If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Today)   A new idea being batted around for new stay at home moms...the postnup agreement. The tag says it all   (today.com) divider line 182
    More: Asinine, housewives  
•       •       •

11747 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2013 at 8:27 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



182 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-18 08:28:09 PM  
fark you, get a job.
 
2013-12-18 08:30:07 PM  

AlgertMan: fark you, get a job.


images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-12-18 08:32:46 PM  

perigee: AlgertMan: fark you, get a job.

[images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com image 455x570]


LOL, and this.
 
2013-12-18 08:32:50 PM  
One income families. How quaint!

/if we didn't both work we'd starve.
 
2013-12-18 08:32:58 PM  
Postnup? As long as you also sign this Prefat.
 
2013-12-18 08:35:07 PM  
How about Daddy stays home with the kids?  We have breast pumps now, so Junior will still get the nutrition he needs most.


/But really, isn't this what divorce court is for?  (Although having a pre-approved framework would probably make the process faster.)
 
2013-12-18 08:36:44 PM  
Yeah, good luck with that. I already bought the cow.
 
2013-12-18 08:37:54 PM  

EnderX: Postnup? As long as you also sign this Prefat.


Pretty much this
 
2013-12-18 08:38:51 PM  

ajgeek: /if we didn't both work we'd starve.


you're doing it wrong
 
2013-12-18 08:38:58 PM  
If anything, men should glom onto these since two happily married people would be less likely to fark over the breadwinner than a judge listening to a pair of irate, hateful assholes.
 
2013-12-18 08:39:11 PM  
Typical women. They want the equality, the education, the career because they don't agree with the 1950's traditional sense of the woman staying home.

...until they have kids. Then it's "oh, I want to stay home now."  STFU and make me a sammich, biatch.
 
2013-12-18 08:39:15 PM  
I'm confused. If you didn't sign a prenup, won't any judge recognize the need for equitable division of assets?
 
KIA
2013-12-18 08:39:48 PM  
Bwahahahahahahaahaaaa.  Heh.

Do you really want to negotiate what the expectations are of getting to stay at home, not fight traffic, jerks, office politics, stupid people, impossibly complicated yet easily avoidable situations, performance pressure, reviews, sabotaged projects, unfunded mandates, snotty people, difficult clients, steadily declining real wages, unrelenting taxes, more traffic, rude people, lines for everything, stores that close before you get anywhere near them, the sun that sets before you can get home exhausted, then find that someone just couldn't find the time in their stay-at-home day to clean up the cat barf right behind the front door?

DO YOU?

DO YOU REALLY???
 
2013-12-18 08:40:11 PM  
Can we include a BJ rationing penalty, or prorate by boob sag? Because both individuals sacrifice, we just give up different things.

You want economic stability? Fine. Trade you for sexual stability.
 
2013-12-18 08:40:13 PM  
I don't disagree with this on principle.   But I see the suggestion is legal rights being added without any of the existing advantages females have in divorce being taken away.
 
2013-12-18 08:40:46 PM  
You and your husband should sign a postnuptial agreement, one that clearly specifies how you would be compensated for forfeiting your highest-earning years should the marriage end in divorce.

So, if you decide to become a tool of the oppressive patriarchy, it's OK as long as you demand that your husband see you as an employee, and not  partner?

Since you've fulfilled your biology with somebody you stated wedding vows with, you are now entitled to a contracted paycheck?

Is he, if he stays at home?  Is that different?  Is it me or does all this pseudo-political gender jousting have a beard to it's ass?
 
2013-12-18 08:40:49 PM  
It's bizarre that those fighting ardently against sexism do such a good job at reinforcing and proliferating sexism.

Expecting the man to "compensate" you for years spent raising children implies that the woman is not a rational being who decided that it would be best to do so, but chattel forced to nanny the children in their formative years. You are not entitled to lost wages for raising your children instead of working.

Also, I get the feeling that a stay-at-home dad would not be compensated by his wife under similar circumstances.

And additionally, FTFA: "A woman's child-rearing years are usually her highest-earning years."-- Probably not true. Highest earning years are almost certainly the age 45-retirement years. If the kids were born when mom was < 30, they're probably capable of caring for themselves (to an extent) by that point. Though I understand what the author is trying to say, I guess.
 
2013-12-18 08:41:25 PM  
Doesn't alimony already exist?
 
2013-12-18 08:41:32 PM  
I wish the courts were as interested in preventing the man from getting shafted in the divorce.
 
2013-12-18 08:42:41 PM  

bunner: You and your husband should sign a postnuptial agreement, one that clearly specifies how you would be compensated for forfeiting your highest-earning years should the marriage end in divorce.

So, if you decide to become a tool of the oppressive patriarchy, it's OK as long as you demand that your husband see you as an employee, and not  partner?

Since you've fulfilled your biology with somebody you stated wedding vows with, you are now entitled to a contracted paycheck?

Is he, if he stays at home?  Is that different?  Is it me or does all this pseudo-political gender jousting have a beard to it's ass?


Counting this as a simulpost.
 
2013-12-18 08:43:46 PM  
That wouldn't be the only thing being batted around...
 
2013-12-18 08:45:29 PM  
When I was coming up this what "divorce with full custody and spousal support that ruin's the father who will never be able to see his children ever again while being made out to be a villain" was called
 
2013-12-18 08:45:30 PM  
In before some brood mare posts the inflated value of her "labor."
 
2013-12-18 08:45:34 PM  

No Soap Radio: Counting this as a simulpost.


Works for me.  I just try and avoid the professionally disenfranchised and oppressed.  Cause even if you give them a room full of gold, they're just gonna keep patting that "it's all about ME" lever.  See:  Pavlov.
 
2013-12-18 08:46:34 PM  
because the unrealistic alimony and child support aren't enough? Will it be gender neutral? No? That's what I thought.
 
2013-12-18 08:46:55 PM  
Wouldn't this actually stop problems during a divorce case? For example, if you're raising kids while not earning money, your husband tells you that in case you divorce, you won't get anything from him. You sign that contract. If ever divorce comes, there won't be much lawyer problems because it's clear that the woman won't be getting anything because she hasn't really earned money during that time.

The clearer you put the conditions on paper, the better, especially if it concerns money and property.
 
2013-12-18 08:47:00 PM  
My wife stays at home, and it is great. The house is spotless, dinner is ready when I get home, and I don't have to lift a finger. It works out well for both of us. If she had a job, we would have to share household chores and do them after work/on days off.
 
2013-12-18 08:47:43 PM  
New idea my ass.  Desperate Housewives had this as a thing what, a decade ago?
 
2013-12-18 08:47:56 PM  
No Soap Radio:
Expecting the man to "compensate" you for years spent raising children

The time there is a problem is when a divorce happens and the man says 'Im rich she isnt.. I worked she didnt, so my company/share/whatever are mine, she didnt do anything'

Two people in a declared long term partnership decided that a situation where one worked for money, the other as a homekeeper/childrearer/etc was mutually beneficial.. and the fact that their posessions are mutual regardless of direct financial input should be implicit.

Mostly it is (to the horrified wailing of many men) but sometimes it is not.
 
2013-12-18 08:50:34 PM  
Any stay at home Dad's want to share their views?
 
2013-12-18 08:50:41 PM  

bingethinker: I wish the courts were as interested in preventing the man from getting shafted in the divorce.


Actually, I think if the "post nup" was properly written, it might prevent the man from getting shafted (assuming the standard man makes lots of money at his fabulous job, and the woman quits her shiatty retail job for the kids), as the whole idea implies that the stay-at-home spouse would have been an independent economic entity if not for staying at home for the kids.  As such, the working spouse could argue that they are only on the hook for the lost potential of the stay at home's income.  I.E. the money in question isn't the total for both workers, just for the one.

No more of the 1/2 of everything the couple made, just what the stay-at-home would have made on their own.

This model would be of benefit for stay at homes who really were on a high dollar career track, but then it begs the question of why the loser spouse doesn't stay home in that case.

This really sounds like it would bite gold-dggers in the ass.
 
2013-12-18 08:51:26 PM  
Before you marry anybody, arrange situations where some given mutual endeavor will require discussion as to who should do what and why.  Find out just how vehemently they will argue for the last shred of "I get the better end of the deal, or no deal!".  Because that is who you will be marrying and it wont change.
 
2013-12-18 08:51:29 PM  

Igor Jakovsky: Doesn't alimony already exist?


This is sort of what I was thinking. I'll be damed if I am paying child support, alimony, and some "lost earning capacity" payment.
 
2013-12-18 08:52:02 PM  
How about paying your own way?
b eeeeeeeeeeeeee oioiiiiiiiiiii tccccccccccccch.

And if you don''t have a sammich, STFU, in your rebuttal.

Roget's, if you need a coitation
 
2013-12-18 08:53:47 PM  
We have this. It's called community property.

Seriously, go study community property in law school (if you can handle it--OMG what a freaking nightmare). Hint: Neither spouse gets imaginary wages for money they "might" have been able to earn if the other spouse hadn't been staying home with the kids, or deployed to Iraq or whatever. In most states, you ALREADY get 50% of whatever assets were earned during marriage. And if you sacrificed and stayed home with the kids so your hubby/wifey could earn his/her medical degree and get a higher-earning job, then guess what? You're ALSO entitled to some of that money.

Sounds to me like the author of the article got screwed in a divorce due to not understanding the divorce laws or else signing a prenup that didn't do what their lawyer said it did.
 
2013-12-18 08:54:45 PM  
I'd be cool with supporting my wife financially after a divorce, as long as she's not farking some other dude. But we already have this, it's called alimony.
 
2013-12-18 08:55:01 PM  
There are people who will happily compensate you for your "high earning years" in a fashion that you both find equitable.

They are called employers.

This involves doing what you're told, on time and putting your children and family second, if you have any.  You will be a lot more attractive to them if you have no children or family obligations.

These offerings can be found both online and in several print publications in your local area.  They are rarely found in the singles personal ads.
 
2013-12-18 08:55:01 PM  

gaspode: No Soap Radio:
Expecting the man to "compensate" you for years spent raising children

The time there is a problem is when a divorce happens and the man says 'Im rich she isnt.. I worked she didnt, so my company/share/whatever are mine, she didnt do anything'

Two people in a declared long term partnership decided that a situation where one worked for money, the other as a homekeeper/childrearer/etc was mutually beneficial.. and the fact that their posessions are mutual regardless of direct financial input should be implicit.

Mostly it is (to the horrified wailing of many men) but sometimes it is not.


Expecting women to face the consequences of their choices is a bad thing?

Why do you have such a low opinion of them?
 
2013-12-18 08:55:10 PM  

Cerebral Knievel: When I was coming up this what "divorce with full custody and spousal support that ruin's the father who will never be able to see his children ever again while being made out to be a villain" was called


Personally; I think everyone deserves equal custody, equal assets, ect from a divorce. I understand alimony in the context that women didn't have property in the 1800's; thus, required funds to compensate. I even understand child support. That makes perfect sense. What I don't understand is punishing someone; just because a marriage is over.
 
2013-12-18 08:56:24 PM  
You know this might be a good thing. Now they have to stop getting like mega-bible level outraged when we present them with a prenup..... right?

lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-12-18 08:57:41 PM  

gaspode: No Soap Radio:
Expecting the man to "compensate" you for years spent raising children

The time there is a problem is when a divorce happens and the man says 'Im rich she isnt.. I worked she didnt, so my company/share/whatever are mine, she didnt do anything'

Two people in a declared long term partnership decided that a situation where one worked for money, the other as a homekeeper/childrearer/etc was mutually beneficial.. and the fact that their posessions are mutual regardless of direct financial input should be implicit.

Mostly it is (to the horrified wailing of many men) but sometimes it is not.


Stop being reasonable! Read the thread; you're supposed to believe that marriage is disposable, that each party should be only out for themselves, that if a couple decides that one should stay at home while the other works that the stay-at-home parent is somehow being lazy, and that using misogynist language helps get your point across.
 
2013-12-18 08:58:58 PM  
You all need to read Two Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren. Single income families are generally better off financially and happier.

/they have to be smarter with their money than you, they have the time and energy to do it, and they have the time and energy to actually enjoy when they aren't working
 
2013-12-18 08:59:05 PM  
WTF.
 
2013-12-18 08:59:13 PM  

Enemabag Jones: I don't disagree with this on principle.   But I see the suggestion is legal rights being added without any of the existing advantages females have in divorce being taken away.


Advantages in getting custody, sure.  Financial advantage tends to go to the men, though...since they tend not to get custody:

http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/Lesson7.pdf

Moral:  kids are expensive.
 
2013-12-18 08:59:23 PM  

meanmutton: misogynist language


*snort*
 
2013-12-18 08:59:56 PM  
Jesus Christ. What's the world coming to?

My advice to any men thinking about getting married: Don't.
 
2013-12-18 09:01:24 PM  
If your concern is compensation, you should get a job and put your kids in daycare or whatever... if your concern is your family, then you should be a mother and a wife, not a farking employee... if your husband thinks of you as a domestic employee... is that really the relationship that you want? Because if I were signing one of these wacky agreements, you damn well can be sure that I'd include real and tangible measures of domestic responsibility, a means for documenting failure, and a mechanism for firing you for cause if you're not doing a good enough job.
 
2013-12-18 09:01:30 PM  
But what happens if the marriage hits the skids? Will a divorce settlement include compensation for the wife who left her career to be home with the kids? And when she's a single woman again, will the stay-at-home mom be able to slide right back into a job like her old one (with similar pay and benefits)?
 Tags, Moms, working moms, stay at home moms, money, mom topics.
I was going to replace patriarchy with matriarchy and make a joke, but something it hit me, this are real sexist assumptions.  Ignoring how things may really work in the courts, the writer is assuming that the wife is stay at home and fails once to mention it could be the dad that stays home.

While third wave feminism complains about forking dongles and 30 year old japanese video games, this is overlooked.
 
2013-12-18 09:02:03 PM  

perigee: AlgertMan: fark you, get a job.

[images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com image 455x570]



Totes Muh-Goats indeed.
 
2013-12-18 09:03:05 PM  
Wait a minute. If the services she provides are not up to snuff, this suggests that she can be fired and replaced by a younger and hotter more competent employee.
 
Displayed 50 of 182 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report