Off Topic

When SO takes half of you

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 16th, 2019 6:02 pm
Member
Jun 11, 2006
275 posts
188 upvotes
bombdiggity wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 2:46 pm
Regardless of the reason(s) he doesn't, or whether or not people you know want to stay at home or not, is it your view that staying at home is not like a vacation? For people who don't think so, I'm curious to know what professions they think are easier than pretty much vacuuming, cleaning, maybe making food (the working spouse also tends to share this task once off work as well as their own tasks), before the kids get off school at like 3:30 pm.

People talking about this like it's so incredibly difficult and thankless are no different than the people complaining about 20%-25% tips on top of minimum wage in the food industry while everybody else gets 0% for harder jobs. "Bringing up children (revised version of "being a mom is") is the hardest job in the world" shouldn't have been taken literally.
I think there is plenty of value in staying at home, especially when the children are young, but I don't think it is a vacation. Vacation to me means you are relaxing, it's pleasurable and not work. If you have stayed at home with young children, it is not usually that.
Deal Addict
Mar 5, 2006
1313 posts
474 upvotes
Toronto
stack1 wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 3:17 pm
I think there is plenty of value in staying at home, especially when the children are young, but I don't think it is a vacation. Vacation to me means you are relaxing, it's pleasurable and not work. If you have stayed at home with young children, it is not usually that.
To add to that vacation with kids isn't a vacation at all. : P
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jul 2, 2008
1804 posts
73 upvotes
Toronto
Piro21 wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 1:43 pm

This view that it's always the woman 'sacrificing her life' for her husband is so tired and played out. What about women who don't sacrifice? The ones that want to just stay home, not work, have kids, and just need a man to pay for it all. What are they sacrificing? If a woman just wants an easy life while someone else spends all day at some soul-crushing job where they have to constantly work themselves to the bone and rarely get to see their kids, their friends, and their families. does she deserve money for that? Why should someone with that drive be entitled to half of the assets of the person who made the real sacrifices?

Can someone pay me to take a 20-year vacation where all I have to do is spend time with my kids, do the household chores I did when I lived alone anyway, and keep the person I love happy? I'd take that in a heartbeat. Why does this view that women have no agency and don't want anything but to go to work and spend their lives at a 9-to-5 job persist? Staying at home and raising kids isn't always a 'sacrifice', and I'm willing to bet a lot of the men with wives making this 'sacrifice' only had kids because their wives wanted them.
Piro21 wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 2:38 pm
There it is again. Anecdotal evidence combined with the assumption that all men are traditional, all women are egalitarian, and as a result all relationships are a transitional combination of these two where the woman is faced with the burden of both a full time job and all of the housework while the man ****s off to do whatever he wants. This is an archaic worldview that's not nearly as common as you think it is. Traditional women still exist in large numbers, there are more egalitarian men now than ever, and people's goals when getting together and the way their marriages operate are not as rigid as they used to be.

And why don't I stay home? Simple, a straight man who wants to be a house husband faces tremendous social stigma, is seeing as a freeloading mooch, and that lack of social standing is corrosive to the relationship he has with his wife and will result in his losing custody of his kids in a divorce hearing where the government doesn't recognize stay-at-home dads as anything other than lazy jobless slackers.
Whiny men who think that only women can stay at home are tired and played out. I think you need to get into the modern era. I know a lot of men who are house husbands. In the majority of couples I know, the female actually makes more than the male, myself included. You complain about the woman not having any agency, how about the guy? It takes TWO to tango. You're right, some women WANT to stay home and be a mother. Just like some men WANT a partner who stays at home and looks after the kids. Just be aware of the true cost of that. If you don't want that kind of arrangement, don't marry someone who wants that. No one is forcing you to marry that woman.

Your comments are angry against women and make it seem like they're out to get the guy and control him, again, lack of agency. Not to mention blaming women for the bad life choices the guy made. If you allow someone else to control your life, that is YOUR problem. Having kids is a very important choice and one that should not be made lightly. If you ONLY have kids because your wife wanted you to, you need to take a hard look at yourself and your life choices. If you work a soul-sucking job, that's not your wife's fault, that's your own. Go find another job.

If you want to become a house husband, go for it. Nothing is stopping you from doing so except your own fear of "social stigma" (because for some reason that is important in making big life choices). Don't get angry because you're jealous that other people can get that and you cannot. And I'm not sure where you are getting your information from with respect to a "divorce hearing" and the government not recognizing stay-at-home dads. I work in the legal profession and have seen firsthand many cases where the house husband was granted custody of the kids and the wife had to pay child and spousal support. It happens more often than you think. The only reason you've seen it the other way around so much is because traditionally, women have stayed home and men made more money. These social norms are changing my friend and you will see the balance shift. Even for me right now, I do 100% of the housework and I work a full-time job. My husband works too. However, if we were to divorce, I'd likely have to pay him spousal support. You don't see me raging against ALL men for that. I made a conscious decision and if we end up divorcing, that will be the consequence I will have to accept.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
17508 posts
2862 upvotes
Toronto
stack1 wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 3:17 pm
I think there is plenty of value in staying at home, especially when the children are young, but I don't think it is a vacation. Vacation to me means you are relaxing, it's pleasurable and not work. If you have stayed at home with young children, it is not usually that.
They're your children that you chose to have. That's parenthood, and if you choose to have kids you have to do it whether or not you're employed. Working people with kids on vacation don't get to just leave their kids behind. Complaining about basic responsibilities in life like doing your housework, raising your kids, keeping your partner happy, etc makes about as much sense as complaining about having to feed and wash yourself every day. Everyone (male and female) has to do those things, job outside the house or not. Having no other responsibilities on top of those is considered a vacation.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
17508 posts
2862 upvotes
Toronto
EbonyRose wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 3:21 pm
Whiny men who think that only women can stay at home are tired and played out. I think you need to get into the modern era. I know a lot of men who are house husbands. In the majority of couples I know, the female actually makes more than the male, myself included. You complain about the woman not having any agency, how about the guy? It takes TWO to tango. You're right, some women WANT to stay home and be a mother. Just like some men WANT a partner who stays at home and looks after the kids. Just be aware of the true cost of that. If you don't want that kind of arrangement, don't marry someone who wants that. No one is forcing you to marry that woman.

Your comments are angry against women and make it seem like they're out to get the guy and control him, again, lack of agency. Not to mention blaming women for the bad life choices the guy made. If you allow someone else to control your life, that is YOUR problem. Having kids is a very important choice and one that should not be made lightly. If you ONLY have kids because your wife wanted you to, you need to take a hard look at yourself and your life choices. If you work a soul-sucking job, that's not your wife's fault, that's your own. Go find another job.

If you want to become a house husband, go for it. Nothing is stopping you from doing so except your own fear of "social stigma" (because for some reason that is important in making big life choices). Don't get angry because you're jealous that other people can get that and you cannot. And I'm not sure where you are getting your information from with respect to a "divorce hearing" and the government not recognizing stay-at-home dads. I work in the legal profession and have seen firsthand many cases where the house husband was granted custody of the kids and the wife had to pay child and spousal support. It happens more often than you think. The only reason you've seen it the other way around so much is because traditionally, women have stayed home and men made more money. These social norms are changing my friend and you will see the balance shift. Even for me right now, I do 100% of the housework and I work a full-time job. My husband works too. However, if we were to divorce, I'd likely have to pay him spousal support. You don't see me raging against ALL men for that. I made a conscious decision and if we end up divorcing, that will be the consequence I will have to accept.
And just like that I'm painted as a rage-filled misogynist for pointing out the flaws in a system that's designed to protect women from traditional controlling patriarchal men and little else. It turns out any man getting divorced from a traditional woman who may exploit him is just not enlightened and progressive enough to have found a driven career woman who's above doing such things, and the shame of him choosing to marry a traditional woman who wanted nothing but children and a provider for a husband must haunt him for the rest of his life. He has so much agency that he should have seen the fact that the system will treat him unfairly in the case of a divorce and avoided that completely by not getting married in the first place. He's also at fault for being among the majority of people in this country that work for money and not enjoyment.

This is just shaming men and traditional women. Either the man is at fault for marrying down to a woman who wants a traditional role and taking a leap of faith to make her happy by having kids, or he's at fault by not being brave enough to face the very real consequences of being a stay-at-home dad. Either way he alone is at fault for being anything other than 100% progressive and willing to either encourage a traditional woman's choice to be a stay-at-home mom or force his wife to work while he stays home. The plumber who gets into a car crash and has his wife leave him because he's unable to work anymore should know he deserved it for not making better choices about a mate with his male privilege or encouraging his wife to go out and work when she didn't want to.

How does a system that's supposed to cover everyone equally work when those making the arguments and setting the precedent within it hold this mindset? You may think things have changed, but your arguments here really show how they haven't. Men are still seen as the ones with all the cards, who have to make all the choices, and who must face all of the consequences. Women don't really seem to be considered active participants unless they're in a similar position to you where they're the one choosing to work and are the higher earner, and even then the man's choices are really the one being scrutinized and judged. I don't know the clientele you serve or what their educational and economic status is, but a lot of cases I see among the working class population tends to follow a very defined pattern.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Member
Jun 11, 2006
275 posts
188 upvotes
Piro21 wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 3:23 pm
They're your children that you chose to have. That's parenthood, and if you choose to have kids you have to do it whether or not you're employed. Working people with kids on vacation don't get to just leave their kids behind. Complaining about basic responsibilities in life like doing your housework, raising your kids, keeping your partner happy, etc makes about as much sense as complaining about having to feed and wash yourself every day. Everyone (male and female) has to do those things, job outside the house or not. Having no other responsibilities on top of those is considered a vacation.
Where did I complain about the work and sacrifice that children entail?, I only acknowledge that it does take sacrifice and effort and yes, I think this should be factor when considering divorce settlements.

My in-laws divorced later in life (when the youngest went off to university), My mother in law stayed home until the kids were in middle school and worked in a decent job after that even after the divorce. From what I know, she didn't fight for a portion of my father in law's pension during the divorce. However, her own pension is impacted due the fact that she worked less years. Now, both are retired, but he is financially much more stable.

I think she got the short end of the stick. I don't think she should be in this position just because she was the one to stay home with the kids, but that's what happened.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
17508 posts
2862 upvotes
Toronto
stack1 wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 4:37 pm
Where did I complain about the work and sacrifice that children entail?, I only acknowledge that it does take sacrifice and effort and yes, I think this should be factor when considering divorce settlements.

My in-laws divorced later in life (when the youngest went off to university), My mother in law stayed home until the kids were in middle school and worked in a decent job after that even after the divorce. From what I know, she didn't fight for a portion of my father in law's pension during the divorce. However, her own pension is impacted due the fact that she worked less years. Now, both are retired, but he is financially much more stable.

I think she got the short end of the stick. I don't think she should be in this position just because she was the one to stay home with the kids, but that's what happened.
Maybe that came off as more combative than I intended, but I was just trying to say a vacation isn't always something done for pure enjoyment. It's just a break from a day job. The rest of your responsibilities are always still there.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Addict
Feb 9, 2013
1739 posts
545 upvotes
Mississauga
MacKenzie had her own career going on, too. She is a novelist. And Jeff was supportive of this. When she needs to write, she retreats to her own small apartment, where she writes until it’s time to pick the kids up from school. MacKenzie told Vogue that Jeff was her “best reader.”
He’d often drop other plans to read and carefully review manuscripts of her first novel, “The Testing of Luther Albright.” For MacKenzie’s second novel, “Traps,” she decided to not share her work with Jeff until she was finished.
Clearly Jeff supported her in her career accomplishments as well. So it's only fair if she gets half of Jeff's net worth, that Mackenzie's net worth should also be halfed as well.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 3, 2006
4052 posts
921 upvotes
jdu0ng wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 4:54 pm
Clearly Jeff supported her in her career accomplishments as well. So it's only fair if she gets half of Jeff's net worth, that Mackenzie's net worth should also be halfed as well.
It's not "his" net worth, it's "their" net worth and it sounds as though it will be halved.
Jr. Member
Jul 28, 2017
134 posts
252 upvotes
Had to make sure I was still browsing redflagdeals and not some incel subreddit. Face With Tears Of Joy
Deal Guru
Feb 24, 2018
10563 posts
10631 upvotes
Piro21 wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 3:11 pm
I've been witness to several situations (one in my own family) where a woman will get married to use a guy, then the second something bad happens to him that would disrupt her lifestyle she vanishes and becomes his worst enemy in court, taking the kids and half his income. My job also has divorce cases coming across my desk periodically, and I can see just how many older guys have had their pensions and life savings completely wrecked by low-achieving women leaving them to grow old and die poor, alone, and often suffering from crippling workplace injuries while the ex-wife runs off with the entire family.

It's a thing in immigrant communities, in situations where guys marry single mothers, and in situations where women will come to Canada from poorer countries via marriage. Husband works himself to death, wife does what she always wanted to do and raises kids instead of working, and then when the kids are old enough to leave home she bails with half the money and lives her own life.
Extemely common. It's a sickening phenomenon.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 13, 2016
2973 posts
2362 upvotes
redflagdealsguy wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 2:21 pm
Someone taught you well. The simple truths your grandparents told you about lasting long term relationships still ring true. Right now those virtues seem well embodied in Southeast Asian countries.

Proud headstrong women of western ideals are a recipe for failed marriages.
What a bunch of uninformed sex tourist nonsense :)
Deal Fanatic
Mar 10, 2003
5092 posts
923 upvotes
Toronto
Retrodude wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 5:05 pm
Had to make sure I was still browsing redflagdeals and not some incel subreddit. Face With Tears Of Joy
There's no difference...
Deal Guru
Feb 24, 2018
10563 posts
10631 upvotes
BiegeToyota wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 6:22 pm
What a bunch of uninformed sex tourist nonsense :)
Like and subscribe if you want to hear more.

Top