Mothers should live within their means / personal income to avoid heartache?

[temponame]

First of all yes I am being unreasonable to post a daily mail link so no need for comments on that score.
But does this DM article about mothers within the specified age bracket more likely to go bankrupt not just say that inspite of all of the apparent progress of feminism etc, until the day that (1) men are actually wanting their significant other to have babies more than the women themselves do (isn't it often the women who want children more at least initially and the men come round to it later?) and (2) men truely buy into the flexible / part time working and doing their bit round the house etc [IF these two things ever happen which I am not sure they will] then women would be best advised always to only spend what they earn, split bills exactly 50/50 with their significant other (even if this means they are much poorer on a day to day basis) and expect nothing on a divorce?

FAOD I am married with 2 children earn less than my husband but still pay bills, all childcare, I work and if we ever split up I dont expect any of his money - what would be the dignity in that? Is this an unreasonable position?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326315/Middle-aged-mothers-35-54-likely-broke.html

Haven't read link yet but why do you pay all childcare? Are the dcs not his?

ddle-aged-mothers-35-54-likely-broke.html Daily Mail link

the link dousnt work. I dont really understand what you are trying to say either, but men are never going to change working conditions to suit women raising children because it dousnt automatically benefit them.

Only when business is run by women and for women will things improve

Not entirely sure what happened there but it works

"if we ever split up I dont expect any of his money - what would be the dignity in that?"

Whereas living in poverty with children whilst an ex is making a new life for himself and keeping all the cash is more dignified? If there's a point to be made I think it is that women have to be a lot more savvy when it comes to finances, think ahead and be a lot less reliant or trusting of others, especially partners. The 'joint account' often ends up as one where she puts money in and he takes it out. And the number of loving women that 'help out' a partner in debt only to be taken for a ride is shocking.

I'd always advise women - however much they love their partner - to keep some money aside for emergencies. Look after #1

I found the article by looking far down the web site. It does remind me that there are lots of consequences for women who choose to be a SAHM or work pt while children are young financially - reduced pension pot and difficulty finding well paid job when returning to work whether that is due to divorce or children growing up. After a hypothetical breakup the women is nearly always main carer for the children still and so I can see why the man would be earning 25% mroe than before the breakup 5 years down the line. He can put in long hours at work and wont ever have to deal with sick children or other familial responsibilities. The only way, as far as I can see, though I am sure other MNetters will have some good ideas, is to enforce 50/50 as much as we can in our own homes so that we as a society can slowly breakdown the idea that women are the only ones who should stay at home, work pt or flexibly. Once it is natural for men also to do these things businesses will start looking at the workforce differently. I wonder if I will live to see that day though...

I am married with 2 children earn less than my husband but still pay bills, all childcare, I work and if we ever split up I dont expect any of his money - what would be the dignity in that? Is this an unreasonable position?

If your children are going to have significantly reduced opportunities in life, or you will be taking more money from the tax payer instead of from your ex, then yes, that sounds unreasonable. Even if none of the above are true it sounds kind of dumb to me, but your choice.

Why would would you not expect any money off the children's father to help cover the expenses related to them?

In general I agree that families are better off living within their means. But I don't think children are the responsibility of the mother's and not the father's.

Everybody should live within their means - not just women.

If I split up with DH I wouldn't expect him to provide for me - I have a job and I'm quite capable of looking after myself. I can see how women who have given up jobs to be SAHM may think differently though.

I would of course expect that he provides for our children. In what way would I lose my dignity by taking money from my DH for his children? I don't understand what you are saying.

Oops, having checked the page it doesn't work after all. It'll teach me to check properly in future.

I am married with 2 children earn less than my husband but still pay bills, all childcare, I work and if we ever split up I dont expect any of his money - what does he pay for? Why don't you share your incomes?

Temponame - I wonder why you are posting this. You seem to have a very low expectation of your DH's contribution to your life. Do you pay the bills in proportion to your income eg if you earn 40% of the total income do you pay 40% of the total bills (including childcare) because your post implies you are paying more than your fair share. If so, why?

If you ever split up you might not expect any of his money but his children have a right to expect their father to support them and he has a duty to do so. Where is the dignity in allowing him to abdicate all parental responsibility.

I can't work out if you have very low self esteem or very low status in your relationship (or both).

My husband doesn't have any money, we do and so it would never be the case that I'd be taking his money...I'd be taking what's mine.

I'm not surprised you link the DM as your OP is weird. You earn less and pay for childcare....how bizarre,.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326315/Middle-aged-mothers-35-54-likely-broke.html

MN keeps putting space in long links like this..
:)

what that article actually says if you ignore the DM inital women are rubbish at every thing crap is that after a divorce mens income tends to increase and womends tend to decrease (due to the pressure of childcare falling predominantly on women).

The answer is surely to address that not demand that women (and thier children) must manage on less.

And yes I think your personal situation is bizarre too. AS a single parent I pay all teh childcare and bills - who in their right mind would be as badly off in a couple as they would be alone. Sinlge parenthood has its advantages but one of the diadvantgaes is no-one to share the financial burden with. GEt divorced - your DH will have to cough up his share of the childcare costs and you'll be better off. And quite rightly as presumably they are his childrne too?

Why would a mother be paying all the childcare costs.

When DD was in childcare it was paid out of the joint household funds just like the mortgage or council tax.

Why is it the responsibility of only one 1 parent in a couple. If I was in the situation I'd be having a good think about my relationship.

Unreasonable position, temponame? It's a bloody barking position. The point of coupledom in my view (rather than casual dating) is that each puts into the pot what they can for the benefit of the whole family. If one of you does the majority of the childcare while the other does the majority of the earning, well, great. To be proud of doing all the work and spending all the money is a bit... oh wait, that's what I was doing for years. I finally smelled the coffee and divorced the bugger. He got (actually a bit more than) half of everything and then I lost my job.

Er, where were we? Oh yes, stupid women who have more children than they can afford to raise. Now, what was your point again?