Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1235»

Comments

  • #202
    NI24
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    To answer all these questions, what a person gives up when they become a stay-at-home "whatever" is career trajectory. Or even job trajectory. Even minimum wage workers can't just re-enter the workforce with a huge time gap. And don't judges take these things into account?

    Let's say, for example, that a woman is a student working a part-time job, but she decides she wants to become a mother. She knows she has a limited time in which to do so, and that being pregnant while going to school and working is a huge physical burden. So she decides to devote full-time to carrying, birthing, and raising the child/children. You're telling me that because she didn't have a high-flying career beforehand, then supposedly she hasn't given up educational/career aspirations and is undeserving of financial compensation? I have to disagree wholeheartedly.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    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.
    Where did I say that people are deserving of sympathy in these cases? I am simply pointing out that a person who takes time out from a job/career deserves compensation.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    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.
    What makes you say that? It has nothing to do with compensation, according to you.

    And whether or not it is a choice on the part of the woman is irrelevant-- after all, if the husband chooses to support his wife, is that not also a choice?


  • #203
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    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.

    With two people working, both miss out on their family and still have huge childcare costs.

    I have a relative who makes a phemonenal amount of money, he is top of his league in his profession. It has meant the family have to relocate. The children are gown now though and left the nest.

    His wife is the finest women you would ever meet, a professional in her own right also, but has on several occassions had to leave her jobs to relocate for the sake of his career.

    If they divorce, without even a second thought I would think she would deserve a whole lot of that income and property earned during the course of the marriage.


  • #204
    NI24
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    I still don't understand how pre-nups can account for all the changes that can go on during the course of a marriage. There's only so many clauses to include in one.

    As it stands, I have a feeling that people (men) can demand pre-nups all they want, it doesn't mean women will submit to them. And they can go on as many "marriage strikes" (which seems to be an internet myth) as they want, but all that's going to happen is that women are going to go on "sex strikes".

    At the end of the day, when marriages fail, men still have a huge upper hand-- they can start over with a new family, they can even rebuild wealth if they have to. When a woman re-enters both the working world and the dating world she has two strikes against her (assuming she quit working during the marriage). I have a sneaking suspicion this is why women are heavily compensated during divorce.


  • #205
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    Whereas if neither spouse gives up their career the lesser earner is working solely to pay for childcare meaning that they are still 'living off of' their higher-earning spouse while at the same time neither of them get to spend proper time with their children.


  • #206
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    kylith wrote: »
    Whereas if neither spouse gives up their career the lesser earner is working solely to pay for childcare meaning that they are still 'living off of' their higher-earning spouse while at the same time neither of them get to spend proper time with their children.

    Not only that but the higher earner, likely due to professional demands, relies upon the time of the lesser earner to cover the childcare at the weekends, nights, holidays etc. OR that call from school that says "Johnny has the sniffles come get him. Johnny misbehaved in class, can we meet at 2pm? OR school is closed next Thursday due to staff meetings. Johnny needs surgery."

    So in effect, the higher earner is the parasite if we stick to this reductive paradigm of family.


  • #207
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,364 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    NI24 wrote: »
    I still don't understand how pre-nups can account for all the changes that can go on during the course of a marriage. There's only so many clauses to include in one.

    As it stands, I have ea feeling that people (men) can demand pre-nups all they want, it doesn't mean women will submit to them. And they can go on as many "marriage strikes" (which seems to be an internet myth) as they want, but all that's going to happen is that women are going to go on "sex strikes".

    At the end of the day, when marriages fail, men still have a huge upper hand-- they can start over with a new family, they can even rebuild wealth if they have to. When a woman re-enters both the working world and the dating world she has two strikes against her (assuming she quit working during the marriage). I have a sneaking suspicion this is why women are heavily compensated during divorce.

    The marriage strike is a result of many factors and also links into the increase of men dropping out of society and not just marriage. Its more of a US thing though.

    A sex strike only works if a sizable portion of women do it. I can't link it now but look at the econonics of sex by the Austin institute that looks at this (there is a short youtube video too).

    As for the disadvantage after a breakup there are a number of factors that depend on many things. The first is custody and gettiing primary custody means you get more time with the child but any future partner will have to accept all that comes with this. The father can find himself in a very bad place especially if he is not well paid so its not all black and white.


  • #208
    NI24
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    The marriage strike is a result of many factors and also links into the increase of men dropping out of society and not just marriage. Its more of a US thing though.

    You're not understanding what I'm saying; someone mentioned how men are dropping out of marriage and that divorce and how men fare in divorce is one of the reasons--and I'm saying they can drop out of marriage all they want, but they don't have ultimate control. But that's only if a "marriage strike" is actually taking place, which I highly doubt. It's never been proven empirically, it only seems to be internet talk. So it's not a "US thing"-- it's an imaginary thing. The lower rates of marriage could be due to any number of things, not the least of which is that men have been able to access sex more easily, so commitment tends to be on the back burner. And before anyone gets offended, yes I know men are interested in commitment, too, but, as a general rule, they are not as much as women.
    Potatoeman wrote: »
    As for the disadvantage after a breakup there are a number of factors that depend on many things. The first is custody and gettiing primary custody means you get more time with the child but any future partner will have to accept all that comes with this. The father can find himself in a very bad place especially if he is not well paid so its not all black and white.

    And so can a woman. But unlike men, they don't have all the time in the world to start a new family, so, at the end of the day, women are not made whole from divorce.

    So, like I said before, while pre-nups may or may not increase, I strongly suspect that "7 in 10 farmers" will not get their wishes granted, rightly or wrongly.


  • #209
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    kylith wrote: »
    Whereas if neither spouse gives up their career the lesser earner is working solely to pay for childcare meaning that they are still 'living off of' their higher-earning spouse while at the same time neither of them get to spend proper time with their children.
    Who mentioned children to begin with? How does your response relate at all to what I posted? Bah, straw man.


  • #210
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,364 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    NI24 wrote: »
    You're not understanding what I'm saying; someone mentioned how men are dropping out of marriage and that divorce and how men fare in divorce is one of the reasons--and I'm saying they can drop out of marriage all they want, but they don't have ultimate control. But that's only if a "marriage strike" is actually taking place, which I highly doubt. It's never been proven empirically, it only seems to be internet talk. So it's not a "US thing"-- it's an imaginary thing. The lower rates of marriage could be due to any number of things, not the least of which is that men have been able to access sex more easily, so commitment tends to be on the back burner. And before anyone gets offended, yes I know men are interested in commitment, too, but, as a general rule, they are not as much as women.



    And so can a woman. But unlike men, they don't have all the time in the world to start a new family, so, at the end of the day, women are not made whole from divorce.

    So, like I said before, while pre-nups may or may not increase, I strongly suspect that "7 in 10 farmers" will not get their wishes granted, rightly or wrongly.

    I used the term marriage strike because you did. Honestly I don't know whats causing it but there is a drop in marriages over there. You seem to have made your mind up because you dont like it though.

    As for the 'made whole' arguement there are too many factors to say that its better for men. I dont think a man in a low paid job struggling to pay child support and living in a bedsit is 'made whole'.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement