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.
^^^ Yet another example of "she got the house and he got screwed."
It does happen regardless of gender. I have a friend whose wife of 36 years recently walked out on him for her high school sweetheart and left him a house he can't afford and can't sell.
Right. My sister just got divorced (her husband walked out on her in February to move in with his girlfriend) and she "got" the house in the settlement. The mortgage payment is at the upper range for her income, and in this market she wouldn't be able to sell it for more than what they paid for it. So she's stuck living in a house she doesn't like and can't get rid of while he's vacationing in Mexico with his girlfriend.
Good point. Getting the house in this depressed market is not a good thing at all.
To the person who posted that he had several divorced "male" friends on his couch because they were having a hard time: Imagine a divorced woman who has three young children, a high mortgage payment and she has to figure out how she is going to work her 3 jobs and pay for childcare while she is gone. Unless the guy was Donald Trump she is not raking in the dough.
Men who are not the custodial parent can rebound quicker as they usually have the experience, career, health insurance, and freedom to work. I'm not saying this is true for all men. Sure they have to pay for alimony and child support but consider that it's expensive to take care of kids. Doctor appointments, clothing, food, will eat that money up in a second.
Usually - and this is a generalization - men do pretty well by staying in a marriage. Particularly where children are involved. In traditional marriages (so, again, these are generalizations), a stay-at-home wife might have a tough time going out into the market to take over the traditional male role, but it would be 10x more difficult for the husband to take on the traditional female role of cooking-cleaning-taking care of the children. So, they stay. Plus, it's cheaper to keep her (sometimes). Oh, and many stay because they are happy in their marriage and in their family. But it's not because they "secretly adore their wives but are too manly too admit it."
...
To the person who posted that he had several divorced "male" friends on his couch because they were having a hard time:
Not having a 'hard time', rather they had no income. Their income was diverted by the courts to support their former wife and children.
I have seen courts who have ordered payments that exceeded the gross income of the men. Yes they fought it, and eventually they won. But first the men had to desert. Walk away from their sworn duties of serving in the US military, to go back stateside to appear in civilian court rooms. In the process they usually lose their job.
I have seen it both ways; where they lost their jobs, and where they were able to smooth talk a lot and keep their job while only losing 90% of their income [but at least they fought the court and got the court ordered support lowered to levels below their gross income].
Quote:
... Imagine a divorced woman who has three young children, a high mortgage payment and she has to figure out how she is going to work her 3 jobs and pay for childcare while she is gone. Unless the guy was Donald Trump she is not raking in the dough.
I have seen many cases where the divorced female receives very nearly the same amount of money as she did when she was married. The difference? As a married couple that money supported two adults and their children. Now it supports her and the children.
If she can not make it on her former husband's income, then they were not making it together either.
Back a few decades when my mother divorced my father; she got the house and he got the mortgage; she got her car and he got the car payments. He moved into the bed of his pickup truck and parked it at a buddies, until after a few years of over-time he was able to afford a travel trailer to live inside.
Paying for two separate households was hard to do, it remains hard to do.
Not having a 'hard time', rather they had no income. Their income was diverted by the courts to support their former wife and children.
I have seen courts who have ordered payments that exceeded the gross income of the men. Yes they fought it, and eventually they won. But first the men had to desert. Walk away from their sworn duties of serving in the US military, to go back stateside to appear in civilian court rooms. In the process they usually lose their job.
I have seen it both ways; where they lost their jobs, and where they were able to smooth talk a lot and keep their job while only losing 90% of their income [but at least they fought the court and got the court ordered support lowered to levels below their gross income].
I have seen many cases where the divorced female receives very nearly the same amount of money as she did when she was married. The difference? As a married couple that money supported two adults and their children. Now it supports her and the children.
If she can not make it on her former husband's income, then they were not making it together either.
Apart from people talking about their personal problems, CD regularly sees three kinds of threads:
(1) about the egos of so-called "real men" being so fragile, they can't stand the idea of being married to a woman who has more education than them or earns a real income capable of supporting the family, to say nothing of a woman who earns more than they do;
(2) about the unfitness of educated, working women to be good wives and mothers, and how an ideal wife is one who is incapable of surviving on her own and 100% economically dependent on the husband;
(3) about the injustice of having to divide marital property in divorce and pay the formerly ideal wife -- who was 100% economically dependent on the husband throughout the marriage as per his preferences -- alimony and child support.
Besides simply not marrying, there is one very effective way of reducing one's potential exposure in a divorce -- marry someone who has marketable skills and is capable of supporting herself. However, if a man prefers a wife who stays at home and doesn't make a living, or at least doesn't make enough to actually live on, he should be prepared to continue to support her in the event of a divorce; that's the price. You don't get to be married to someone whose life revolves entirely around the family 24/7 and then kick her and the children to the curb -- sorry. And men who complain about the unfairness of divorce settlements with "traditional" ex-wives should stop denigrating career women.
With respect to child support, I could never understand people who balk at the idea of supporting their own progeny. Every parent has an obligation to support his or her children, regardless of the relationship to the other parent. A child isn't a Mercedes -- you don't get to excuse yourself from paying for the maintenance just because you no longer get the use. If any man thinks that paying his own children's expenses may be a problem if he doesn't get custody in a divorce -- that man most definitely should not reproduce. And by paying expenses, I don't mean just keeping the children hovering at the poverty line.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from that, realize that being financially screwed in a divorce isn't a gender problem, contrary to popular belief. I walked away from my marriage with a huge debt, while my ex walked away from it with all our property. I moved to my parents' living room couch; he bought a condo. And there are plenty of women even on CD who were in the same situation.
Apart from people talking about their personal problems, CD regularly sees three kinds of threads:
(1) about the egos of so-called "real men" being so fragile, they can't stand the idea of being married to a woman who has more education than them or earns a real income capable of supporting the family, to say nothing of a woman who earns more than they do;
(2) about the unfitness of educated, working women to be good wives and mothers, and how an ideal wife is one who is incapable of surviving on her own and 100% economically dependent on the husband;
(3) about the injustice of having to divide marital property in divorce and pay the formerly ideal wife -- who was 100% economically dependent on the husband throughout the marriage as per his preferences -- alimony and child support.
Besides simply not marrying, there is one very effective way of reducing one's potential exposure in a divorce -- marry someone who has marketable skills and is capable of supporting herself. However, if a man prefers a wife who stays at home and doesn't make a living, or at least doesn't make enough to actually live on, he should be prepared to continue to support her in the event of a divorce; that's the price. You don't get to be married to someone whose life revolves entirely around the family 24/7 and then kick her and the children to the curb -- sorry. And men who complain about the unfairness of divorce settlements with "traditional" ex-wives should stop denigrating career women.
With respect to child support, I could never understand people who balk at the idea of supporting their own progeny. Every parent has an obligation to support his or her children, regardless of the relationship to the other parent. A child isn't a Mercedes -- you don't get to excuse yourself from paying for the maintenance just because you no longer get the use. If any man thinks that paying his own children's expenses may be a problem if he doesn't get custody in a divorce -- that man most definitely should not reproduce. And by paying expenses, I don't mean just keeping the children hovering at the poverty line.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from that, realize that being financially screwed in a divorce isn't a gender problem, contrary to popular belief. I walked away from my marriage with a huge debt, while my ex walked away from it with all our property. I moved to my parents' living room couch; he bought a condo. And there are plenty of women even on CD who were in the same situation.
A lot of times, men are better off financially before they get divorced. That should tell you something. They had kids to pay for before and after they got divorced. Yet the men were better off financially before they got divorced.
Sometimes the child support payments might be more money than what's actually needed. And the mother doesn't always use the child support on the kids.
stay in that marriage. I think men are afraid to admit how much they really adore their wives. I guess it's not manly to be able to say, "I can't stand her, but god help me if I ever have to live without her." any ideas?
How the hell am I supposed to live without help at home. Raise a child, or at least try and stay in his life, work, and still have a little me time for dating?
That was the answer I asked myself, over, and over, and over again. Till I finally got sick of it.
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.
