India Knight: "Wives feel like chattels, scared to leave in case they find themselves on the breadline"

[WideWebWitch]

here

Does anyone feel like this? I remember an old thread called something like "SAHMS, what if he leaves you?" - what do sahps/sah women in this position feel? (I can see that it applies to men and women so sahps not just sahms but let's face it, the majority are women)

Btw, I have no issue with anyone being a sahp if that's what they want or a being wothp, interested to know what people think.

Assets may be split 50-50 but it usually takes a while to get to that point.

Nametaken - I am perfectly well able to support my family financially. Perfectly well able. I stay with my DH because I want to. The same works in reverse.

I am not posting this as a universal recipe for happiness, but it does so irritate me when women think that they or other women are incapable of supporting their family. They are not, they have simply chosen to become incapable of supporting their family and have to live with the consequences of that choice.

Yay for India. When she's not writing diet books, she's a game old bird.

Nametaken that is a bit naive- there are whole armies of solicitors out there who's job it is to advise the divorcing couple how to get the most out of the financial settlement over & above this mythical 50/50. After you take out various lumps &things not declared it can be 50/50 of diddly squat in some wives(& husbands) cases!!

Bossy has just posted the main point - if you get divorced, you may get 50:50 of the existing assets, and that might be enough to buy two poperties (yet again, it might not). But what about ongoing hard cash - the bills will still need paying, won't they?

i love her-she is usually bang on. anyhoo my own personal experience of this is that myDH seems to have much more respect for me now i am back working and earning,dont know why this is but he just does. its as if money validates me more than my DS. he tries to get his head round that SAHM is a full time job and makes all theright noises but I know he thinks I sit on MN all day drinking coffee

anyhow i agree with IK that we should beteaching our young women the importance of making a career for themselves and earning their own money not relying on men

I will absolutely teach my dd that it's important to be financially independent.

Oi at game old bird, she's only my age, India, so middle youth I think you'll find

In reality the assets to be split on divorce normlly consists of the matrimonial home (which is often mortgaged), A few PEPs and ISAs if your're lucky and furniture. Clearly, two homes need to be established and this means that both husband and wife will be in reduced circumstances.

She is my age too - WWW - aren't we getting the littlest bit gamey?

Speaking as the WOH parent whose H is a SAHD, I'm slightly puzzled by this! If I left him then not only would I lose my children but I would be very likely to have to pay for his continued support as well as for my children. Surely the stay-at-home parent is in fact in a far stronger position than the poor mug who goes out to work?

And WWW is not the slightest bit gamey! Speak for yourself, Quattro!

Agree with Swedes that even if everything is split 50/50, even if the person working contributes far more than the percentage required by the CSA, it is still far more expensive to run two homes than one. Even with both parenst working full time I think it would be hard... Frankly I don't know how people do it from a financial pov. From what I've learned on MN, benefits don't go anywhere near making up the shortfall...

But MrsPG (you're Dino, right?) the amount you'd legally obliged to give him would be paltry wouldn't it? I think it's 15% of net income. So unless the working oth partner is prepared to keep the sahp in the manner to which etc, which would be hard given having to establish 2 homes etc then the sahp is likely to end up worse off, financially.

I thank you re non gamey ness

Yes it is me . I had not come across that 15% figure before, www, but obviously that would put a different complexion on it. I would want my DCs to be kept in the state to which they are accustomed whatever happened, though. (As we all would, I imagine.)

I think it's a very fair point that she's making.

(I'm older than IK.)

(btw, didn't know who PhillipGlenister was when you first used it but I do now and I know it's wrong but I fancied him like mad in Life on Mars, while feeling slightly ashamed of liking unreconstructed male!)

I could be wrong about the 15% but I seem to remember it somewhere. I think if we were to ask around on mn about what absent partners are obliged to pay we'd find it isn't that much.

Oh Dino still not over my having that thread pulled?

Yes but what I would say, is that it's all very well wanting to support DCs etc but the reality of many of my friends is that their ex-husbands have new families and family responsibilities, causing them to be a bit mean with financial support. There's some bad old statistics out there on this.

Agree re anecdotal evidence of first families suffering financially.

And at the risk of being somewhat morbid, it is good to have a job to fall back on, in case your dh/p dies or is incapacitated.

We are reasonably set up for 'after' dh. But I will have to work. the last thing that he and I would want was the thought that we would be broke as well as bereaved.

At least we both have the peace of mind that life can go on fairly normally after his death.

at least reagrding the finacial things obviously!

This is the point I was trying but failed to make. I know that in the event of a split, say for arguments sake the house was sold 50/50. Then both partners have to run a smaller house each.

My point was, I personally don't know one single women who, after a split, was capable of supporting herself and her children financially. Even if she works. Remember, a lot of women in the event of a split then have to fork out even more money on childcare costs because the childcare was split between partners before.

They are all without exception topped up with benefits.

if by benefits you mean child tax credits, then yes i have financial help from the state to help support my children. other than that i flog my guts out at a shitty soul sucking public sector job because it keeps a roof over our heads.

but of the alternative is bringing my children up with a faithless alcoholic in the house, then i'll suck down the pride and take the government hand out.

I thought tax/childcare credits applied unless your family income is over £55K - and seeing as only 10% of earners in the UK earn over £46K , theres an awful lot of families getting tax credits.
Nothing to be ashamed of when the average salary is only £24K or thereabouts

I agree that there are probably many women who stay in unhappy marraiges due to financial reasons, I think that debt is a major issue.
India focuses specifically on women who marry rich men who are in this situation. Surely they are less likely to have debt hanging over their heads. Actually I think India's got a bee in her bonnet about women who marry 'rich men.'