'As a stay-at-home/homeschooler mom, I find myself on the short end of the stick in divorce'
October 24th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesTerri, a reader, sent me a letter concerning my recent co-authored column With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce: The Rise of Lesbian Custody Battles (MSN.com, 10/15/09). In the column, we asserted that regardless of whether one supports or opposes gay marriage, lesbian custody battles are enormously illustrative of the dynamics behind heterosexual family court battles.
Mothers are often able to convince courts to allow them to drive decent, loving fathers out of their children's lives by employing anti-father/pro-mother stereotypes and by portraying dads as abusive or unfit. But there are no abusive males or bad dads in lesbian custody battles. Nevertheless, when two lesbians agree to have a child together and the relationship goes sour, the lesbian biological mom often does the exact same thing to her ex as heterosexual mothers do.
Terri writes:
I've been reading your articles for over a year. I'm a little concerned that you are promoting the gay parent right along with transgendered.
When I first took your emails it was because my brother was getting screwed by the family court system. He is fine now, but he's been relegated to every other weekend status. I'm writing because my circumstances have changed and now I (a woman) find myself in a divorce.
I have felt the formulas are unfair to men. I still think in many cases it is. But as a stay-at-home-mom of 9 years who homeschooled my children, I find myself on the short end of the stick to some extent.
See, your support for transgendered parents bothers me because, without my knowledge, my husband of 15 years decided to change his sex. He filed for divorce when I found out about his hormone therapy. We are still in the process of divorce.
I think two things are really unfair:
1) the children and I have to deal with his choice to change, and as that relates to custody, visitation, and decisions on their behalf, I am very concerned.
2) the state of Texas has a maximum for child support. My ex makes 150K but will only pay 30 percent of first 75k for child support. Not enough to keep the kids at home with me home schooling and I have to find a job to support them.
I'm very discouraged that you would join forces with the transgendered. I can understand that gays made a decision with full disclosure. But I never would have subjected my children to what they will endure with their dad. I'm open-minded but there is another face to these cases. Blind support of transgendered emboldens them to destroy more families.
My reply:
Terri, I sympathize, but your situation regarding your husband changed his sex is very rare--I wouldn't extrapolate much from it onto families in general.
In the cases I'm discussing, both lesbian parents agreed to have kids together and for years raised them together. My point is that neither one of them should be able to drive the other one out simply because they've broken up. Parent-child bonds need to be protected regardless of sex or sexual orientation. My views are hardly "blind support."
As for your financial situation, on many occasions I've said that stay-at-home moms (and dads) often do need financial protections in divorce. I don't think it's wrong that you have to go back to work--that's natural and necessary after a divorce--but I do believe you're entitled to some financial support.
"));
19 queries. 0.424 seconds.
October 24th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
&I>He is fine now, but he's been relegated to every other weekend status.
You call that fine? I guess... He has been relegated to his "subservient" status... The mother the alpha has the children and the father the beta pays HER child support and gets to visit...
Typical run-of-the-mill misandry and discrimination against men...
October 24th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I was thinking the "He is fine now" part meant that the brother was finally at some level where he couldn't go down anymore, or that the visitation is a lot more than he had before. He is probably just happy to be allowed to see his children, and that he is fine compared to previous levels.
As for her email, don't people have to go through all sorts of procedures to get a sex change? It isn't usually something that can spring up. I thought they had to let their families know, they had to let people know, and they had to live for a few years as the opposite gender, as well as have therapy from a certified/registered psychiatrist/psychologist? I am confused how this just popped up for you guys, not that I don't feel sorry for your family.
This is a really crazy change that will effect you guys on a lot of levels, and you might want to see a bit of counselling for yourself and your children to help them understand this. Also, yes, you might need to seek work, but it isn't like you really have to leave your home. As someone who has been homeschooling, it sounds like you might want to seek work as a tutor. Someone who makes $20-$60 an hour per student, and you can do study sessions with several students. This might benefit your children as well, as they will need to learn how to socialize with other children their own age, and they can also reinforce their education by helping to teach, or learn, from these students you could tutor.
Just a thought, you don't have to despair and seek more money from your soon to be ex, you can be self-sufficient, you are a human, and you have a mind. You just need to look for the right work to fit yourself.
To get started on being a tutor, go to your local school and ask if they have any flyers for tutor companies in your area, chances are the staff breakroom is full of them (they are in the schools I go to work in). So that can get you started.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I would question if this lady has a problem with transgendered people because she feels betrayed by her transgendered former husband or does she genuinely think that all transgendered people ought not to be supported the same way anyone else is.
Is it the transgendered part or is it the betrayal that is the problem?
Terri, not all transgendered people are your former husband! Regardless of what he did or does, it can never be a basis of deciding the support/non-support stance of someone else (Glenn or anyone else) about an entire people! Do you realize how unreasonable it is for you to expect others to modulate their thoughts based on your situation?
October 24th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Quick Math:
30% of 75,000 is 22500, and while this amount is small for a household, it is LARGE for a couple of kids.
I have always felt that some women really are living in the 50s where society fully expected that Husband would support Wife until death, regardless of marital status , and in those days perhaps it was required, but today women have virtually every opportunity that men , the stats show this time and time again, but yet some still believe this old ways should still be in force
October 24th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Janet Fellows Says:
"but today women have virtually every opportunity that men , the stats show this time and time again, but yet some still believe this old ways should still be in force"
Exactly! Maria Shriver even has her own TV news special to tell us that it is now "A Woman's Nation." Unless there are some special kind of circumstances, such as health issues, then there simply is no reason why every woman in this nation should not be either employed or actively seeking employment.
I am sorry to hear about Terri's circumstances and I agree that she should probably receive some temporary financial assistance beyond the child support, but any additional support should only be provided on a temporary basis to serve as a bridge to help her get back into the work force. Divorce should not entitle someone to a lifetime of support so that they never have to work.
October 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
"the children and I have to deal with his choice to change, and as that relates to custody, visitation, and decisions on their behalf, I am very concerned."
Selfish, with a cynical "what about the children" excuse for it. She's the one doing the damage by trying to teach kids that certain people shouldn't exist.
"Blind support of transgendered emboldens them to destroy more families"
Telling use of "them." All of a sudden it's not an individual who has an extreme internal issue and is doing something about it... it's a "family destroyer." Because you know she expects that gay people shouldn't ever come out, they should pretend to be hetero when they're not, and transgendered people shouldn't exist in her world.
With attitudes like hers, is it any wonder why the guy didn't reveal his sex change to her and why he filed for divorce?
October 24th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Unfortunate circumstances for Terri, but sad to say things will not be like they were, meaning you will need to get a job, and this will mean you and your children will no longer have the freedom to enjoy home schooling.
While I think it is a great thing that you were able to home school your children because I think most public schools are crap (and it's doubtful you will be able to afford private schools) your situation has changed. I agree that there should be some temporary support in order, but only until she gets her feet wet and gets settled in a job. There should be a timeline setup so that she could not drag her feet if she wanted to just collect more support from the ex. But I think she should be given some financial help from him to start off given the situation.
Good luck I hope your situation improves, but I don't think you are entitled to be a stay at home mom homeschooling your children on your Ex-Husband's dime.
October 24th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I can agree that she is entitled to some financial support for a certain period of time. Based on her statement, she has contributed to the family unit, both as a mother and as a wife.
One point to make is, which I believe to be accurate, it is by choice that she stays at home with her children. So during the marriage it is a great privilege but let's hope this doesn't turn into what was 'your sacrifice' for the family. It's by choice and privilege to stay home with your chidren and have peace of mind of having a husband who brings home 150 K (especially in TX)
This is a terrible situation for all parties, but she will be receiving money that she doesn't have to work for and most importantly, has not lost any time with her children.
Most men will lose a considerable amount of time with their children, money, and for many, their freedom for allegations of abuse.
It will be tough for her to get out of her comfort zone and find a job to support herself and her children. But unfortunately, this is a drastic change in life that she must deal with.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
"the children and I have to deal with his choice to change"
Something very obnoxious about that. No one must change! And if they do.. it is by choice.
People change from "living" to "dead" all the time. What was Terri planning to do if her husband died all of a sudden? Rally against all the dead people? Condemn their "choice" to die?
October 24th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
This lady is something else. I guess when she saw him lactating one night at dinner i guess the jig was up, he had to file for divorce. From "he's fine now' every other weekend to "it's not enough to still be a stay home mom so i'll have to work outside of the home". This divordce may have been the best thing to happen for her kids. She will have something more to offer her kids with a few years of supporting herself. My guess she will be remarried within a year of divorce going final or spend all matter of effort trying to squeeze money from the state or her future ex.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
We are not really told here how long she has been a stay at home mom, but i would say since she mentions home schooling, it must not be too too long? She is certainly entitled to some support for until she can get training and a job or find a new husband who will support her.
That being said, she is divorced. Yes she didn't choose it, but she simply can 't expect to have everything hte same as before. Home schooling probably isn't an option now that their are two house holds and they will no longer be married.
She is entitled to some support. She is not entitled to same life style or lack of change just because she feels that way. AS mentioned above, what if he had died?
October 24th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Hell, I could live on 75,000 for three years. LOL
October 24th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
$22500.00 in child support? Woe is me. Your feminist sisters "kicked in the doors" of discrimination in the early 70's.... you shouldn't have any problem finding a job. Have a good one! oh.... by the way who said you were going to get custody? Do you think your a better parent based solely to your gender?.....I think that question is more to the point.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Fellas,
We don't know all of the circumstances involved with her and I can sense the anymosity amongst you (and myself) but in the current climate that we live in, any semblance of hostility or apathy on our part = violent and abusive behavior toward women. I'm sure there are feminist hovering over this page just waiting for us to post negative comments to the few women who post.
There isn't a dang thing we can do for or to Terri that is going to make things better or worse for her. Just wish her luck in finding a job and filling the role of breadwinner and mom. Hopefully she is a good mom and can maintain a good relationship with the dad, for the kid's sake.
Hell, maybe her husband is on to something (by changing his sex). You all know the addage: "If you can't beat'em, join'em'
Disclaimer - (When I say beat'em, I am not referring to it being in the physical, verbal, emotional or sexual form)
October 24th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Whether you approve of transgender issues or not, it should be a case of " his body, his choice ". We constantly hear womens groups saying "it's my body, it's my choice" especially in matters concerning cosmetic surgery and abortion, but it seems that men are not entitled to the same choices, this is about as hypocritical as it gets. How many men have been denied the opportunity of becoming a father because of this. If a woman becomes pregnant she can choose to get an abortion and not tell the father = no rights for the father. She can tell the father about it but still get an abortion even if the father wants the child = no rights for the father. She can get rid of the father from her life, force the father to pay child support for the next 18 years, and deny him access to his child = no rights for the father. Why is it that women/mothers have all the choices while men/fathers have none.
October 25th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Am i the only one who dislikes people refering to homosexual and transgenderd people using the term " the " ie the gays, the transgederd its very dehumanising they may have different life choices but they are valid people and as men we are in a situation where we are bottom of the ladder in most peoples eyes id hate to see us regarding others as less esp with what we have gone through .
October 25th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Keep everything gender neutral and judge by only the merits of each particular case. Remember, there's three (not two) interests in each case. The mother, the father and the state. The state's interests trump all other's, particularly the man's rights simply because he works. Keeping the man on the hook keeps the state off the hook (providing welfare $).
October 25th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I am NOT talking bad about transgender people, but let's be honest. The divorce is going to be a change for the children, and they are ALSO going to have to deal with the fact that the person they know as their dad has now decided to become and live life as a woman. Divorce is hard enough to cope with and I am sure the woman is very emotionally distressed and I can understand why. The children are the real victims as always.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:41 am
No one is a victim here, and if anyone is - everyone is of circumstances. Anyone who believes that changing sex is a choice, either are future transgendered people or cannot think "What would I do?" beyond what is in their current interests.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
"My ex makes 150K but will only pay 30 percent of first 75k for child support. Not enough to keep the kids at home with me home schooling."
Cry me a river. That comes out to $22,500 a year; much more then it costs to support a kid or two. I support a family of 3 on $17,500 a year, go to college full time, and actually have to work for my money instead of the government taking from someone and giving it to me. Not to mention that I have to pay taxes on the money I make unlike child support which is tax free. Also I bet Texas has a much lower cost of living then Florida.
I have to find a job to support them.
You mean you have to find a job to support yourself. Child support is not mommy support. How did you plan to obtain money to live if you have no job, and use child support for the children? The magical money tree in your back yard?
Also shouldn't you be required to support your children. Child support is suppose to cover 50% of the cost of raising a child. The custodial parent is responsible for paying for the other 50%. I'm willing to bet that the child support you receive covers a lot more then half of the cost of raising your children. If the child support gets spent on the children at all.
I do believe you're entitled to some financial support.
Why? She chose not to continue her education. She chose to stay at home instead of working. Why shouldn't be responsible for her decisions? If any other person would have chose not to continue their education, and not to advance their career they would still be expected to work.
Is there some reason that she can't work such as disability? If she wanted to find employment she could find a job somewhere to support herself. Jobs flipping burgers, cleaning toilets, or washing dishes aren't too hard to find. Why should she not be forced to be financially accountable for herself, and the children she elected to have; just like every male born in this country is.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
To Mike Hunter:
Well said and thanks. Financial accountability. No free lunch. Child support accountability for both mom and dad. Thanks for not sugar coating what we all believe. The feminists and people who write and enforce these laws don't sugar coat anything.....they're going after the man in hot pursuit and nothing they say or do is politically correct..... and they dont care!! No apologies or sympathies from the feminists.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I'm sorry to hear that Terri's life isn't working out like she planned. I understand and empathize at the betrayal she feels, especially when she was aparently doing her part in good faith.
I'm a single dad. I don't home school, as much as I'd like to do nothing but stay home and care for my children, I get my butt up every day at 6 am, drop my kids off at school, and head off to a job I hate. The buck stops here, so to speak. I've had to make a number of compromises in my children's interests. Rather than contributing in any way, the other parent causes an extreme amount of problems. I didn't plan on my spouse having an alcohol problem, a mental problem, and yes, I personally feel cheated by a system that knew she had a mental problem and helped her to conceal it. (mental problems are considered cause for annulment).
I think in Terri's case that she's a victim of bad faith. The court system seems to ignore and reward it in too many cases, claiming an overriding interest "fo teh chidrenz"
The state set a maximum amount of child support. The goal for this was a disincentive to having babies for fun and profit, and make some assurance that someone asking for child support actually had the kids' interest at heart.
Oh well, I believe in leaving people alone to deal with their life. If you're not hurting anyone, I really don't care what you do. It's when I'm forced to deal with problems other people create, or won't take care of on their own, that I get pissed.
I'm sorry, Terri, but if you want to continue being a stay-at-home, home-schooling parent, you're not entitled to that life. Your spouse could have died, and you'd be in the same situation. Your agreement, your contract with your spouse is over. You have to work with the other parent to come up with a new arrangement, and I don't envy your situation. I hope the two of you can find a new workable arangement. I understand your anger and your condemnation, and the sick feeling that crawls around your stomach.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Yeah, no to entitlement. Also, no to weird, me-centered mid-life changes that screw over the kids.
My advice: power up, put together a solid wholesome home for those kids, and next time, don't go for the guy who is in touch with his feminine side, lol. There isn't, and never was anything wrong with guy guys that have hairy chests, are into adrenaline sports, and don't have gender identity problems. And yeah.. lol we don't pay a whole lot of attention to our shoes or hairstyles, or your whining...
October 26th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Terri...
First let me say that I sympathize with what you are going through. No one gets married with the intention of getting divorced after 15 years.
Now to the nitty gritty... When you get divorced, things change. The simple fact of the matter is that no one has the same level of resources that they had when they were married and had another person helping to pull the load. To expect the same standard of living that you had before the divorce goes against basic economics. Along those lines, don't expect to be able to continue to home-school the children. At some point, you will have to go to work, and you will have to leave the home. From an economic stand point, the easiest way to do that is to do it while the kids are in school. I respect your desire to home school the kids, but the fact of the matter is that we don't always get what we want in life.
I'm sure that you will be able to get some sort of spousal maintenance for a few years. (I believe that Texas has a limit of 3 years of spousal maintenances.) I suggest that you use that spousal maintenance to go back to college or trade school and learn how to enter the work force.
Best of luck to you.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:29 am
A radical thought would be for her to consider giving primary custody of the children to their father. That would certainly help expedite her educational and employment opportunities. Further, it would appear that he would have the resources to handle that while she gets on her feet and then come to a more balanced, shared-parenting agreement when she gets back to work.
Radical thinking, I know. I often wonder why, if money is the primary beneficial factor for the children, why we don't put the kids where the money is instead and let the wage earners keep what they earn.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:43 am
" the state of Texas has a maximum for child support. My ex makes 150K but will only pay 30 percent of first 75k for child support."
So the state of texas tops CS at $22,500 (tax free) per year? Seems MORE than reasonable to me.
ps - It is CHILD SUPPORT, not "stay-at-home-so-I -can-home-school" support.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
mrcustodycoach says;
"Radical thinking, I know. I often wonder why, if money is the primary beneficial factor for the children, why we don't put the kids where the money is instead and let the wage earners keep what they earn."
That just makes too much common sense.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Exactly the reason all men and women should WORK and not leave their fates (and that of their children) in the hands of anyone else (and yes, not even a husband or a wife).
By the decree of women, we no longer live in a time when men are obligated and bounded to support women. At most, men have a moral and principal obligation to support any children they've contributed to this world. Gone are the days when one's contribution to a marriage were intangible, but still significant and everyone nodded and smiled and meant it. Nowadays the unspoken rule is that we're measured by what we bring to the family financially, both before AND after divorce. Well, this has probably always been true if you're a man. It ought to be, and I believe it is to an extent, the same for women.
Therefore these days when women enter a marriage and make the personal decision to depend financially on their husbands, they should understand and accept the consequences in the event of divorce. I don't support alimony unless under extreme circumstances. I don't think Terri's situation as described is extreme. She made a conscious choice to remain out of the workforce and be solely financially dependent on her husband.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an unfeeling beyotch who can't sympathise with her situation. I feel bad for Terri, having her husband choose to end the marriage the way he did and for the reason he did, but I have no sympathy for Terri wanting to be supported (both before and after the divorce). I have no sympathy for Terri whinning to Glenn Sacks that she will have to go out and work to bring her share of support for her children. After all, the husband is obligated to support his children--which he more than does given the 22500 he's likely to pay monthly in child support--not her. It's called child support, not wife support.
So please, do go out and work. Earn your own money -- so that if and when another man comes along and he later decides to leave, the impact of his departure is not so profound. We live in the age of equality -- supposedly. It's every man and woman for him and her self ... even in marriage (probably especially in marriage). I know that sounds callous but people often open their eyes to this fact when it is too late (namely when they enter divorce court and the s hit starts hitting the fan).
October 28th, 2009 at 9:29 am
As angry as you all claim this mom is because of - as she perceived it - her spouse's "choice" to change genders outwardly (which is a misunderstanding of the transgender process, and obviously a defense mechanism for the pain she is feeling over losing her husband and dissolving her marriage), you are all just as angry at her for being a woman and making the "choice" to stay home and home school her children.
Trust me, she did not do that without their father's agreement and support. Home school curricula are expensive, as is running a household on one income. Couples who do this do it out of love for their children, not the desire to get out of work. I was already divorced when I made the choice to homeschool my son, and I did it while attending college part time and working part-time at night. And you know what? I had to fight my ex for the right to do it in court. I was not allowed to make an educational decision for my own son, as the custodial parent, without spending over a thousand dollars to fight his ridiculous emergency motion in court.
In my son's case, he had been attending an alternative private school with no academics until first grade (a Waldorf school, where my daughter still attends). In kindergarten, my son had some behavioral problems and was not offered a place to move on with his class. My ex wanted him enrolled in public school, even after we had him evaluated and this was shown to be a recipe for disaster. I wanted to home school him and have him reapply to the school in a year after he matured a bit. In court, the judge asked me how I would feel if his father's parenting time were increased so Dad could participate in the home schooling too, and my response, on the record, was "of course!" Especially with his background in science I considered him a terrific asset!!
The one year I home schooled my son was one of the hardest of my life. I graduated with my BA at the end, as well as had a son who could proudly write a few words and do all four math processes, plus speak some Chinese and knit - right where a Waldorf school first grader is supposed to be. I stayed up all night memorizing the stories that taught him his letters and his math, as well as doing my own homework, and when I graduated in May, I weighted 85 lbs. I planned nature walks and arranged for foreign language lessons. His sensory integration therapy became his sports and games time (Waldorf equivalent of gym). When I had to work for a couple of hours or go to class (75 minutes long, the rest were at night), he brought worksheets or handwork (knitting is part of the first grade curriculum in Waldorf education), or ate his lunch. Now, his father, still bitter over being "over-ruled" by the mediator, tells him that he didn't learn anything that whole year because his mother only spent an hour at his desk with him every day, and he believes it and at age nine, throws it in my face all the time, no matter how many times I take out his main lesson books and show him all the work that we did. To a 6 year old, an hour is a long time, and a lot of Waldorf education doesn't happen at the desk...how about the days we went to the playground and drew our giant letters on the blacktop so we could walk their forms? Or wrote number lines on the sidewalk panels so that he could jump two to count by twos, leap three to count by threes....?
Oh, and that increased parenting time that Dad got to do science instruction? He took him to the batting cages.
Bottom line, homeschooling is hard. I DID sacrifice - I worked very hard. And my ex did nothing but sabotage and scoff. Comments like "earn your own money" fail to take into account the work that is parenting, if it's done right...and the needs of small children to be with their parents and not raised by industrial daycare.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Joe Says:
October 24th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
$22500.00 in child support? Woe is me. Your feminist sisters "kicked in the doors" of discrimination in the early 70's.... you shouldn't have any problem finding a job.
Uh, Joe...? My "feminist sisters" hate me, largely because of views like the ones expressed in the post above. I believe in natural childbirth, extended breastfeeding, and attachment parenting, which keeps me from going a long way, baby, in the name of their gender war. Funny, I always thought that those things made me the ultimate feminist. What a moron I was.
And, fellas? I've said it once and I'll say it again. Unless she put a hole in her diaphragm, and pretended to put the kids on the bus every morning while she was hiding them in a closet until he left for work...and somehow sold firewood for the homeschooling supplies...and faked report cards from the district....THEY made the parenting choices in their house, not SHE. You guys are just perpetuating the myth of the "spurt and desert" father by saying that once he donated the sperm, all the parenting decisions were made by her and dad just brought home the bacon!! That would be the most compelling argument for her to get sole custody and him to get minimal parenting time!!! Don't shoot your own movement in the foot that way!
October 28th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I think this has moved from an issue about transgendered parents into discussions of the merits of alimony/child-support and maintenance.
Let's do a bit of gender reversal: It's not uncommon for decent men to come home and find the wife has left them. They don't expect any support or compensation for the wife leaving. If anything, while they miss them emotionally, they're happy the wife didn't stick around to do damage in the form of nasty divorce court battles. A spouse getting a sex change operation and sending them 22K per year (which is the equivalent of a 36K per year job before taxes) would be pretty good by heterosexual men's standards.
This gets me to asking the obvious question that if the breadwinning man doesn't get any compensation in the even of a divorce and abandonment, then what exactly did the wife contribute to the relationship? As John Cleese put it, imagine the alimony women would demand if they really had contributed!
The men are told that they "benefitted" from the "free" daycare the wife provided but wouldn't he still be getting such "free" daycare if he continues to pay for the home? If the argument is the situation shouldn't change, doesn't that mean that the women LIKE being oppressed in this manner? Of course they do! Because it's not oppression or a sacrifice!
Regarding the homeschooling. Sometimes people lose their jobs and they can't afford to send their kid to private school anymore. That's similar to what happened here. The marriage broke up and it's time to try something else. They were her kids too and therefore she benefitted 1/2 from the "free" homeschooling along with the other benefits.
Finally, the notion that women "sacrifice" their careers to stay at home is overshadowed by women who insist upon marrying up and then devaluing their own career to begin with even before they put on a weddnig ring. If women want to keep their careers, they have the option to marry down and have him stay at home.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Marry up? Marry down? Are you serious?
I am still romantic and naive enough to believe that marriage is an intimate connection between two individuals on a soul level, not a power struggle or a business partnership. I've gone up, down and sideways in relationships, and I don't find it made a bit of difference to the relationship. And parents do not provide "daycare", they parent their children. They are giving their children something that no child care provider can. I fail to see the point of bringing something as magical and special as a child into this world and then seeing it for an hour in the morning and an hour at night while you let other people raise it all day. And that is something that my now-ex husband and I agreed upon BEFORE we had children. That was THE DEAL ahead of time. So the picture you paint of the shrew who squeezes out children just so she can have a man over a barrel is disingenuous.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Davina says: "So please, do go out and work. Earn your own money -- so that if and when another man comes along and he later decides to leave, the impact of his departure is not so profound. "
PK responds: Davina, I'm getting old because I remember a time when that was claimed by mainstream women to be the reason for feminism. That it was an insurance policy lest the breadwinner die or a divorce occurred. At the time, it was mostly an abstract concept since nearly all of my schoolmates were in 2 parent homes.
There's a phrase known as "self-fulfilling prophesy" similar to the King who sent his son to sea to avoid the oracle's prediction of him coming back to kill him and that's precisely what he did. As women pursued work not only as a means to protect themselves and to help supplement family income, they wound up driving down wages and their income differential with men.
Today, the concept of a women getting a job lest she wind up alone is not some far fledged notion, but now the norm. It would be great if women really had took that advice to heart and earned a living and even met the promise of helping to make men's lives easier but, instead, what we have is just raising the bar for men to compete with them and still live up to 1950's breadwinner standards. Or when the wife HAS to work to buy all the stuff that she wants (nicer home in the burbs) she regards it as him being a loser who can't pay her way rather than her responsibility to contribute.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
AngryMom, you really think it's rediculous to observe that women marry up in income? That they don't use "Rules" in dating and courtship designed to strip men down to a role as breadwinner?
I'm not saying anything about you specifically. Just observing how it is out in society.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
See above, PK, I certainly don't speak for all women...they wouldn't want me representing them.
But why would you make such a generalization if you recognize that it pertains to only a fraction of women at best? I've met a lot of men interested in making me a notch in their bedposts rather than making me their life partner, so I gotta tell ya...there's winners and losers on both sides of that coin.
By and large, though, the women I know have no magic formula for what they are looking for in a man. In fact, the vast majority of the women I know are married and enjoying the life I thought I would. I can't regret, because I would never be with the amazing man I am with now (and I would never have met him if I hadn't gotten divorced from my ex, long story....), but the truth is, most of us don't get married with the intention of scamming anyone. Honestly, it's my experience that there's better paying work that's a lot easier than trying to be married to someone you don't love just for the paycheck. For me, at least, when the love was gone, it was hell on earth.
But the important thing that I think we are losing sight of is this: this shouldn't be about how bitter EITHER parent is, or how much she wants of his/her money, or how little s/he wants to give the wife. It's about the CHILDREN. If the children are thriving on homeschooling, and he can AFFORD to pay enough support so that they could continue to be homeschooled, why would he not be OFFERING to do so??? Even if the arrangement were structured to last until the children reach a certain age or some other limitation, wouldn't he volunteer to do this?? Presumably, as a loving parent, he should want the best for them. You guys are singing the praises of $22K - that doesn't buy you groceries in my part of the country, so I'm not sure...
Parenting isn't easy for either gender, but when the children don't live with one parent, I think it is easier for that parent to lose sight of what is important than it is for the parent on the "front lines" every day. Remember, I didn't get to say "no thanks" to having my daughter this weekend when she was diagnosed with possible swine flu a few hours ago. I don't have that option, and I have to figure out what I'm going to do with her from 7:30am until 5:30pm tomorrow to boot. And I'm not a materialistic person, but when my children come back from a weekend of expensive outings and high tech luxuries at my ex's McMansion (he has them three or four days every week), it undeniably affects them that we live such totally disparate lifestyles. And that should count for something, too..........
October 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
AngryMom, I don't know how old you are, but if you still have men looking to make you into a notch on your bedpost, I can't imagine that you're TOO unhappy about that fact! I was chuckling when my mother had some guy flirt with her at a restaurant with my sister there. She was on cloud 9 for a week.
Seriously, wanting someone as a notch on their bedpost isn't, in and of itself, a loser. Women think that way because, and I'm not saying you personally (dislaimer), they associate a "lifetime commitment" with the men giving her stuff in exchange for sex. Few women want a lifetime commitment with a man who, up front, wants her to support him or even bring less to the relationship than she does. For men, free sex is like free gas. It's not a loser thing to enjoy getting something for free you ordinarily have to pay for.
About the magic formula, didja ever hear of The Rules? Sometimes women are so committed to the magic formula moreso than what makes them happy which is why so many wind up divorced in the first place. The Rules is all about scamming people to get what they want and sometimes they wind up scamming themselves. Just to show you I'm fair, I know a lot of men who did this too winding up miserable that the woman they learned to bamboozle into bed wound up not really understanding them and them being trapped in their Joe Cool act. Fair enough?
In answer to your question about the husband. If they are in YOUR custody, then he's giving the money over to you. Turn it around and see how generous women are if the man takes away her children and asks her to give him money for groceries and private schooling... Not very! That's just human nature actually. I don't want to get into the personal details of your divorce, but from my own broken up relationships it's usually the case that people don't break up for fun but rather because they don't get along with the other person and even feel alienated and betrayed. That doesn't put them in the mood to be generous, yes?
Regarding the 22K. That's 22K TAX FREE in addition to her tax breaks for having custody of the children. So it's really like $36K income + 4K or so. There are people who support themselves and their children on 40K. 40K isn't a lot, but, you know, it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Many men are happy just to get their kids back from vindictive exes after spending several times that on legal expenses.
Referring to you children as living on "front lines" is misleading to say the least. If that parent wanted, even demanded custody, then that is their choice plain and simple. All the "sacrifices" during the marriage don't matter. If she INSISTED upon keeping the kids, then that's her own bed. Lie in it. The saying is: "Man up." If he didn't want the kids and still is being a jerk, then that's another matter.
Great minds think alike. Your mentioning his luxuries reminds me of the Jon and Kate plus 8 show where Jon is now taking his kids to do simple things, like playing with rockets, or fishing, while Kate takes them out on sponsored trips such as balloon rides and florida museums. In some ways, I think Jon's simplistic interactions are more touching. That's real life for most people that are watching the program. My wife and I love to go fishing and BBQ's in the backyard. Kate may be overstimulating the kids. My fondest memories from childhood WERE the simple things. Playing in the dirt. Craw fishing in the creek. Don't worry about it.
Finally, and I don't know if you get this: I'm just saying things as I see them as I'm sure you are. Please don't take it personally that I don't respect you. I don't know a lot about you besides the few things I have read and I keep that in mind. I have my own way of looking at life, from the challenges I have faced, and I am asserting those views. I respect that others may, and will, differ.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Angry Mom Says:
"I fail to see the point of bringing something as magical and special as a child into this world and then seeing it for an hour in the morning and an hour at night while you let other people raise it all day."
Whoooaa Nellie!!!
It's all well and good if you and your former spouse decide that you want to homeschool your children and I support your right to make that decision. But don't run off all halfcocked at the mouth and imply that those of us who have used daycare facilities are letting others raise our children for us. My ex and I had our daughter in an excellent day care facility when she was younger and I can assure you that we did not relinquish any of our parental responsibilities during that time. I can also assure you that we both spent a lot more time with her than an hour in the morning and an hour at night. Furthermore, I have sole custody of my daughter, who is now a senior in high school, and her time in daycare doesn't seem to have had a negative impact on her GPA or her social skills. If anything, I think that time provided a lot more benefit than it would have if it had been spent at home hanging on to her mother's apron strings.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Dave, that's just it: She and her former spouse haven't 'decided' to homeschool/raise the child at home. They decided it DURING the marriage and then, afterwards, he changed his mind.
This seems like a breach of contract and I appreciate her point of view, but consider that even if they were still married, he could change his mind during that time. Let's consider the other way around: A housewife who thought she wanted to do the SAH thing decides she really wants to go back to work and divorces her husband who disagrees. Does he have a right to force her to stay at home with the kids? This "you have obligations you need to be responsible for period" always seems to come up when it's men writing the checks. But when the women decide to just blow off their roles, it's "you go grrrl! You don't have to do what he says!"
October 30th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
PolishKnight Says:
"This seems like a breach of contract and I appreciate her point of view, but consider that even if they were still married, he could change his mind during that time."
Exactly! Obviously I don't know the whole story, but you have just touched upon a common theme that I have noticed with many women. Men are demonized for not living up to their "obligations" but women are encouraged to just do whatever makes them happy. So why should the average man in this society feel that he has any kind of obligation to the average woman? They obviously don't feel that they have any obligation to men, and they have a whole host of judges, lawyers and politicians who obviously want to keep it that way.
In this age of quick and easy "No Fault" divorce, what sane person (male or female) is going to want to obligate themselves to supporting someone else for the rest of their lives? Ladies, welcome to the bold new "Woman's Nation"! Now go out and get a JOB!!!