Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Peachy · 14/01/2010 13:59

Also maranatha- are you saying then that if Mum wants to be at home, and Dad wants her to be,then they should both go against what they wish becuase of some over riding debt to the cause of feminism?

I'm all for considering these things,, but amrtyring your family to the cause? nah

drloves8 · 14/01/2010 14:02

spousal maintenence - the key word is "spousal" - ergo married. not co-habiting.
,

Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 14:07

Peachy people should be able to do what they wish -within the law- in their private lives.

I am not a feminist, never have been, never will. I am, however, a believer in the fact that people are entitled to a private home life and unless they EXPLICITLY state that they wish to be "Joined together" by marrying they have to accept that nobody else can reasonably know what their relationship is about hence my disapproval of cohabiting women demanding sums of money for themselves (children are separate) after a split.

OP posts:
Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 14:09

Children should be catered for regardless of parental marital status.

OP posts:
drloves8 · 14/01/2010 14:10

i have 3 children by ex husband btw - when we I divorced him to told him to shove his money where the sun dont shine. By law i was entitled to half. i also spent some of the marriage (last half) as a sahm. - he pays csa for the kids and im happy at that - although he switched to a lower paid job (which doesnt use his qualifications at all)so he didnt have to pay me masses the amount he would if he was still working as an accountant. (he's self ruiened his own carear by doing this imo)
Im not bothered, what he sends gets split between the 3 kids banks anyway.I would rather eat my own head than take from the twat man.

posieparker · 14/01/2010 14:10

marantha. No i was making no such suggestion, but I am interested in your view regarding the equality of my relationship. Without marrying my DH you think that relinquishing my capability of earning and career progression for our children is tough shit if he had left me. Whilst he'd support our dcs I would be left with nothing.

drloves8 · 14/01/2010 14:12

so i just dont understand why anyone would want money from an ex for themselves (not speaking kids here - kids need shoes ect)

GrumpyWhenWoken · 14/01/2010 14:12

can you be more specific Marantha?
'Cohabiting women demanding sums of money' is that regular maintenance, or a share of the equity of the shared house, what exactly is it that you disapprove of?

Bonsoir · 14/01/2010 14:12

The OP is completely right here. I get very annoyed with the so-called "feminism" that is actually an attempt for women to have it all their own way.

Men are not a meal ticket for life for grown women. It is quite reasonable for men to support the mothers of their children, if both partners agree that that is the best arrangement for their family. It is a duty for parents to jointly support and bring up their children together, and within that duty lies financial support. But there men's financial responsibilities end.

Original poster
marantha · 14/01/2010 14:15

posieparker Yeah if you weren't married, it would be tough shit if he'd left you.

You didn't make an explicit statement by marrying so how on earth would I- or anyone else- know what your relationship was about? It's not for me to judge, is it? I'm not psychic.

OP posts:
ImSoNotTelling · 14/01/2010 14:17

Yes what grumpy says.

I don;t really get this, I dont; see that women do expect men to support them when cohabitation relationships fail, if there are no children.

I see that marantha is up in arms about this proposed legislation, but marantha why do you assume that everyone on MN supports the proposals? I certainly don't and I'm sure there are many others. I can only assume that you like a ruck lively debate?

lucyellensmumagain · 14/01/2010 14:19

so, let me get this straight then marantha because im a bit thick

You are saying that Married women should get money arfer a split but not cohabiting ones?

hahahahahahahohohohohoho excuse me while i choke on my

drloves8 · 14/01/2010 14:19

i also get more satisfaction from every £1 i earned working as a barmaid cleaner shopassistant in crap jobs for minimum wage , than any of the grudged pennies the ex-h bestowed on me ,as his wife, in the past.

Paperclipcollector · 14/01/2010 14:22

But do women who have been in a 'co-habiting' relationship then break up, are they entitled to money for thesmselves?

I was in a co-habiting relationship for 10 years, and when we split I was entitled to maintenance for our DS, which we agreed an amount between ourselves. This carried on fairly amicably for a few years, until I was able to move from part time to full time employment. My ex then reduced the amount of maintenance he paid for our son.
The biggest bugger was when I eventually sold the small one bedroom flat that (we owned jointly) I had been paying the mortgage on for 5 years without any help from him - I had to agree to a 60/40 split with him - because in a court I could not prove that the money he was giving for my son was not beeing used to pay the mortgage. Even though it was a fraction of what my mortgage repayments were. There were times that I bagged pennies up to change them at my local shop so I could afford to effing feed myself and DS - but at no time did I ever expect my ex to support me in any way other than providing for his son.

Therefore you are talking out of your arse

Bonsoir · 14/01/2010 14:23

I'm not sure why any adult woman capable of working should get money forever after a split.

In most developed jurisdictions, non-working ex-spouses get spousal support that is time-limited in order to give them a cushion in order to get back on their feet in the world of work. That sounds reasonable to me.

Of course, when women are past working age, that is different - a 65 year old woman who has never worked should be entitled to spousal support until the end of her life.

Blackduck · 14/01/2010 14:23

But surely as someone said married women don't get money (once the divorce settlement is through..) don't they just get maintenence for the children? So isn't this a non-argument...

lucyellensmumagain · 14/01/2010 14:25

"You didn't make an explicit statement by marrying so how on earth would I- or anyone else- know what your relationship was about? It's not for me to judge, is it? I'm not psychic. "

that i grudgingly have to agree with. But most REASONABLE people would make a fair split of the assets and ensure that the children were catered for after a split surely? Technically you are right, but it almost sounds like marriage is just a bit of paper that protects you when you split up??

A question that does puzzle me though is, couple splits up, child goes to live with mum, or dad, but its mostly mum to be fair. Time goes on, they move on - mum remarries?

Then what?

I guess most men would want to continue their contribution to their children, but does this change for some people i wonder?

lucyellensmumagain · 14/01/2010 14:27

paperclip - that is outrageous!!

mumblechum · 14/01/2010 14:29

If men are a mealticket for life I seem to have inadvertently been handed a beans on toast one.

So who the f.. has my champagne and canape ticket????

MillyR · 14/01/2010 14:29

I think that is the problem though, isn't it? This whole thing of children living with the Mother. There wouldn't be so many financial problems if childcare, both before and after the split, was shared between the parents

Peachy · 14/01/2010 14:31

'Children should be catered for regardless of parental marital status'

willth children be best catered for if Mum is on benefits through caring responsibilities? Surely what can be done tomaximise their chanceswill be severely curtailed if Mum has to surviveon £53 a week carers benefit and has no way to get offof that? I think that as the limitation is as a result ofthe vchildrens needs that Dad should be held to that, absolutely. Regard;ess of mariatal status. I would also say the same if it were the other way around (and I know cases whre it is).

If one parent cannot work at all becuase of her choices being taken away jhow is that a choice tolive off a man?

caramelwaffle · 14/01/2010 14:32

Marantha - you see, this is where I absolutely disagree with you; I do not believe even married people (male or female) should expect to be maintained fully and forever following divorce.
Family Law Courts also take this view (except in the case of much, much older divorcing couples)

And with each passing year, as females "take on" the role as the main breadwinner, it is increasingly the case that men seek maintenance.

Peachy · 14/01/2010 14:32

Also true Milly

I would not have such a copncern about this if the responsibility of the anbsent aprent was tocover half of childcare copsts (over what can be claimed through eg TCs) thus allowing otherpartner towork.

being able to curtail ex'schnaes whilst legally contributing to children is a control freaks wet dream

pagwatch · 14/01/2010 14:33

sorry mumble...

GrumpyWhenWoken · 14/01/2010 14:34

me too mumblechum, I got the BOGOF ticket