I'm in a submissive, traditional marriage. AMA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you have to ask his approval to buy clothes for yourself? Does he need to approve the kind of clothes you buy?

It's very infrequent, but generally I will let him know there's a hole in my most often worn shoes or whatever the case is, and he'll suggest I replace them.

OMG THIS IS SUCH A TROLL why is everyone going along with this?? NOBODY acts like this willingly.

I agree. This is just stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This type of gender balanced arrangement worked beautifully for thousands of years. No wonder there are so many broken homes today. Women are natural caregivers.

Devoting their lives to supporting their man, rearing the children, managing the the household is both honorable and sensible.

I am quite sure OP is very happy. Instead of being snarky and jealous are her healthy, feminine role, why not take a lesson. Respect the diversity of traditional values that she has represents.

It's also incredibly vulnerable for the woman and her children if the man decides he no longer wants that, becomes disabled or drops dead. Don't blame the women for opting out of a rigged game.

It's not rigged. Why do you think the court system typically awards women custody, alimony and child support?

In DC custody assumption is 50/50, unless someone is an unfit parent. There isn't any alimony for working women, and very little for nonworking women. Child support goes to the custodial parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If OP is in a traditional relationship, her DH has prepared for his death or disability through insurance, etc, because that's what a responsible, traditional MAN does. She has already demonstrated she has the skills to manage the rest without him provided he has secured their financial future. Again, you diminish her role. Obviously, it wouldn't work for you. That's clear. But she is especially capable of seamlessly transitioning to a Single parent caregiver because she has focused her entire energies on doing just that.

Actually, you have no way of knowing what her DH did or did not do. Most people underestimate how much money they need.

You also chose not to comment on what would happen to her standard of living if her DH decides that another 20-year old down the street will make a more traditional and submissive wife, and divorces OP. You cannot deny that where finances are concerned, working women play much safer bets. Becoming a SAHM is a financially risky move for a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This type of gender balanced arrangement worked beautifully for thousands of years. No wonder there are so many broken homes today. Women are natural caregivers.

Devoting their lives to supporting their man, rearing the children, managing the the household is both honorable and sensible.

I am quite sure OP is very happy. Instead of being snarky and jealous are her healthy, feminine role, why not take a lesson. Respect the diversity of traditional values that she has represents.

It's also incredibly vulnerable for the woman and her children if the man decides he no longer wants that, becomes disabled or drops dead. Don't blame the women for opting out of a rigged game.

It's not rigged. Why do you think the court system typically awards women custody, alimony and child support?

In DC custody assumption is 50/50, unless someone is an unfit parent. There isn't any alimony for working women, and very little for nonworking women. Child support goes to the custodial parent.

+1

Any alimony awarded to a non-working woman is awarded in the short term, with the expectation that she work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If OP is in a traditional relationship, her DH has prepared for his death or disability through insurance, etc, because that's what a responsible, traditional MAN does. She has already demonstrated she has the skills to manage the rest without him provided he has secured their financial future. Again, you diminish her role. Obviously, it wouldn't work for you. That's clear. But she is especially capable of seamlessly transitioning to a Single parent caregiver because she has focused her entire energies on doing just that.

Actually, you have no way of knowing what her DH did or did not do. Most people underestimate how much money they need.

You also chose not to comment on what would happen to her standard of living if her DH decides that another 20-year old down the street will make a more traditional and submissive wife, and divorces OP. You cannot deny that where finances are concerned, working women play much safer bets. Becoming a SAHM is a financially risky move for a woman.

She is beyond SAHM she is a career dependant. I was a SAHM for 5 years. I also came with a 401K and stock options. I then promptly went back to work, not in need of my DHs blessing because he respects me as an intelligent individual who is capable of making sound decisions.

[Anonymous]

This is a super troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This type of gender balanced arrangement worked beautifully for thousands of years. No wonder there are so many broken homes today. Women are natural caregivers.

Devoting their lives to supporting their man, rearing the children, managing the the household is both honorable and sensible.

I am quite sure OP is very happy. Instead of being snarky and jealous are her healthy, feminine role, why not take a lesson. Respect the diversity of traditional values that she has represents.

It's also incredibly vulnerable for the woman and her children if the man decides he no longer wants that, becomes disabled or drops dead. Don't blame the women for opting out of a rigged game.

It's not rigged. Why do you think the court system typically awards women custody, alimony and child support?

In DC custody assumption is 50/50, unless someone is an unfit parent. There isn't any alimony for working women, and very little for nonworking women. Child support goes to the custodial parent.

+1

Any alimony awarded to a non-working woman is awarded in the short term, with the expectation that she work.

Correct. My friend a SAHM got alimony for 3 years (not enough to go back to school). She ended up in a much smaller home while dad ended up in a nice home with a pool due to income increases. It is sad now because kids prefer to be at dad's fun house, which he has purpously made much nicer than the mother's home. He has a new wife who is a teacher with summers off so the kids want to be over at his house all the time since he moved into a family filled community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If OP is in a traditional relationship, her DH has prepared for his death or disability through insurance, etc, because that's what a responsible, traditional MAN does. She has already demonstrated she has the skills to manage the rest without him provided he has secured their financial future. Again, you diminish her role. Obviously, it wouldn't work for you. That's clear. But she is especially capable of seamlessly transitioning to a Single parent caregiver because she has focused her entire energies on doing just that.

Actually, you have no way of knowing what her DH did or did not do. Most people underestimate how much money they need.

You also chose not to comment on what would happen to her standard of living if her DH decides that another 20-year old down the street will make a more traditional and submissive wife, and divorces OP. You cannot deny that where finances are concerned, working women play much safer bets. Becoming a SAHM is a financially risky move for a woman.

She is beyond SAHM she is a career dependant. I was a SAHM for 5 years. I also came with a 401K and stock options. I then promptly went back to work, not in need of my DHs blessing because he respects me as an intelligent individual who is capable of making sound decisions.

Just to point out that this is not to put down SAHMs. I don't see them as career dependants because what they do is critical for families and children. If this is what the family decides together, I am happy. But it does put the woman into a financially vulnerable position.

[Anonymous]

Every professional job I've had had an option to pay a premium for disability insurance and extra life insurance. It's unfortunate he died young with a lingering illness.
If OPs DH us in IT, it is unlikely he doesn't have similar premium coverage options that can protect his family against this. Plus this doesn't have anything to do with OPs lifestyle. Women who are the primary bread winner have the same options to make sure they're adequately covered especially if they are the sole provider for a SAHD and kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If OP is in a traditional relationship, her DH has prepared for his death or disability through insurance, etc, because that's what a responsible, traditional MAN does. She has already demonstrated she has the skills to manage the rest without him provided he has secured their financial future. Again, you diminish her role. Obviously, it wouldn't work for you. That's clear. But she is especially capable of seamlessly transitioning to a Single parent caregiver because she has focused her entire energies on doing just that.

Actually, you have no way of knowing what her DH did or did not do. Most people underestimate how much money they need.

You also chose not to comment on what would happen to her standard of living if her DH decides that another 20-year old down the street will make a more traditional and submissive wife, and divorces OP. You cannot deny that where finances are concerned, working women play much safer bets. Becoming a SAHM is a financially risky move for a woman.

So what? The same risks apply to a SAHD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you have to ask his approval to buy clothes for yourself? Does he need to approve the kind of clothes you buy?

It's very infrequent, but generally I will let him know there's a hole in my most often worn shoes or whatever the case is, and he'll suggest I replace them.

OMG THIS IS SUCH A TROLL why is everyone going along with this?? NOBODY acts like this willingly.

I agree. This is just stupidity.

+1. You overplayed your troll hand, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If OP is in a traditional relationship, her DH has prepared for his death or disability through insurance, etc, because that's what a responsible, traditional MAN does. She has already demonstrated she has the skills to manage the rest without him provided he has secured their financial future. Again, you diminish her role. Obviously, it wouldn't work for you. That's clear. But she is especially capable of seamlessly transitioning to a Single parent caregiver because she has focused her entire energies on doing just that.

Actually, you have no way of knowing what her DH did or did not do. Most people underestimate how much money they need.

You also chose not to comment on what would happen to her standard of living if her DH decides that another 20-year old down the street will make a more traditional and submissive wife, and divorces OP. You cannot deny that where finances are concerned, working women play much safer bets. Becoming a SAHM is a financially risky move for a woman.

She is beyond SAHM she is a career dependant. I was a SAHM for 5 years. I also came with a 401K and stock options. I then promptly went back to work, not in need of my DHs blessing because he respects me as an intelligent individual who is capable of making sound decisions.

Just to point out that this is not to put down SAHMs. I don't see them as career dependants because what they do is critical for families and children. If this is what the family decides together, I am happy. But it does put the woman into a financially vulnerable position.

As a poster wh
as a SAH for 5 years myself it certainly does put you in a dependant role. It is not a put down. I was uncomfortable with that which is why I returned to work. My father died when I was 18 (20 years ago) by brother and sister were 14&16. My father had a whole life policy (died from lung cancer and lost his job and health insurance due to illness) worth 1M. My mother had to sell the house and since he was 52 his retirement was not fully funded. My mom went back to work as a cashier at Giant at the age of 54.

Working and being independant has nothing to do with tradition or submission. It has everything to do with being sensible in the modern world. You life can be snuffed oit in a blink.Iys Iimportant thay my kids be set up properly if that happens to one of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every professional job I've had had an option to pay a premium for disability insurance and extra life insurance. It's unfortunate he died young with a lingering illness.
If OPs DH us in IT, it is unlikely he doesn't have similar premium coverage options that can protect his family against this. Plus this doesn't have anything to do with OPs lifestyle. Women who are the primary bread winner have the same options to make sure they're adequately covered especially if they are the sole provider for a SAHD and kids.

LTD through an employer is AT BEST 5years, normally 2 paid out at 60%. FMLA buys you 12 weeks under your employers plan at the group rate. If you can no longer work COBRA can kick in which you can exercise for 18 months. Do you realize how expensive that is? With a chronic illness you burn through cash like a fire in the valley.

LTD from an employer and then cobra for a cancer patient is not a great plan for a one income home. Have you ever seen this scenario play out for a real life middle class family? It's ugly. A better scenario is that ill spouse getthig his LTD and have the working spouses secondary health policy through her employer kick in.

In our home we have 2 employer sponsored health plans and LTD plans, one high pay 20 year term that would get our kids through until they are 25 and one private whole life.

Yea, ideally if one of us were to die, it would be best if it we were hit by a bus while employed. Long term illness are financially devastating.

[Anonymous]

^^
And employer sponsored plans are taxable. So you are getting 60% pay taxed income and paying your cobra insurance which might cost 90% more than when you were employed (I know my employer pays 90% of the premium). I pay 150...they pay 1350.

Bad back up plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If OP is in a traditional relationship, her DH has prepared for his death or disability through insurance, etc, because that's what a responsible, traditional MAN does. She has already demonstrated she has the skills to manage the rest without him provided he has secured their financial future. Again, you diminish her role. Obviously, it wouldn't work for you. That's clear. But she is especially capable of seamlessly transitioning to a Single parent caregiver because she has focused her entire energies on doing just that.

Actually, you have no way of knowing what her DH did or did not do. Most people underestimate how much money they need.

You also chose not to comment on what would happen to her standard of living if her DH decides that another 20-year old down the street will make a more traditional and submissive wife, and divorces OP. You cannot deny that where finances are concerned, working women play much safer bets. Becoming a SAHM is a financially risky move for a woman.

So what? The same risks apply to a SAHD.

Yes they do, but it's not the SAHD posting here about his submissive, traditional marriage.

I also question if someone who can't even shop for groceries alone is capable of seamlessly transitioning into a single parent caregiver role. She'll transition, all right. But it won't be seamless. And learning to manage money is a massive new skill.