Oh Look. Another Blog About Finances in a Second Marriage...
...and the Usual Suspects are all there, raking the poster over the coals for daring to expect to be treated like a loved wife and partner.
Why am I not surprised?
- TwoOfUs's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Pretty much everyone in that
Pretty much everyone in that thread said her husband was a tightwad jerk.
I think they are both right and both wrong.
She seems to be taking for granted that he is helping out with her older kids. She says she has it covered, but she does not, she needs him to provided the hosue. I am also not certain about her money management.
He is a tightwad, and I know this expression is over used, but she knew this going in to the relationship that he did not want to share money. I know that many things about steplife are really hard to see in advance, like will my stepkids like me, but I would not have gone into this and had kids with him. It almost seems like she is considering monetizing the value of her younger kids.
No.
No.
She wants her fabulously wealthy husband to put more towards the household expenses and leave her a pittance when he dies.
Yes, she chose it and agreed to it, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to change her mind.
This is how it seems to me,
This is how it seems to me, too. Like she wants some very basic consideration and support...and not to be left penniless after sacrificing her income to care for their mutual children. I’d be nervous in that situation, too.
Of course she can change her mind
But those "household" expenses do include her three older kids. I do see the difficulty of having seperate finances with "ours" kids, and I never would have done that. Its a crap shoot now, I see her having these choices:
1. Do nothing, hope that over time, he softens up and she can fund retirement.
2. Discuss with him, BUT be willing to discuss her finances with him
3. Threaten divorced, to get him to give her money money.
4. Actually divorce. Before I did this, I would be absolutely certain that he did not put his businss in trust, etc.
"It almost seems like she is
"It almost seems like she is considering monetizing the value of her younger kids. "
I felt the same. She's giving careful consideration to how well off she'd be if she left him and got CS. It bothered me a lot. They JUST had a baby together, and she's giving a lot of thought to how much CS she can get.
If his kids eat a lot more, I can understand her asking him to pitch in more for groceries, but if she is getting $1800/month from her employer to stay at home, minus 200 for the phone and 200 for insurance, she has $1400/month for groceries and gas. And that is a lot.
CS is a lot more than what it actually takes to raise a kid. Getting pregnant by a high-earner is the oldest trick in the book.
Her employer doesn’t pay the
Her employer doesn’t pay the $1800 a month for mat leave, the Canadian Government unemployment insurance does.
$1400 could sound like a lot a month by it goes pretty quick with all those kids. I would do the grocery shopping for a family of 3.5, skid was 18, my son was with us half time and he was 16. I would spend $1000 -$1100 on groceries and being mindful of the sales. This was 7 years ago and food prices have dramatically increased in Canada since then. That poster lives in a different Canadian Province than me where taxes are higher. So I could see her having nothing left.
I guess she didn’t not think about how unbalanced things would be before getting married and having a baby. I really did not like the way she monetized her younger kids either.
Yes...thank goodness. That’s
Yes...thank goodness. That’s why I said the Usual Suspects.
You know. The ones who seem to think a woman should have no expectation of any kind of support from her husband...even when they have mutual children. And who call women all kinds of cruel and sexist names for daring to spend some time at home with their newborn.
I just get weary of the woman-bashing.
I still didn't get why she's
I still didn't get why she's not in his will... I mean personally I think that you should trust your spouse enough to care for the kids. Or he!!, create a trust for the kids... But the bulk of everything should go to your PARTNER... Especially the house... What? Something happens to him and she's just out on her nose??/ Explain how that's a loving response...
I didn't comment... Others seemed to cover it... But I'm still a bit floored...
I am really
I am really confused here. Many people live paycheck to paycheck and are unable to save for retirement or a rainy day. They have no choice. But expecting your spouse to expend every bit of their salary to "earn their keep and prove their love" when you have plenty of money to spend and are fully funding your personal retirement seems really inequitable to me. Especially when you throw in that there is no provision for the spouse and mutual minor child in the event of your death. Is this a family or someone still on "probation" that you married with your fingers crossed behind your back? I don't think I could be at all comfortable knowing my spouse was completely broke at the end of the month while I was socking money away for my own exclusive use. There are other ways to prove love.
I am fortunate enough to be a
I am fortunate enough to be a SAHM for the past three years because my husband is a high income earner. I'm on the deed of our home. I am the sole beneficiary of his policies. In the event of his death, I receive everything. When I return to work, nothing will change, except how much more WE will be able to sock into retirement and savings.
And yeah, his ex was an evil twat who only cared about his money (at a time he had very little of it!). But that has nothing to do with my marraige and the fact that we intend to enjoy our retirement together. That pre-nup makes it pretty clear Mr. Wealthypants has zero intentions of growing happily old together with the OP.
100% beebeel. Any woman on here
100% beebeel. Any woman on here bashing that poster for taking 2 years mat leave clearly doesn’t understand how maternity leave works in Canada. Just because the US is still in the Stone Age with maternity leave doesn’t mean the rest of the world is.
Fact is, maternity leave can be split between parents for up to 18 months now. It doesn’t HAVE to be the mother who takes the full leave. The fact that this family has decided that the mother takes the leave is a decision they would have come to mutually.
The bashing of woman on this thread & the original post is abhorrent. Although I can’t say I’m surprised at the posters doing the bashing, as they seem to get their jollies from trashing other women on here.
Also...there is so, so, so
Also...there is so, so, so much research (and the mounting evidence continues to grow) that shows that babies who have full-time access to their MOM during the first year (or more) of life grow up to be happier, healthier, more well-adjusted, smarter, less likely to have anxiety, depression or a host of other mental illnesses, etc. It’s been proven over and over again.
It’s disgusting that we have woman-hating posters on here who take other members to task for “popping out babies they can’t afford” (within a marriage to a millionaire!) Unreal.
This woman is doing an important job...and these commenters are not only misogynistic...they’re also science deniers.
I honestly think they just
I honestly think they hate women who don’t do things EXACTLY the way they did. Heaven forbid a woman have support from the man who created the child(ren) with them. It’s sad. They must be incredibly miserable within themselves to feel the need to come on here & spew such hatred all the time.
Yep. Women should drop their
Yep. Women should drop their kids off at daycare on the way home from the hospital and get their asses back to work, otherwise they are greedy bitches. Earning a paycheck is your only value. No one should ever stay home with a baby/toddler because stuff costs money. Why raise them yourself when you can pay someone else to do it! What a crock.
Oh, and only the high income partner has any say concerning finances. The lower earning spouse needs to STFU about any inequities and financial decisions. The difference in dollar signs is all that matters. Disgusting.
Lol.
Lol.
Loving that image. Yeah...women aren’t people. They’re just baby-popping-out machines who can then completely deny basic biology and go right back to the grindstone for 8+ hour days. Nursing? Organs taking a full year to get back to their correct position after giving birth? The primal needs of your newborn? Nah. Those aren’t real things.
The only real thing is...can you “afford” this baby you just miraculously “popped out” totally on your own and without input from anyone else? Because if not:..you’re a vile honey trap gold-digger who ought to be ashamed of herself!!!
I’m just so confused about when the right to go back to work while having kids...turned into women MUST go back to work? When did the idea that women can have options turn into...you MUST make THIS choice?
It’s very screwed up.
I dont feel that way
I just think two things
1. No one should use child support to support themselves or kids from a previous marriage. It is fine to use part of CS to cover housing and food related to the child for whom it is paid. Not fine to use it to support an adult or kdis from prior marriage.
2. The decision to stay home with a child should be mutual, and agreed upone by both parents . It does not sould like dad wanted this.
Nothing in that entire thread
Nothing in that entire thread indicated the husband wants his wife to drag her 8-months pregnant ass back to work. Nothing. I wanted to go back to work six months ago, but my husband wanted me to wait another year and convinced me to do so. You have zero information indicating his feelings on the matter.
Her children from the
Her children from the previous marriage are taken care of by her & their father. She’s stated this multiple times, which you’ve clearly ignored.
She stated the amount she would likely get in CS in the event of a divorce & said she would be better off without him. Not that she was rushing to divorce him so she could ‘get that money’. It was a statement of fact, and a rather skewed one if you really think about it.
She shouldn’t be struggling while her husband lives a life of luxury. Anyone who genuinely feels that way either should only marry people from the identical earnings bracket, or simply never get married. Ever.
The fact that he is happy to cut her out of any & every financial benefit should he pass away is appalling, especially considering she’s not able to improve her own financial situation by remaining with him. It’s a sick arrangement based on his need to control. He cares more about his money than he does his own wife.
Disagree
Her older kids are with her 50% of the time. She splits utilies and food with current DH. Nothing re housing, they are living in the house he owns. yep, he is supporting them. You are the one ignoring it.
She has stated what her family budget would be if she got divorced and how CS from current SO would support them all.
And she supports his children
And she supports his children by buying the bulk of the groceries for the house. Or is that irrelevant somehow?
Yes, she would buy a house if she left him & got CS. Is she supposed to live in a shelter? My DH’s ex bought a house & pays for it using CS, if she has her bfs children over is she wrong for housing them using a house she pays for with CS? If she has another child, is she wrong for housing that child in the same house she pays for with the CS my husband provides her?
Did she say she’s going to buy an enormous house & live lavishly on this CS? Did she give you an exact plan of how she’s going to allocate this money to each child? Or did you simply forget that she also brings home $4k/month take home, and maybe some of THAT money would be supporting her children as well.
Utilites and food are about equal.
Both of these are relevant and cancel out, but leave out the majority of housing costs -- either rent, imputed rent, or mortgage.
No she said she would save the CS for her retirment.
She stated repeatedly that if
She stated repeatedly that if she hadn’t met him she would be in a better financial position than she is now, so I’m not sure how focusing on the fact she lives in his house is relevant either.
She would own/rent her own home and pay far less for herself & three kids had she not met him than she is paying out right now. She would not have had the two younger kids, and therefore would not have taken the pay cut for maternity leave. This is not an equitable situation for them considering she is worse off now than she was before & she is accumulating nothing for her own future.
Whats your point about her using the CS for her retirement? He has no control over how she spends the money. Her mutual children with him will be provided for. Where she allocates the exact dollars is 100% out of his control.
My DH’s ex gets a lot of CS. We have no way of knowing is every penny goes towards the boys, or if it goes towards the new clothes she’s always wearing, or her hair & nail appointments she seems to always have. Or if it’s funding her weekends away she’s always taking.
The fact is, if that poster leaves her husband, she will be entitled to the CS for their children. She stated she doesn’t want to leave him, which is why I said it was a statement of fact that she knows roughly what she’d be entitled to.
At what point in any of this
At what point in any of this does it sound like he didn’t want this?
She’ll soon have “popped out” two kids in a little over two years time. Is this man unaware of how these things happen? Unaware that newborns require constant care?
He doesn’t sound like the kind of guy who allows things like this to happen when he’s not onboard. Believe it or not...there are wealthy guys who like their women barefoot and pregnant at home...and there’s are wealthy guys who like to control the lower earner by making her fully dependent and unable to provide for herself.
We don’t know that that’s what’s going on here...so I’m not going to speculate. I’m only going on the face of the information that’s been presented. You’re reading in a whole lot of your own agenda and making “facts” up to suit your narrative. Like: “It doesn’t seem like dad wanted any of this.”
WHERE??!! What on earth makes you say that? People don’t have two kids in two years accidentally.
I read that post as him being
I read that post as him being fabulously wealthy - making more than 20K A MONTH, but having her sign a pre-nup that said, in the event of his death, she gets absolutely ZERO, not even any part of what he earned during the marriage. And that he then lives way below his means and makes her pay close to half of everything other than the house, while she's on maternity leave and making 2000 per month. She also said they don't live lavishly, so I assume this is not some 20 room mansion with a full staff she's benefitting from, but some typical run-of-the-mill home.
I also read her as doing this because she wanted to show him that she wasn't in it for the money, but now realizing it's not a fair deal, and that she could actually have more of his money if she divorced him, which seems backwards to her, in terms of the kind of marriage she'd like.
Do all of you claiming she's a gold digger really think it's fine for a man to disinherit his spouse from any of the earnings he makes during a marriage, while she stays home and cares for their kids? Thereby benefitting their mutual children and saving him a small fortune on day care fees (which he would probably make her pay out of her salary anyway).
I don't think anyone should be legally entitled to share entirely in their spouse's income. And I'm actually in the camp that says many women need to just let their husbands spend money on their kids if the household is cared for. But I would not marry a man who didn't give a rat's ass about whether I was taken care of after death, and who pinched his pennies like he was poor, when in reality he was in the top 1% of earners.
Bingo.
Bingo.
My other problem with the arrangement is that OP clearly feels that she has to keep the house in the manner to which he is accustomed to in terms of groceries and household items.
1000+ a month is A LOT even in a house of that size. He’s expecting her to spend as though she has a reasonable income...when in fact it’s over half of her take-home income and is putting her in dire financial straits.
Meanwhile, he picks up items here and there on his way home and doesn’t even feel it. What kind of husband does this to the woman caring for his 1-year-old while carrying another of his children? You’d think she has enough on her plate.
Sounds more like acrimony than matrimony
Wonder what they're doing for Valentine's Day? Maybe there's an ass-covering section in the pre-nup:
Prospective Spouse 1 and Prospective Spouse 2 waive the following rights:
To spousal maintenance, both temporary and permanent, of any romantic holiday tradition including but not limited to Valentine's Day.
To the division of any acquired chocolate of the parties, whether currently held or hereafter acquired.
DH must have been burned by his X. The guy is wealthy enough to protect his assets with a pre-nup. But, he's a douchebag for not assisting financially when the baby is his - I'm betting he's a control freak. She's already calculating the financial outcome of CS when she recently gave birth - sad.
I'm guessing she has to pay
I'm guessing she has to pay for her Valentine's Gift herself, and dinner, too, or at least split it down the middle. Bet he gives her the extra penny when they divide it 50%.
I agree, this is about control, not about protecting his assets. He could do that and still be a loving and generous partner to her.
ETA: Wait! No pennies in Canada anymore. Whew, she dodged a bullet on that one.
How about
How about "I don't celebrate Valentine's Day on principle because it is a Hallmark holiday?" We have all met those guys! I personally have never been one to make a big deal about celebrating Valentine's Day beyond something simple. Besides, getting a table at a decent restaurant is next to impossible and when it falls on a week day it is stressful to go from workmode to romantic dressed up dinner date. But I think it says something about a man when they vigorously object to even a token gesture.
I agree, this is about
I agree, this is about control, not about protecting his assets. He could do that and still be a loving and generous partner to her.
I so agree ^^^
My husband is in awe of this whole scenario. If he made that kind of money, I wouldn't have to pay for anything. Not that I wouldn't want to contribute, but DH would be more than happy to take care of everything, financially. He loves me, is IN LOVE with me, and certainly wouldn't make me stress over money if he made over 20K a month.
And I didn't even have to birth his children, he just loves me.
Mine too.
Mine too.
My situation is slightly different in that I’m the higher earner with no kids...but we my DH is going to inherit millions...likely in the next 10 years.
When my husband does get a windfall, the very first thing he does is run out and buy me something special (whether I want it or not...I’m far more frugal than he is).
We recently did our wills. I suggested putting in an inheritance for skids if DH predeceases me. He insisted on mirror wills leaving me everything because he wants to ensure I’m taken care of and he trusts me to take care of his kids...like I’ve been doing for 10+ years.
Exactly. If you are in a
Exactly. If you are in a healthy marriage, generosity and sharing the wealth is par for the course.
Agree with sharing
But need more information. I do think that provided he wanted these kids, he should kick in more while she is on maternity leave, but that is a big if. But he is already sharing the house, that is a big share. I know the house is paid for, but it still has economid value, so he is sharing.
Haha! How nice of him, to
Haha! How nice of him, to share his house with his wife and their children! He certainly is a gem.
He is also sharing the house
With her 3 kids from a prior marrige. Keep ignoring that.
So? She has to pay for
So? She has to pay for everything else for them, doesn't she?
He his providing housing for them.
That is big to me. It is fine for you to aruge that he SHOULD be paying this, but to ignore that he does is not accurate.
OK, he pays for housing. Let
OK, he pays for housing. Let's say it's worth a 3000K mortgage. She's paying around 2K for other stuff. So they are splitting things 60/40 when he makes 50K more than her?
More like 200K+ more going by
More like 200K+ more going by her numbers.
Woo Hoo! He allows her to live “rent free” in a house she’ll never own any part of...while leaving her vulnerable to financial disaster. What an awesome guy.
You do know how babies are
You do know how babies are made, right? That men have to participate? Whether or not he wanted the child is totally irrelevant to his MORAL, and LEGAL responsibility to pay for any children he creates.
I wonder if OP knows she can possibly go to court and get child support now, while still married. I've heard that it can happen.
So he's letting her live in his house. If he makes 50x more than she does, that's only fair. The rest shouldn't be split 50/50.
Yes I know
Irrelevant as to legal. Moral I would need to know more, like did they discuss, did she way she was on BC. As to what her legal rights as, she has consulted an attorney re the prenup, I am certain she gets legal advice on her rights.
How are legal obligations
How are legal obligations irrelevant?
You just can't be wrong. You don't really believe a man doesn't have to pay for a child that he didn't want, one that's living in his house, has his name and he interacts with daily, I assume?
My point as to legal
She can ask her attorney, she has one.
He is paying for his kid with the imputed rental value of the home that her older kids are living in. If she did not have her older kids there, my opinion would be different. Paying for food, which says is equivalent to utlities, ignores the roof over the older kids head.
Again - if he is making 10x
Again - if he is making 10x what she makes, how is this fair?
He owns the house outright,
He owns the house outright, there’s no mortgage for her to even contribute to. Should she be putting herself into debt & paying him rent then? Or simply telling her older three they aren’t welcome at her husbands home? Or maybe live separately altogether.
She does not say say she is putting her self in debt
Just she wants to save for retirement, which she can after she goes off of maternity leave. She needs to budget better. No more 200 for cell phones. No more big insurance payments, she needs to look into survivor benefits under Canadian equivalent of SS. She has 5 kids and is not getting CS for her older kids. She needs to stop putting all the blame on current DH
You clearly don’t read. She
You clearly don’t read. She is legally obligated to pay for the insurance policies as part of her divorce settlement with her ex. It is set in place to protect either parent & the children in the event that one of them were to pass, and is set to expire within ~15 years time.
Mobile plans are not cheap in Canada. As much as you insist they are, speak to actual Canadians. I have. They pay outrageous amounts as there is a monopoly in place preventing competition.
Based on what I can see here - http://www12.edsc.gc.ca/sgpe-pmps/servlet/sgpp-pmps-pub?lang=eng&curjsp=... - benefits for children through CPP is $218/month. Which is almost nothing for 3 children, and likely why they have the insurance policies in place.
Cell phone plans in Canada
Cell phone plans in Canada are one of the highest in the world.
Everything in Canada is more
Everything in Canada is more expensive. (Source: in laws are Canadian).
Sorry, but women in this
Sorry, but women in this thread disgust me. As a Canadian, it is customary to take, at a minimum, a year off, with the birth of a new baby, between mom and dad. It's called being advanced and progressive, not archaic and behind the times. The U.S. is not a leader in this area; if anything, they are way way way behind the times.
Also, it is between mom and dad to decide who takes the leave, how they will break it up, etc... This is a family decision. I don't have children nor want any but I still can comprehend why a parent would want to spend as much time as possible with their newborn instead of schlepping them off to the daycare factory so they can earn "more money" and be "independent". Please. Stupidity.
Of course. The US is way
Of course. The US is way behind in maternity leave (my state has just made it possible for people to take around 6 -9 months off, men too, which is considered crazy liberal).
Then there is someone in the thread who is arguing that the father shouldn't be paying for the child because he "might not have wanted it".
Please do not misquote me
The FATHER is paying, through providing housing for the 3 kids that are not his.
SORRY - that's not how it
SORRY - that's not how it works. "I'm sorry dear, I won't be buying Junior his medicine, because I didn't want him and I'm covering housing for your other three kids. You'll have to just add that to your 1K grocery bill that you are paying to cover MY CHILDREN, you know, the ONES I WANTED."
"might not have wanted it"
"might not have wanted it"
Grasping at straws to try and justify their arguments and behaviour.
Wait. WHAT????
Wait. WHAT???? Someone is saying that a man should not have to pay for a child if he "did not want it." WT actual F? That would make child support filings pretty interesting.
"Dear Mr. Jones:
A claim for child support has been filed against you by Susie Jones for Charlie Jones born during your marriage. But if you did not want him to be born you will not be required to pay support. Check the box below for us to close the file and never bother you again."
Love and kisses,
The State of Insanity
No, only if he's married to
No, only if he's married to her. Of course, AFTER marriage he has to pay for the little mistake, but during the marriage, he can refuse because she may not have used birth control.
I have no words.
I have no words. And anyone with even a passing acquaintence with me will know that happens maybe once every 10 years.
Glad to hear from another Canadian
The woman who started the other thread indicated she has to pay 200 month for insurance so if she dies, her older kids are taken care of. Does Canada does not have a survivor insurance progam, like social security in the US, where children udner 18 of workers get a stipend if a parent dies?
You do know how very little
You do know how very little money people get from SS survivor's benefits right? Nothing like they would get for a life insurance policy. And how do you know they are under 18?
SS benefits
SS benefits (of workers, which the woman is) are far more generous than SSI. For someone making 40,000 per year (which is less than what that woman indicated she is making, the SS calculator indicates the family max, which kicks in for 3 three kids would be about $2,200 per month. Surely her ex who has 50/50 custody could get by with the kids full time with the extra 2K. Possibley OR from above can tell us, is Canada less generous than the US? Or does OP just want more money for her older kids? if she does, it should not be on her current DH. She has said they have their kids education covered. Why would they need more money over age 18?
Yes, Canada has survivor
Yes, Canada has survivor benefits but it's not very much. It's $250 per month. As a previous insurance broker, $200 a month for insurance is not unheard from. You have no idea what biofather makes and should be insured for, what debts there are, what future expenses there may be in the future for the children, age and health of the insured, years left for children to be dependent on OP until they age out, etc...
So the US is far more generous?
And we are talking about survivor benefits, not child benefits.
Survivor pension benefits
Survivor pension benefits range but max out at $625ish per month if the living spouse is under 65.
I posted the link for child
I posted the link for child benefits in the event of the death of a parent above, directly from the Canadian govt website. It’s $218/month. The OP wouldn’t qualify for benefits from him directly as she is no longer his spouse, she would only be entitled to the child benefits as she cares for their mutual children.
How is the US being ‘more generous’ relevant to this at ALL?
If I die
My kids under 18 get a benefit regardless of my ex's income. As stated above, for someone earning about 50K, benefits about 1K per kid. It is payable to the guadian of a child of a deceased worker.
How nice for your children.
How nice for your children. What your children would receive, however, is irrelevant. If you choose not to believe that Canadians do not receive the same entitlement, I’m not sure what to tell you. I gave you the link to the govt website. Another poster has told you as well. You are clutching at straws just to be right about something that you are clearly misinformed about.
And what does it have to do
And what does it have to do with anything, except that STaround thinks that this person should live like a pauper with her filthy rich husband because he's letting her live rent free in his home.
And that he shouldn't have to pay for his youngest kid because he 'may not have wanted it'.
And the real reason OP is struggling is not her tightwad H, it's her $200 phone bill.
And if she didn't get life insurance, and instead relied on the government, she'd have a whole 200 more dollars to spend! But wait, don't rely on the government supplied maternity leave, that's lazy, pop the newborn in child care and get back to work! You can save for your retirement when you are dead!
This thread is the most circular cluster**** I've ever wasted my time on.
She is not living like a pauper
Her complaint seems to be she cant put money away for retirment while on maternity leave -- well that will be over with in a year. She has 5 kids now, if she wants retirement money, she needs to stop having kids and she will be able to save. Or alternatively, she wants to live rich. Well then she should get divorced and take the guy for all he is worth.
Well, we finally agree on
Well, we finally agree on something - she should leave this miser and get that 8K a month child support. Otherwise she will be living in a cardboard box in her retirement because he won't help her at all.
Not what I said
She can save when maternity leave over. Or she can live on child support.
Last word.
Last word.
You are 1000% correct. Every
You are 1000% correct. Every scientific study on the subject clearly demonstrates the benefit of stable, regular access to one or both parents in the first year of life...preferably the mom.
We’ve shown how just-born babies can identify their own mothers by smell, sound, touch, and sight...and how being with mom releases endorphins and feel-good hormones that increase the baby’s sense of security and well-being and translates into better mental health throughout a person’s entire life.
They’ve proven thousands of miraculous scientific facts around this subject...but let’s ignore all that in our insistence that women be completely “independent” (as if they made these new humans all on their own and should now “pay” the consequences).
I know some of the same people who would watch that documentary about Sea World and call the scene where they separate crying baby killer whale calves from their mothers “barbaric” and “animal cruelty” would then turn around and claim that it’s “progressive” to do the exact same thing to human babies.
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
People keep mentioning his
People keep mentioning his wealth. If she`s not a golddigger, that is non factor. He lives fruggally. Imagine they have a loving relationship, and earn the same amount, 4k. He agrees with 1 year leave per child. With 2k mortgage and 1.2k utilities, things would be tighter. He would have to pitch in for groceries, she`d have to budget better. She`s not "living like a pauper" in a luxury home with 1.4k for groceries.
It just sounds like she obsesses about his money.
Ok.
Ok.
LOL. He's filthy rich,
LOL. He's filthy rich, refuses to pay his fair share, and she's the one with the problem.
Oh yes. If you’re not a “good
Oh yes. If you’re not a “gold-digger” then you don’t even notice money at all and it has zero affect on your life! Obviously.
Women who aren’t “gold-diggers” are completely immune to observations like:
“Hmmm. I feel like I’m covering the full cost of this maternity leave on my own...and now I also feel vulnerable because my financial future is insecure in this marriage and I’m unable to save for retirement.”
OR
“It’s kind of ironic that I’m married to a billionaire who claims to love me, but I felt better off and more financially secure before we married. I find it odd and hurtful that I’d have more cash flow and a better financial future if I’d never married this man who is very wealthy.”
No. Women who aren’t “gold-diggers” would never have thoughts like this because they live on magical fairy dust and care more about their “pride” and their “independence” and in making sure they can “afford the kids” that they magically “pop out” than they care about ensuring they have food and medical care and a roof over their heads when they’re in their 70s and 80s.
Plus, if she's a gold digger,
Plus, if she's a gold digger, she's absolutely TERRIBLE at it. She was supposed to find the guy who DIDN'T want the pre-nup.
Lol.
Lol.
Shhhh...Tog! Quit bringing up facts that get in the way of their anti-SAHM agenda!
Women who insist on “popping out babies” should be able to support that (obviously unilateral) decision fully with no help from their partner...or else they’re clearly just in it for the money!!
All women who procreate with wealthy men are automatically suspect...since we all know that like 99% of those women “trick” these poor defenseless men by lying about their birth control...sometimes multiple times in just a couple years!!!
Period...dot. End of discussion.