- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
this is an excellent point Lara - i have actually seen this happen first hand. The woman raises the children, does not have a career, and then 20 or 30 years later the man has been working, and she has to start the job search again....not really fair, is it? And is also probably part of the reason for alimony/child support in general.Date: 4/29/2009 2:17:35 AM
Author: LaraOnline
It'd leave a bad taste in my mouth.
As far as I see it, a marriage contract IS a contract.
Only want to get married once. If he doesn't trust me, why is he marrying me. And if he doesn't trust himself ... why is he marrying me?
Although, this is assuming that we come from a similar background financially. If he was wildly wealthy, particularly due to family money which had taken many generations to build up, and the contract still left me with a strong supportive base, I wouldn't be as insulted as I would be if he basically had 'come into money' while we were engaged, or we had built up a business throughout our relationship, and the contract was arranged to basically leave me with nothing, including walking away from business assets etc.
I don't see why I should raise (his / our) children, throw my support behind his career and his money-making choices, including putting any money of my own in upon marriage, including making lifestyle sacrifices and changes of my own, only to be left with a paltry portion of what was made during the marriage only... after all, is it not a partnership?
Usually, even in marriages where estates are divided fifty-fifty, women go on into financial difficulty, because their married lives have been a state of sacrificing their own skills and educational opportunities for the sake of their husband's. I am a perfect example, where all our money for self-development goes towards furthering my husband's career, and our business which utilises HIS skills. Should we break up, I'll still have the issue of childcare... and I'll probably have difficulty finding a well-paying position. Better be nice to him!![]()
Date: 4/29/2009 2:21:21 AM
Author: FrekeChild
Sure. Considering he''s got the student loans, and I have the inheritance. And he''d be the one to ask for one to protect me. Not to mention I''m sure we could get one for very cheap if not free. Doesn''t seem like a bad idea to protect everyone''s interests.
Date: 4/29/2009 2:25:57 AM
Author: violet3
i have actually seen this happen first hand. The woman raises the children, does not have a career, and then 20 years later the man has been working, and she has to start the job search again....not really fair, is it?
Date: 4/29/2009 8:37:01 AM
Author: steph72276
No, I don''t like to plan for my marriage to fail. I can see it if either of us came from *very, very wealthy* families, but we were both poor college students when we met, so everything we have, we built together....
Ditto to this....Date: 4/29/2009 8:37:01 AM
Author: steph72276
No, I don''t like to plan for my marriage to fail. I can see it if either of us came from *very, very wealthy* families, but we were both poor college students when we met, so everything we have, we built together....
Hudson i think that is the same here for WA (i could be wrong) which once i pointed out, the prenup talk was gone!Date: 4/29/2009 8:39:17 AM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
If either of us were bringing significant money or a business into the marriage then yes, I''d sign one. Alas neither of us have much, so we''re not worried about it.
Oh, and I believe inheritances and gifts are not considered community property. However, if you were to use said inheritance to buy a house, boat, car, or invest together, then that investment/house becomes a marital asset.
Yes, it''s really unfair how women''s rights have been eroded in the past forty years or so in this regard. In the 1960''s the idea somehow gained credence that raising children was ''doing nothing'' and that stay at home mothers and housewives were parasitical. Easy divorce came in at this time too. It used to be that marriage was protection for women (and children too) because the state acknowledged the fact that in return for the woman giving up her most valuable earning years to bear and raise children, she ought to have security. The ''rights and privileges'' that people are always talking about nowadays that come from being married (the ones that remain) are all in acknowledgement of the fact that most women are going to have children and thus will not be operating on a level playing field with men even if they do choose to have careers outside the home. An acknowledgment that their contributions as child-bearers/child-rearers have value to society and so they should not be chucked out into the cold.Date: 4/29/2009 2:25:57 AM
Author: violet3
this is an excellent point Lara - i have actually seen this happen first hand. The woman raises the children, does not have a career, and then 20 or 30 years later the man has been working, and she has to start the job search again....not really fair, is it? And is also probably part of the reason for alimony/child support in general.Date: 4/29/2009 2:17:35 AM
Author: LaraOnline
It''d leave a bad taste in my mouth.
As far as I see it, a marriage contract IS a contract.
Only want to get married once. If he doesn''t trust me, why is he marrying me. And if he doesn''t trust himself ... why is he marrying me?
Although, this is assuming that we come from a similar background financially. If he was wildly wealthy, particularly due to family money which had taken many generations to build up, and the contract still left me with a strong supportive base, I wouldn''t be as insulted as I would be if he basically had ''come into money'' while we were engaged, or we had built up a business throughout our relationship, and the contract was arranged to basically leave me with nothing, including walking away from business assets etc.
I don''t see why I should raise (his / our) children, throw my support behind his career and his money-making choices, including putting any money of my own in upon marriage, including making lifestyle sacrifices and changes of my own, only to be left with a paltry portion of what was made during the marriage only... after all, is it not a partnership?
Usually, even in marriages where estates are divided fifty-fifty, women go on into financial difficulty, because their married lives have been a state of sacrificing their own skills and educational opportunities for the sake of their husband''s. I am a perfect example, where all our money for self-development goes towards furthering my husband''s career, and our business which utilises HIS skills. Should we break up, I''ll still have the issue of childcare... and I''ll probably have difficulty finding a well-paying position. Better be nice to him!![]()
Having said that, I would sign a prenup and wouldn''t be too offended....but i may not have children either, who knows.