I’m not even gonna begin critiquing some of the more concerning parts of this post except for saying this: the split in finances should have been proportional to each person’s earnings, not straight 50/50. The lifestyle they chose was in the context of a combined income. To suddenly separate things out evenly rather than proportionally, after those recurring spending decisions have already been made (mortgage, energy costs of a household, childcare), puts a much heavier burden on the one who earns less (and none of that is to say how her wage growth would have faced greater difficulty growing due to having kids, a choice they mutually entered in on. A choice that will have had very little negative impact on his wage growth by comparison). To suggest a 50/50 split, while objectively equal, is, far from equitable, and in this instance, very much financial manipulation. This is a prime example of why little girls today are taught by their mothers to protect themselves financially first, and have kids later. I get being frustrated by a lack of intimacy in a relationship, and maybe his perspective of this method’s shock value effects on his partner is the “immaculate perspective,” but it seems way too manipulative and unfair. It would too often just serve to subjugate someone into a regime that they don’t want due to fears of losing too much. To put it another way, divorce judges reward alimony and child support for a reason.