Kept woman likely traded in for a younger model regrets not emotionally blakmailing smart man into marriage. Can't access 'shared assets' she did nothing to earn.
I agree. Time = money. Kids = time. Therefore kids equal money.
If they have have had 5 kids over their 17 year relationship, then they are still being taken care of. It's a team effort and even child support will only barely cover the kid's living expenses. It won't cover pension or time lost or general expenses. If she has also done the chores at home then she has contributed to household work too which takes time.
A kept woman is when she has done less work in general in the partnership or had extra help e.g. nanny/maid
She didn't 'decide', she sacrificed her job and prioritized her kids. You can either choose not to have a family or you put in the time for them. It doesn't matter if the man or the woman is the one working publicly while the other one does the work at home. In general people should ideally try to balance that. Sure a lot of them put them in day care, but ideally one would try to take care of them full time til a certain age. Even she she birthed them right after each other. Given it is 5 kids, and allowing 1 year time between each one for preganancy. Then her youngest would still be 6-7 years old and requiring full time supervision. If they had more time inbetween then she is taking care of a toddler.
Also why do you assume the dad gave money AND time. If she was taking care of them during the day and he is working during the day. They are both equally working. If they share the responsibilty after he comes home, they are again equally working. If he however expects her to have dinner prepared and the kids are soon going to sleep etc etc. Then there isn't much for him to do anymore. Lack of money does not make her job any less important.
If they both worked full time, who would talk care of their new born baby? Some stranger? Who would drive that kid to day care and pack their lunch and come running in an emergency. I mean why would I get a dog and then proceed to pawn it off to a dog walker, a dog feeder, a dog trainer and never actually spend time with my dog. Also if that costs more than me taking care of my own dog, why would I pay others to do it for me.
I feel a lot of people assume child care is a piece of cake. I would literally prefer working than babysitting any kid unless they are my own. Because kids are EXHAUSTING. So if that guy wanted a family, which I assume he did considering they have 5 kids. He should take an equal part in raising them, whether it be money or time. There was nothing preventing him from deciding to stay home or work part time.
Wow that was quite an escalation to jump to. No, I am saying they were both adults who presumably made a choice to have children together. That means that they had to find some solution as how to raise these children while they were too young to go to school. I do not understand why this equates her to being a kept woman. She lives in the UK so I can only assume they both got parental benefits. Had they stuck to one or two kids she could easily get back to work within 2-5 years depending on when they choose to put the kids into day care. But 5 kids? She spent 4 of those years being pregnant alone and 13 years spread out where she was recovering and raising this kids during their infancy. If they chose to have that many children then someone has to work right?
Who else will raise them besides the dad or the mom? Can you logically say that the one who was working and got a family and a home, should not have to pay for anything and just get that for free?
So you are blaming her for a choice they've both made, for not pawning off her kids the moment she could?
She spent 4-5 years bring pregnant AND recovering from pregnancy. Sure she could've worked during the early parts of pregnancy or she took care of the kids. Then according to your age limits those 5 kids would not be able to enter day care totally spanning 2.5 years to 5 years. That's 6.5 years to 10 years already gone.
Giving her only 7 years within that time to work. Ontop of that baby sitters are expensive and probably they agreed to rather have her be a housewife.
Are you really blaming her and him for not pawning off their 5 kids to day care? Who are you to judge how they lived their life? Amazing.
Yvonne, who gave up paid work to look after their children, said she now has to move house - but has no independent funds or a pension.
Why do people, well let's face it it's women, no man would be stupid enough to think this, think that they can 'stay at home' and do nothing but look after kids, then leave a relationship taking half the house, assets, etc. Like what the fuck. You contributed nothing financially. You lived off your husband for ten years or whatever. You don't get half the house. You didn't pay for it.
Women want to be treated as equals but they still want the government to step in and provide for them when they decide to play professional mummy for ten years then leave the relationship afterwards.
That's not how 'equality' works.
To anyone crying about how the woman gave up her work to look after the kids, excuse me we live in a fucking modern society there are plenty of things you can do from home now. Looking after 1-2 kids is not a full-time job - it's definitely work, but not a full-time job, unless you literally have 10 kids and then well you're beyond stupid if you do that.
She could have studied and got herself a degree or other qualifications while she was staying at home. She could find herself a job that she can do from her home computer, translations for example if she knows a second language, and if she doesn't, guess what you can do while you sit at home looking after the kids, oh yeah you can learn a second language.
There are tons of options and it's just typical of some modern feminism attitudes that we should work our asses off to provide equality for women but also allow them to leech off their husbands whenever they see fit to leave a relationship.
How about you try it before judging. It is a hard job and just like working. And it wasn't 1-2 kids it was 5. Since people usually want to be with their family at such a young age, it isn't unreasonabe to stay home with the kid. I have worked in day care and yes it is a full time job. Even the parents who work have to do a lot for the kids when they are free. In Norway even guys get paid parental leave because it is so much work.
And are you really expecting her 5 year old to go out, read books and chill? You make it seem so easy, and sure it is, if you want to neglect the kids. But even with the free time they can get is used to make food, clean up, run errands and basically adulting.
That makes things slightly different, but it's still her responsibility to think of her own skills, qualifications, etc.
Relationships aren't forever and expecting someone else to pay for you for the rest of your life is naive.
Even with 5 kids there are still possibilities.
I have worked in day care and yes it is a full time job.
Oh please regale me with your experiences. No-one else could possibly be speaking from their own.
It is not a full time job to look after such a small group of children.
And are you really expecting her 5 year old to go out, read books and chill?
For the first five years the kid is high maintenance, definitely. Even during that time there are things the kid can be doing independently while you are in the same room or the same house. You don't have to do everything with them 24/7.
Make food, clean up, run errands? That sounds like she was a housekeeper, not a mother. If she wants to be his slave for ten years that's her problem.
It is also his responsibility to take care of the kids, but overall it is about teamwork, so if they chose for her to raise them while he worked, instead of both of them working part time. Then why are you calling her a freeloader. It's like all the blame is going on her for something that was both their responsibility. It isn't a lifestyle choice, it is a part of the life they chose.
Also who said she was expecting him to pay for their rest of her life. Maybe she was planning to work after the youngest one would be able to go to school.
What do you think a parent does exactly? Just watch the kid for 8 hours and then they can relax, like a normal full time job?
They have to wake up at crazy hours when the child is young. Even when they aren't interacting with the kids (playing, feeding, changing, showering and dressing, caring when they are sick, stopping fights etc), they still have to clean up after the kid, do research on parent stuff like (vaccinations, doctor appointments, appropiate foods, what clothes are suitable etc), no one is born a parent, they have to learn this stuff. They have to plan and manage the day in a suitable way that suits all the kids, the activities the kids are going to, take them to school. Also they have to keep a constant eye on the kid, not literally, but in the sense that they can't just leave a 3 year old alone at home.
If she has time at home is she just going to leave the diapers, not wash the used babybottles, leave the laundry and all that for the guy to do?
So you're saying it was fine that she did her part of a team effort, but she's an idiot because she didn't force him to do it?
She was also pregnant for 4 of those years and 1 year olds are REALLY high maintenance, so that's 9 years alone gone in a highly stressful period. That isn't even taking into account if the kids have colic, or allergies or diabetes etc which becomes another level of work.
But go ahead, try and make 5 kids all do their own thing at the same time so you can have a moment of peace.
I personally would not have had 5 children nor would I like to stop working for so long. But blaming her for doing what any decent person should do if they decide to have that many children and thinking it is okay that the guy owes them nothing is messed up. For every kid she got she would've gotten parental benefits from the government. So it wouldn't have just been his money. While she was taking care of the kids, he was able to advance his career and build a pension plan while still enjoying the embrace of a family that she maintained. If they both shared their responsibility at exactly 50% for both sides. Then there is no way he would have been able to earn that much OR they would never have any free time together to enjoy as a family.
You think a household of 7 people doesn't require management at all? That everyone should just freeball it and do whatever they want? It is one thing when a person alone or even a couple are only reponsible for their own life, it requires minimal planning and managing. But a whole team of people does require management. Taking one kid to football practice and the other to the doctor, while making sure the food at home is upto stock and dinner is planned, and fixing the door that got broken, then doing taxes. Companies have managers so that everything runs smoothly. Someone has to take that mental load at home to with so many people.
One person can easily do all of that alone for themselves because they don't have 6 other peoples lives to take into account.
I could easily then say that he did not raise the kids. If you wanted kids then you have to take that responsibility, whether it is time or money. You act like she decided to act like a slave, but maybe he did too? Except I wouldn't call it slavery but rather two people working together. The fact that you call her a slave is showing that you would rather put her in that category instead of admitting that she did work that she deserved compensation for. ''Oh what a stupid woman for doing free work''. Except it wasn't free work.
If a company has two parts to it, the production side and the commercial side. Then yes the commercial side is getting in the money from consumers, but would not have been able to do so without it's supplier. Her managing from home, assuming she was a good housewife, providing dinner, fixing and maintaining everything. Is the time the husband saved so he could work as much as he did.
Yeah people should start owning up to life choices. So he should take the kids in full time and let her work on her career. She can pay him custody, while he can pay a nanny and get exhausted with a double workload.
He legal rights to see kids and she has legal rights to half the house (in my opinion).
I also agree that it is dated. I don't live in a society with people who are house wifes around my age either. But it isn't that dated that you can expect society to change that fast. Both genders often want the same thing as well i.e. with one person being at home and the other bringing in money.
So I think we can both agree on that at least. That we wouldn't personally do it ourselves.
The only thing I don't agree on is how the dad is a white knight bread winner and a mom is a dobby slave loser. When I was younger I didn't think parents really did that much. But now as I see my peers getting children, both parents agree on one thing. That it is exhausting.
I wasn't technically talking about the government. I was talking about what is morally fair. If you look at it as teamwork, they took on different responsibilities as a team in whole.
This is where we have our difference. I don't see why you consider his work more valid while hers as slavery just because she didn't earn money. Ontop of that you think the government should allow him to see his kids (which took her time) but she shouldn't get the house (which took his time).
[–]affenhitze 44 points45 points46 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]affenhitze 42 points43 points44 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]weapawn 14 points15 points16 points (41 children) | Copy Link
[–]lizard450 4 points5 points6 points (40 children) | Copy Link
[–]msmurasaki1 points [recovered] (32 children) | Copy Link
I agree. Time = money. Kids = time. Therefore kids equal money.
If they have have had 5 kids over their 17 year relationship, then they are still being taken care of. It's a team effort and even child support will only barely cover the kid's living expenses. It won't cover pension or time lost or general expenses. If she has also done the chores at home then she has contributed to household work too which takes time.
A kept woman is when she has done less work in general in the partnership or had extra help e.g. nanny/maid
[–]weapawn 2 points3 points4 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[+]msmurasaki1 points [recovered] (30 children) | Copy Link
She didn't 'decide', she sacrificed her job and prioritized her kids. You can either choose not to have a family or you put in the time for them. It doesn't matter if the man or the woman is the one working publicly while the other one does the work at home. In general people should ideally try to balance that. Sure a lot of them put them in day care, but ideally one would try to take care of them full time til a certain age. Even she she birthed them right after each other. Given it is 5 kids, and allowing 1 year time between each one for preganancy. Then her youngest would still be 6-7 years old and requiring full time supervision. If they had more time inbetween then she is taking care of a toddler.
Also why do you assume the dad gave money AND time. If she was taking care of them during the day and he is working during the day. They are both equally working. If they share the responsibilty after he comes home, they are again equally working. If he however expects her to have dinner prepared and the kids are soon going to sleep etc etc. Then there isn't much for him to do anymore. Lack of money does not make her job any less important.
If they both worked full time, who would talk care of their new born baby? Some stranger? Who would drive that kid to day care and pack their lunch and come running in an emergency. I mean why would I get a dog and then proceed to pawn it off to a dog walker, a dog feeder, a dog trainer and never actually spend time with my dog. Also if that costs more than me taking care of my own dog, why would I pay others to do it for me.
I feel a lot of people assume child care is a piece of cake. I would literally prefer working than babysitting any kid unless they are my own. Because kids are EXHAUSTING. So if that guy wanted a family, which I assume he did considering they have 5 kids. He should take an equal part in raising them, whether it be money or time. There was nothing preventing him from deciding to stay home or work part time.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (29 children) | Copy Link
[–]msmurasaki1 points [recovered] (28 children) | Copy Link
Wow that was quite an escalation to jump to. No, I am saying they were both adults who presumably made a choice to have children together. That means that they had to find some solution as how to raise these children while they were too young to go to school. I do not understand why this equates her to being a kept woman. She lives in the UK so I can only assume they both got parental benefits. Had they stuck to one or two kids she could easily get back to work within 2-5 years depending on when they choose to put the kids into day care. But 5 kids? She spent 4 of those years being pregnant alone and 13 years spread out where she was recovering and raising this kids during their infancy. If they chose to have that many children then someone has to work right?
Who else will raise them besides the dad or the mom? Can you logically say that the one who was working and got a family and a home, should not have to pay for anything and just get that for free?
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[–]msmurasaki1 points [recovered] (26 children) | Copy Link
Presumably in the sense that they planned this rather than an unexpected pregnancy.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[–]weapawn 3 points4 points5 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]msmurasaki1 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Who exactly would take care of the kids then?
[–]GrilleryBinton -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]msmurasaki1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
So you are blaming her for a choice they've both made, for not pawning off her kids the moment she could?
She spent 4-5 years bring pregnant AND recovering from pregnancy. Sure she could've worked during the early parts of pregnancy or she took care of the kids. Then according to your age limits those 5 kids would not be able to enter day care totally spanning 2.5 years to 5 years. That's 6.5 years to 10 years already gone.
Giving her only 7 years within that time to work. Ontop of that baby sitters are expensive and probably they agreed to rather have her be a housewife.
Are you really blaming her and him for not pawning off their 5 kids to day care? Who are you to judge how they lived their life? Amazing.
[–]GrilleryBinton -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]lizard450 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Formaggio_svizzero 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]deleted_account_3 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]maltygos 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]lucajones88 11 points12 points13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MAGICAL_SCHNEK 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WAFC 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lizard450 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PelikanNutz 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Yosharian1 points [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link
Why do people, well let's face it it's women, no man would be stupid enough to think this, think that they can 'stay at home' and do nothing but look after kids, then leave a relationship taking half the house, assets, etc. Like what the fuck. You contributed nothing financially. You lived off your husband for ten years or whatever. You don't get half the house. You didn't pay for it.
Women want to be treated as equals but they still want the government to step in and provide for them when they decide to play professional mummy for ten years then leave the relationship afterwards.
That's not how 'equality' works.
To anyone crying about how the woman gave up her work to look after the kids, excuse me we live in a fucking modern society there are plenty of things you can do from home now. Looking after 1-2 kids is not a full-time job - it's definitely work, but not a full-time job, unless you literally have 10 kids and then well you're beyond stupid if you do that.
She could have studied and got herself a degree or other qualifications while she was staying at home. She could find herself a job that she can do from her home computer, translations for example if she knows a second language, and if she doesn't, guess what you can do while you sit at home looking after the kids, oh yeah you can learn a second language.
There are tons of options and it's just typical of some modern feminism attitudes that we should work our asses off to provide equality for women but also allow them to leech off their husbands whenever they see fit to leave a relationship.
Fuck. That. Shit.
[–]msmurasaki1 points [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link
"Do nothing but look after the kids"
???
How about you try it before judging. It is a hard job and just like working. And it wasn't 1-2 kids it was 5. Since people usually want to be with their family at such a young age, it isn't unreasonabe to stay home with the kid. I have worked in day care and yes it is a full time job. Even the parents who work have to do a lot for the kids when they are free. In Norway even guys get paid parental leave because it is so much work.
And are you really expecting her 5 year old to go out, read books and chill? You make it seem so easy, and sure it is, if you want to neglect the kids. But even with the free time they can get is used to make food, clean up, run errands and basically adulting.
[–]Yosharian1 points [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link
That makes things slightly different, but it's still her responsibility to think of her own skills, qualifications, etc.
Relationships aren't forever and expecting someone else to pay for you for the rest of your life is naive.
Even with 5 kids there are still possibilities.
Oh please regale me with your experiences. No-one else could possibly be speaking from their own.
It is not a full time job to look after such a small group of children.
For the first five years the kid is high maintenance, definitely. Even during that time there are things the kid can be doing independently while you are in the same room or the same house. You don't have to do everything with them 24/7.
Make food, clean up, run errands? That sounds like she was a housekeeper, not a mother. If she wants to be his slave for ten years that's her problem.
[–]msmurasaki1 points [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link
It is also his responsibility to take care of the kids, but overall it is about teamwork, so if they chose for her to raise them while he worked, instead of both of them working part time. Then why are you calling her a freeloader. It's like all the blame is going on her for something that was both their responsibility. It isn't a lifestyle choice, it is a part of the life they chose.
Also who said she was expecting him to pay for their rest of her life. Maybe she was planning to work after the youngest one would be able to go to school.
What do you think a parent does exactly? Just watch the kid for 8 hours and then they can relax, like a normal full time job?
They have to wake up at crazy hours when the child is young. Even when they aren't interacting with the kids (playing, feeding, changing, showering and dressing, caring when they are sick, stopping fights etc), they still have to clean up after the kid, do research on parent stuff like (vaccinations, doctor appointments, appropiate foods, what clothes are suitable etc), no one is born a parent, they have to learn this stuff. They have to plan and manage the day in a suitable way that suits all the kids, the activities the kids are going to, take them to school. Also they have to keep a constant eye on the kid, not literally, but in the sense that they can't just leave a 3 year old alone at home.
If she has time at home is she just going to leave the diapers, not wash the used babybottles, leave the laundry and all that for the guy to do?
So you're saying it was fine that she did her part of a team effort, but she's an idiot because she didn't force him to do it?
She was also pregnant for 4 of those years and 1 year olds are REALLY high maintenance, so that's 9 years alone gone in a highly stressful period. That isn't even taking into account if the kids have colic, or allergies or diabetes etc which becomes another level of work.
But go ahead, try and make 5 kids all do their own thing at the same time so you can have a moment of peace.
I personally would not have had 5 children nor would I like to stop working for so long. But blaming her for doing what any decent person should do if they decide to have that many children and thinking it is okay that the guy owes them nothing is messed up. For every kid she got she would've gotten parental benefits from the government. So it wouldn't have just been his money. While she was taking care of the kids, he was able to advance his career and build a pension plan while still enjoying the embrace of a family that she maintained. If they both shared their responsibility at exactly 50% for both sides. Then there is no way he would have been able to earn that much OR they would never have any free time together to enjoy as a family.
[–]Yosharian 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]msmurasaki1 points [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link
You think a household of 7 people doesn't require management at all? That everyone should just freeball it and do whatever they want? It is one thing when a person alone or even a couple are only reponsible for their own life, it requires minimal planning and managing. But a whole team of people does require management. Taking one kid to football practice and the other to the doctor, while making sure the food at home is upto stock and dinner is planned, and fixing the door that got broken, then doing taxes. Companies have managers so that everything runs smoothly. Someone has to take that mental load at home to with so many people.
One person can easily do all of that alone for themselves because they don't have 6 other peoples lives to take into account.
I could easily then say that he did not raise the kids. If you wanted kids then you have to take that responsibility, whether it is time or money. You act like she decided to act like a slave, but maybe he did too? Except I wouldn't call it slavery but rather two people working together. The fact that you call her a slave is showing that you would rather put her in that category instead of admitting that she did work that she deserved compensation for. ''Oh what a stupid woman for doing free work''. Except it wasn't free work.
If a company has two parts to it, the production side and the commercial side. Then yes the commercial side is getting in the money from consumers, but would not have been able to do so without it's supplier. Her managing from home, assuming she was a good housewife, providing dinner, fixing and maintaining everything. Is the time the husband saved so he could work as much as he did.
Yeah people should start owning up to life choices. So he should take the kids in full time and let her work on her career. She can pay him custody, while he can pay a nanny and get exhausted with a double workload.
[–]Yosharian 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]msmurasaki1 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
And if he wants to see his kids?
[–]Yosharian 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]msmurasaki1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
He legal rights to see kids and she has legal rights to half the house (in my opinion).
I also agree that it is dated. I don't live in a society with people who are house wifes around my age either. But it isn't that dated that you can expect society to change that fast. Both genders often want the same thing as well i.e. with one person being at home and the other bringing in money.
So I think we can both agree on that at least. That we wouldn't personally do it ourselves.
The only thing I don't agree on is how the dad is a white knight bread winner and a mom is a dobby slave loser. When I was younger I didn't think parents really did that much. But now as I see my peers getting children, both parents agree on one thing. That it is exhausting.
I wasn't technically talking about the government. I was talking about what is morally fair. If you look at it as teamwork, they took on different responsibilities as a team in whole.
This is where we have our difference. I don't see why you consider his work more valid while hers as slavery just because she didn't earn money. Ontop of that you think the government should allow him to see his kids (which took her time) but she shouldn't get the house (which took his time).
[–]Corporal_Tax 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]noturmamaduh -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]finishedlurking 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link