Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think divorces shouldn’t be 50/50

340 replies

Custardforbreakfast · 30/04/2019 01:34

It has come to my attention that most of the threads here about divorce/separation always point out that divorces are 50/50 (for starters).

I come from a country where one can choose at the registry if you want shared or split assets. I’ve always thought split is the way to go as honestly whatever you make in your life should be yours and not to share (even in a marriage)

My grandparents were married with shared assets and it’s absolutely broken my family now that the they’ve both passed away. My parents on the other hand married with separate assets and divorced a few years ago, it was the least complicated separation I have seen as there was no fighting over things. It makes my cringe when people on here say you should take everything from your husband or make sure to take your half or even more if you can

AIBU to think that not everything needs to be shared? Even in marriage.

OP posts:
ArfArfBarf · 30/04/2019 16:53

I don’t see why those positions are contradictory Outlawjr If you believe there are biological reasons why women are better suited to the primary carer role in infancy, it doesn’t stop you believing they deserve to be fairly compensated for the effect that leave has on their career.

Xenia · 30/04/2019 17:07

I have not been on the other thread but my view is that unless you get very sick when pregnant/during labour 6 weeks at 90% pay (the current female only SMP which only applies to those who are PAYE employees) is fair even though not offered to men - as they don't give birth. Then having unpaid leave after with now men and women able to choose (for those rich enough to give up one or other salary i.e. not many people) who takes it is pretty fair.

I am not happy that my husband got so muc money despite working full time and with no career sacrifice - he got over 50% bevcause he also wanted maintenance to even out the difference between our respective full time incomes - along with his choce not to help with or see the children which of course is a very expensive thing for me or was when the children were younger eg he would have 8 weeks off in the summer and see them for one night. I would take one week off as holiday to take us away and then pay for full time childcare for 7 weeks because you cannot force men to look after their children.

Outlawjr · 30/04/2019 17:19

I don't disagree Arf. But there isn't really any evidence that after the breastfeeding stage (should you choose to breastfeed) women are more suited to the primary carer role.

In these discussions, staying at home with the children is often framed as a huge sacrifice that the stay at home parent makes at the detriment of their own high flying career. The comments on the other thread suggest that a lot of women aren't that bothered about the hit to their own career and would just rather be at home with their child. This is a valid decision and if you can afford it, then why not. But then framing your decision as a huge sacrifice in the event of a split just seems a bit insincere.

swingofthings · 30/04/2019 17:24

If you believe there are biological reasons why women are better suited to the primary carer role in infancy
Are there really women of this day and age who really believe this? My God it explains a lot of the misandry attitude seen at the school gates.

Thank God Social Services have moved on from such nonsense and will grant gay men adopting children!

IceCreamAndCandyfloss · 30/04/2019 17:38

Many don't have a high flying career though, not every SAHP will have had.

Given the amount of threads where you see people admit the earning power of a spouse was something they chose by and would tell daughter that to, many expect the man to work so they don't have too it would seem.

Childcare can be expensive but it's not an excuse to not work. It's a known expense of having children and doesn't come from one salary. If it's an expense people don't want to pay that's not the same as not being able to work.

My DH wouldn't ever dare say he needed me home to work, he's capable of doing that all by himself as he's a grown adult. Likewise he has no impact on my work life.

Divorce payouts should be split based on financial contribution unless there was a really valid reason for one to not be contributing. Some parents I've seen had no choice in the SAHP. It was decided by just one person.

SoHotADragonRetired · 30/04/2019 17:42

giving up your career to look after children is a completely personal choice that nobody is forced to make

Tell that to people with disabled DC.

ArfArfBarf · 30/04/2019 17:42

I didn’t say whether I agreed with it swing. I said I didn’t see the contradiction between positions on the two threads.

Xenia · 30/04/2019 18:16

I shoudl be equal - just as likely a father gives up work to care for a disabled child as the mother (and also as some people do finding childcare for a disabled child where possible and wanted by the parnts)

Oakenbeach · 30/04/2019 18:48

@swingofthings

Last time I checked men couldn’t breastfeed Hmm

User10fuckingmillion · 30/04/2019 18:51

All fine until the woman quits her job to look after the children (which is, of course, unpaid labour)...

User10fuckingmillion · 30/04/2019 18:52

^just realised we’re on the tenth page. Pretty sure my point will have been covered! Grin

RubberTreePlant · 30/04/2019 18:55

I shoudl be equal - just as likely a father gives up work to care for a disabled child as the mother

And yet, when you walk into a meeting for carers of disables children, it is mothers as far as the eye can see. Mothers on the email lists for the special schools. Mothers holding the support groups together. Even the LAs assume mothers will do the heavy lifting.

Similar phenomenon to single parenting. 95% women.

AlexaShutUp · 30/04/2019 18:58

Last time I checked men couldn’t breastfeed

So what? It's perfectly possible to go back to work and continue breastfeeding. I did it for a couple of years after returning to work.

Having said that, very few women breastfeed past the six month mark in this country, and many don't even make it to that. Most would still be on maternity leave at that point.

swingofthings · 30/04/2019 19:15

Last time I checked men couldn’t breastfeed
Ph so that alone make women automatically primary care giver? Even when the mum expresses and gives her baby a bottle? Even when the baby is 2yo and not breastfed any longer?

Just because we have breast and milk doesn't make us primary carer by default.

Oakenbeach · 30/04/2019 19:57

So what? It's perfectly possible to go back to work and continue breastfeeding. I did it for a couple of years after returning to work.

Possible, if you pump for milk in your tea breaks.... But it absurdly obtuse not to recognise that women are biologically more suited to look after young babies!

Oakenbeach · 30/04/2019 20:02

Ph so that alone make women automatically primary care giver?

No, but it’s patently obvious that the ability to breastfeed makes mothers more suited biologically to look after young babies!

NotBeingRobbed · 30/04/2019 20:09

In the case of my male colleagues with wives who wouldn’t work, the kids were well into their teens or had even grown up and left home. That is really taking it too far!!

Oakenbeach · 30/04/2019 20:20

In the case of my male colleagues with wives who wouldn’t work, the kids were well into their teens or had even grown up and left home. That is really taking it too far!!

Well, if the wives took care of everything domestic ensuring all the physical and mental
demands of running a household were taken care of, that might not be a bad deal!

AlexaShutUp · 30/04/2019 20:37

Possible, if you pump for milk in your tea breaks....

No, I didn't ever express, my baby wouldn't take a bottle. Might have done if I had persisted but it wasn't necessary.

You didn't address my point that most women in this country give up breastfeeding before they even finish their maternity leave. Is it your view that women are biologically more suited to looking after babies even when they are no longer breastfeeding? What about those who choose to bottle feed from the outset?

AlexaShutUp · 30/04/2019 20:41

Well, if the wives took care of everything domestic ensuring all the physical and mental demands of running a household were taken care of, that might not be a bad deal!

Oh, come on! If kids have grown up and left home, the physical and mental demands of running a house are hardly equivalent to a full time job, are they? Unless you live in Downton Abbey or the equivalent....

It's different when there are pre-school children at home, but once the kids are in school, there really isn't that much to manage at home!

wingardium8 · 30/04/2019 20:49

*I also know several male colleagues whose wives have refused point blank to work and the earning partners have been stuck having to support them.

If the men were that unhappy with their lot, they could divorce the wife!*

In several of the examples I'm aware of, the men are so unhappy that they would like to divorce (or so they tell DH - could just be letting off steam, I suppose) but obvs their wives would end up as RPs and they'd not only have to fund her household but another for themselves, as well as seeing their DC far less often. Not the most enticing prospect.

Basically, their wives have them over a barrel. I wonder what will happen when the DC leave home, but no doubt there'd be spousal maintenance on the basis that it's been so long since DW worked that there's no realistic prospect by then.

ForalltheSaints · 30/04/2019 20:50

I would not want someone such as Ryan Giggs to have 50%, not that I know the details of his divorce settlement. Nor a serial adulterer or someone guilty of DV.

MrsBAF · 30/04/2019 20:51

50/50 is the fabric of a marriage and family, i wouldnt see it any other way. Don't like it, draw up your own prenup...

We both work full time. We started out as equals (uni, early job) but even before kids he had surpassed me earnings wise by about 30% and it's only widened slightly, despite me going back FT when baby was 2.5 months old. I'm just shit at the whole career thing. Shouldn't have done that. Anyway DH pulls his fair weight with kids/household, i pumped and he did night feeds, both permanently exhausted, both dont bother cleaning our messy house etc.

He's also now plateaued a bit career wise.

Long story short, my comment is that i doubt that if I chose to not work I would be sacrificing much of a career and enabling him to build his. So I feel the lost earnings arguments for 50/50 is exaggerated and unnecessary.

To me the correct argument is because well, it takes 2 to tango.

lljkk · 30/04/2019 20:54

If I knew that I had no financial security in my relationship (marriage), I could never rely on my partner, and any breakup I'd only get out what I had put in...

I would have stopped at 2 kids for a start. Or maybe just 1.
I suppose what OP is saying would drive family size down. Many would see that as good thing. Later parenthood, too (for those who plan their DC). More planning of DC b/c of knowing that being a SAHP probably wouldn't be possible. More abortions b/c of the higher financial insecurity that having kids would bring.

MadAboutWands · 30/04/2019 21:05

but obvs their wives would end up as RPs and they'd not only have to fund her household but another for themselves,

That ANNOYS the hell out of me.
Those men would NOT to be funding another household. They would be paying CM. CM that is not even half of what is needed to feed/clothed/entertain a child. The other half (and more) would be provided by the mother.
This whole fairytale of men being hard done by a divorce from their SAHP is just that a fairy tale.