To think divorces shouldn’t be 50/50

[Custardforbreakfast]

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.

Should say this is bog standard in most senior roles.

@Custardforbreakfast

I'm late to this thread, but your thread is based on a mistake.

You talk about divorces, yet speak of some kind of rules that govern how property should be owned in a marriage.

In the UK, the law doesn't regulate how property is owned in a marriage. On divorce the court has a broad discretion on how to adjust ownership of assets between the parties to achieve a fair outcome. that's how people generally like it, at least in the UK. Different countries have different systems.

It strikes me as strange beyond belief that you point to your grandparents, who presumably do not live in the UK, and how their property was a mess when they died, and then call for reform of the system here.

What you are in fact advocating is the removal of rights of spouses to claim against the other on divorce. What a preposterous suggestion.

The problem is not with pregnancy, birth and child rearing, it is with the belief that that work is worthless, an attitude clearly reflected in many of the posts on this thread. I am really saddened so many women feel that raising their OWN children is such a pointless endeavor.

I don't see raising my dc as a pointless endeavour at all. It's the most important thing I do. I just don't measure the value of relationships in monetary terms.

"There is also the assumption that it is all about sahp issues, I would imagine that part time work is more of an issue. "

There can be all sorts of issues, having to move because of the spouse's job and not being able to get the same job elsewhere, moving abroad as I mentioned before, having to care for a spouse who is ill or for in-laws. People make all sorts of decisions based on being in that marriage and shouldn't be left with nothing afterwards.

"As a single parent I manage a high pressure job and my family. It’s not impossible (but it is difficult) so I don’t agree with all the posters who think it’s impossible for a high earner to manage childcare on their own. Many single mothers and indeed other mothers do manage it. "

Surely they have some kind of childcare if the children are under 12? So, not really on their own, it's just that they pay directly for childcare rather than supporting a spouse.

birdsdestiny agree most senior roles have long hours and varying degrees of overnight travel but the whole point of seniority is that it's a niche minority. I think a lot of people who kid of they've facilitated some high flying career by staying at home are kidding themselves.

I think it depends on what people define as 'success' in terms of career and salary.

I was based in London so if someone said they stayed at home so their husband or wife could have achieved a salary of 50k by age 40 I'd probably wonder what all the fuss was about.

Both of us can't do that.

And yet many couples do. I know plenty of partnerships where both partners juggle senior roles. Their kids are thriving.

It can be challenging to juggle two high flying careers but in the vast majority of cases, it's a choice. I think it's really important to acknowledge that.

I also think it's important that we get away from this notion that you need a SAHP or at least one partner who is willing to let their career take a back seat in order to be able to progress in your owncareer. Instead, we need companies to understand that even their most senior staff have family responsibilities, and that it's perfectly possible to fulfil those responsibilities and deliver in your role at work. I think a lot of organisations are starting to recognise this, but others are lagging behind.

@Moonchild1987. I am a single parent to two children. I work full time. I have no paid or family help. It is actually possible to work and do chores and homework in the evening. Some women really tend to make it out like doing pick up of the children and helping with their homework takes up 12 hrs of every day.

You do what works for you but please don’t ply us with a narrative that it’s impossible to have children and a job.

I for one would feel uncomfortable knowing my livelihood and the livelihood of my children, to whom I have a legal obligation to care for, was left in the hands of one man.

DexyMidnight Someone who is on £50K in London could not afford to support a partner and child without some major scrimping - it would definitely not feel "high flying"

The other thing that needs to be said about seniority is that the higher up you are, the more leverage you have and the more flexibility you can negotiate.

I have a particular set of skills that my employer needs. I also have family responsibilities. If my employer wants the benefit of my skill set, then they need to make it possible for me to work while also fulfilling my other obligations. And they do.

And yet many couples do. I know plenty of partnerships where both partners juggle senior roles. Their kids are thriving. And yet I hear the opposite - time poor parents who indulge their kids with gifts, money and a lack of discipline (because no one ants to be the bad guy when they see so little of their kids) have resulted in some pretty messed up kids. But then again we don't know many couple who both have highly successful full time careers, the Mum or the Dad has gone part-time - my sister and her dh were unusual and effectively took turns.

@AlexaShutUp true but I think it also depends on the job. Some jobs that are higher paid do not allow that much flexibility even at a more senior level

I was the part-timer. Still am because I am now a single parent with 100% of the child rearing responsibilities. I was still the higher earner and I still had to pay my ex 55%.

When I look at the massed ranks of men in my office working alongside me (I’m quite often the only female) I wonder where all the women have gone. Of course they are home doing the wife work for these men. I wonder how these couples can afford it as my salary alone would barely support a decent standard of living for a whole family. Then I discover there is a massive gender pay gap. I am told it it because women don’t negotiate hard enough but the reality is it is because the men with these domestic set-ups make the decisions.

I think of the women I was at uni with and trained with, are they all now washing and cleaning and doing play doh? I’m a bit older now so I wonder what they are now doing with their teenagers that keeps them from the workplace. I consider it a waste, actually, of the talents of half the population if in spite of our grandmothers’ and great-grandmothers’ struggles we are not out there contributing in the workplace, making decisions that affect all our children and STILL not allowed to own our own property once married. As my solicitor said: “You can own property, but only jointly with your husband.” Is this really Britain in 2019 - 101 years from women’s suffrage?

notinmyduty agree sorry what I meant was to me, from a London-centric pov, someone earning 50k at age 40 hasn't been very successful at all.

In many other parts of the UK that would be a Senior solicitor or accountants salary, so yes it would be 'high flying' by some definitions.

I just hate this fiction that all SAHPs have sacrificed something for their spouse's career, and we're meant to believe all SAHPs are these selfless martyrs who could have achieved great things and six figure salaries. Are you really all married to CEOs and CFOs and Pilots and Army Captains and Deloitte partners?

As far as I'm aware no one on this thread has come out and said 'we decided I would be a SAHP because all my salary would have been eaten up by childcare until age 5 and then even beyond that I probably was never going to realistically earn more than 30k even, and it made our whole family life much easier happier and less stressful for me to be able to manage all the domestic load. Oh and i loved being able to look after my own kids'.

I find that astonishing that no one is admitting to being a SAHP for pragmatic reasons.

@windygallows hear hear.

Maybe when OP is married and “chooses” to stay at home for the kids and then gets divorced and ends up with with fuck all, and she has to find a place to live that can accommodate her and her children on that, and pay either CM or pretty much most of the child related costs... She might change her tune.

Of course if OP keeps her own career going and is able to support her children as a result then she will be quite happy with the split reflecting whatever was her contribution.

If i had to guess I'd say the OP sounds like the kind of woman (?) who wouldn't marry someone who wasn't prepared to marry her equal and who wasn't prepared to share working in and out of the home equally, so she wouldn't find herself in the scenario you outline.... Just a guess though

@windygallows I guess it does vary on the parenting style. I grew up with a mother that was very much hands on and made sure I was at my after school, french, japanese, flute, maths twice a week and piano lessons and most of them were supervised. She then also had to plan my daily chinese lessons that I had with her each morning as she stood by me while cooking my lunch to take to school. During the day she did the general house work. I had no chores as a child as in her opinion my job as a child was to do well at school, obey her without too much fuss, and go to my after school lessons. She was there to make sure I did participate and listen to my tutors and did not just hang around

@moonchild1987 Did you put all those extra classes to good use? Are you trading internationally with Japan and China as I’m sure she hoped. Or are you washing and cleaning? Why do mothers have ambitions for their daughters at school? I would like my daughter to get out there into the world, find herself and achieve as highly as she would like. Otherwise I’d just teach her to cook and sew as people did in the distant past.

NotBeingRobbed do you think it's only worth educating children in direct relation to the amount of money they will earn? If you had a child who had a life limiting medical condition who might not survive past early adulthood would you not bother teaching them anything at all?

@Moonchild1987. I had a stay at home mother too but that was the 1970s where it was more the norm. But who cares what your mom did?

Honestly if you want to stay at home because you want to mimic your mothers parenting or just because you want to, then do it or own it. But don’t pretend that cleaning the house and doing school pick up takes 24 hrs per day and that women can’t work and do this. Many do it because they have to buy also because it is possible.

The narrative you create, which is that it’s impossible to be out at work and doing these things, might benefit you but it actually undermines those women who are doing it.

I think everyone is deliberately ignoring the complexity of the issues involved in order to insist that whatever they did / do regarding work and children is best and should be rewarded with the biggest slice of pie.

When people say that as a high earner you can still manage childcare I can only assume it is because as a high earner you can afford to pay for it.

But at what cost to your child.

Similar to Moonchild1987 dm I know a lot of women who are very hands on with their children’s activities.
Some of these activities for some children are more than a fun thing to do after school.
(Dd has made a career out of her ECA.)

For others the Olympics is the goal, or they are now footballers, actors, singers, dancers and musicians.

The amount of lessons and training that went into getting them to this level wasn’t something that could be organised from an office desk 50 miles away.

@windygallows you are correct again. Yes, this idea that every family must have a SAHP is what has so unfairly slewed UK divorce laws against working women.

@ginnylamb No I don’t think everything comes down to money but I do expect to keep the fruits of my labours. My name is on my payslip. Money is also extremely useful when left as a single parent as I am to support two kids. I need this money for them!

It does rather seem that everything comes down to money for SAHPs here. Are we living in Jane Austen times? Do pretty achievements snare you a wealthy husband who will keep you for life? I never wanted to play at that game, wouldn’t be much good at it but I am able to earn my own living. Now I’m losing a lot of my lifetime earnings.