Split but together: Divorced couples finding novel ways to live under the same roof for their childrenâ??s sake
Monica McGrath and Kent Kirkland are divorced parents of two young children. They live in one house with their children, call themselves friends and borrow sugar from one another.
The Edmonton family gained Canada-wide recognition this month after media attention turned to their family set-up and living arrangements. Part of this attention was due to their custom-built â??transporterâ?? house, with two separate sides and a hallway connecting them, but also because theyâ??re doing what many separated couples say they want to do; put the kids first.
â??I still consider us a family. We have kids together, weâ??re still connected,â?? says Ms. McGrath of her ex-husband. â??We need to together raise our kids, no matter what our situation is. This home allows us to do that.â??
This article is awful and makes me want to vomit.
I guarantee the guy is fitting the bill for the “retrofitting.”
What probably happens: she gets all the emotional and financial support she desires out of her husband while having casual sex with men of her choosing.
Notice how he’s not smiling in any of the pictures in the article?
With divorce as prevalent as it is today, I wonder if this will one day become a popular option amongst “modern families.”
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Yeah, all women ever want to do is have someone support them financially while having sex with any guy she wants.
Goddammit, I hate when divorced parents live in the same household for the sake of their children.
/sarcasm[/quote]
Ask yourself: How healthy is it for the kids to see their castrated father emasculated on a daily basis?[/quote]
Damn. I wanna like go have a talk with that guy seriously.
‘?The emotional side of things?? says Mr. Kirkland. ?As Monica put it, there are still feelings and not all of them positive feelings.?’
And yes, the man is not just not smiling, he looks downright pissed.
This isn’t a situation that’s going to work if both sides don’t want it equally. In the case above, it’s clearly not going to work. As a parent with a classic split-custody arrangement, I can see both pros and cons. While it would be nice to be able to coordinate things more easily regarding parenting (one thing I’ve noticed is that my son, even as a toddler, is already starting to play us against each other for his own benefit) and, if she happens to attract abusive guys like flies to shit, it would also be nice to be able to keep a close eye on my son and the kinds of guys she’s going out with.
That said, there are plenty of compelling and obvious reason why one wouldn’t want to be neighbours with their ex. It makes it more difficult to move on with your life. I feel that most potential new partners would be concerned with this arrangement, and rightly so, as an arrangement like this would seem to indicate a lot of baggage.
I, personally, like my split-custody arrangement. I get frustrated enough with the way my ex feeds and raises the kid, and she lives in another town, though we keep everything civil. I can only imagine disaster if we were neighbours.
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Yeah, all women ever want to do is have someone support them financially while having sex with any guy she wants.
Goddammit, I hate when divorced parents live in the same household for the sake of their children.
/sarcasm[/quote]
Ask yourself: How healthy is it for the kids to see their castrated father emasculated on a daily basis?[/quote]
It’s not. This is a disaster, it’s a powder keg and it will blow. There is no way he can survive. He needs to move out. He can stay close, but he cannot sit there being a doormat all his life. Marriage isn’t meant to be like that, neither is divorce. If it’s over, it’s over. I am with you raj, it makes me sick.
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
‘?The emotional side of things?? says Mr. Kirkland. ?As Monica put it, there are still feelings and not all of them positive feelings.?’
And yes, the man is not just not smiling, he looks downright pissed.
This isn’t a situation that’s going to work if both sides don’t want it equally. In the case above, it’s clearly not going to work. As a parent with a classic split-custody arrangement, I can see both pros and cons. While it would be nice to be able to coordinate things more easily regarding parenting (one thing I’ve noticed is that my son, even as a toddler, is already starting to play us against each other for his own benefit) and, if she happens to attract abusive guys like flies to shit, it would also be nice to be able to keep a close eye on my son and the kinds of guys she’s going out with.
That said, there are plenty of compelling and obvious reason why one wouldn’t want to be neighbours with their ex. It makes it more difficult to move on with your life. I feel that most potential new partners would be concerned with this arrangement, and rightly so, as an arrangement like this would seem to indicate a lot of baggage.
I, personally, like my split-custody arrangement. I get frustrated enough with the way my ex feeds and raises the kid, and she lives in another town, though we keep everything civil. I can only imagine disaster if we were neighbours.[/quote]
This is one of those things that look good on paper only. Yeah, the kids have both their parents, but they aren’t a family. Pretending isn’t a good way to deal with things. I would want to be close to my kids too, but I have to count as a person. I don’t think there’s anyway to do that sharing a roof. The tension must be unimaginable.
A judge probably ordered this, so the mother and the kids would not be on welfare or whatever Canadians have.
Man worked and provided. Woman screwed around. Both wanted custody and this is what a judge came up with. Children need their Mom, but Mom is unfit to care for her children because she can not get a job, because she keeps sleeping with everyone. Father can not be trusted around 2 girls, and he is the only one paying the bills. How about you both have to continue to live under the same roof. Father you must pay for everything, and Mom you get to take care of the kids.
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Yeah, all women ever want to do is have someone support them financially while having sex with any guy she wants.
Goddammit, I hate when divorced parents live in the same household for the sake of their children.
/sarcasm[/quote]
Ask yourself: How healthy is it for the kids to see their castrated father emasculated on a daily basis?[/quote]
Damn. I wanna like go have a talk with that guy seriously.[/quote]
You know, the traditional idea of family gets trashed on a regular basis. We are told, it isn’t the only right way and there are multiple ways of doing it. But have these alternatives in anyway proven to be better than the traditional family? That doesn’t mean bad kids can’t come from good families, and good kids can’t come from, uh, less than ideal circumstances, but what are you really putting the kids up against?
The fact of the matter is, that kids from broken homes and ‘alternative’ setups have a lot more to deal with than kids from traditional families. They may be fine people, but they will inevitably have this unnecessary baggage to carry with them all their lives. They will always have that monkey on their backs.
The problem is selfishness.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
Yesterday, two rich-bitch type women were talking in the lobby of the FBO I was in in Dallas, waiting for the rest of their party to arrive.
(I was doing the same, and having a cocktail since I was done with my business.)
Bags and bags from the Gallaria or whatever stacked all around them. Both attractive and fit, in a rich-bitch sort of way.
In the middle of the conversation, one said “You can marry in a day more than you can earn in a lifetime.” And then they started laughing.
It made me slightly more cynical regarding women than I am already.[/quote]
I dont get the men this is done to.
Presumably, they know how the game is played, otherwise they would have no money to steal.
Presumably, they can afford a nubile harem?
Now if the mother of his kids wants a divorce after 20 years, so be it, but how would someone like that fall for a golddigger?
All that the most naive schlub would have to do is open a newspaper.
I think it’s not necessarily about naivete or mysandria.
Superrich dudes often marry because of social pressure.
They figure: “I have cash coming out of my ears. Let some hot, dumb bimbo spend a few thousand per week, what’s the harm in that?”
Richie Rich can (usually) still screw around and it looks better.
Berlusconi is a good example for that.
Of course, you can’t screw around too openly or else she might divorce you stupid. There’s Berlusconi again.
And hardcore golddiggers like R. Murdoch’s asian harpy will suck you dry regardless.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I think it’s not necessarily about naivete or mysandria.
Superrich dudes often marry because of social pressure.
They figure: “I have cash coming out of my ears. Let some hot, dumb bimbo spend a few thousand per week, what’s the harm in that?”
Richie Rich can (usually) still screw around and it looks better.
Berlusconi is a good example for that.
Of course, you can’t screw around too openly or else she might divorce you stupid. There’s Berlusconi again.
And hardcore golddiggers like R. Murdoch’s asian harpy will suck you dry regardless.[/quote]
Agreed. Also, it looks good in terms of business to be perceived as a family man, and it’s always useful to have a wife who knows how to act in high society without committing a faux pas. So there are definitely some practical reasons.
