How does it become one person's fault when it was the decision of both?

[sisterofbrothers]

Both my brothers are getting a divorce, and their situation made me think. AOur family is not taking it well, especially my mom. So, one discovered his wife is a cheater. For my other brother it was the wife who decided to separate, but nothing dramatic, it just fizzled out, they say.

Even though the two have nothing to do with each other, both my brothers face something I have seen with coworkers, and somehow always taken for granted: They are somehow immediately are made out to be the sole reason why their stbxws have no career, and need the pity of other people.

I will be the first to tell my brothers when they are morons our out of line, but neither of them were ever coercive, they were never financially controlling. When they had kids, it was always a decision done together with their wives, they together decided that the women would stop working and stay at home with the kids. It wasn't something they forced on the two stbxws, but now, with a flick of a switch, it's like they took away their careers.

Can I ask what would be a solution? Why are so many of us doing this even with men who never forced anything on us?? Would the solution be that they would stay at home, and then we should carry the burden of financing the whole family? Uhh, don't know about you, I would much rather do the cooking, the cleaning and other chores than slave away at a company for someone else's profit. I used to think it's an escape to go and work instead of looking after the house. Not anymore!

I think I am just sensitive to this now. And just a note: I am not talking about those arseholes who hide finances from you, control you, and force their will on you. I am genuine, what is the solution??

You see it on here all the time.

Husband has lower sex drive - ditch the useless bastard. Wife has lower sex drive - it's because the husband doesn't do enough housework and the wife bears no responsibility.

Men do enough arse hole stuff without women making up extra faults.

They might never have forced anything on them but it think this idea that oh they had a discussion and decided xyz…might be a little black and white and naive.

Society doesn’t make it easy for women to return to work when they have kids.
It implies that we should be the main caregiver.

How hard did the husbands push back against this idea? If the opportunity to be the main caregiver was there, would they have stepped up? Did they even do their share as the secondary caregiver?

Maybe the women felt they couldn’t go back to work becuase the men where bloody useless with the kids?

Also, it would have been prudent for them to at least work part time just incase the marriage ended. Now of course they have responsibility for their choices there but, did their partner make that a possibility?

Did the husbands say “honey, I love you but in the event that I don’t love you in future, I still want you to be taken care of. So I will take steps regarding that but also, you would be wise to keep working so, I will step up with the kids so that you can do that”.

Saying they decided xyz…. Could simply have been becuase it seemed like the only option.

Presumably it was a mutual decision with mutual consequences. One of those consequences, which is well known enough not to be a surprise, is that in the event of marriage breakdown the paid working partner will have to support the non-paid working partner back into paid work.

Applying such emotive language as 'they took away their careers' is unnecessary. The couple agreed mutually that is was of benefit to the family for one partner to make that sacrifice. Yes it is a sacrifice as it typically does put you in a more vulnerable position financially.

Personally after a long stint as a SAHP I was delighted to be back in intellectually satisfying well paid work. I dont regret the years I spent being there for my children when they were little, it was important to me. But not enjoyable in the way that my career has been.

The solution is what it already is, the paid partner must continue to pay more in the event of a split until the other persons career recovers enough for them to be able to support themselves. And often that financial recovery is at nowhere near the standard of living they had before, but that is one of the risks taken when making this choice.

The solution is that both parents continue to work and the couple pays for childcare so that neither parent has to cope with a CV gap.

Paying for childcare is essential, even if it eats up most of one spouse's salary for a few years because it means both parents maintain employment continuity, grow their skills and keep pace with their industries. Childcare is an investment in CVs.
And the higher earning spouse has to accept paying a larger share whilst the children are small.

I'm not blaming your DBros but they could have insisted that their DWs go straight back to work at the end of mat leave, as could the DWs themselves.

Ideally, one parent is able to work part time whilst the children are small so that they can spend some time parenting as well as working.

Hopefully not everyone is like this? Most people would surely blame the cheating partner for breaking up their family (whether the man or the woman). And for job roles, normally people assume it is choice and if a family is lucky enough to have one parent stay at home, it's no one's business if they're happy about it.

I mean essentially, what they should have been doing is giving their wives and allowance that is purely theirs, to save as a rainy day fund if the relationship should break down, and, encouraging their wives to work part time and, stepping up in the home to make sure she could.

If they did all those things and she was still like “no I don’t want to work at all” then fair enough. He did his part so if she still doesn’t want to then that’s on her.

But if she felt that she couldn’t work becuas she wasn’t supported and that now she is out in the cold because he didn’t do these things - then it is absolutely his fault. Because he should have been thinking about her security.

Why is failing to consider her security 100% the fault of the man? Does the woman have no agency at all?

Sure, but once she’s had the kid, chances are she’s very much stuck on his whims.

That’s why we have to all think long and hard about if we should have children and who with.

But you should be able to rely on your husband not to want to leave you screwed over in the event of a divorce, unable to get a job.

And yes in the afore mentioned case where he doesn’t make it possible for her to work then yes that would be 100 percent his fault. Because she supposed to do? Even If she splits she will still have the same responsibilities so she’s very much screwed unless she can pay child care.

I suppose you could argue she could have guessed he would be like that before the baby but…unfortunately that’s not always possible.

So unless we tell women their responsibility is not to take the risk of kids - ever… there’s really not much that can be done. Because every man is a risk and often we don’t know how they will be till kids are introduced.

Does that mean she has no responsibility for her own choices. No. But it’s a husbands job to think of his wives wellbeing. And I’m many cases, they don’t.