Having Trouble With Mrs Starcrossed

[Grime- skint wouldbe ftb]

Thought I'd give a wife's perspective...

Having a house represents more than just a financial investment. It means the security of knowing your family is settled, that the kids can be near a decent school, knowing your community, being near friends etc etc.

This is total rubbish. I lived in nice rented (private, HA & council) accomodation throughout my childhood. We went to nice schools, had loads of friends, plus my parent had freedom of mobility to pursue her careers and be able to move at the drop of a hat. Mother eventually bought in the depth of the last crash when she was almost 40. Looks like I'll be doing the same thing...

Unfortunately it seems like many women put undue pressure on their partners to rush headlong into foolish house buying decisions using irrational flawed logic. Men should learn to put their foot down again. And if she threatens to leave then tough. If you are living with someone who blackmails you into committing financial suicide you are better off shot of them.

[Little Miss No Frills]

This is total rubbish. I lived in nice rented (private, HA & council) accomodation throughout my childhood.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lucky you. Renting can be unpredictable - see my comment about having to move on. This has happened to me twice now. But my point is that despite this I'm still happy to rent for the moment.

Please read a post thoroughly before you dismiss it as total rubbish.

LMNF

[theChuz]

All this is why i stay single. People are just to much hassle. We've all been prgrammed to think a certain way, buy buy buy, but even worse than this We've been programmed to feel a certain way which is even more soul destroying.

P.S

Im obviously trying to be diplomatic by using "we" and i dont really lump myself in with you never-break-from-programming lot.

I have my own programmings that society has written which i cant break from easily, the difference between us is that i KNOW i have these programmings.

[Grime- skint wouldbe ftb]

Lucky you. Renting can be unpredictable - see my comment about having to move on. This has happened to me twice now. But my point is that despite this I'm still happy to rent for the moment.

Please read a post thoroughly before you dismiss it as total rubbish.

LMNF

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Still rubbish, a landlord can't make you leave early, check the legal position thoroughly before making rash decisions.

Buying doesn't make all the problems go away.

[fdk]

Man provides the house and the food, Women cares for house and children.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's still no reason to buy.What's wrong with man providing a rented house ?

Unfortunately it seems like many women put undue pressure on their partners to rush headlong into foolish house buying decisions using irrational flawed logic. Men should learn to put their foot down again. And if she threatens to leave then tough. If you are living with someone who blackmails you into committing financial suicide you are better off shot of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would tend to agree here. It sounds like SC's decision to wait is not just him being selfish and wanting his own way, but him wanting to make the best decision for him and his other half.

If a wife insists on buying a house at this stage in the cycle, that could be described as selfish. There's just too much at stake here.

[Starcrossed]

Good point fdk.

I'll let you know when the divorce papers come through

[laurejon]

Face facts here.

As a teenager you go out of your way to impress the opposite sex.

You do this by getting kitted up in some nice tastefull clothes, and drink in trendy bars. You finally trap, and continue to impress by buying the drinks and generally treating your new partner.

Things move on and you get married, you settle down, she expects you to provide a decent house and have a decent job.

She selected you because she felt you were the best option to bring up her children, putting them into the vagaries of rented accomadation is not what she expected.

Sure if you want to be a sad old lonely miser, and are happy that your whole ethos in life is the preservation of money then the financial aspects today would indicate that you make the decision not to buy.

I think we must be agreeing that to some people money is ruling their lives and maybe that is what is wrong with todays generations.

[Unexpected]

Unfortunately you are probably right Laurejon. Sad but true, but its a pretty sick world where a man has to impress a woman by splashing money so that she will think he will continue to do so in ever larger and larger amounts until well after retirement. It makes me question the whole process of impressing women.

Actually, I have just decided that I will never try to impress a women ever again.

[Ursa Minor]

Still rubbish, a landlord can't make you leave early, check the legal position thoroughly before making rash decisions.

Buying doesn't make all the problems go away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe LL can't make you leave early, but the short term nature of most private rental contracts (6 months or 1 year) can mean an awful lot of moving house. Since moving from Newcastle to London in 2001 I have moved house 4 times, because LL wanted to sell up rather than rent out again. This Xmas was the first time we've ever got our lease renewed.

I grew up in rented accomodation (mostly council). My dad was a builder and we moved around the area following the work. I attended 9 different schools. Results:I am a person who can easily make new friends and am outgoing, but have little sense of roots or belonging to any particular place. My brother on the other hand found the constant moving almost unbearable as he was less outgoing and a natural homebody.

If rented accomodation could be as stable as owning, I wouldn't give two hoots about ever buying a house (And I am female). But the lack of long term leases and the large number of LL who are not in the game long term make this an impossible idea.

Starcrossed, maybe you should ask your other half if she is prepared to a) change to working full time and postponing her retirement, if you buy a house now.

Cheers,

Ursa Minor

[laurejon]

It does seem rather odd that we spend large amounts of time and energy in the mating dance so we can tie ourselves down with a life of screaming kids and a marriage not only to women but to state via punative taxes.

Still you cant live with them, and you cant live without them. What to do ?.

And I suspect the feelings are mutual.

[laurejon]

I think we should return to basics.

In the good old days a man earnt a wage to provide a house and feed the family. If the wife worked that was extra money for the savings pot.

Today, in this so called world of great progress, the house is empty during the day and into the evening till the parents get home from work.

What type of society argues that kids are badly behaved when both parents are forced into work or suffer a life of poverty. Its a disgrace to see so many children with no parental supervision when they leave school in the afternoons, hardly suprising they turn into delinquent retards as a result.

[Rain'ard]

Hope your Mrs is not reading this thread Laurejon. I personally am doing my best to get my wife a freehold so she feels secure on the principle “ She helps get me out the s**t and I’ll do the same for her.” I have the benefit of that she understands the housing market situation and like me she is hoping for the catastrophe, I am not happy that some are going to be unfortunate and suffer losses and disruption if this comes about, but it’s about time we had a kick at the ball( not referring to you L) and I believe that most people on this site need a home for the sake of somewhere to live rather than to supplement their pension if they live long enough to enjoy it. Dr Bubb if I’m right describes buying a home a struggle, he’s right, and it always has been for some, But in the past we were not fighting on more than one front ie speculators and profiteers. It made people proud to own their own home it was probably their only achievement in life. Then for some this pride became snobbery, and we are now left with a legacy of conflict and confusion on a simple matter of choice between renting or buying. The eighties saw the introduction of Assured shorthold tenancies and the end of secure tenancies, which with respect to Slater14 is well weighted in favour of the landlord. Can’t blame Mrs Starcrossed panicking for a place even when prices are this stupid. Do sympathize with Mr Starcrossed he wants to do what’s best.

[Pedro]

Lucky you. Renting can be unpredictable - see my comment about having to move on. This has happened to me twice now. But my point is that despite this I'm still happy to rent for the moment.

Please read a post thoroughly before you dismiss it as total rubbish.

LMNF

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi all, I'm a wife who was putting pressure on her hubby about 2 months ago to buy because we want to start a family and I thought it was important to have a home where our fate was not decided by a landlord's whims- emotionally, I want my own place. However, he's convinced me it's a stupid idea for now. Part of the change in my decision was down to sites like this, and reading the research of various economists about the housing bubble. Part was because we also looked at places to buy and I began to realise that if we did have kids and rented we'd be able to afford way more space than if we bought (we would only be able to buy a v. small 2-bed). I also realised buying now would be a huge risk for us, because we are likely to need to move in 2-3 years due to the nature of his career.

I've had some pretty horrendous renting experiences - and about a week after my hubby convinced me we should continue to rent, also two days after I had a small operation, our current landlord decided to turf us out because he 'thinks the market is going to crash' - he is a BTL who is getting out.

The downside to renting is the upheaval, bad landlords, ridiculous conditions in tenancy agreements (e.g. defrosting the fridge once every 2 months - does anyone really do that?) and lost deposits - all of which I've experienced - and the huge hassle / legal cost involved with doing anything about all of the above. I think it's a real shame that there is so little protection for private renters in this country & it's something I think we should start demanding from government - especially as more and more people are unable to buy. If politicians were willing to give more protection to private renters (perhaps similar protections that are given to council tenants?) then there would be less reason to want to buy - and houses would become more affordable!

I know several people who have lived in France, and there renting for life is not unusual, but the protections for renters seem to be greater. I wish it was the same here. Maybe we should think about moving to France. They have better food, and shorter working hours too...

[undeservingrich]

Any more of this and I will go all Biblical on you….ah..ah … its… to late

There’s a time to reap and a time to sow……..

This is neither it’s a time to sit on your hands and vegetate.

[laurejon]

What type of rights do Renters want.

The right to live in a property and not pay rent?.

Or the right to upset the neighbours without threat of eviction?.

I think the law is balanced, no pay, no stay.

You sign up for a 12 month assured and are guaranteed 12 months peace and quiet provided you abide by the rules.

I think the Assured Tenancy is the one good thing this government have done to extend the opportunity of having a roof over ones head to everyone.

[ShirtyTheSlightlyAggresiveBear]

What type of rights do Renters want.

The right to get back the deposit for starters, should be held by a rental agency.

I can agree with the rest of your comments laurejon, they work when the landlord is honest and decent enough.

But likewise when bad tenants take the p*** out of the landlord/EA, there will be landlords/EA's that will do just the same back.

[dogbox]

Unfortunately you are probably right Laurejon. Sad but true, but its a pretty sick world where a man has to impress a woman by splashing money so that she will think he will continue to do so in ever larger and larger amounts until well after retirement. It makes me question the whole process of impressing women.

Actually, I have just decided that I will never try to impress a women ever again.

Starcrossed, there is more to life than totting - up your shrewd manueverings. 30 years from now even if you do save another £50000 by waiting now, so what? Its only £4.58 per day saved over 30 years. Save on parking charges or lunches instead. Put your Womans feelings first I say.

Humans need to understand you cant un - evolve evolution over night no matter how clever we consider ourselves.

For millions of years we, (and our Human - like ancestors) evolved basic stratergies for attracting Women and those same basics apply deep within attraction psyche.

A Woman said to Lee Sharp on 'Celebrity Love Island' (my Wife was watching, I was, errr, only in the background) "Lee you make me feel safe, thats what a Woman really needs, a real Man".

Women are most attracted to Men who treat em a bit mean and who are 'one of the lads' and not afraid to be bold. Mind you, if you ever go Bankcruot she will probably sack you for that to.

[theChuz]

The right to get back the deposit for starters, should be held by a rental agency.

I can agree with the rest of your comments laurejon, they work when the landlord is honest and decent enough.

But likewise when bad tenants take the p*** out of the landlord/EA, there will be landlords/EA's that will do just the same back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Theres more than one way to get back the deposit, dosnt have to be monetary either.. Buy a couple of friends a beer and get them to kick the crap out of the landlord , fleece the son of a b*tch too. Then a few months later .. do the same again.

Justice comes in all shapes and sizes

Edited June 7, 2005 by theChuz

[Rain'ard]

Wasn't this gov' L it was under Thatcher I beleive.

AST was introduced to help evict long standing tenants not just for not paying their rent, but to unload them for property redevelopment. My next door block got rid of all their AST a few ST are left, tarted them up sold them for four times what they were worth to unsuspecting Londoners who weren’t around when the graffiti was being hidden by cladding. We had a storm last year which blew the cladding off and underneath was exposed all the old c**p and they’re all up in arms now baying for blood.

[Guest The dude]

1. Print this out and ask her to read it - http://www.jenman.com.au/NewsAlerts1.php?id=4

2. Be VERY, VERY careful of her female 'friends' - especially those who have divorced recently and/or who have bought hosues recently. Also be careful of the female 'friends' who are having relationship problems. Misery, with women especially, loves company.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree....thought you may be interested in Rod Liddles comments in Sundays Times. Here it is:

June 05, 2005

Women have it both ways

Rod Liddle

Women, it seems, are far too tired to sleep with us these days. They are also too tired to do paid work and that unpaid domestic servitude we males glibly pass off as “housework”. Women, in short, are completely whacked.

They could do with sitting down on the sofa with their legs up and a nice cup of tea.

Two reports out last week show just how exhausted women have become: they do not, at first sight, seem to be linked — but when you think about it for a bit, the connection is pretty obvious.

The first and most startling came in the magazine Mother & Baby (to which journal, as you might imagine, I am a subscriber). This was the place where we discovered that women who have young children are too bushed for sexual intercourse, even that sadly familiar form of congress that lasts only a nanosecond. The report also came up with this statistic: about 77% of women who have recently had babies say they are “unable to work effectively” because they are up all night breast-feeding.

This is interesting for two reasons. First, most women who have babies and continue working (after their fairly long, mandatory maternity leave) tend to do so on a part-time basis, to the frequent chagrin of their bosses. But they’re still exhausted.

Second, while we might empathise with their insuperable weariness, should we not also spare a thought for the curmudgeonly bosses, especially those of small firms, who have complained endlessly about women staff with very small children working on a part-time basis and are usually designated antediluvian chauvinists when they dare to do so?

Here we have it from the horses’ mouths, so to speak: the vast majority of women with very small children are, by their own admissions, useless at their jobs. They are “ineffective”. This is not sexism in the workplace, it is down to the sexism of biology: women lactate and men don’t.

The second report cropped up in The Economist. Here we were told the excellent news that women have made startling inroads into three previously male strongholds — law, medicine and the church. More than half of those now called to the bar are women.

Further, more women than men are entering the medical profession (and have been for 10 years or so). Once again, they are doing so on a part-time basis and hence are not receiving quite as much pay as their male counterparts. More than half of all female GPs work part-time. Ring them at two in the morning with the DTs and you’ll take second place to the baby.

The fact that women don’t earn as much as men is seen as a “bad” thing.

So too is the fact that far more women than men work part-time. Yet the individuals and organisations that agitated — bravely and correctly — for maternity leave and the introduction of flexitime, job sharing and term-time working practices (all of which have massive take-up among women and negligible take-up among men) now bemoan the fact that women seem ghettoised in less remunerative part-time work. There is a whiff of having one’s cake and eating it here.

If you enact legislation that makes it easy for one sex not to go to work, without much in the way of penalty, they are likely to take it up. That’s human nature, male or female. However, little such legislation or cultural latitude applies to men. We chaps get two weeks of paternity leave, like it or lump it — and only if we can attest that we are the real fathers (which, at The Spectator magazine, is a perennial problem).

Similarly, we have recently discovered, in The Journal of Human Resources, that the greatest redistribution of wealth since the sale of council houses has been the transfer of vast sums of cash to divorced women. These days, when courts pass judgment in divorce cases, they have in mind the proto-feminist notion that the woman who “sacrifices” her career in order to support her husband has made a 50% economic contribution to the household, regardless of the fact that “progressive” legislation has made it likely that many of them are pursuing their own careers.

Likewise, in custody cases, the mother needs to be a rancid, drug-addled termagant to lose control of her children: this part of the legal system accepts, beyond all doubt, that a child’s place is with his or her mother. In this regard, men are never equal and the mindset of our family courts is yet another moral and economic disincentive to women to compete on an equal footing in the job market. Why bother working when divorce will net you a fortune? Why shun your young child and go off to work when the courts insist that you are their natural care-giver?

And the law is probably right, both in divorce and custody cases. But you cannot have it both ways. At the moment, one part of our judicial system and our culture insists that women, effectively, should stay at home and look after the kids. While another — the employment tribunals, the Equal Pay Act — insists that women should be paid the same as men and given the same working opportunities. Woe betide any employer who dares to cavil when the woman goes part-time and turns up to work half wrecked two days a week.

Call it post-feminist male bleating, but this is a dichotomy. Whichever way you look at it: it simply does not add up.

[dogbox]

I agree....thought you may be interested in Rod Liddles comments in Sundays Times.  Here it is:

 

 

June 05, 2005

Women have it both ways

Rod Liddle

Women, it seems, are far too tired to sleep with us these days. They are also too tired to do paid work and that unpaid domestic servitude we males glibly pass off as “housework”. Women, in short, are completely whacked.

They could do with sitting down on the sofa with their legs up and a nice cup of tea.

Two reports out last week show just how exhausted women have become: they do not, at first sight, seem to be linked — but when you think about it for a bit, the connection is pretty obvious.

The first and most startling came in the magazine Mother & Baby (to which journal, as you might imagine, I am a subscriber). This was the place where we discovered that women who have young children are too bushed for sexual intercourse, even that sadly familiar form of congress that lasts only a nanosecond. The report also came up with this statistic: about 77% of women who have recently had babies say they are “unable to work effectively” because they are up all night breast-feeding.

This is interesting for two reasons. First, most women who have babies and continue working (after their fairly long, mandatory maternity leave) tend to do so on a part-time basis, to the frequent chagrin of their bosses. But they’re still exhausted.

Second, while we might empathise with their insuperable weariness, should we not also spare a thought for the curmudgeonly bosses, especially those of small firms, who have complained endlessly about women staff with very small children working on a part-time basis and are usually designated antediluvian chauvinists when they dare to do so?

Here we have it from the horses’ mouths, so to speak: the vast majority of women with very small children are, by their own admissions, useless at their jobs. They are “ineffective”. This is not sexism in the workplace, it is down to the sexism of biology: women lactate and men don’t.

The second report cropped up in The Economist. Here we were told the excellent news that women have made startling inroads into three previously male strongholds — law, medicine and the church. More than half of those now called to the bar are women.

Further, more women than men are entering the medical profession (and have been for 10 years or so). Once again, they are doing so on a part-time basis and hence are not receiving quite as much pay as their male counterparts. More than half of all female GPs work part-time. Ring them at two in the morning with the DTs and you’ll take second place to the baby.

The fact that women don’t earn as much as men is seen as a “bad” thing.

So too is the fact that far more women than men work part-time. Yet the individuals and organisations that agitated — bravely and correctly — for maternity leave and the introduction of flexitime, job sharing and term-time working practices (all of which have massive take-up among women and negligible take-up among men) now bemoan the fact that women seem ghettoised in less remunerative part-time work. There is a whiff of having one’s cake and eating it here.

If you enact legislation that makes it easy for one sex not to go to work, without much in the way of penalty, they are likely to take it up. That’s human nature, male or female. However, little such legislation or cultural latitude applies to men. We chaps get two weeks of paternity leave, like it or lump it — and only if we can attest that we are the real fathers (which, at The Spectator magazine, is a perennial problem).

Similarly, we have recently discovered, in The Journal of Human Resources, that the greatest redistribution of wealth since the sale of council houses has been the transfer of vast sums of cash to divorced women. These days, when courts pass judgment in divorce cases, they have in mind the proto-feminist notion that the woman who “sacrifices” her career in order to support her husband has made a 50% economic contribution to the household, regardless of the fact that “progressive” legislation has made it likely that many of them are pursuing their own careers.

Likewise, in custody cases, the mother needs to be a rancid, drug-addled termagant to lose control of her children: this part of the legal system accepts, beyond all doubt, that a child’s place is with his or her mother. In this regard, men are never equal and the mindset of our family courts is yet another moral and economic disincentive to women to compete on an equal footing in the job market. Why bother working when divorce will net you a fortune? Why shun your young child and go off to work when the courts insist that you are their natural care-giver?

And the law is probably right, both in divorce and custody cases. But you cannot have it both ways. At the moment, one part of our judicial system and our culture insists that women, effectively, should stay at home and look after the kids. While another — the employment tribunals, the Equal Pay Act — insists that women should be paid the same as men and given the same working opportunities. Woe betide any employer who dares to cavil when the woman goes part-time and turns up to work half wrecked two days a week.

Call it post-feminist male bleating, but this is a dichotomy. Whichever way you look at it: it simply does not add up.

At my Sons primary school the small kids have to put up with one teacher after another. Every time the poor little bugg3rs get used to a teacher she leaves to either have a baby or spend more time with her own kids.

The losers in all this Liberal legislation are as always - the poor kids who just want a bit of teacher stability. Well done lefties. Another own goal.

[laurejon]

To make the best of a bad thing I think children are best placed with their mothers.

And I also think it is the mans job to continue to provide for his children no matter what differences he has with his ex. When you have children they are of paramount importance and the parents aspirations and wishes must take a back seat.

All too often I hear of men who refuse to support their children because the Ex is a "Slapper" or a Wh***. I also hear men arguing that now they have a new partner they have a new family and should no longer have to support their children. I hear their new Partners arguing the same, "Why should I suffer because my new partner has children, I want a flat screen TV not a ready made family.

It beggers belief how cruel and simplistic some people can be when it comes to the support of children both financial and moral during a marital seperation.

[Pedro]

What type of rights do Renters want.

The right to live in a property and not pay rent?.

Or the right to upset the neighbours without threat of eviction?.

I think the law is balanced, no pay, no stay.

You sign up for a 12 month assured and are guaranteed 12 months peace and quiet provided you abide by the rules.

I think the Assured Tenancy is the one good thing this government have done to extend the opportunity of having a roof over ones head to everyone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that is not the rights we want. We have never not paid our rent, are very quiet tenants (we're a normal married couple - not all renters are ravers, nor are all homeowners quiet paragons of virtue), and we keep it spotless while we're there - our current LL says we are extremely good tenants. We are reasonable people. Most private renters fall into this category, just as most people in society fall into this category. I think you are demonizing renters here.

You are not guaranteed safety, let alone peace and quiet if you sign an assured shorthold tenancy - my experience shows otherwise.

The rights we want are proper electrical and gas checks. For e.g. a friend of mine had a dodgy inspector checking her gas (it hadn't been checked for years, so she asked for a check), with a fake CORGI accreditation. Phoned CORGI (who confirmed it was fake) - they (and the Local Authority) said if she wanted anything done she would have to sue landlord at her own cost. Landlord's agent was intrusive (would come in without any notice - could tell from stuff being moved) - and quite intimidating. My friend - a female - lived alone, and was understandably scared. What would you do laurejon?

We want the right to live in habitable accomodation. Did you know that the highest rate of cold-related deaths in the winter is in private accomodation - not council housing where they make sure it's of a certain standard? I have known people who have lived in a flat where there was mould on most of the walls. Environmental health help a bit, but if your landlord is determined to do nothing you face a long fight while your health deteriorates and you're living in a mould filled, asthma attack-inducing pit. Landlords should be forced to keep the property in a condition where it does not ACTIVELY damage the tenants' health. It should not be down to the tenant to pay a lawyer to get basic human rights.

Also, we want the right not to be intimidated by the landlord, without having to pay massive legal costs. I shared a flat once, and the landlord decided to be verbally abusive and bordering on being a stalker to my Spanish flatmate who was at university in the UK. Being foreign, she didn't even know who to turn to and got no help (being told to pay a lawyer, which as a student she couldn't afford), when she went to the Local Authority. I don't know why the landlord did this, apparently just got his kicks from reducing a poor young girl to tears. She was exceptionally clean and tidy and paid her rent on time. Of course, eventually she just moved out.

We want basic human rights written into the tenancy agreement not vague statements like 'peace and quiet'.

[laurejon]

AST protects the tennant for all the above.

Reading your post even the untrained eye can see that the Landlord was acting illegally. You cannot enter without notice, its a big NO NO.

You cannot use fake CORGI certification, its a criminal offence.

It is also a criminal offence to have dangerous wiring and electrical appliances.

The mould on the wall, well thats another thing.

I spent my life as a Landlord listening to tenants complaining about Fungus and mould on the walls, and to no avail.

Drying Clothes in your house on the Radiators might be cheaper than the Tumble Dryer, and it might be easier than being arsed to use the washing line.

But a single washing load of clothes even though they are spin dried is around a gallon of water. And that water has to go somewhere, if you are double glazed or reasonably insulated that means the walls.

[theChuz]

But a single washing load of clothes even though they are spin dried is around a gallon of water. And that water has to go somewhere, if you are double glazed or reasonably insulated that means the walls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isnt/wouldnt it be a nice jesture to pay for a dehumifier in that situation about £80, remains the landlords property, protects the walls etc.. just seems like a sensible option.