Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
expatinscotland · 14/01/2010 12:46

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

It is. But people still insist of feeding it.

MrsChemist · 14/01/2010 12:48

Here marantha, have another

pagwatch · 14/01/2010 12:49

well I have had a job, had a career , been a WOHM and been a SAHM.
I would say that being a SAHM has been easy at times, difficult at times and at others ( and for long periods) by FAR the most stressful of the three.

I also think calling people morons is deeply unpleasant but there you go.

Morloth · 14/01/2010 12:49

I think DH is quite well compensated for his long hours. He makes a bomb and do you know how much time he spends on day to day living arrangements? None, nada, zilch. Which once again, is not a problem, but if he had to pay someone to "keep" him in the manner to which he has become accustomed, I am pretty sure it would be more than I charge.

He does put a lot of time and effort and love into our son, but that is because he loves him.

Peachy · 14/01/2010 12:49

Surely a family is a unit in itself? That'show the best ones operate anyway. Family definas nothing in terms of amrried ornot IMO. It si the unit. That unit needs to function as a team and work out the best solutions for overall happiness and outcome.
if that disadvanatages one member should the otehr pulls out, ieleaves,then the partner should be compensated much as you would expect to be ifany contractvwas broken.Thecontract is forming the family,not necessarily having a wedding.

And I am married BTW,happily so.

posieparker · 14/01/2010 12:51

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.

So what you're saying is that if my DH gives up his career for seven years to look after our dcs and then I leave he should get nothing as he's already been paid? What about the three promotions he missed? What about the huge gap on his CV that means he has to go in at a lower point to rejoin his career path? I have continued my career and am now earning 160% more than I did when I had our first child, so because of his support and childcare my career has flourished....didn't I do well to take advantage of him and now that he's no longer useful and all the dcs can go to breakfast and after school clubs I have no responsibility to him.

Wow, you think that is right OP?

drloves8 · 14/01/2010 12:52

jesus !the whole point of being married is to offer protection for this kind off thing . as a spouse you are entitled to 50% of assets. spouse with children -possibly a little bit more through maintenence ect.
co- habiting different . you are entitled to what you can prove is yours then , why is that so hard to understand?

Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 12:53

posieparker No I don't think it is right, you made a contract by marrying. I'll repeat: this is not about the married.

OP posts:
Morloth · 14/01/2010 12:54

So are we actually talking about the new laws/rules for cohabitees then and not that women view men as meal tickets as the thread name suggests?

I am slightly uncomfortable about the new laws because I think people should be free not to commit if that is their preference for their relationship (am thinking of all the fun had at uni when flitting between living with people "officially" and not so officially).

posieparker · 14/01/2010 12:54

Does married include civil partnerships?

drloves8 · 14/01/2010 12:57

pp think so , has same legal rights attached to it.

Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 12:58

Yes, married includes civil partnerships. Contract signed, same principle.

Morloth I did use the words "Not married" in the OP.

OP posts:
Morloth · 14/01/2010 13:00

But you don't think that by living with someone for 10 years and raising her children as his own that he has a moral obligation to them (and that includes ensuring that their mother does not live in poverty) if not a legal one? So you do just want to continue her thread here?

pippaNnippa · 14/01/2010 13:02

some women do take the piss in the divorce settlement to punish their exh, I think this is wrong.

However if there are children involved then I wouls hope its a different story and they would be asking for what they need/ have 'earned' (ie missed x years of work etc)

I think that using money as revenge is pathetic and the best revenge is to keep dignity and grace. I hope I would do this if was ever in this position and support myself and ny dd.

drloves8 · 14/01/2010 13:04

BTW i do think there are a very small number of people (both men and women) who activly seek out relationships with richer/well off people. its not usual , but it does happen.
i know a guy who calls his now wife a "bloody gold digger"( who was the ow) and wishes he stayed with his first wife who in his eyes helped him build his business.Hed divorce wife#2 in a heartbeat if it wasnt for the money hed have to pay out.
First wife thinks it hilarious!
first wife always worked , second wife never works .man has adult kids by first wife, none by second,she has one 22yr old son by former partner.

Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 13:04

Morloth: He has no obligation towards the mother, only the children.

What I meant by, "cake and eat it" is that a lot of women claim to be for feminism but still expect an ex-partner (marriage IS different) to support them post-relationship because they are silly little women who can't get a job. Is there not a double-standard at play here?

OP posts:
WhoIsAsking · 14/01/2010 13:10

Yeah, if you want your ex partner to support you when you break up you should be a non-feminist. That makes it ok.

Morloth · 14/01/2010 13:10

So how did he get to be such a big high earner if for the previous 10 years he was not supported in his home life by the ex? Her contribution during that time is now worthless because they were not married? None of the promises he must have made during that time count for anything?

Obviously I think getting married is a very good idea and would not have had children with someone without it because of the legal safeguards involved as well as the moral ones. But I do think that after you have lived with someone for 10 years then you are in effect married and the situation is different than if you were just "shacking up together".

ImSoNotTelling · 14/01/2010 13:13

Women don't expect men to support them when they split up from cohabiting relationships.

What they expect is for them to support any children they have, and as you can see from these boards many men fail even that minimum standard.

There is no legal obligation for a man to support a woman who he has lived with, I don;t see that this is either expected or happening.

Are you a man or a woman marantha?

drloves8 · 14/01/2010 13:17

Having a moral stance is all very well, its a good thing for many. But the fact is most people do what they can get away with.thats why you shouldnt count on someone doing whats morally right. If you base everything on whats legal - then no-one can assume things will be ok .(as in its ok ,dp has been with me 25 years so he'll keep paying the bills if we split as it morally right)
People`s definitions of morally right are different too.
I personally dont think it right for a man to pay for a child when hes not the childs bio/legal parent(csa seems to agree with me on that one), or for a woman who has no ties to a man to expect him to provide for her...some people think different ...thats ok , whatever works for them.
Go ask a lawyer if its morally right for a man to be able to force the sale of a house he bought 50/50 with his ex-p (not married)who has a child with him.its not morally right, but it happens.

mellifluouscauliflower · 14/01/2010 13:20

Yes. Men like you will always be the losers. But I imagine this is chiefly because you are a bit of a misery. You have a negative outlook on life, concentrating on what you have lost from a relationship that has run its course, rather than looking at what you have gained from it.

Sorry not to stick around - must go and pop out a few babies..

Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 13:20

Morloth I disagree with you, IF a couple do not make it EXPLICIT what their intentions towards each other are by getting married, it is not my place or yours -or anyone's- to pass judgement upon what promises were or were not made during the cohabiting union. It would be guesswork.

ImSoNotTelling so why then the contempt for WWC's posts? Why weren't more people agreeing with her?

I am a female, by the way.

OP posts:
posieparker · 14/01/2010 13:21

So if you can't make a man marry or you don't believe in marriage you think a person should be doomed when the relationship breaks down...where is the justice in that?

I only married my husband a yearish ago, we had three dcs and one on the way. I am a SAHM, starting a small business and gave my, very good, career to stay at home. At the time DH earned 75% more than me... and since he has doubled, tripled and halved his income.

ImSoNotTelling · 14/01/2010 13:22

In this case it seems that the man (who had oodles of cash anyway) was doing what was morally right, the wicked stepmother wanted to cast the babes out into the snow, MN said oooh you are wicked, and this has got poor old marantha's knickers in a twist.

Given marantha's one topic agenda I wonder if it is actually someone with political interest trying to raise the profile of this legislation by posting here about it every so often.

Funny thing is it has worked for me, I am now aware of this propsal and think it is a bad thing. Although i disagree with the reasoning marantha gives, and pretty much everything else s/he says.

caramelwaffle · 14/01/2010 13:22

Leaving aside the issues of Adoption and Fostering: Children of relationships who are NOT the biological child of one half of the partnership are, in many instances, considered children of that partnership. This is reflected in our (English/Welsh)* Tax Laws (including Welfare/benefit rules