plight" of this country's SAHMs.
Furthermore, your argument is one also brought up by many military wives. "We promoted, we got the job done, we, we we". You didn't take the MBA test for him, you didn't put in the physical work, you were a mere support structure. A support structure, that as I pointed out, does not exist in many households and yet fathers and mothers all over this country manage to get paid while simultaneously raise relatively productive members of society. Yours is a fairly recent development of an entitlement culture. Among catholic circles is called the "Pharisee's plight". A pharisee goes up to God when he doesn't end up rich off his righteousness: "But God, I didn't end up in jail, I didn't abuse drugs, I never stole from my neighbor", and God goes "...really man?....YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO NOT STEAL FROM THY NEIGHBOR" See where I'm going with this? You cannot monetize your responsibilities as if they were optional and therefore monetary in value.
If you wanted a career and having kids was getting on the way of that you should have foregone kids. My father and mother BOTH wanted kids; where in the heck is this "he made me have kids and forego my future!" pity party coming from anyways? My mother didn't lose out on any more career prospects than my father did when they decided to have kids. You just want to get paid like a banker for what is in reality a social cost of your household. It's your kid, you can't seek compensation from your own liabilities.
As to your husband, that's his opportunity cost of entering into a punitive economic agreement (marriage) and deciding to foreclose on the transaction. From that angle, all is well in a forewarned battle. As someone else pointed out, his best bet would be to keep you around and pursuing separate lives to remain financially intact. But to each their own as far as determining what's worth to each one of us. But the Joan of Arc martyr child bearer support structure promissory note angle is bunk.
Ceece... some children were raised by daycares rather than mothers and have a different view of things... don't let them make you feel bad.
My dh likes to tell men that think that I should get a "real job" that he takes pride in the fact that he can support his family... without financial help from his wife... you know, the way MEN used to.
I do agree that when a spouse decides to give up their career to take care of kids AND the other spouse (because lets face it, having one spouse not working does make it easeir on that spouse as well) that the SAH spouse should be fully entitled to SS, pensions, savings, etc. That is what they agreed to. I do not think though, that one spouse should get 100% of his SS earnings and the other gets 50%, that just doesn't make sense and I am not sure that is even true. Both spouses should get 50% unless one of them gets married again.
I have a friend that is going through a divorce. She left a promising career because her husband wanted her to stay home to not only take care of the children but to take care of HIM as well. He wanted a home cooked meal waiting for him, he didn't want to have to deal with any cooking or cleaning or household chores. She is owed and due 50% of everything, I firmly believe that. They are seperated and he barely gives her and THEIR children money to scrap by and she can't find a job making $9/hr. HE agreed to it just as much as she did, and this is the consequences. Her soon to be ex wants someone else to bake the cake and still let him eat it!
That's bull. I have a mother who worked full-time alongside my father, who worked full time, and both retired with pensions on their own right, and I turned out alright. This idea that raising a kid is this big job that equals the opportunity cost of chasing a career is bunk. My mother's case study is an illustration that your argument is a cop out. That you're indignated by your SOs mid life crisis has nothing to do with your attempt at monetizing what should be the non-economic joint responsibility of watching over a kid. Put simply, you figured pushing the agenda that "raising a kid was a profession" was an easier out than having to juggle raising kids and showing up at work. Women like my mother would probably have a word or two about the "plight" of this country's SAHMs.
Furthermore, your argument is one also brought up by many military wives. "We promoted, we got the job done, we, we we". You didn't take the MBA test for him, you didn't put in the physical work, you were a mere support structure. A support structure, that as I pointed out, does not exist in many households and yet fathers and mothers all over this country manage to get paid while simultaneously raise relatively productive members of society. Yours is a fairly recent development of an entitlement culture. Among catholic circles is called the "Pharisee's plight". A pharisee goes up to God when he doesn't end up rich off his righteousness: "But God, I didn't end up in jail, I didn't abuse drugs, I never stole from my neighbor", and God goes "...really man?....YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO NOT STEAL FROM THY NEIGHBOR" See where I'm going with this? You cannot monetize your responsibilities as if they were optional and therefore monetary in value.
If you wanted a career and having kids was getting on the way of that you should have foregone kids. My father and mother BOTH wanted kids; where in the heck is this "he made me have kids and forego my future!" pity party coming from anyways? My mother didn't lose out on any more career prospects than my father did when they decided to have kids. You just want to get paid like a banker for what is in reality a social cost of your household. It's your kid, you can't seek compensation from your own liabilities.
As to your husband, that's his opportunity cost of entering into a punitive economic agreement (marriage) and deciding to foreclose on the transaction. From that angle, all is well in a forewarned battle. As someone else pointed out, his best bet would be to keep you around and pursuing separate lives to remain financially intact. But to each their own as far as determining what's worth to each one of us. But the Joan of Arc martyr child bearer support structure promissory note angle is bunk.
Wow, what anger issues. First, some MEN like the idea of having their children taken care of by one of the natural parents. And that's fine, so long as the working parent realizes that there is a cost - one way or the other, children's care costs - if it's not the actual costs for daycare, it's the costs of the lost pension or professional/corporate ladder climbing by the primary care parent. SOMEone has to pay for the children. So, if as a couple, the decision is that neither parent stays at home, fine - daycare in some areas of the country can easily equal $1200 PER CHILD per month - and more in the summer. If the parents decide that one is to provide primary care, then the future retirement income of that parent needs to be provided for.
It need not be a "lazy" issue or one of looking down at the parents who decide to let someone else raise their children (which in some cases might be the better choice). It is up to the couple to decide what is best. And it's good that there is a choice.
BUT, yes, the SAH Mom or Dad needs to be "paid" in some way - 1/2 of SS benefits, divorced or widowed, pension plan, etc.
Just because YOU feel that going out to work is the more difficult of the two jobs, doesn't negate that others feel that going out to work is easier. Parenting full time is difficult - and that doesn't mean I think that working at a salaried position is a picnic.
That's bull. I have a mother who worked full-time alongside my father, who worked full time, and both retired with pensions on their own right, and I turned out alright. This idea that raising a kid is this big job that equals the opportunity cost of chasing a career is bunk. My mother's case study is an illustration that your argument is a cop out. That you're indignated by your SOs mid life crisis has nothing to do with your attempt at monetizing what should be the non-economic joint responsibility of watching over a kid. Put simply, you figured pushing the agenda that "raising a kid was a profession" was an easier out than having to juggle raising kids and showing up at work. Women like my mother would probably have a word or two about the "plight" of this country's SAHMs.
Furthermore, your argument is one also brought up by many military wives. "We promoted, we got the job done, we, we we". You didn't take the MBA test for him, you didn't put in the physical work, you were a mere support structure. A support structure, that as I pointed out, does not exist in many households and yet fathers and mothers all over this country manage to get paid while simultaneously raise relatively productive members of society. Yours is a fairly recent development of an entitlement culture. Among catholic circles is called the "Pharisee's plight". A pharisee goes up to God when he doesn't end up rich off his righteousness: "But God, I didn't end up in jail, I didn't abuse drugs, I never stole from my neighbor", and God goes "...really man?....YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO NOT STEAL FROM THY NEIGHBOR" See where I'm going with this? You cannot monetize your responsibilities as if they were optional and therefore monetary in value.
If you wanted a career and having kids was getting on the way of that you should have foregone kids. My father and mother BOTH wanted kids; where in the heck is this "he made me have kids and forego my future!" pity party coming from anyways? My mother didn't lose out on any more career prospects than my father did when they decided to have kids. You just want to get paid like a banker for what is in reality a social cost of your household. It's your kid, you can't seek compensation from your own liabilities.
As to your husband, that's his opportunity cost of entering into a punitive economic agreement (marriage) and deciding to foreclose on the transaction. From that angle, all is well in a forewarned battle. As someone else pointed out, his best bet would be to keep you around and pursuing separate lives to remain financially intact. But to each their own as far as determining what's worth to each one of us. But the Joan of Arc martyr child bearer support structure promissory note angle is bunk.
I don't give a hoot what your mother did.
Furthermore, I DIDN'T want a "career" and instead I wanted a "family". Why the hell do you think everyone wants a career? There aren't enough jobs in the world for that you know. You can thank me for giving up my job for someone who needed one. It was a high stress job, on call, long commute, etc. Much like my husbands. Both of us working didn't lend itself to having kids. I've never had a pity party, in fact I've been blessed. I didn't see the point in having kids if I couldn't give them my time, just as I had give to my job before having kids. I also didn't have them until we were financially secure and had a house already...that was one of my rules actually, I didn't want us to struggle so we waited (something many people don't bother thinking about). There is no such thing as a superwoman, or having it all, something has got to give. For us, it wasn't going to be the raising of our kids. Other do this just fine, either out of necessity or because of career aspirations. That's fine but something had to give...every family will be different in that regard. Apparently yours left you with an unhealthy regard for SAHM's...pity. But neither of us had ever spent a moment in daycare when we were growing up and had no intention of handing out kids over to someone else so the only real option was that one of the parents actually care for them. That was me. I also cared for the children of others over the years. See, you couldn't do what you do without people like me, and my husband sure couldn't do what he did AND HAVE A FAMILY without me either, so I have no guilt over my choices. It's just unfortunate our marriage didn't last forever, but it did last nearly 30 years...and I'll count that as a win.
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.
