UK: How female breadwinners are 'losing out' in divorce

Submitted by Broadsword on Wed, 2012-10-17 14:49

Article here. Excerpt:

'One of the country’s leading family law firms says increasing numbers of female breadwinners are left feeling “aggrieved” when their less well paid husbands walk away with more generous divorce settlements.

Their biggest complaint is often that while they have shouldered bigger financial burdens and longer working hours than women in previous generations, their husbands have failed to step in to take on more of the responsibility on the domestic front. The result is that they feel they have been doing “two jobs” – something the courts do not take into account when dividing assets.
...
“Both spouses will need rehousing and if the husband’s income is lower than his wife’s, his mortgage capacity will also be lower,” she explained.

“He may therefore need more capital to enable him to obtain a suitable property.”

“However, many women still find it hard to believe that they will receive less than their husbands when they divorce, especially when they still seem to do the greater share of work around the house.”
...
“They feel quite aggrieved that they have been doing ‘two jobs’ yet they have not got any credit for it.”'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Remember that song from the Decade of Hair Bands?

OK, so now the formula that was designed specifically to plaster men to the wall without actually saying so has in some, and only some, cases, been turned on women. And they're crying foul. After decades if not centuries of being taken to the cleaners by wives, some, just some, women, who happen to out-earn their husbands, are "aggrieved" that they have to pay up in fulfillment of said formula, one they were only too happy to have around, just as long as it was aimed at their husbands and not them.

And having "two jobs," feeling like they're not getting credit for it? Again, welcome to the Men's Couch, ladies. Men have worked, left at lunch to pick up kids, left early to go to see kids at recitals, stayed late the next day to make up for lost time to keep the paycheck rolling in and the roof over the missus's and the kids' heads, run around all week-end for the kids and gone out to pick up stuff his wife forgot to get, and of course played au-pair for his wife for all the children's early years (heaven forbid she allow him to take care of his own kids without her "supervision"!)... and then after a few years when she decides she'd rather get it on with the personal trainer at the gym more than him, off she goes and takes him to the cleaners. No justice.

And now, they're complaining about anything approaching that scenario happening to them?

I have a suggestion for today's women, and indeed, men: if you want to avoid this nightmare, do not have kids. That's all there is to it. If you REALLY must have kids, then go into the deal with eyes wide open, knowing full well the risks, and do not delude yourself into thinking it cannot or will not happen to you because your intended spouse/mate is "different". Everyone believes that. I can count on both hands and feet the number of guys I know who thought that, too. They got stuck with a hefty bill for their optimism and children they rarely see. It's a high price to pay. It's a matter of raw numbers, sheer statistics. If you were asked to invest in a company in an industry with a 50%+ failure rate, and worse than that, you as an investor could lose not just your investment but any amount more that some court may adjudge that you give up, and not just once, but over any period of time that seems fitting-- now would you take that deal? And tell me, just what is the payoff for said investment? More often than not, it is not happy children that are grateful for your sacrifices and patience. Usually it's gadget-freaky, defiant, overgrown 10-year-olds who only want more and more stuff from you and cop a major entitlement attitude. Really, just what do modern people get from it? Assuming you and your spouse stay together, and even happily so, if you are lucky, the pre-adolescent years can actually be very nice. But hormones come along, and that's that, at least most times. How many kids as a percentage of the teenage population are as they used to say "a true delight" to their parents after the teen years hit? Not many. Consider yourself very lucky if today you have even one that gives you no trouble, much less actually does you proud and appreciates all you have given up for them. Because in the end, you well and truly do not need to have kids. They are a luxury most men well and truly cannot afford, especially with the courts as feminized as they are.

Reproduction is by and large simply too risky an endeavor for men. It is much less risky for women but as this article points out, the risks are climbing. I doubt we shall see them come down for men in any appreciable way any time soon.

Sorry if this is rough to read, gang, but really, can you deny it? Honestly? If so, go ahead. I have never shied from disagreement, from me or to me. :)

Oh yeah, like Columbo, I have to say "Just one more thing, sir..."-- another very good thing you do by not reproducing is adding to the planet's over-population. I recall in the mid-1970s that the Earth's pop'n was reported at 4 billion people (heck, look at Wikipedia if you want). Today, it's near 7 billion. We have added 3/11, or 27% more as a fraction of the 1975 figure to today's population+the 1975 population (which is leaning toward the more forgiving side of reckoning), to the planet's population. Compared to the 1975 figure, we have almost DOUBLED the planet's population in just 37 years.

Do you have any idea how long it took humanity to just reach 1 billion? According to most sources, between 1800 and 1805 is when Earth hit 1 billion. Know how long humanity has been around as recognizable homo sapiens? It depends on when you think the first real, recognizable human or "homo"-class species was identifiable. It could go as far back as 2-2.5 million years ago, or as early as 200,000 or so years ago, depending on who you ask. Even taking just 200,000 years, it took us, hmmm, approx. 199,800 years to reach the 1 billion mark. From there, we increased that number by 700% in less than 215 years.

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_population

That should scare the holy monkey-snot out of you. By 2050, even with the medium estimate, we will be at 9 billion. And let's not even talk about 2100, 2150, 2200, etc., etc., and the beat goes on...

All in all, I'd say humanity is doing a bang-up job already of making more and more instances of itself. No one should feel the least bit guilty about not having kids. If nosy in-laws or butt-insky parents get in your face about this, just send them the link to this post. ;)

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2012-10-18 23:01

of the war on women!

what, 40 years since mrs. doubtfire? where robin williams ( he dresses quite stylishly i might add, for an elderly woman), as the stay at home dad who loses custody and his relationship with his kids. the never at home power lawyer wife gets auto-gender-custody (of course), and then hires mrs. doubtfire (him) to do what mistress was previously allowing her servant/husband (him) to do as a lesser member of her household. he was an awsome at-home parent. she didn't love him anymore, soooo, get out!

so, this many years later and men are still treated by law as someone that is to be used as the woman requires. they do love other people's stuff, don't they?

if women don't get more more more its a war on them. any excuse will do. i've read most wars have lotsa bodies.

so says a 'leading unethical anti-family law firm'. ethics requires equality. none here, as usual. just get women mo free stuff!

prediction: the candidate who promises women the most 'other people's stuff' (ops) will likely win this election.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Thu, 2012-10-18 01:34