On the woman who wants half her husband's pension
I was of the opinion that a fair and equitable settlement should be made, which means, since she gets the house, maybe not 50% of the pension, but a percentage... BTW, since she got custody of the kids, I would imagine any decent parent would want her to keep the house since the kids need the stability...
but, anyway, if the situation was reversed - if she made more money and wanted a divorce after 20 years - I'd be all for HIM getting part of HER pension as well.
The reality is that a marriage is a partnership. the marital assets (what is earned by both parties during the marriage) and liabilities are split equally upon divorce.
In some marriages the wife earns more. in that situation, when the assets are split equally at divorce, the ex-husband "benefits".
Update: August 02, 2009.
this has been interesting... obviously a few people's buttons got pushed...
BTW, to greenwind:
I'm claiming that both the man and the woman should be treated EQUALLY, not that women get "special rights". Marriage is partly a sacrament, partly romance and companionship, etc., but also partly a business or legal relationship - in a business partnership, if the partners break up and the business is sold, they divide up the assets equitably. In a marriage, the contractual aspect of it should be no different than any other type of partnership.
In my marriage, for the first 3 years, I earned 50% more than my husband because I was an engineering manager. Then I stopped working to become a home-maker - I offered to let him be the "stay-at-home" but, like most men, there is a lot of ego tied up in his work for him. Which is OK with me, but my point was - I was OK with either of us staying home - I just wanted one of us home with the kids. (If I had been the one working while he stayed home - we would have been financially better off, actually, but I think it's worked out better for us this way in terms of the kids and so on. It's not all about the money.)
Since I've been out of the work force for several years, of course now he makes more money. BUT - if I hadn't married him and we hadn't JOINTLY made the decisions we did - I'd have kept working. Obviously BOTH OF US have made choices for the good of the family.
Now, when I made more money, we both had equal access to our money and we both had an equal say in the decisions we made. Now that I'm home, we still both have equal access and we both have an equal say.
It's a partnership. I anticipated when we got married it would be forever. If for some reason he decides to leave - of course I get half the assets. If I had left him when I was earning 50% more - guess what, even though I'd made more than him at that point and contributed more to our investments - he'd have gotten half the assets.
Marriage is a partnership, and I'm talking about equality under the law. I have no idea why you keep bringing up feminism when this has nothing to do with women's rights, it's about a legal contract (a marriage) and equal division of assets and liabilities REGARDLESS of who makes more money.
In some situations the woman makes more money. I have a friend who is a college professor whose husband is a freelance photographer. He makes $50K, she makes $90K. Guess what - if they divorced, I'd say it's only fair that they split the assets. Even though in that situation, the man would benefit... again, it's not about the woman getting special treatment, but about a fair division of assets in what is essentially a partnership.
In the case of children - of course the non-custodial parents pays child support. But the best thing I'd imagine would be joint custody because children need to know both their parents - in that situation, neither parent has to pay child support since they both theoretically cover the child's expenses for half the year.
- Asked by curvysmartgirl
, A Creative, Female, 46-55, Dallas, Artist / Musician / Writer