Prenuptials--yes or no

[bigenuf]

Originally posted by madame_zora+Oct 13 2005, 05:01 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Oct 13 2005, 05:01 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-bigenuf@Oct 13 2005, 02:00 AM
Please point out where in my comment the part that says this applys only to women.

[post=351021]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, because your comment was a direct response TO Texass, who we know is a woman. If you didn&#39;t mean it to be directed to her, you shouldn&#39;t have used the words
"your kids" or "your career". When people speak in generalities, they say "one&#39;s kids" and "one&#39;s career".

Besides, your point was flat. Anyone who has kids knows that those things are sacrificed for a time. Your suggestion was almost as clever as abstinence only programs.

[post=351094]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Well, I did mean it as a direct respose to her so my use of the word "your" was correct and your suggestion of the use of the word "one&#39;s" is wrong. Only someone looking for a fight would read sexism into that comment.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Oct 13 2005, 09:38 AM
Texass, it is interesting that you seem to view the bearing and raising of children as aduty a woman has to her husband, and not a concious selfish choice she makes for her own interests. Maybe it is the historical aspect of marriage that has creeped into your psyche where you feel that marriage is all about benefitting the husband and not the wife, which is totally evil and one of the worst things about marriage( its history). The husband should not be accountable for the choices that a woman makes in regards to her life. if "one"(thanks madam) makes the choice to forgo college in order to have kids the consequences of that choice rest on "one&#39;s" shoulders and not "one&#39;s" spouse. Should a woman have to pay alimony if her husband sacrificed the career he dreamed of in order to get a more profitable, but less disireable job in order to support his family? of course not, he made the choice, he must live with the consequences of that choice. just because life didn&#39;t turn outthe way he wanted it to doesn&#39;t mean he gets a do-over. No spouse owes the other spouse anything for being married to them, it should not be a favor. if it is then they deserve what comes to them, and they deserve the heartache and trials of divorce because they did not understand what they were getting into and treated it far to lightly.

[post=351154]Quoted post[/post]​

GBO, I (and most women) view child-having as a mutual decision, and something the results of which should be sustained mutually. To say that only the woman should be responsible for putting her career on hold while the other has free reign to advance their own seems one sided to me. If the decision to have the children has been mutually agreed upon, don&#39;t you think it&#39;s fair that both should share equally in the sacrifices made by the one who stays home?

I bring this up because in my own case, my husband was in a better position than I to stay home for a while when my daughter was born. I had decided to drop out of college already so that was not an issue for us, but I was making more money so he took some time off to stay home. I would have expected to help him out until he found suitable employment had we divorced during that time, that&#39;s just the right thing to do, isn&#39;t it?

By the time we divorced we were more equally employed so we opted for joint custody where no one payed any form of support to the other, but I think it really depends on what the expectations of each person have been and where they both are financially at the time. In Texass&#39; case, she had her husband have decided to have kids and have her be a stay at home parent, but she has continued helping him get through his schooling and advance his career, do you really think he owes her nothing for that if they split? Just a question, but I think a pat answer is too easy for the complication of the situation. Yes, she did what she wanted to do, but it was under the belief that they were building a life together. If he came home and announced that he had falled for his secretary and was leaving their family, I would think he&#39;d owe her support for a time until she could recoup some of the lost ground in her own life while they were both concentrating on his career. I&#39;m not talking about forever, but maybe for a year. It just seems like the right thing to do, I would have done it.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by bigenuf+Oct 13 2005, 02:02 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigenuf &#064; Oct 13 2005, 02:02 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by madame_zora@Oct 13 2005, 05:01 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-bigenuf

@Oct 13 2005, 02:00 AM
Please point out where in my comment the part that says this applys only to women.

[post=351021]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, because your comment was a direct response TO Texass, who we know is a woman. If you didn&#39;t mean it to be directed to her, you shouldn&#39;t have used the words
"your kids" or "your career". When people speak in generalities, they say "one&#39;s kids" and "one&#39;s career".

Besides, your point was flat. Anyone who has kids knows that those things are sacrificed for a time. Your suggestion was almost as clever as abstinence only programs.

[post=351094]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, I did mean it as a direct respose to her so my use of the word "your" was correct and your suggestion of the use of the word "one&#39;s" is wrong. Only someone looking for a fight would read sexism into that comment.

[post=351230]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


I&#39;m really not spoiling for a fight, I&#39;m sorry if it seemed that way. I guess I have a hard time accepting it when men say child issues are all the woman&#39;s responsibility. You said "if raising kids is perceived as giving up your time and your career, don&#39;t have kids". No, it wasn&#39;t sexist, but it denies the facts that that is exactly what women do in reality, in most cases. While we don&#39;t expect flowers every day, it would be nice if men just acknowledged that this IS a sacrifice, and too frequently they do not.

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Oct 13 2005, 05:38 AM
Texass, it is interesting that you seem to view the bearing and raising of children as aduty a woman has to her husband, and not a concious selfish choice she makes for her own interests. Maybe it is the historical aspect of marriage that has creeped into your psyche where you feel that marriage is all about benefitting the husband and not the wife, which is totally evil and one of the worst things about marriage( its history). The husband should not be accountable for the choices that a woman makes in regards to her life. if "one"(thanks madam) makes the choice to forgo college in order to have kids the consequences of that choice rest on "one&#39;s" shoulders and not "one&#39;s" spouse. Should a woman have to pay alimony if her husband sacrificed the career he dreamed of in order to get a more profitable, but less disireable job in order to support his family? of course not, he made the choice, he must live with the consequences of that choice. just because life didn&#39;t turn outthe way he wanted it to doesn&#39;t mean he gets a do-over. No spouse owes the other spouse anything for being married to them, it should not be a favor. if it is then they deserve what comes to them, and they deserve the heartache and trials of divorce because they did not understand what they were getting into and treated it far to lightly.

[post=351154]Quoted post[/post]​

GBO - is all this rain that we&#39;re getting going to your head? ha/ha

But seriously...the decision for me to stay home and raise our kids was a joint decision. I think that before most people marry, the discover if this is an opinion that they share or not so I don&#39;t think that I&#39;m in the minority of both partners in a relationship having made that decision together. In fact, the decision was so important to us that even in the past 2 years that he was getting his MBA and couldn&#39;t have a job, I still didn&#39;t work and we lived off of student loans instead.

One thing that many people seem to be overlooking is that when a woman stays home to raise the kids, she is not earning any income and especially not any toward her Social Security (which I know isn&#39;t going to be there for our generation anyway) 401K, etc. The only money she has is what her husband brings home. The only future/retirement that she has is what she invests in an IRA or Roth, which not a lot of women do. What happens to her when she gets divorced and has "no experience" (even though she&#39;s worked her ass off raising the kids and keeping the house together), no income of her own, or no money to better herself so that she can provide for herself?

And before someone goes and spouts off the "political correctness" bullshit at me, yes - I do realize that the situation is sometimes reversed and some men stay home to raise their kids while the woman is the breadwinner (my sister-in-law and her husband do that) but in the majority of marriages, it&#39;s the woman that stays home.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Texass, I think thsta fine, if that is the argument to alimony you&#39;re making. I just don&#39;t think that re-couped losses is a valid argument. Its illogical, a woman or a man, when they decide to have children both understand that they will be making sacrifices in order to have them and that their union has about a 50-50 chance. I thought it was really disgusting that one would think that the husband should be responsible for the womans lost time, because he somehow owed it to her, like by her marrying and having kids it was for him. And thats not disgusting because I am a man, Its disgusting because I am a feminist. I hate when people look at marriage or go into a marriage thinking that one (especially) the woman has to subjugate themselves for the sake of the other. Its a primitive view of marriage, and it has a ugly past. If somehow the man forced the woman to stay home and not go to college, then maybe she&#39;ll have a claim, but if it is mutually decided, then the woman must deal with heer decision to put college on hold, you can&#39;t have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Yummy]

I think that marriage in its current form should be abolished totally. Instead, there should initially be a 2 year commitment contract, with all rights and obligations spelled out in their entirety. At the end of the 2 year contract, one should either have the right to let it lapse, and divide all assets (both current and previously acquired) as defined in the contract. Or you should have the option to renew for a five year term. Ideally, one would go through a 2, 5, 7, and 10 year contract with the same person, before being eligible for a lifetime commitment contract. The way we do it now is just a way for lawyers to get a larger slice of the pie. My way, the only time you need the lawyer is when you&#39;re drafting the contracts, and you don&#39;t need a new lawyer if/when you decide to let the contract expire.

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RoysToy &#064; Oct 11 2005, 12&#58;39 PM) [post=350516]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
Recently I&#39;ve learned that more and more married women are getting divorced after child birth, getting alimony as well as custody of the child/children, and taking the spouse for most of what he&#39;s worth financially. With marriage becoming later and later in life, ofttimes one or both might own quite a lot in material wealth. Not all states&#39; divorce laws are equal.

My son and some of his friends are skeptical of marrying because of this becoming so prevalent among people of their age group. What is your opinion of a couple signing a prenuptial agreeing on the conditions that will follow in case of divorce? My son and I are for it, but one of my daughters says, "No, that sets the stage for a future split, which might not come without being anticipated."

I welcome your opinions and comments re. this. Thanks.

Luke
[/b][/quote]

I might be a little schmaltzy with this statement, but surely you should know whether you are in love with your partner and whether your partner loves you or not before you get married. I know anything can happen in years to come, but if your relationship is fragile enough to break up after only a few years, maybe you shouldn&#39;t get married.
Which leads me to another point - the idea behind splitting everything 50/50 is so outdated. It was put in place to secure the well-being of wives who stayed at home as housewives for years and years, then when getting divorced would have had no kind of income as they were unskilled. This is, in most part, not the case in todays&#39; sociecty and therefore, at the very least, be looked at. there shouldn&#39;t be any need for a pre-nup if both parties are working.

 

[dlcs]

To me, "getting married" is all about the day, the dress, the presents, and the drunk relative in the corner who goes on about how it&#39;ll never last.

It&#39;s a hell of a lot more work to BE married, to be part of a functioning partnership under whatever terms the couple chooses. Unfortunately, my ex-husband was more interested in getting married to get his mom off his back, than being married and being a dependable, stong partner to me.

Just my perception.