Men - a meal ticket for life?

[marantha]

Reading the amount of abuse the poster Washwithcare has received here over the past few days for suggesting that her husband does not offer more money to his ex-partner (not NOT married, no contract signed) and her (not biologically HIS) children it strikes me that feminism doesn't really exist- or only exists when it suits women.
Women are still baby machines that try to get as much money off a man as they can, when the chips are down.
AIBU?

Of course you are being unreasonable

Decent human beings should certainly feel a sense of responsibility towards children they have effectively raised, whether biologically their own or not and regardless of whether their parents were married.

The children? Yes, abolutely- but the MOTHER?!

Seems to me that a man only has to shack up with a woman for a couple of years and the demand is for her to have "rights" to fleece him of his cash.

Of course a man should have a responsibility to the children when he embarks on a life with them. Bringing them up, making decisions about their home, education etc.

"rights" to fleece him?
What, women with no children involved?

Are you a DM hack in disguise?

Seriously - a far bigger problem in society is men getting women pregnant and then fucking off without a backward glance.

paisleyleaf even when there are no children involved.

oh do sod off, theres a dear.
WWC got the abuse because she wanted to turn a caring decent man into yet another irresponsible cold hearted bastard. He WAS their father, to all intents and purposes, he knew it and wanted to be a good one.Nobody was being fleeced.
You and your cronies would prefer he abandoned his children and their mother, make them homeless. i don't care what you think of our feminist credentials, you're coming off as a cold hearted conservative bitch.

I've not heard of women having "rights to fleece men" with there being no children involved.

I thought WWC got the abuse because she was a troll?

"Women are still baby machines that try to get as much money off a man as they can, when the chips are down."

OH how I wish I were a baby machine! I could have popped two, maybe 3 kids out of my fanjo in the time I have been trying and maybe 10 or more in the time I have been having sex.

Something wrong with my workings though you see, not to mention the 13 years wasting my time with the alcoholic ex.

But to be serious: YABU. I do understand that it may seem weird to you that a man who has basically been a father to a child most of it's life might feel a responsibility towards that child's well being but some men actually DO feel this kind of responsibility and if I remember the thread you are posting about correctly the man was the one making the decision to suport these kids, not the woman.

If you read the threads about 'sperm donor fathers' a term I HATE you'll see that many women have new partners that their children call 'Daddy' and treat them as a parent. Once you start having your child call someone who is not their Father 'Daddy' I think you are entering into an unwritten contract where the step parent treats the child as theirs.

If men don't want to be treated as the Father then they shouldn't be called Daddy or treated as such. You can have a perfectly good step parent that does not try and be your actual parent, I have had it myself.

Do we need a section for threads about Waswithcares threads?
I didn't get to read the whole lot of. But didn't the man himself want to support his step children children?

He should support the children NOT the mother.
She deserves nothing.

wasn't that guy with the "ex" for 10 years? I'd hardly call that a couple of years. He was with them from when they were very small, I should imagine they see him as their dad.

Grrrr

You're missing the point OP.

Presumably wwc's dh does not want those children - children he loves and has been a father in every important sense to - to suffer any diminution in their living circumstances. He might even want to retain some basis of cordiality with their mother, and be anxious to keep a stake in the children's future.

He is totally NBU. But YA.

Those children won't remember a time without him.
If he can leave and not support the family I don't know how he'd sleep at night.

"Women are still baby machines that try to get as much money off a man as they can, when the chips are down."

Only if you make certain sexist assumptions about men and women in the first place.

Many men want to have children, and from that POV are "baby machines" too. this idea that men are passive in everything to do with children is a horrible idea, and untrue for most people.
Many women are financially independent, earning as much or more than their partners.
Men and women both have a responsibility to the children that they create together.

Marantha how are you going to turn this debate to being about rights for cohabiting partners? I imagine we will get there soon

paisleyleaf so yeah, you agree with me then, women shouldn't have to do any work themselves to earn money, they should involve themselves with a bloke who should -rightly or wrongly- feel guilty about breaking up with them and support them as well as his children even though the ex may be an adult, too.

YABU when there are children involved though I do think it is dependent upon the age of child(ren).
Normally one parent becomes the primary carer and place their career on hold or seek lower paying positions to fit with the child(ren) schedule or decide to SAH.
If there is a relationship breakdown I don't consider it unreasonable for the primary earner to continue to provide financial support for the other parent and child(ren).

You want to have your cake and eat it, ladies. Human nature I suppose.

He should support the children NOT the mother.
She deserves nothing.

What a stupid post. Personally, we have household income, made up of my wages, DH's income, tax credits, child benefit etc. I manage that income and budget as I see fit, to make sure our bills are paid, food on the tabel, etc. If DH and I split I would still expect his contribution, although it would be less than now of course since his living costs would be removed from the equation. I would still expect to manage the household income as I see fit, as the person who manages the home where my DS lives.

I would not expect DH to buy DS's clothes, for example, or buy his nappies, or as he gets older to pay for his swimming club, or whatever. I would expect to be given cash and left to spend it as I see fit and necessary.

DS will always have a bedroom and use hot water and electricity etc. The money that DH would pay me would go towards those costs. So the money would go to me. It would not be about 'deserving' money but about DS having a decent standard of living.

Although as i am the main earner it's all academic. I certainly didn't get impregnated by DH for his money.

YABU. I know a female who was in this exact situation that WWCs DH is in now, shoe on other foot.....she still paid towards her step sons life when she split up with the father and she still went and took the step son out at weekends, bought him little gifts etc. All of that, even although the boy was not her real son, she loved him and still wanted to be a part of his life.

So yeah, YABU to say that women are looking for a meal ticket for life.

But this is nonsense isn't it. The majority of women work, even after children. And even then many women wish they could work more, and many fathers wish they had more flexible workplaces so that they could take on more of the childcare.

I think you are stuck in a 1950s timewarp marantha. "meal ticket"? very good.

Moving2010 Typical PC dross- "giving up a career"! Most people do not have careers and are only too happy NOT to get up for a 7am commute and return home knackered at 7pm.

As if giving up a job is always difficult!

Why is staying at home with children deemed more difficult than a job of work?

Here's a novel idea- how about compensating the man (or woman) who goes out to work while partner stays at home to look after kids for the TIME they didn't get with their children because they were working their asses off?