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

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

123457»

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,142 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    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.


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


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,633 ✭✭✭SeanW


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,142 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    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.


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


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,142 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    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?


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


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,155 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    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.


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


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,155 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    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?


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


    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...


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,032 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,142 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    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.


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


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    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.
    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 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?


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    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.


  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,142 ✭✭✭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.


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,142 ✭✭✭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