If you ain't no punk holler "we want pre-nup!"

Killer Wench · 27-04-2015 9:31pm

With the high rate of divorce, at least here in the US, people should definitely be signing pre-nup agreements.

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 9:32pm

Killer Wench wrote: »

With the high rate of divorce, at least here in the US, people should definitely be signing pre-nup agreements.

Why get married in the first place? If you are that worried about it....

bjork · 27-04-2015 9:33pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

That's a good point.

Farming and land in Ireland nearly qualify as their own religion.

I know a farmer who is not leaving his only son, his only child, the land in his will because the child does not have a 'relationship with the land."

And the life of farming for farmers and their wives so so vocational, it really can't be compared to other marriages.

Maybe farmers shouldn't get married, no one is forcing them to, because when a woman or perhaps with the new impending legislation a man is,they do end up enconsed in the vocation and then to demand they invest in that vocation but in the case of a divorce end up with nothing, seems like the spouse in the end was nothing more than an indentured servant.

You're mad for the wife to be a servant/slave.

What above and beyond a normal wife do you see as her contribution?

They shouldn't get married now? or in a relationship with a woman who has a child for too long?

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 9:41pm

MaypacMay2 wrote: »

A servant is an employee.

A wife is not an employee. If the farmer is paying for all the wife's expenses it's reasonable to expect that she will make a contribution to the household rather than sitting on her arse all day.

Ah right like an au pair.

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 9:45pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yeah that's a really good question.
For me it would come down to what legal advantages it confers.
And the Civil Partnership bill is pushing you in that direction anyway.

What legal advantages?

Is there a reason such discrimination should exist?

The question for me, is why do we even have marriage anymore at all? {fine for religious aspect- the state enforcing and backing it is the question.}

NI24 · 27-04-2015 9:59pm

Once again, another thread bandying around the same "50% of all US marriages end in divorce!"--except, y'know, they don't. And the same old players nodding their head in agreement, even when it's been proven to them that they don't.

And good luck to the "7 in 10 farmers" wanting a pre-nup-- they're going to need it.

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 10:03pm

NI24 wrote: »

Once again, another thread bandying around the same "50% of all US marriages end in divorce!"--except, y'know, they don't. And the same old players nodding their head in agreement, even when it's been proven to them that they don't.

And good luck to the "7 in 10 farmers" wanting a pre-nup-- they're going to need it.

I pointed this faulty stat out pages ago.

Wompa1 · 27-04-2015 11:04pm

Wompa1 wrote: »

Personally, I'd be all for getting a pre-nup. We haven't talked about it since we got engaged. Mainly because we're having a long drawn out engagement. We talked it before we got engaged, she said she would be fine with it, if it was fair for both people.

I used the article about the farmers to bring it up again. She's already looked into the cost of getting it drafted by a lawyer. So, there won't be any disagreements about lack of trust because we both still want one.

NI24 · 28-04-2015 9:19am

Sky King wrote: »

Maybe the only thing keeping people in a sh!tty marriage is the idea that they might have to sell all their stuff to pay off some hoebag of a wife (....or husband!!) if they split up.

It never, never ceases to amaze me, how, in any thread about men getting the short end of the stick in any type of legal situation, someone always has to hurl some derogatory name at women. Wrapped up in the usual, 'Well, men can be hoebags,too, donchyanknow' bullsh*t-- as if "hoebag" isn't a completely gender specific word.

And I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is exactly the reason why MRAs will never be taken seriously. Because no matter what legitimate complaint men may have with regards to discrimination, the entire MRA movement (and all its offshoots and supporters) is so inundated with out-and-out misogynists that it can't help but give itself a bad name.

Lt J.R. Bell · 28-04-2015 10:45am

zeffabelli wrote: »

That's a good point.

Farming and land in Ireland nearly qualify as their own religion.

I know a farmer who is not leaving his only son, his only child, the land in his will because the child does not have a 'relationship with the land."

And the life of farming for farmers and their wives so so vocational, it really can't be compared to other marriages.

Maybe farmers shouldn't get married, no one is forcing them to, because when a woman or perhaps with the new impending legislation a man is,they do end up enconsed in the vocation and then to demand they invest in that vocation but in the case of a divorce end up with nothing, seems like the spouse in the end was nothing more than an indentured servant.

How are they meant to sire an issue? An offspring to carry on looking after the land for generations to come?

You hardly expect him to live in sin and have a baby outside of marriage? (blesses myself)

zeffabelli · 28-04-2015 10:46am

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

How are they meant to sire an issue? An offspring to carry on looking after the land for generations to come?

You hardly expect him to live in sin and have a baby outside of marriage? (blesses myself)

Well every silver lining has a cloud.

Lt J.R. Bell · 28-04-2015 10:53am

NI24 wrote: »

It never, never ceases to amaze me, how, in any thread about men getting the short end of the stick in any type of legal situation, someone always has to hurl some derogatory name at women. Wrapped up in the usual, 'Well, men can be hoebags,too, donchyanknow' bullsh*t-- as if "hoebag" isn't a completely gender specific word.

And I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is exactly the reason why MRAs will never be taken seriously. Because no matter what legitimate complaint men may have with regards to discrimination, the entire MRA movement (and all its offshoots and supporters) is so inundated with out-and-out misogynists that it can't help but give itself a bad name.

Get off your high horse, before you get pushed off

The poster said " hoebag of a wife (....or husband!!)" Note the exclamation marks after the word husband. Equal opportunities

Look at the title of the OP. I believe that that it a lyric from Kanye West. I sense people are writing in spirit of hip hop/gangsta music , yo. a

So, you betta check yourself before you wreck yourself , yo

bjork · 28-04-2015 11:17am

If you marry a mechanic, will ya be wanting half his spanners in the divorce?

How about a chef, would ya be looking for his knives?

c_man · 28-04-2015 11:28am

I'm aiming to marry rich, so boo to pre-nups.

NI24 · 29-04-2015 6:38am

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Get off your high horse, before you get pushed off

The poster said " hoebag of a wife (....or husband!!)" Note the exclamation marks after the word husband. Equal opportunities

Look at the title of the OP. I believe that that it a lyric from Kanye West. I sense people are writing in spirit of hip hop/gangsta music , yo. a

So, you betta check yourself before you wreck yourself , yo

Obviously you missed the part where I called bullsh*t on his/her little afterthought of "...or husband!!" Because that's exactly what it is--BULLSH*T! But I also have to laugh at how you criticize my assumption followed by your own assumption of "spirit of hip-hop". Or is it just more a$$-covering bullsh*t? Oh, and as for your advice? Well, if that isn't a high horse, then what is?

worded · 29-04-2015 7:07am

Wimmins be devious creatures

If I have more assets than her, yes, if she has more than me, no need for one.

Lt J.R. Bell · 29-04-2015 7:58am

zeffabelli wrote: »

Any language, from a text message, to driving directions, to a constitution has unstable interpretability.

There are a number of ways to interpret language.

1. Intention 2. Historical context 3. Contemporary context. 4. Reader response. 5. Deconstruction 6. Marxist analysis 7. New Criticism 8. Using biographical data of the author to inform the text.

Meaning is fluid, flexible and changeable. Constitution shmonistitution. Legislators see what they want to see, as does everyone else.

Stop talking rubbish. Now.the issue is interpreting Constitutional provisions

The courts do use a number of vehicles for Constitutional Interpretation. None of the ones that you refer to are used, bar historicaL and intention. None. "Marxist analysis"? Hilarious. Pure spoofery now. New criticism,?

Using biographical data..... Eh historical interpretation ie what was the laws prior to enactment , attitudes of the society (obviously this is balanced by other forms to ensure the Constitution continues to be a living document and up to date)

You ignore the fact that the Constitution must read read as a whOle, not in isolation, as one article might have to be balanced with a separate article.

Language, unstable interpretability, whatever next.? It's been around since 1937. Courts have been more than competent in understanding the language. Only.real harshness was in the Sinnott case where they refused to accept a 23 year old with mental capacity of an 11 year old, as a "child" for the purpose of free education (look it up) technically that was correct

Legislators see what they want to see, that is true. You clearly do to even when it smacks in the face of reasonableness. That is why the courts are there to interpret and supervise the legislator, which, one poster apparently wants To remove the courts from doing
Whatever next? When the legislator and or public don't like the courts interpretation of the Constitution, or there is more doubt over it, referendums can be used so that the Constitution can be amended to remove an offending provision or word, or clarify the law now

Listen, there is plenty of literature, freely available online. Please have a look. I would gladly refer you to case law where the courts spell out the rules of Constitutional Interpretation

A Primal Nut · 29-04-2015 8:00am

efb wrote: »

Why marry then if you want a pre-nup?

One of the rules of marriage is shared ownership

They don't want that to continue if there is a divorce.

A Primal Nut · 29-04-2015 8:02am

edword wrote: »

marriages with pre nup agreements signed by both parties are statistically more likely to end in divorce, so i think farmers are being a bit short sighted here because by ensisting on pre nups you are increasing the likelihood or odds that their wife will eventually divorce them. have to wonder what theyre hiding really, but they havent earned a reputation for being greedy for nothing

Fallacy of statistics. Common sense explanation is that the kind of people who get prenups (married before, less religious, etc.) are more likely to be accepting of divorce. The divorce doesn't suddenly become more likely because of the prenup.

Lt J.R. Bell · 29-04-2015 8:15am

NI24 wrote: »

Obviously you missed the part where I called bullsh*t on his/her little afterthought of "...or husband!!" Because that's exactly what it is--BULLSH*T! But I also have to laugh at how you criticize my assumption followed by your own assumption of "spirit of hip-hop". Or is it just more a$$-covering bullsh*t? Oh, and as for your advice? Well, if that isn't a high horse, then what is?

There is clearly a lot of tongue in cheek with many posters comments. Use of certain words wouldn't be out of place in a hip hop tune, yo. "ho", "gold digga"

The majority of divorce cases involving "Wimen " taking half. The poster just include husband so now feminist would gets antsy.

What was said flew high and wide over your head, yo. You is tripping brah

NI24 · 29-04-2015 8:32am

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

There is clearly a lot of tongue in cheek with many posters comments. Use of certain words wouldn't be out of place in a hip hop tune, yo. "ho", "gold digga"

The majority of divorce cases involving "Wimen " taking half. The poster just include husband so now feminist would gets antsy.

What was said flew high and wide over your head, yo. You is tripping brah

Actually, my dear, I think what I'm saying is flying over your head. So let me clarify for the intelligence impaired: trailing some sexist crap with a half-assed "...and husbands!!!" is a weak attempt to cover up what is, in fact, a very obvious sexist dig at women. And the second part of your post is proving my point entirely. So thank you. Peace out.

(Oh, and btw, I have a feeling that I know faaaar more about hip-hop terminology than most Irish people, so no need to school me any further)

LadyAthame · 29-04-2015 8:35am

This could have been a helpful interesting debate instead it's descended into this.

NI24 · 29-04-2015 8:42am

LadyAthame wrote: »

This could have been a helpful interesting debate instead it's descended into this.

It's always going to descend into this because it always descends into sexist name calling. Always. And some people don't stand for it.

LadyAthame · 29-04-2015 8:43am

NI24 wrote: »

It's always going to descend into this because it always descends into sexist name calling. Always. And some people don't stand for it.

Mommy and Daddy don't love each other anymore

. They are fighting and it makes me sad.

NI24 · 29-04-2015 8:48am

LadyAthame wrote: »

Mommy and Daddy don't love each other anymore . They are fighting and it makes me sad.

??? You be talkin' crazy talk.

And for the record, can we stop including women in this discussion. This isn't about women losing their money during divorce, this is about men losing money during divorce. The discussion will take a more natural course of action if we're honest about it.

Lt J.R. Bell · 29-04-2015 8:48am

Thorcory wrote: »

Can someone translate this into English?

What? Is it coz I is black?

Lt J.R. Bell · 29-04-2015 8:53am

NI24 wrote: »

Actually, my dear, I think what I'm saying is flying over your head. So let me clarify for the intelligence impaired: trailing some sexist crap with a half-assed "...and husbands!!!" is a weak attempt to cover up what is, in fact, a very obvious sexist dig at women. And the second part of your post is proving my point entirely. So thank you. Peace out.

(Oh, and btw, I have a feeling that I know faaaar more about hip-hop terminology than most Irish people, so no need to school me any further)

Stating ; that most of the people who "win" in divorce cases are women (who have responsibility for the children) , is not fact, but a sexist dig? what they don't go for the jugular? Whatever next?

It is utterly irrelevant if it was a sexist dig.It's true, live with it

I wasn't schooling you on hip hop, I assumed you were are equal, yo. I'll battle you any place any where y, you knock down the beats. If however, you talking about the law, ya, you do need schooling, y'all.
Second part, mewoah.

NI24 · 29-04-2015 8:56am

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Stating ; that most of the people who "win" in divorce cases are women (who have responsibility for the children) , is not fact, but a sexist dig? what they don't go for the jugular? Whatever next?

It is utterly irrelevant if it was a sexist dig.It's true, live with it

Second part, mewoah.

Oh good lord. My point is whooshing over your head at warp speed. I will pray for you now.

Lt J.R. Bell · 29-04-2015 8:58am

NI24 wrote: »

??? You be talkin' crazy talk.

And for the record, can we stop including women in this discussion. This isn't about women losing their money during divorce, this is about men losing money during divorce. The discussion will take a more natural course of action if we're honest about it.

No.

Since when do women get fleeced in divorce proceedings.? Even those whose children are grown up

Since when do women have to worry about loosing land handed down from generations, if their marriage breaks down?

NI24 · 29-04-2015 9:04am

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No.

Since when do women get fleeced in divorce proceedings.? Even those whose children are grown up

Since when do women have to worry about loosing land handed down from generations, if their marriage breaks down?

I meant that this thread is not about women losing money during divorce, so let's stop bringing that up as an example. Since it represents about 1 in 1,000,000 cases. And no, I don't have proof of that statistic. I'm just exaggerating.

Lt J.R. Bell · 29-04-2015 9:12am

NI24 wrote: »

I meant that this thread is not about women losing money during divorce, so let's stop bringing that up as an example. Since it represents about 1 in 1,000,000 cases. And no, I don't have proof of that statistic. I'm just exaggerating.

The original poster who said "husband " was trying to prevent a situation where angry women come on here and moan about being attacked or seen as the baddie.

However, as you agree, some women do have money etc and in the rare situation men get the children, men are the "gold diggas" but yep.You are right, it's rare. You could have let the statement slide and no one would have batted an eye lid.

Let's move on

NI24 · 29-04-2015 9:21am

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The original poster who said "husband " was trying to prevent a situation where angry women come on here and moan about being attacked or seen as the baddie.

However, as you agree, some women do have money etc and in the rare situation men get the children, men are the "gold diggas" but yep.You are right, it's rare. You could have let the statement slide and no one would have batted an eye lid.

Let's move on

No, I won't move on, because you clearly don't get it. I know the poster was trying to prevent a situation, and I'm saying, it's not working. Just because a person follows some sexist crap like "hoebag of a wife" with some delayed "and husbands!!!" does not make it any less sexist. You get what I'm sayin'? I'm not going to let stuff like this slide just because I'm outnumbered by misogynists. If I have to pick off every sexist post I read, I'm going to do it. The other posters in here were able to state their cases without resorting to it, so why can't he/she?

Lt J.R. Bell · 29-04-2015 9:40am

NI24 wrote: »

No, I won't move on, because you clearly don't get it. I know the poster was trying to prevent a situation, and I'm saying, it's not working. Just because a person follows some sexist crap like "hoebag of a wife" with some delayed "and husbands!!!" does not make it any less sexist. You get what I'm sayin'? I'm not going to let stuff like this slide just because I'm outnumbered by misogynists. If I have to pick off every sexist post I read, I'm going to do it. The other posters in here were able to state their cases without resorting to it, so why can't he/she?

Never called your male friend a ho? (after being called, a total legend)

As I said earlier, there is a strong douse of tongue in cheek with a tinge of words one would hear in those hippy hop /wap tunes Going on.

What situation, you started it, few were going to bat an eyelid over the statement bar your good self

Why so serious?

Move on

NI24 · 29-04-2015 9:50am

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Never called your male friend a ho? (after being called, a total legend)

As I said earlier, there is a strong douse of tongue in cheek with a tinge of words one would hear in those hippy hop /wap tunes Going on.

What situation, you started it, few were going to bat an eyelid over the statement bar your good self

Why so serious?

Move on

Or you can admit I'm right and you can move on. And I absolutely agree most posters in here wouldn't bat an eyelid. And you're one to talk about a situation. I wasn't even replying to your post, but you felt the need to butt in for some reason, with punctuation and grammar most rappers would find hard to decipher.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think the poster who stated that as long as both parties agree to it, what's the harm? It's just getting both parties to agree that seems to be the problem.

Lt J.R. Bell · 29-04-2015 10:00am

NI24 wrote: »

Or you can admit I'm right and you can move on. And I absolutely agree most posters in here wouldn't bat an eyelid. And you're one to talk about a situation. I wasn't even replying to your post, but you felt the need to butt in for some reason, with punctuation and grammar most rappers would find hard to decipher.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think the poster who stated that as long as both parties agree to it, what's the harm? It's just getting both parties to agree that seems to be the problem.

Ah, ye, you are right (I already agreed with you on that just above), but there wasn't a need to get upity about it. Like I already said, alot of what is said is tongue in cheek in the spirit of the title.

Felt the need to butt in to tell you to cop on. You refused and kept going. This is a public discussion form. Don't be surprised if others "butt" into your deep meaningful discussions with other posters.

What can I say, I have my own skool of hippidity hop, yo. I'm unique y'all. Head of me time.you just a hate-ah.James Joyce didn't tolerate fools who cried about the lack of punucatuons in Ulysses. Word

So you never called your male friend a ho?

Back to the topic, on a more serious level, yes,no way will both parties agree to it, if there was not some incentiment for the weaker party.No lawyer would advice the weaker party to consent to it. As I already said, earlier , people are under the wrong idea that pre nups means that the weaker party gets nothing. A good example is Tom Cruise and what's her face. She got x amount of money for every year married.

For an ordinary farmer, that might still mean having to sell some land to meet the deal. As already stated by me, it is possible , especially when there are children, that a pre nup could be almost redundant after years of marriage

Potatoeman · 29-04-2015 10:24am

NI24 wrote: »

No, I won't move on, because you clearly don't get it. I know the poster was trying to prevent a situation, and I'm saying, it's not working. Just because a person follows some sexist crap like "hoebag of a wife" with some delayed "and husbands!!!" does not make it any less sexist. You get what I'm sayin'? I'm not going to let stuff like this slide just because I'm outnumbered by misogynists. If I have to pick off every sexist post I read, I'm going to do it. The other posters in here were able to state their cases without resorting to it, so why can't he/she?

Youre pretty happy to throw around words like misogynist for someone that gets offended so easily.

Why is this an issue that primarily impacts men, well I think you have to look at hypergamy (the action of marrying a person of superior caste or class) and why this is something that women do more than men but thats a whole other thread.

The Corinthian · 29-04-2015 11:06am

Potatoeman wrote: »

Why is this an issue that primarily impacts men, well I think you have to look at hypergamy (the action of marrying a person of superior caste or class) and why this is something that women do more than men but thats a whole other thread.

Well, it's not solely an issue that negatively impacts men, although one would need to be an outright idiot or liar to claim that it did not overwhelmingly do so.

I knew an English couple who were part of the expat community here a few years back. She had a high-flying job in the pharma industry, he was a house-husband. He'd been a journalist previously, but gave it up to follow her and concentrate on her, ultimately financially more successful, career. She would make comments about him doing nothing, and it was clear that this arrangement was a point of friction between them.

About two years ago, she took a job in Belgium, they moved and then about a year later news arrived that they'd split.

Who was the good guy, who was the bad or if anyone was either I'll not speculate on. I've subsiquently spoken to both and can see both merit and smell a certain element of BS in both their accounts. However, she is the one paying out to him, in this case - so it can work both ways, even though this tends to be the exception rather than the rule.

So, for me, it's not ultimately a question of gender, but entitlement. Should one spouse be compensated for giving up their career in favour of the other spouse's career? Should they be compensated for giving up their career if they hated it and were looking for any opportunity to do so? Or should the be compensated for giving up a career that would never have afforded them the lifestyle that they got through their spouse's? Does it even make sense to financially support a spouse, who is no longer a spouse based upon social principles that stopped being relevant decades ago?

In the end it is this that we should be discussing, not the gender of who's being screwed over.

SeanW · 29-04-2015 2:12pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

It may be a case no one trusts anyone, they just either trust or mistrust their own perceptions of the other.

One of the dimenas of marriage is that it promises certainty, or at least the illusion of certainty, and then when you bring in pre nups and just in cases then you compromise that promise and the illusions is carries with it.

Which would be great if:

No-one ever lied and schemed.
Feelings never changed, love never turned to hate.
Courts were always fair and unbiased.

Potatoeman · 29-04-2015 4:20pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, it's not solely an issue that negatively impacts men, although one would need to be an outright idiot or liar to claim that it did not overwhelmingly do so.

I knew an English couple who were part of the expat community here a few years back. She had a high-flying job in the pharma industry, he was a house-husband. He'd been a journalist previously, but gave it up to follow her and concentrate on her, ultimately financially more successful, career. She would make comments about him doing nothing, and it was clear that this arrangement was a point of friction between them.

About two years ago, she took a job in Belgium, they moved and then about a year later news arrived that they'd split.

Who was the good guy, who was the bad or if anyone was either I'll not speculate on. I've subsiquently spoken to both and can see both merit and smell a certain element of BS in both their accounts. However, she is the one paying out to him, in this case - so it can work both ways, even though this tends to be the exception rather than the rule.

So, for me, it's not ultimately a question of gender, but entitlement. Should one spouse be compensated for giving up their career in favour of the other spouse's career? Should they be compensated for giving up their career if they hated it and were looking for any opportunity to do so? Or should the be compensated for giving up a career that would never have afforded them the lifestyle that they got through their spouse's? Does it even make sense to financially support a spouse, who is no longer a spouse based upon social principles that stopped being relevant decades ago?

In the end it is this that we should be discussing, not the gender of who's being screwed over.

I dont know all the specifics of that situation but he chose to give up his job. They could have both worked and used childcare. This would have left them both in a better positation. The loss of earnings needs to be looked at from both sides too. the person that stays at home gets to spend more time with the child and gets more personal time especially when the kid goes to school and if both parents are working well paid jobs they would both be financially better off before and after.

I dont really buy into the loss of earnings, if you are well paid then you should use childcare and if you want to be paid like a job then its half of whatever the childcare cost would be and you still have to pay half of all child costs and household bills. If you were working this is what both would be paying evenly.

The Corinthian · 29-04-2015 5:32pm

Potatoeman wrote: »

I dont know all the specifics of that situation but he chose to give up his job. They could have both worked and used childcare. This would have left them both in a better positation.

They moved to another country, Switzerland, for the opportunity she got. He was a journalist, so the opportunities for him in a non-English speaking country were slim. So what you suggest was not realistically possible.

Having said that, he could have gotten a different job (especially as they had no children) anyway. Also, what quality of career he gave up, or if he was even sorry to have to give it up, is another question. Certainly that she was the breadwinner was not disputed, as this was cited as the principle reason that they decided to concentrate on her and not his career, so it's safe to presume that whatever career he did have, it would not have afforded him the same lifestyle as through his wife.

What I'm saying is that it is not black and white. I recognize that sometimes spouses make such sacrifices or contributions and if the marriage later fails, they are due recompense. However, the problem is that this is not how the system works.

Marriage is still seen as a social and financial joining of two people into a family unit and contribution of sacrifice is simply a mitigating factor, not the reason that such entitlements exist in the first place. A spouse with no career, who contributed nothing in the course of the marriage is still entitled to be supported and to a healthy cut of the assets, many of which will have predated the union. Essentially a parasitic relationship, sanctioned and enforced by the state.

All seemingly based upon the principle of marriage is for life. Except it's not anymore. And this is why marriage and divorce seriously need to be overhauled.

Potatoeman · 29-04-2015 8:06pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

They moved to another country, Switzerland, for the opportunity she got. He was a journalist, so the opportunities for him in a non-English speaking country were slim. So what you suggest was not realistically possible.

Having said that, he could have gotten a different job (especially as they had no children) anyway. Also, what quality of career he gave up, or if he was even sorry to have to give it up, is another question. Certainly that she was the breadwinner was not disputed, as this was cited as the principle reason that they decided to concentrate on her and not his career, so it's safe to presume that whatever career he did have, it would not have afforded him the same lifestyle as through his wife.

What I'm saying is that it is not black and white. I recognize that sometimes spouses make such sacrifices or contributions and if the marriage later fails, they are due recompense. However, the problem is that this is not how the system works.

Marriage is still seen as a social and financial joining of two people into a family unit and contribution of sacrifice is simply a mitigating factor, not the reason that such entitlements exist in the first place. A spouse with no career, who contributed nothing in the course of the marriage is still entitled to be supported and to a healthy cut of the assets, many of which will have predated the union. Essentially a parasitic relationship, sanctioned and enforced by the state.

All seemingly based upon the principle of marriage is for life. Except it's not anymore. And this is why marriage and divorce seriously need to be overhauled.

I have a friend that's stay at home dad, which was fine until the kids started to get older. Being the primary carer means the kids look for him first and want to share more with him. When they start to talk and express their preferences it can be hard for the mother.

The other thing is that she frequently redoes household chores because they were not done right which causes friction as both parties are not happy.

NI24 · 29-04-2015 10:59pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

A spouse with no career, who contributed nothing in the course of the marriage is still entitled to be supported and to a healthy cut of the assets, many of which will have predated the union. Essentially a parasitic relationship, sanctioned and enforced by the state.

All seemingly based upon the principle of marriage is for life. Except it's not anymore. And this is why marriage and divorce seriously need to be overhauled.

But if a spouse has given up a career, no matter how much they wanted to, or how much it was worth, what makes you think they shouldn't be compensated, whether through a pre-nup or not? That person has essentially stopped working for a number of years and that is a huge detriment to their working lives. Especially in the case of women and big families, when a woman has to spend a significant portion of her twenties and thirties (and maybe even late teens) birthing and raising children. Re-entering the work force with a huge time gap on your resume is like re-entering the work force as an ex-convict. Unless you're just talking about a childless union, and in that case, no, a person should not be entitled to compensation after marriage. But are you really sure the reason courts just split things in half despite who contributed what is because of what marriage used to signify, or because it's what's easier?

zeffabelli · 29-04-2015 11:05pm

NI24 wrote: »

But if a spouse has given up a career, no matter how much they wanted to, or how much it was worth, what makes you think they shouldn't be compensated, whether through a pre-nup or not? That person has essentially stopped working for a number of years and that is a huge detriment to their working lives. Especially in the case of women and big families, when a woman has to spend a significant portion of her twenties and thirties (and maybe even late teens) birthing and raising children. Re-entering the work force with a huge time gap on your resume is like re-entering the work force as an ex-convict. Unless you're just talking about a childless union, and in that case, no, a person should not be entitled to compensation after marriage. But are you really sure the reason courts just split things in half despite who contributed what is because of what marriage used to signify, or because it's what's easier?

Actually, if we separate this from marriage, and look at it in terms of children, within or without of a marriage, surely the party who is taking on the bulk of the childcare is taking a career hit, and there should be some compensation for that, as that childcare provision directly inflates and supports teh career possibilities of the person who has minimal or no childcare duties.

If we don't separate it from marriage, there are careers in which the spouse, usually the wife, has a direct role in that persons career. Surely, no one would expect Mrs. Obama not to get some alimony for all her work that she did with and for her dearly beloved in the case of a divorce.

Wompa1 · 29-04-2015 11:25pm

NI24 wrote: »

But if a spouse has given up a career, no matter how much they wanted to, or how much it was worth, what makes you think they shouldn't be compensated, whether through a pre-nup or not? That person has essentially stopped working for a number of years and that is a huge detriment to their working lives. Especially in the case of women and big families, when a woman has to spend a significant portion of her twenties and thirties (and maybe even late teens) birthing and raising children. Re-entering the work force with a huge time gap on your resume is like re-entering the work force as an ex-convict. Unless you're just talking about a childless union, and in that case, no, a person should not be entitled to compensation after marriage. But are you really sure the reason courts just split things in half despite who contributed what is because of what marriage used to signify, or because it's what's easier?

But that person would have made the choice to do that.

zeffabelli · 29-04-2015 11:29pm

Wompa1 wrote: »

But that person would have made the choice to do that.

And the other person would have also made the choice NOT to do that.

Wompa1 · 29-04-2015 11:35pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

And the other person would have also made the choice NOT to do that.

I've been talking to my Fiance about having children. She loves her job, I loathe my job. I've said, I'd gladly quit to get the kids through their early years. It's not going to happen. I make much more than her. If we had to survive off her pay alone, we'd be on the breadline.

I have choice. Work or don't. But it's a kin to, support your family the best that you can or be selfish. It's not a choice, I'd make for my own betterment. I don't want to work, but I'll do it for my family. If my wife wants to work, that will be up to her. She claims she doesn't want to trust babysitters or child carers...so it's being setup for her staying with the kids for the first few years, or living by our parents...which may hurt us more financially anyways...

Point being, it's usually not down to the person who works, refusing to stop working. They either do what makes the most sense financially or the mother does it out of a feeling of maternal instinct (I guess). Either way, why is that on the other parent to pay up?

zeffabelli · 29-04-2015 11:44pm

Wompa1 wrote: »

I've been talking to my Fiance about having children. She loves her job, I loathe my job. I've said, I'd gladly quit to get the kids through their early years. It's not going to happen. I make much more than her. If we had to survive off her pay alone, we'd be on the breadline.

I have choice. Work or don't. But it's a kin to, support your family the best that you can or be selfish. It's not a choice, I'd make for my own betterment. I don't want to work, but I'll do it for my family. If my wife wants to work, that will be up to her. She claims she doesn't want to trust babysitters or child carers...so it's being setup for her staying with the kids for the first few years, or living by our parents...which may hurt us more financially anyways...

Point being, it's usually not down to the person who works, refusing to stop working. They either do what makes the most sense financially or the mother does it out of a feeling of maternal instinct (I guess). Either way, why is that on the other parent to pay up?

Well, look at it this way.

Before school age, you are looking at E900 a month childcare. That doesn't even include weekends, nights, or some of the holidays.

Once school starts, you are looking at E6 an hour minimum. So calculate that hour to hour. You are both working, have to be in by 9, school starts at 9, so you will have to pay someone to bring your child to school. School ends at 2:30. You will have to pay someone to pick them up, feed them, do homework etc. You might get home at 7, and then they go to bed at 8:30 or so.

That is when school is in session.

Then you have to pay extra for sitters at the weekend and fulltime during school breaks and summers.

That does not include evenings and weekends. Where you have to pay for more childcare.

If you accounted for all teh childcare, hour for hour,, nights, weekends, every single hour, and split if by two.... what would be cheaper?

That is per child, imagine if you have 2 or 3 of them.

In the first few years of their life kids get sick. You have to stay home. Schools call these random days off...you have to stay home...school calls to take your kid home...he had an accident...

ceadaoin. · 29-04-2015 11:54pm

Wompa1 wrote: »

I've been talking to my Fiance about having children. She loves her job, I loathe my job. I've said, I'd gladly quit to get the kids through their early years. It's not going to happen. I make much more than her. If we had to survive off her pay alone, we'd be on the breadline.

I have choice. Work or don't. But it's a kin to, support your family the best that you can or be selfish. It's not a choice, I'd make for my own betterment. I don't want to work, but I'll do it for my family. If my wife wants to work, that will be up to her. She claims she doesn't want to trust babysitters or child carers...so it's being setup for her staying with the kids for the first few years, or living by our parents...which may hurt us more financially anyways...

Point being, it's usually not down to the person who works, refusing to stop working. They either do what makes the most sense financially or the mother does it out of a feeling of maternal instinct (I guess). Either way, why is that on the other parent to pay up?

If both parents choose to stay at work then the childcare responsibility tends to be split more equally. So both parents would have to take time off if the kids were sick or leave early to pick them up, no overtime etc. All that can be detrimental to a career. Often, if one parent stays home then the other parent has the benefit of their career being able to advance without the setbacks that having kids can cause so their progression has been enabled by the other parents career taking a back seat. Not to mention all the money saved on childcare thanks to someone always being at home.

Potatoeman · 30-04-2015 12:36am

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If both parents choose to stay at work then the childcare responsibility tends to be split more equally. So both parents would have to take time off if the kids were sick or leave early to pick them up, no overtime etc. All that can be detrimental to a career. Often, if one parent stays home then the other parent has the benefit of their career being able to advance without the setbacks that having kids can cause so their progression has been enabled by the other parents career taking a back seat. Not to mention all the money saved on childcare thanks to someone always being at home.

The parent that works get to miss out on quality time with their family though and any overtime is more time away from the family not to mention having to cover all the bills.

The Corinthian · 30-04-2015 6:13am

Potatoeman wrote: »

I have a friend that's stay at home dad, which was fine until the kids started to get older. Being the primary carer means the kids look for him first and want to share more with him. When they start to talk and express their preferences it can be hard for the mother.

The other thing is that she frequently redoes household chores because they were not done right which causes friction as both parties are not happy.

Well there we're getting into the whole realm of chauvinist prejudice. Where someone presumes that it is a woman's role to do X and a man's to do Y. That she feels obliged to redo his housework because it's 'not right' is the same social programming that causes men to resent the women they're with if they earn more than them.

NI24 wrote: »

But if a spouse has given up a career, no matter how much they wanted to, or how much it was worth, what makes you think they shouldn't be compensated, whether through a pre-nup or not?

Sure, they should, taking into account the opportunity cost of that sacrifice. But if he or she was significantly better off giving up their career and living off someone else, then there is no opportunity cost for their choice - after all, that's what compensation is - the value of something lost.

That person has essentially stopped working for a number of years and that is a huge detriment to their working lives.

Arguable. A giving up a dead-end, 'paying the bills', job on 25k per year to be supported by someone on 80k is not exactly losing out; quite the opposite. Assuming you can even call it a career - some are unemployed, or remain students, almost to the point of marriage. What have they lost?

Not everyone has a real career. Lots are just working to pay the bills until the day they can get someone else to do so for them.

Especially in the case of women and big families, when a woman has to spend a significant portion of her twenties and thirties (and maybe even late teens) birthing and raising children. Re-entering the work force with a huge time gap on your resume is like re-entering the work force as an ex-convict.

Indeed, and the lifestyle that the marriage afforded that their 'career' would never have paid for? Should they not be paying compensation to the spouse who paid for this?

Spouse A on 25k p.a. puts their 'career' in an entry level job on 'hold' so as to be supported by spouse B on 85k p.a. - excuse me while I shed a tear for their sacrifice.

But are you really sure the reason courts just split things in half despite who contributed what is because of what marriage used to signify, or because it's what's easier?

The split is because of a tradition based upon the social order of fifty or 100 years ago, where a woman could not work at all and marriage was for life. It's got nothing to do with compensation as it stands.

If you ain't no punk holler "we want pre-nup!"

Comments