To think that lots of men think this way

[Flynnshine]

Recently a good friend of my partners has split from his wife of 15 years, they have two young children between 10 and 13.
The husband has decided he isn't happy and wants to end the relationship.

Last week he came over to our house in the evening and I left him and my husband chatting in the living room. I wasn't eavesdropping but I was only in the next room so could hear their conversation. Basically the husband has been planning this split for a while, 6 months before he announced he wanted to end things he sold their beautiful big house and they moved into their much smaller starter home which they had out on rent - they moved the kids out of their private school education and into a state school local to their new home.

They've always had a very comfortable life, beautiful house, nice cars and very fancy holidays a few times a year. They both had good jobs when they first met but when the children came along the wife stopped work and dedicated her life to them. They've done amazingly well at school, both top of their classes, sporty and do two sports for their local borough. They are polite and thoughtful and genuinely lovely children.

The conversation I overheard was the husband complaining that even though the wife hasn't paid towards the mortgage for over 10 years she will still be entitled to half of what the house is worth - he seemed bitter and angry and said he'd been hiding money for ages so she wouldn't get anything when they divorce. He's even planning on quitting his job and becoming self employed so he can fudge his earnings so his maintenance payments could be less. My husband was agreeing with him, I don't know if just to placate him or if that's really how he feels!

This man honestly thinks that because he has been working and paying a mortgage that his worth is so much more. He thinks he has enabled her to not work for over 10 years and that she has been having a jolly all that time. It's like he gives zero shits that he has two wonderful children that he has never had to lift a finger for and she has given her all to those children while he reaps the rewards of that.

Do all men deep down think like this, even if they won't openly admit it? Is money really the be all and end all of everything!?

I think there are lots of men that think this yes unfortunetly.

I overheard a similar convo at school. One man was telling the other of their impending split and the other said "time to start hiding the money". This was man who was to all intents and purposes happily married

Yes, all men think like this. You've cracked the man code. applause

He has also conveniently forgotten the fact that his wife enabled his career and life.

All men think like this is as idiotic a premise as all women think like this.

I think they do mostly think like this, and are facilitated in achieving this through 2nd partners and the family courts. We are already seeing high levels of anxiety and stress in teenagers and young people. Surely no co-incidence when currently the view is that no parent needs to be around at home as they should be outside the home financially contributing. And that is the only contribution of value.

That's misogyny for you.

It's also financial abuse he's described with such pride, so if your husband genuinely thinks that's a-ok I think you have a problem.

Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt, no, I do not believe all men think like this. Only the misogynistic and abusive ones.

Of course all men don't think like this. My husband doesn't, for starters.

There's no way of knowing how many men think like this and how many don't but its yet another reason why when a woman allows herself to become wholly financially dependent on a man then she is taking a huge gamble

Dunno about lots - but there are certainly significant numbers who do OP. Also significant numbers who don't.

Do all women think they have a right to give up work and be financially provided for in perpetuity because they birth a child or two? It's fine if both partners are happy with that arrangement but it's not the god-given right that some assume it to be.

He has also conveniently forgotten the fact that his wife enabled his career and life.

Because clearly he would never have had a successful career without her opting to be a full-time housekeeper? Makes sense. I can't think of any successful men whose wives also have careers. Besides, was he even given the choice?

No, I don’t think all men think like this and it’s s bit naive to assume that all men (or women) think a certain way about anything.

Having said that, from the situation you describe, I suspect quite a number of couples fall into a routine which works for a while, but somewhere along the line, communication stops, or becomes blurred.

Being totally honest, if I were sole earner providing a big house, private school fee, cars, holidays etc, 2 kids of 10 and 13 and a partner who didn’t work, I wouldn’t feel that was an equitable balance of responsibilities. So I suspect the husband has been feeling resentful for a while of providing at this level while his wife earns nothing. The problem is that he didn’t communicate this, and renegotiate things. He may have been happy being sole earner when the kids were tiny but now feels differently.

So while I think it’s fair to generalise that a lot of issues between couples may be rooted in lack of communication and willingness to resolve issues, I don’t think you can extrapolate from this one example that all men think like this one particular man

I don't think they all do but I can see why some cases. Sometimes the man has no say in the wife becoming a sahm, they make the decision as feel their spouse earns enough to keep them so why shouldn't they.

If the situation was reversed I'd have not been happy for my DH to not work when the children are school aged and leave me paying for everything then expecting half of everything. However I wouldn't have put up with the situation so it wouldn't of happened. I don't subscribe to the theory though that SAHPs are amazing though and that breadwinners just doing their responsibility and can't possibly work without an adult at home.

Woman are told to get their ducks in a row before actually leaving which is what he has done with some of it. In the real world nothing would change but she has she no earnings and no means of supporting herself. Therefore renting a smaller house and no schools fees is sensible. Going SE to reduce child support is a whole different game though and an awful one.

Hiding finances is an offense and the courts (for divorce) would likely investigate.
Any 2 people 'getting together' run a risk and there is no reason to suggest men or women are the worst 'offenders' in shenanigans like this.

For clarity - she has attempted to talk to him about going back to work a number of times, to both help financially and for her own sanity. He talked her out of it every time and made it impossible claiming he couldn't help cover school holidays and sickness etc. Really I don't see what choice she had but to be at home. Working and paying for childcare is just another hit on finances!

Some of your responses have me wide eyed! Of course he would have been able to have a career and a house without her being at home but certainly not two wonderful children - money really is everything isn't it!? Yes he contributes financially but nothing else. He doesn't help with anything school related, doesn't clean or do washing or food shopping or meal planning or deal with anything related to the children whatsoever - and never has! He even jokes that he's never changed a nappy... two fucking kids and he's never changed a nappy! Yet he's going to shaft her because she hasn't paid another person to look after their kids so she can have some validation by going out to work.

My DH would never have sat and just agreed through a conversation like that. Why on earth didn't your DH challenge him?

He sounds vile. I hope you'll (a) warn your friend and (b) have a conversation with your DH.

I would very much hope that most men don't feel this way. But reading this, I did wonder. I think often the urge to have children comes from the woman in a relationship. Not all the time at all, of course. And I wonder if in those circumstances men see having children as something they have done 'for' their partner? [I'm not saying I think this absolves them of responsibility, and I'd hope that they do love their children more than they expected to]. Maybe this is just tosh.

I can't think of any successful men whose wives also have careers.

I can.

In my profession (legal), it's quite common for lawyers to be married to other lawyers (albeit with the support of nanny, cleaner etc).

No, not all men think the same.

How disrespectful to you for your dh to sit and agree with things like that in your own home.

I presume you are going to relay this conversation to his wife ?

And that you have already given your own husband a shot across the bows ?

Of course he would have been able to have a career and a house without her being at home but certainly not two wonderful children

Do you think it's not possible to have two children when both parents work? Or are you seriously suggesting that only children with a SAHM turn out to be wonderful? Because that really would be the goadiest thing I've read for a very long time OP!

Yep. Met and heard of many like this. I call it the 'marriage as prostitution model'. He thinks he's buying a service on his terms and she thinks it's love.

I think a lot of men AND women think like this, it's not exclusively men. Until we all start to value the various roles of family life as well as earning, it will be a perpetual cycle.

For all those who say, "not my husband" I would have said exactly the same thing until I discovered that my husband of 16 years had been cheating on me. During the divorce it came out that he'd tried to hide a huge amount of money, think hundreds of thousands, from me by "gifting" it to his mother. I always worked throughout our marriage but his job was much higher paying and he thought that money should be his, and his alone. He was wrong.