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?

OP - I agree with your principle, this thread seems to have got sidetracked into yet another discussion of WWC's situation.

As I understand it your point is that women should not expect their ex-p to support THEM for the rest of their life (assuming that he does continue to support the children). I completely agree with this.

My dh's ex wife is a prime example of expecting him to support her. He has 2 Dc from his first marriage, now late teens. He has always supported them and bought a house for his ex so she has never had to pay rent/mortgage etc and he pays her plenty per month for bills, food etc. They split up c15yrs ago. Once eldest dd was 18 he wanted to pay money to her directly rather than to his ex - the ex created hell, how dare he do this, how was she supposed to manage. Basically she thought he would support her or life. I can't believe that attitude. So op yanbu.

Also, Morloth what if the partner's in a 10-year-relationship DID not want to be considered in effect married?

I left a cohabiting relationship and both of us thanked god that we did not have to go through the rigamorale of a divorce (it was fairly amicable)

WWC received very little criticism over the money paid to her DH's ex; the criticism she received was mostly over the treatment of the children.

Within a few posts of the start of this thread, started saying she agree that the DH should continue to support the children.

So I don't know why the OP has started a thread when even she does not agree with her first post.

People have tried to come up with all kinds of reason behind people's motives of being critical of WWC, and made out that is to do with their circumstances. So I will say that I criticised her but:

I work full time
I am married to the Father of my children, and neither of us have children by, or have been married to, anyone else.
I breastfed my children for over 2 years.
No man has been unfaithful to me.
I do not expect a man to support me.
I do not have cancer.

My criticism was based on her suggesting the children should be cut off emotionally and financially, which is disgusting.

I suggest that some of the cloying suppport of WWC is actually not based on sympathy, but on some weird cap doffing need to suck up to a woman who is a 'super-high earner' and had a wedding reception is a Scottish Baronial hall or some such nonsense. It is almost certainly a fantasy, and even if it isn't, it has nothing to do with the choices of the overwhelming majority of the population.

Most women are never going to get into a relationship with a 'Super-high earner' or end up living in a 6 bedroom house worth over 3 million, or have our children's school fees paid at 18 grand a year. I am sure discussing it as if it is ever going to apply to the vast majority of us is a nice, Dynasty soap opera sort of relief from the horrific reality of the recession, but it is never going to happen to the rest of us.

So if we are going to discuss men as a meal ticket, why not use a male window fitter and a female part time cleaner as the example, because that is far nearer to most people's reality. The inequality in wages and time spent with children for ordinary people is a topic worthy of discussion, but WWC's fantasy is not.

cassell maintenance payments are a common stipulation in divorce settlements aren't they?

(Don't know much about divorce TBH)

*Scotland probably does things even better, as usual e.g. Property purchasing, financial division following divorce....

Not absolutely sure if NI more closely follows the English/Welsh model re: financial provision for children

Marantha is a one-note stirrer. He/she/it always makes inflammatory posts designed to cause a reaction on this kind of subject - best to ignore really.

I do have an issue with someone who splits from the bio dad and immediately searches a replacement to 'support' them rather than stand on their own two feet for a while!

And I don't think WWC h should support the exp. although I think he is being very generous supporting the

My exh doesn't support me for example - he pays maintenance for the dcs but not 'spousal' maintenance because I have always worked.

I would feel extremely vulnerable, ironically if I met someone now either married or lived with him and he supported me and the dcs - it wouldn't feel right at all. But I suppose some people might do that in order to feel secure.

supporting the dcs I should have said

posieparker You are now suggesting that men should be married by default (by way of "cohabitee rights") AGAINST THEIR WILL. Oh. My. God.

Oh and if you don't sign on the dotted line of the marriage certificate you can't reasonably expect anyone else to consider you married.

A person doesn't believe in marriage but believes in "cohabitee rights" that will effectively make them married. Does not compute.

Damn, got it wrong again - I was supposed to fleece HIM not the other way around.

Marantha being married to someone doesn't guarantee that your children will be financially looked after - my exh doesn't bother, and never will.

It all comes down to the type of person you are whether you think it's your responsibility to contribute towards the upkeep your children or not. Most of the single mums I know (whether previously married or not) seem to have the worst end of the deal - no money, no support, usually hassle from the ex over contact arrangements (or lack of them).

I've always worked full time, my ex is the one who lived off me, and I would say this is the norm with most of my single friends.

Do you have a personal situation that you might like to share with us rather than offering soundbites? Your view of the world seems at odd with RL

If DH is a meal ticket I wish it wasn't just for MacDonalds

I really do not agree that women do this, in cohabitating non child rearing relationships, very often.I cannopt think of one case IME.

I know when I left my XP I was quite happy to abandon pretty much everything I had ever contributed to the relationship etc (his namewas on house but I paid a lot of the costs and contrinuted half most of the time-except when injured) in order to just get out of there and start again.

The cause for feminism is not ended by a very few female choices. if everyone were agreed,there would not be a cuase after all.

"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?"

The justice is that obviously neither of the people ontended to be viewed as a married couple and as such should not be treated like on. If their are children involved you are responsible to them and no one else.
If you one party doesn't want to get married and the othr does, you can't force such an agreement on them because you think that's right/fair.

GrumpyWhenWoken For heaven's sake , my OP is NOT about women like you who actually earn their own money.

Being married may not guarantee that your children will be financially looked after- marriage is irrelevant as regards the upkeep of CHILDREN of a relationship. I am on about the ex-partner not the children.

Clearly the DH in WWC's post did feel a moral obligation to care for the children/his ex. As he would appear to be in an excellent position to engage the services of a lawyer I assume he was aware that he did not have a legal one and yet he was still housing her and paying private school fees etc.

In any case, I cannot believe I got sucked into a thread about a thread. Slaps self and wanders off to eat more cake.

Actually. Aside from all the seriousness, I am still LOVING pooexplosions

"mealticket"! More like a snack ticket, on his wages!

oh, fuck it, heres my opinion fwiw

DP and I aren't married, i have always had a very strong principal about him not "keeping" me. As a SAHM i still struggle with spending the money he earns. But we made the decision that i would be a SAHM because we felt that the best thing for our DD.

So, if he were to leave, he would of course still continue to support DD financially. But what about me? I mean, im no longer staying in HIS home, doing his washing ironing etc etc. We are no longer a couple - so does he owe me anything? I think the marriage certificate is irrelevant.

I have worked whilst we have owned this house and therefore contributed. I did go to university and he "kept" me whilst i was there, although i did actually recieve a grant, the same when i did my PhD but he subsidised me. Then, i got pregnant with his child, decided, with him, that i would be a SAHM. My PhD probably isn't worth the paper its written on now to be fair, so i would be left with little earning potential. Am i therefore not entitled something for the sacrifices I made to look after OUR child??

Do you know what? I am not sure i have the answer - at the end of the day (I KNOW thats chavtastic) it was my decision to be a SAHM, i think he would probably have prefered i work if im entirely honest with myself. I knew it would fuck my career up - but thats the decision i made. I think it was the right one, and i certainly don't think i should have continued with my career just incase DP left me. If i continued it would be for my own reasons.

Dont get me wrong, im not against working mums, far from it, its just that was what was right for us, there were other factors that influenced my decision.

Not sure my DP could afford to compensate me for my loss of earnings if he did leave anyway Mind you, i would have made the decision to be a SAHM even if he did leave so i guess the answer would then be, no, i am not automatically entitled to money from DP for me, married or otherwise. I would however, be entitled to the assets and a share of any split profits etc.

Its quite a grey area really isnt it

I may regret posting on here again but anyway..

Why the sexist assumption that women always want to get married and men don't?

Right. Last post.

Marantha I get your point, I'm having trouble understanding why you are making it. I don't know ANYONE who gets money from an ex for themselves, rather than for the children. I only know women who are entitled to CSA money and can't get it.

Do you actually know someone who gets money for themselves?

I don't recall there being a sexist assumption that women want to marry and men don't here.

My only belief is that those who do wish to be EFFECTIVELY married without actually being married would wise up and marry because, if they don't, those who wish to cohabit free from legal ties may have marriage foisted upon them by default by stupid cohabitee rights.

Grumpy - I do actually know someone who received spousal maintenance. But I dare not say anymore or I shall fall foul of the myriad of rules imposed in this thread by the OP.

GrumpyWhenWoken I am just responding to the negativity heaped upon WashWithCare when she dared suggest that an ex-partner should get a job and not rely on her (that is WWC's) husband for dosh.

I don't understand it- we are supposedly living in post-feminist times yet it is still considered OK by MNers for a woman not to stand on her feet and get a job when she is fit and well.

maranatha an aside but a straight Q about your take

if the non married couple have children or a child that has needs that prevented caring aprent fromactively working- what if they split? Obv.am thinking mainly of disabled children requiring lots of care. Does that additional factor become entirely to the detriment of the remaining partner (who is usually but not always mum?) (And I have no idea how up you are on disability so although you might know this, am not being aptronising explaining that childcare forSN kids is either incredibly expensive or difficult to access even if available)

*WhoIsAsking" I have no issue with SPOUSAL -as in spouse=married- maintenance. This is not about marriage.

Why do you care so much marantha? You're like a dog with a bone. You've been told why WWC got a hard time, and it was mainly down to the children. Stop being so obtuse.