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

Men - a meal ticket for life?

429 replies

marantha · 14/01/2010 10:05

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?

OP posts:
MissWooWoo · 14/01/2010 12:21

that's miss Peachy! I am not even married to dp

not married and sponging off him (although dd is his child) cooo, I don't know how I hold my head up somedays

See Marantha's fucked off then

Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 12:23

When the couple are TOGETHER and one of the partner's is staying at home to look after children and one is going out to work I agree it is a quid pro quo arrangement and each party is contributing equally.
However, if the relationship ENDS, why should one party (not children- both are responsible for children) CONTINUE to get money off the other party given that they've already been "paid" once.

OP posts:
drloves8 · 14/01/2010 12:23

shineyandnew you are married . your dd is "a child of the marriage" that means your husband has a responsibility for her. its not quite the same when its a co-habiting couple.
before anyone starts flamming me- thats a fact , not an opinion.
look at relationships at what they are , not what youd like them to be. co-habiting is different to marriage.doesnt mean the love bewteen the couple is less or more , its just different in the eyes of the law.

Peachy · 14/01/2010 12:27

Miss I hope you realise that was a Typo and I dontcareless if youa remarried, yes?

Just to be sure...

thesecondcoming · 14/01/2010 12:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ImSoNotTelling · 14/01/2010 12:28

Are you talking about divorce settlements now? Where there are no childen involved?

Am a bit confused as to what you are getting in a pickle about, it seems to slide from one thing to another. As others have pointed out in this case the man was providing money for the ex to look after the children to the standard he wanted them looked after. Not to have to leave their family home etc. Nothing wrong with that.

Will you say if you are male or female?

Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 12:29

thesecondcoming For your information, I am neutral about marriage. YOU'RE the one who wants "cohabitee rights" so that women can be "protected" by men post-relationship because they're, "vulnerable". Get YOUR pinny on, dear!

OP posts:
Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 12:31

Let's get one thing straight, I don't want everybody married by default- that is why I am so ANTI cohabitee rights.

OP posts:
Peachy · 14/01/2010 12:32

Women have little to offer in terms of conversation?

She's never seen DH sat on the Wii of an evening then, I reckon it's me that should head to the pub (or come on MN, it is cheaper)

pagwatch · 14/01/2010 12:33

so Marantha
Having worked my arse of as part of a team of two equals all through our married life - and having been massively disadvantaged in any career prospects going forward, you think we should just seperate and earn what we can if we split?

I lose 13 years of career progression during which time I have helped and supported him through his career advancement - and looked after our children, something HE wanted me to do and I was prepared to do being part of an ..er... team. But by your rules he should fuck off with the large sums we have collected and i should get nowt and get a job in retail?

Really?

MissWooWoo · 14/01/2010 12:33

remarried! how dare you

Peachy · 14/01/2010 12:35

Bugger off laughing at my shit typing. are married

not that Icare if you remarried,are gay or shag the lcoal Mayor tbh (unless you give him a heart atatck as most mayors seem to be over 80 but Imguess you can go happy)

MissWooWoo · 14/01/2010 12:35

Marantha I think it is you who is has the 1950s attitude here love

drloves8 · 14/01/2010 12:36

marantha i think most people arent getting what you mean.
i think you mean that being married and later divorced means that the man has a responsibility to look after the woman and child (who may or may not be his bio child) (or swap woman to man)during the marriage and then only to the child after the divorce.
cohabiting means that the man has a reponsibility to look after the partner and child during the relationship.... but to the child for life , only if the child is his either by bio or parental rights being granted to the man if he is not bio.
if your living with a guy who is not the bio dad of your child and he -doesnt- want parental rights thats an indicator he wont help you if you split.

TheCrackFox · 14/01/2010 12:37

Some men quite like being a meal ticket -they like all that provider stuff.

Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 12:37

pagwatch You are married (in my opening post I mentioned the words "not married") you made a contract with someone else so of course if one of you wishes to break that contract you have to answer to it accordingly. This is not about the married.

OP posts:
pooexplosions · 14/01/2010 12:38

Marantha, if you don't think women are still massively disadvantaged by being married (OR NOT) and having children, you are, quite frankly, a moron.
I'm not even going to explain to you, if you don't get it.

Morloth · 14/01/2010 12:41

Seems to me that it is many men who are having their cake and eating it. At least in the case of my DH.

He is driven and ambitious and wants to go very far in his chosen profession. He also wants a couple of kids - as a single father he would have trouble achieving either of those things with any degree of success, something would have to give. This isn't a problem because I am quite happy to pause my career prospects for both of these things to come about.

However if we split then I do consider that I am entitled to some recompense from him for the years that I put aside to bolster his need for a great job/career. I would expect half of all assets/cash obtained throughout the marriage and possibly some sort of income to pay for some retraining while I got myself back to where I would have been if I hadn't stopped my career progression in favour of his. Why is that so hard to understand?

marantha · 14/01/2010 12:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Peachy · 14/01/2010 12:42

Once a relationship has kids,it should be the same RE children.

I don't know anyone without children and no other substantial reason (I 'lived off of' XP for a bit but only when I couldn't walk from a back injury) who doesn't work,TBH>I know a fewamrried women without children who don't but usually because their DH changes countries regualarly so they have to be able to move at no notice, or they give much of their time to charity which is a form of work, just not formalised.

Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 12:44

I know many a man who is disadvantaged because he is too busy working all the hours god sends to support his family. How about compensating these men?

OP posts:
Peachy · 14/01/2010 12:45

Maranatha that is completely ridiculous and a personal attack.

Surely that depends entirely on the kids,the job you did, what other bits you do?Forme aprenting invovles 2autistic children plus two others,and studying for an MA,aswell as giving time to the school tomread with the children.That is as good as any job i've ever done(Some pretty stressful ones too).

Doubly so if it'ssomething forced upon you through childcare or facctors such as a DH who works shifts socannot in any way be relied upon for help in a reggualr asnd predictable fashion.

Morloth · 14/01/2010 12:45

That's us Peachy, another reason for me not really committing to a "proper" career is that in order for DH's to progress the way he wants we need to be able to upsticks and change countries every few years. Once again, not a problem but it does reduce my ability to earn to the same sort of potential than if that wasn't the case.

Poppity · 14/01/2010 12:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TheCrackFox · 14/01/2010 12:46

Compensate them with what? A tax rise to pay for all these men who are receiving compensation because they have children and have been asked to pay for them?

FFS