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.
If anything was to happen now to us, I have multiple sources that will confirm that he wants me to be a SAHM.
Same here. Friends and family are well aware that my SO prefers me at home. It's an important part of deciding whether to stay at home. If you're not on the same page, then don't do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladybug07
If my husband ever said this to me, he would be in a world of hurt. I am his wife, not his precious mommy or daddy. We have also discussed what to do in case of death or injury. I also know what he does and doesn't want. Some of it is completely different than what his parents would do for him.
Both of our parents have made it known that they would not respect our wishes. We've both opted to donate our organs. Our parents wouldn't respect that. We found out during the Terry Schiavo case that IL's would never respect husbands wishes in that position and they said before they'd fight it. My husband has made it clear he would not want to be left on life support in Terry's position. I'd respect his wishes.
Why is it reasonable or desirable for the two spouses to become "one financial entity"? And if we stipulate that such a thing is, for whatever reason, a good thing - then why ought we to still have no-fault divorce?
My point is that if two people become fused into one entity by the act of marriage, why should splitting them be so easy?
If you don't want the privileges and consequences of marriage, don't get married. If most people stop getting married. That's fine. If most men expect pre-nups. That's fine too. I don't see a point to legal marriage if you don't become one financial entity. If that's the case, don't buy a marriage license. Just have a cute little wedding, chant some new age crap and chase some rainbows cupcake. WTH is the legal point?
OK. Let me present it as such: You are presently married and have children with him. Then you get divorced (we'll leave the material part alone) and remarry. And then you get sick. Who knows? Maybe you end up in critical condition on life support. (I would never wish this on anyone, and this example is for the sole purpose of raising awareness.) Your parents and husband are at the hospital, your children are now adults and you are let's say in a vegetative condition. The doctors won't release any information about your condition to your children or your parents. The only person that matters now is just this stepfather. He retains the rights over you, not your children or parents. Would you still feel the same? Maybe your children don't care for the stepfather, maybe no one in your family likes him. But at the END of your life and legacy, who will you give he ultimate power to decide what to do with you?
Well sure. It would have been better not to have married a filthy layabout, but clearly you didn't know that at the time.
What a precious little bon mot that one is. LOL. That made my day.
Back to the issue at hand:
Well, it might not seem fair, but you have to understand the specifics of the contract you signed when you married. When you marry, you become a partnership enjoying gains and losses as a team. Anything earned is considered shared income, any debt, shared debt. The court doesn't care if only one of you had income, or if only one of you ran up $50k in credit card debt. You signed a legal contract. That little piece of paper says you agree to share everything equally. Is it fair? The courts say it is.
I would like to clear up a common misconception here. Anything you owned free and clear before the marriage is still yours if you divorce. Any ethical lawyer will tell you that. So prenups are pretty much worthless unless you're wealthy. AND you both want to agree on what the divorce payout will be prior to the marriage taking place.
..in a divorce just for being there? If your husband/wife spent the entire marriage mooching off of you (no steady income, never had kids to raise, didn't do much around the house,etc), do they deserve anything? I say hell no.
Hmmm, you sound like my ex. What he failed to realize was that the reason I had no steady income is because we moved around alot for his job. Every time we moved, I sold, packed and moved an entire house. Then unpacked and bought at the other end. He thought I didn't do much around the house, but the cleaning, cooking, laundry and yard work managed to get done without him lifting a finger, and he never once, in 17 years, entered a grocery store unless it was for something specific he wanted at the moment. All he had to was leave a note, and whatever errand he needed run was done. We had no kids because he never wanted any (and I was either way on it).
I did work, 40 hours a week. But in his mind, it wasn't a "real" job, because the income was less than his. He repeatedly talked about "stopping work" at 50, so I could "support" him like he'd been supporting me.
In our divorce, he flipped out at our lawyer's because he felt I was stealing all that was "his". Even years later, in what I suspect was an alcohol-induced email, he went on and on about how I stole "his" house from him (he got all of our retirement money, and a percentage of the house proceeds when it sold).
Two sides to every coin - you could say he mooched off of me. All he had to do was work, while I did everything else.
This invariably turns into a discussion on whether staying at home is equal work compared to the role of breadwinner when you pretty much have zero free time during the weekdays.
Let me frame it this way. If she was working and he was staying at home in the rare event, would she then think staying at home is honorable work if HE was at ohme? I've heard many stories of that woman yelling at him, "WHAT HAVE YOU DONE ALL DAY???" or "I CAN GET A REAL MAN TO TAKE CARE OF ME, YOU ARE JUST A GOOD FOR NOTHING WHO PLAYS VIDEO GAMES ALL DAY" and call him the worst names like parasite and bum, but if I called a SAHM that, I would be labeled a misogynist.
Would she even date a man who aspires to stay at home? She wouldn't? Now why is that?
So no. The breadwinner is who does more of the work, given women's choices above. In response, a man should either NOT get married OR sign a prenup, and if she refuses because she wants free money without working or job skills, NO MARRIAGE. The 1950's are over and woman have the capacity to get jobs now. However, some people take advantage of their higher social status (to command money in dates) and then subsequently want to be taken care of as fully-grown able-bodied adults.
If you don't want the privileges and consequences of marriage, don't get married. If most people stop getting married. That's fine. If most men expect pre-nups. That's fine too. I don't see a point to legal marriage if you don't become one financial entity. If that's the case, don't buy a marriage license. Just have a cute little wedding, chant some new age crap and chase some rainbows cupcake. WTH is the legal point?
In the US, marriage is often the only way to solve complicated financial or legal issues (most notably, immigration). If this were possible with “domestic partnership”, I would have chosen the latter.
I’m fine with regarding marriage as such a tight bond that the two partners become fused into one entity for legal and emotional purposes. I get that. It’s not always the best arrangement and can be inimical to personal ego, but again, I get that. What I don’t understand is why, upon stipulating marriage as being such an intense bond, we have no-fault divorce.
On the other hand, I can appreciate the merits of no-fault divorce. I’m fine with it as legal doctrine and societal assumption. But if we stipulate no-fault divorce, why then place marriage on such a pedestal?
In sum, I don’t understand the “compromise” as simultaneously regarding marriage as a holy thing and an intense bond, while also advocating for no-fault divorce.
This invariably turns into a discussion on whether staying at home is equal work compared to the role of breadwinner when you pretty much have zero free time during the weekdays.
Let me frame it this way. If she was working and he was staying at home in the rare event, would she then think staying at home is honorable work if HE was at ohme? I've heard many stories of that woman yelling at him, "WHAT HAVE YOU DONE ALL DAY???" or "I CAN GET A REAL MAN TO TAKE CARE OF ME, YOU ARE JUST A GOOD FOR NOTHING WHO PLAYS VIDEO GAMES ALL DAY" and call him the worst names like parasite and bum, but if I called a SAHM that, I would be labeled a misogynist.
Would she even date a man who aspires to stay at home? She wouldn't? Now why is that?
So no. The breadwinner is who does more of the work, given women's choices above. In response, a man should either NOT get married OR sign a prenup, and if she refuses because she wants free money without working or job skills, NO MARRIAGE. The 1950's are over and woman have the capacity to get jobs now. However, some people take advantage of their higher social status (to command money in dates) and then subsequently want to be taken care of as fully-grown able-bodied adults.
If he were supporting my career and taking care of my children, I would not freak out on my husband staying home. Like has been repeated by others. Staying at home has been a joint decision and something my husband has a strong preference for. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
In the US, marriage is often the only way to solve complicated financial or legal issues (most notably, immigration). If this were possible with “domestic partnership”, I would have chosen the latter.
I’m fine with regarding marriage as such a tight bond that the two partners become fused into one entity for legal and emotional purposes. I get that. It’s not always the best arrangement and can be inimical to personal ego, but again, I get that. What I don’t understand is why, upon stipulating marriage as being such an intense bond, we have no-fault divorce.
On the other hand, I can appreciate the merits of no-fault divorce. I’m fine with it as legal doctrine and societal assumption. But if we stipulate no-fault divorce, why then place marriage on such a pedestal?
In sum, I don’t understand the “compromise” as simultaneously regarding marriage as a holy thing and an intense bond, while also advocating for no-fault divorce.
Because it's a two part deal. There are those, such as my husband, who are religious and value a spiritual bond. There are those, such as myself, who value the legal bond. I'm okay with sinking all of my time and effort into my husband with the guarantee that we are financially bonded. I've never gotten upset when my money became our money. When my inheritance from my great-aunt became our inheritance. When my career took a back burner to his career. At parties, when people go around and talk about what they do for a living, I'm okay with being the loser that says she stays at home with her kids. I can take all of that. As long as at the end of the day, I know that we are one team and one financial entity. That is my security. I have worked hard and I reserve rights to our collective finances.
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.
