Women who forget not everyone has access to money from men

[windygallows]

With 34.5% of the population aged over 16 in England ‘single and not cohabiting’ (2015 stats), it’s clear that a significant number of women in the UK, many parents, are single and having to fend for themselves/live on one income.

Yet I'm amazed at the number of women who forget that not every woman has access to a second income from a partner. In fact the privilege of having access to another’s (usually a man’s) income is often naturalized and many women are, or become, totally oblivious to this privilege.

For example just this last week I experienced:

• A woman at work going on and on about the importance of her life/work balance and suggesting I drop my hours to have similar. She works just 2 days/week and seems to forget that such a setup is an absolute privilege, thanks to a husband who works FT.

• Another woman I know who is on quite a low salary bragging about her 3 luxury holidays per year, again thanks to the income from an IT Director husband. She thought she'd give me travel tips in case I wanted to go to the same 5star holiday.

There are a million reasons why women might have to rely on men’s income but I don’t think I ABU in asking women to recognize that their lifestyle and having access to men’s money isn’t the NORM for up to 1/3 of women, who are having to get by on their own accord and lack the same privilege or financial flexibility.

NotBeingRobbed - you choosing to marry a leech is not justification for a change in the law. It was open to you to divorce him donkeys years ago ifnhe was that inexcusably awful.

NotBeingRobbed - you’ve obviously had a particularly negative experience with a man who earned less than you and drained your family’s money and emotional energy due to his addiction. It’s understandable.

But what if, rather than being a drain, he had supported you. What if you had never had to worry or factor in anything to do with your DC because you could trust 100% that every detail was taken care of - from school, to friends, to behaviour, clubs, emotional needs, homework, clothes, hygiene, food, sleep, appointments - you name it. All you had to focus on was your work. Shopping done. Clean, organised house to come home to. Clothes laundered and ironed or taken to the dry cleaners for you as necessary. Clothes even purchased for you. Dinner ready. Entertaining friends etc sorted. Home admin sorted. No need to take time out for childcare or rush home in time for school-pick up / nanny leaving. Being able to take trips for your hobbies and no need to worry about the impact on the family. Business trips - no worries. Etc etc you get the idea. Anyway, you might have seen him as less of a “leech” then? And imagine if, while he did all this so you didn’t have to for a decade or so, you were able to throw yourself into work and make millions? Would you still think it was all yours?

I guess the point is I did very many, by far the majority of those task and earned more and saved for the kids. I still have to pay him to go away. It feels a very bad deal - basically there was no benefit at all for me in marriage.

I always thought a divorce settlement was really to make sure the kids were provided for, even to compensate the wife for loss of earnings (I’m the one who took time out for kids - paid for by my savings) but that is NOT what has happened. He gets a free house, I am left with the kids to support. I love them 100% but this just does not seem fair.

Why does he get a free house and not have to contribute anything to his own kids?

He gets 50% of joint assets - actually 55% as he is getting a chunk of money instead of taking some of my pension. So he has enough to buy a home of his own outright. I have to buy him out of the family home. I am housing the children - one at uni and one still at school. For the youngest he will pay £70 a week for three years until she leaves school (a tiny amount compared to his lump sum). He is not obliged to pay anything for the oldest and has taken half the money I saved for him to go to uni. Obviously the student is away now a lot of the year but I still pay for his halls because this is what we said we’d do and I don’t want to let him down. I also feed and house him for about four and a half months when he is home. This settlement is equality, according to the British courts. I’d say I earned 70% of joint assets, nobody is interested in that as apparently it is “family” money but the family doesn’t seem to get a look-in when splitting the cash. I have 100% custody. My daughter will not see my ex at all.

My husband (who worked full time as did I) got 59% of our assets, and does not look after and virtually does not see the children after the divorce and does not pay anything. There are a lot of men like that these days sadly - who you have to pay massive sums to if you divorce and who after hardly want to see the children much less pay them.

It is very unfair on couples like us where both work full time and neither has helped the career of the other and you have both done as much as the other in terms of housework. The presumption the lower earner even if htey work full time should be entitled to the same standard of living as when married is morally wrong, particularly as they have had those bumper bonus years married to the higher earner without facilitsating or helping the higher eaerner to earn more. Instead of their being forced to pay back all that benefit they had from the higher lifestyle the law says poor little you even if you abused your wife and children - you will now be given a massive pay out and not forced to see your children even one night a year.

But you get the children. Isn't that the bigger prize?

You do have to wonder what brain process actually goes on in this kind of man’s head when they can be happy to pay the actual bare minimum possible for their own kids. It’s just beyond belief. How can they go about their day to day business with no concern as to their kids welfare? How do they just switch off any sense of responsibility? I think there must actually be something mentally wrong with these men. No integrity. In other societies they would be made to feel shame, but not here these days, clearly. Something has gone wrong.

Yes, the kids are the prize and we are a happy family unit. However, financially this is unfair.

The law actually insists on this settlement. The most upsetting thing is not the money but the total lack of concern for his kids after years of apparently being an involved father. He is actually complaining that he is not getting any spousal maintenance from me too!

he doesnt even see the kids @Xenia Wow i didnt know that I know we havent always seen eye to eye on here but Men like this piss me off

I'm not married, but live with DP. We keep our finances separate, always have done.

You're niave in thinking all married and cohabiting women have to rely on their man. Like weere lost puppies waiting for DH to throw a bone? Shut up OP you sounds either jealous of someone or just silly.

Something has clearly gone wrong with these men though. What is it - their upbringing or what?

Even in the case of my friend’s ex (the one who ran off with the “older woman”) - it was terrible what he did in the sense he’d been lying to her for years. The deception and stress made her ill actually and this man is “persona non grata” round here, to put it mildly. Yet, reading all this, maybe he’s not as bad as people think. He still pays three sets of school fees and there was no question that the DC’s education would be disrupted because of the divorce. He had set up trust funds for the kids anyway, which they still have. He’s even bought them all a flat each for the future. Plus he gave the house (worth about £4 m) to his ex wife whether she wanted it or not because obviously that is his children’s home and their stability and why should they be disrupted because he had an affair? He wanted things to be as consistent as possible for them. Why wouldn’t he? You don’t stop being a parent simply because you’re not with their mum anymore. I genuinely think there is something mentally wrong with some men who try and get away with the bare minimum. I just don’t understand it at all.

@Zaeem5 you are in a particular social circle of very wealthy people and the men clearly see themselves as providers, are happy to do that and can afford that.

The law is standing soundly behind my ex as he basically steals from me and our children. Of course he’s twisted a law that evolved from the need protect women and children from being abandoned by a man without a penny and with no way of earning anything. He didn’t sacrifice his job for his kids. He has a job and an income and I actually do realise that some of the joint funds were earned by him but I’d rather see him take away a share that reflects what he contributed, PARTICULARLY because I am supporting the children. CMS cash does not cover their expenses, certainly not when I am trying to continue their existing (comfortable middle not high-earning) lifestyle.

I don’t think it’s a fault of upbringing but I do think it’s a kind of misogyny. My ex laughed as he told me it was “equality”. He thinks it’s funny. What’s that expression? Check your privilege. As a white, university-educated male maybe he always expected to earn more than me. Maybe it grated a little that he always earned less (although he was happy to spend my money). So now he thinks he’s getting what he deserves.

People call me bitter - but I’d just call it badly treated. I’ve never figured out how to earn millions, I’ve had to work part time some of the my career to juggle things with the kids. Now I’m in my 50s and I can’t be sure I will even continue to earn the same salary in coming years. I’m losing a large amount of my life savings and that makes me feel, well, ripped off. It also makes me wonder why I tried so hard!

I am the one who believes in trying to help the kids with saving a deposit for a house in future, with living costs at uni (not fees because I can’t afford those too), with tutors or clubs and activities, whatever it takes. I suppose I am the “provider”.

My ex is a cad, plain and simple. There were always such men (and it wasn’t apparent he would be so bad from the start or even when married). I’d argue case history is that the law is to protect women and children from being abandoned by cads, it just hasn’t adapted for women like me.

Yes, there have always been cads, as you say, but I do fear we’re seeing a generation of men with no sense of responsibility and no shame and it’s like a sickness at the core of society. As you say, it’s another kind of misogyny because they are using the laws that were once there to protect children and the women who traditionally gave up their earning potential to care for them. It’s a disgrace and I totally see how you must feel.

I had a workman in this house recently who told me very casually that he had found out he’d got “some girl” pregnant and she wasn’t going to get rid of “it”, so she had “it.” He was delighted that he’d just won his appeal with the CMS and got them down from something like £13 per week to £10! I can’t remember the exact figure, but it was something like that. He wanted nothing to do with the child. I asked what he wouid do if the child ever came and looked for him when she was older and he said - “I’ll tell her to F off to where she came from.” I suggested that, even if he didn’t want to send more money to the mother (if he couldnt be sure it would actually go to the baby), maybe he could start a savings fund for the child for when she turns 18 or something. Or he could just send a weekly supply of nappies or whatever. He just laughed.

I mean in other societies you would be ostracised by your family or community for this - or worse. Yet these societies are the ones considered to be chauvinist or backward! And they indeed are in many respects, but I think in the UK, the pendulum has swing too far the other way.

Sorry CSA (don’t know what CMS is)!

CMS is the new version of the CSA. Yes, he sounds like a revolting human. In my case I thought I had done things right - got married first before having children (as if that would give any protection). My parents would have been outraged at how my ex has behaved but they are no longer alive, not his parents either. There is no older generation with sound principles to approve or disapprove. I do strongly feel loyalty to my children and I don’t want them to be treated like this ever.

The one saving grace is I do have a career and can support them.

As for ostracising...I have found that people either say they don’t want to take sides or some such nonsense or they have been remarkably helpful and supportive. I have been surprised how many people who were just acquaintances before have become really helpful, kind friends.

The people who say “you chose badly” don’t know what they are talking about. It’s not so much a case of choosing but falling in love with someone who doesn’t immediately present himself as a feckless cad. The problems only emerged slowly over the years. By then we had children and I didn’t want to rip the family apart. Nothing is as simple as it seems.

Zaeem of course men should pay for their children when relationships break down but they shouldn’t be expected to support their ex spouse. A grown adult should get a job and provide for themselves. Paying private school fees, giving their ex and all their children a house is way above and beyond what most people could afford (and it’s not a necessity to have children in private education!) I agree with NotBeingRobbed that it is morally wrong to say the ex is entitled to the same standard of living. Why? If they want it they can pay for it themselves!

The double standard on MN is astounding as well, high earning women are advised not to marry and to keep money separate but men who do that are abusive apparently. How does that work?!

Paying private school fees,

If the children were in private education before the split - presumably by the mutual agreement of both parents - why would they be pulled out after the split?

Why should the children effectively be (further) punished by the parents' decision to split? Pulled out of a school they're presumably settled at, and have friends at?

This isn't a private education issue, it's a 'let's makes things as least disruptive as possible for our children' issue.

There is a reason some ex spouses are entitled to maintenance, and it's usually because they have foregone a career in order to enable the other person's career, and to raise a family.

And although it's reasonably expected that in the event of a split, that person would go out and find a job, they're probably only going to be able to find a relatively unskilled one, what with their lack of experience and absence from the job market.

A family court judge making this decision usually does so by weighing up the evidence before them.

A parent who has left the marital home and has only himself to support on an existing salary (and does not care for his children) does not have the same needs as a parent who is left supporting two dependent children, salary or not. Shame the law does not recognise this. I didn’t go to court but my solicitor advised me that I had to agree a settlement the court would accept - and this is what it is.

Absolutely agree NotBeingRobbed, I was just addressing the point I quoted.

@notbeingrobbed I agree and I think you feel like many men probably do. Yes, some do everything they can do get out of paying but others lose a substantial chunk of their life savings to an ex who doesn’t want to work. I am a higher earning woman - I chose not to get married thank goodness as my ex would have taken me to the cleaners. He is an involved dad but is useless with money. Even though I did give him some assets on the split he complained bitterly that he didn’t get more. Some people just have a sense of entitlement

dodgeballchamp - there are various self-evident reasons why Mumsnet may appear to have double standards on this:

1. Mumsnet is made up of individuals with different opinions, like you and me; it does not have a hive mind where everyone agrees, so it is pointless to conclude it has double standards when most of the time, it's different people posting. Some posters have particularly strong opinions about "cocklodgers" for example and they are usually the ones advising wealthy women to protect their cash whilst simultaneously looking down on women who are not financially independent - ie entirely consistent in their views and equally harsh and aggressive towards anyone they perceive not to be pulling their weight financially. Likewise, there are plenty of women who will consistently view ringfencing all finances from spouses as strange behaviour, whichever sex does it.
2. Some posters will give advice purely from the perspective of the law, with no reference to their view on the morality of any situation - particularly if not commenting on a specific scenario. As a result, they may have no qualms about advising either a wealthy man or a wealthy woman not to marry without a prenup (or not to marry at all and to ringfence their finances), while simultaneously advising a SAHM or SAHD that they really ought to be married. The reality is that this forum is mainly populated by women, so there are seldom wealthy men or SAHDs on here asking for advice, making it look like double standards when that is not the case, it's just legal facts being commented upon.
3. Some posters will be commenting on a specific situation. As it is mainly women talking about their situations on mumsnet, you will generally find that people are commenting on the woman's side of the story, as they have not heard the man's side. So, regardless, there will always be more scenarios where the general conclusion is that the man must be in the wrong, whatever the scenario was, because the man wasn't posting on here asking for advice or sympathy or putting his side of the story.
4. Whilst society is set up in a way that is quite misogynistic, some women are misandrists and will always take the woman's side, however seemingly inconsistent this seems to people trying to look at the facts they have been given in an even handed way.

dodge - my friend’s ex who I was taking about earlier specifically told his wife not to work, pretty much as soon as she got pregnant . This was the type of marriage he wanted. It wasn’t forced on him! She used to be a teacher. He was some kind of options trader and so obviously, over the years their lifestyle came to be determined by his salary. This is what happens. Even if she’d been working it would have been negligible tbh. So this was the “norm” for the DC. It was the DH who wanted the kids in particular schools, so why would he stop paying for that? That’s their life, their stability, their friends. Surely any parent would want to keep things as normal as possible. The house was pretty much paid off anyway, so he just gave it to them because it’s the kids home.

Now he’s with another woman and he’s moved to another part of London and bought another house - and apparently persuaded her to give up her solicitor job - so that she can look after the kids if he’s overseas with work! Yes. He also had some kind of nervous breakdown at one point so she was caring for him and couldn’t go to work anyway.