Defaulted into main breadwinner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, now that you have a less family-friendly job, who is going to handle all the daytime stuff with the kids? Until it is logistically possible for her to return to work, she will not. And she will resent you for pressuring her to find a job without being realistic about the demands your current job places on her schedule.

Many of us - indeed, most of us - solve that problem with childcare. It is logistically possible. It is not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am heading home and can answer some questions. Honestly, I have been venting and it's been helpful and some of the ideas (including the cleaner) I am going to hop on. Thank you for the constructive feedback. Obviously there are communication issues and I don't even know how to deal with them.

Our situation is really a massive change. No one thought being a SAHP was on the table in our marriage. Even with our first DW worked and like it until she ran into issues and quit. Those issues had nothing to do with childcare, but she was pregnant and was discouraged job hunting and that was that, I guess.

I waited a year after our second before broaching the subject. He'll be two in 6-9 months (and preschool eligible), so that is why I began pushing the issue until I realized it was going no where. I then started therapy because I was resentful and needed to let that go to really be fair about what our family needs. I am still working on that.

I had a great family friendly job, but we needed more money so I actually scrambled and doubled my income by taking a new job. It's a strange catch 22 because I wish I was around more and would down shift but I can't because we need the money and DE (according to come of you) won't work because I work too much so the cycle goes on...

I know I am resentful because I couldn't make this choice and wasn't given any real input on it and was forced to make the best of things. I know that. But I love my wife and want her to be happy and honestly know this isn't it, but can't be truly supportive of her until I let go of my resentment. That is what I have been working through.

OP, you sound like a good person underneath all the resentment. I hope therapy can help you communicate, and I think you need to work harder to understand what it's like for her. Job searching while pregnant is no picnic-- employers will hold it against you for not disclosing it, and it's a lot to take on a job search while working full time, having a toddler, and being pregnant and all the appointments that come with that. Between that and the economy at the time, it is somewhat understandable that a job search would be discouraging and seem like a waste of time. And then giving 100% at a new job, plus raising a toddler and being heavily pregnant, and then not having much of a maternity leave, pumping and work and being tired from night wakings... it is really exhausting to contemplate. It doesn't sound like you really grasp what her job search would have been like. I'm not trying to defend her not working at this point two years later, but it is understandable to me that she would be discouraged and overwhelmed back then, and it sounds like you don't quite put two and two together here.

As for you working too much, I understand the catch 22. You do need a realistic plan for how it would happen, though, if she were to start working and you still had your same job. For example, paying for a backup care service so that you have someone on call, until you are able to find something more family-friendly for yourself. Or just interviewing a roster of babysitters so that you have a handful people who can often babysit on short notice. If your wife is going to take on the job search, maybe you could take on responsibility for arranging this. That would show you are able to understand things from her perspective and are trying to work as a team, not just making unrealistic demands of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm OP. Not to get into the weeds on the math, but we are still paying for school for the older. DW's salary covered infant care for both kids, her retirement, our healthcare, and there was a couple of hundred bucks at the end of month. So, it was a wash in her mind but not mine. We use my health insurance (crappier).

YOUR words were: "And with daycare cost, it was a wash." I feel like you may be manipulating the facts just a bit in order to make your point. If your family would not have more money if your wife worked, that makes a difference. You also claim that you had to take a more demanding job in order to make up for your wife staying home, and I'm not sure I buy that as the main reason why you changed jobs. You won't admit it on here I'm sure, but in your heart of hearts, know that if you have changed some of the facts you really can't rely on the answers you got here.

I sympathize with you, but it just seems like you are hell-bent on denying that there are ANY advantages to your wife being home. Your kids were happier in daycare, you did more of the heavy lifting, your wife was happier, life was perfect! I think you may be idealizing how things were, because obviously your wife did not feel the same way, and her feelings are just as valid as yours. NOTHING in life is that black and white. I've been a WOHM and my kids have been in daycare since infancy, and we are happy, but I still believe that all things being equal, kids under 3 are better off at home with a parent than in a childcare setting. If you can't at least admit that there are some tradeoffs, you are too entrenched in your position to really communicate with your wife, and I would suggest planning now for a divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm OP. Not to get into the weeds on the math, but we are still paying for school for the older. DW's salary covered infant care for both kids, her retirement, our healthcare, and there was a couple of hundred bucks at the end of month. So, it was a wash in her mind but not mine. We use my health insurance (crappier).

YOUR words were: "And with daycare cost, it was a wash." I feel like you may be manipulating the facts just a bit in order to make your point. If your family would not have more money if your wife worked, that makes a difference. You also claim that you had to take a more demanding job in order to make up for your wife staying home, and I'm not sure I buy that as the main reason why you changed jobs. You won't admit it on here I'm sure, but in your heart of hearts, know that if you have changed some of the facts you really can't rely on the answers you got here.

I sympathize with you, but it just seems like you are hell-bent on denying that there are ANY advantages to your wife being home. Your kids were happier in daycare, you did more of the heavy lifting, your wife was happier, life was perfect! I think you may be idealizing how things were, because obviously your wife did not feel the same way, and her feelings are just as valid as yours. NOTHING in life is that black and white. I've been a WOHM and my kids have been in daycare since infancy, and we are happy, but I still believe that all things being equal, kids under 3 are better off at home with a parent than in a childcare setting. If you can't at least admit that there are some tradeoffs, you are too entrenched in your position to really communicate with your wife, and I would suggest planning now for a divorce.

^^ I just read your recent long response. You also seem to work in a field where it is amazingly easy to just ramp up and down in your job based on your family needs. You doubled your salary just like that, but you could easily downshift too! It's all your wife's fault!! Based on most people I know in real careers, that doesn't ring true.

Again, I think you have some good points, but I don't think you've been totally honest, and I think it's because you don't want to acknowledge that your wife is not entirely at fault for everything you see as lacking in your family life.

[Anonymous]

Law is a good example, dude. You can go from DOJ to biglaw and make bucks and go back. SEC is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All men and women should know - when you have kids, there may be a situation in your family that one of you have to SAHP. So, be mentally prepared for things to change - for better or worse and in sickness and health.

That being said - plan out your kids, be financially stable and live on one paycheck when you do not have kids.

For many people, this is just not possible: Social workers, teachers, people working for minimum wage - they cannot live on one paycheck.

Also note that all men and women should know: When you have kids, there may be a situation in your family that requires that you work for money to support your children. So, be prepared to do that. Do not have children that you, personally, cannot support.

This is EXACTLY it, and so, so many women in this area (and on this post!) just don't get it.

I think you are so obsessed with the SAH issue that you and the many others that are obsessed with the financial side it don't get it. OP never said they were financially struggling because she does not work. He said it would be financially better if she returns to work and that there are various other aspects of her not working that he does not like, including the stress of being the sole earner.

From there, it is basic common sense. If you want someone to do x, and they do not want to do x, you need to understand their objections to x
and address those objections in order to persuade them to do x. Here x is returning to paid work. Until OP understands why his wife doesn't want to return, he never will be able to persuade her to return. This is true whether or not you think her objections are rational or not.

She doesn't have the right to opt out of work without her husband's agreement. Period.

Right, because once you marry, you are chattel.

Not because she's chattel, but because outside of a legal separation, property settlement, alimony arrangement, I'm not aware that he has the legal obligation while still married to financially support her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All men and women should know - when you have kids, there may be a situation in your family that one of you have to SAHP. So, be mentally prepared for things to change - for better or worse and in sickness and health.

That being said - plan out your kids, be financially stable and live on one paycheck when you do not have kids.

For many people, this is just not possible: Social workers, teachers, people working for minimum wage - they cannot live on one paycheck.

Also note that all men and women should know: When you have kids, there may be a situation in your family that requires that you work for money to support your children. So, be prepared to do that. Do not have children that you, personally, cannot support.

This is EXACTLY it, and so, so many women in this area (and on this post!) just don't get it.

I think you are so obsessed with the SAH issue that you and the many others that are obsessed with the financial side it don't get it. OP never said they were financially struggling because she does not work. He said it would be financially better if she returns to work and that there are various other aspects of her not working that he does not like, including the stress of being the sole earner.

From there, it is basic common sense. If you want someone to do x, and they do not want to do x, you need to understand their objections to x
and address those objections in order to persuade them to do x. Here x is returning to paid work. Until OP understands why his wife doesn't want to return, he never will be able to persuade her to return. This is true whether or not you think her objections are rational or not.

She doesn't have the right to opt out of work without her husband's agreement. Period.

Right, because once you marry, you are chattel.

No, not because she is chattel. Because marriage is a partnership between adults who work together for the good of the family.

[Anonymous]

OP -- what would happen if you came home one day and told your wife that you would like to be the SAHP for a turn?

I would definitely resent being defaulted into becoming the breadwinner, unless I knew for certain it was for a temporary time period. If that was happening, I'd let her know that I'm looking forward to my SAHP period that will be in a year and ask her to start looking for a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All men and women should know - when you have kids, there may be a situation in your family that one of you have to SAHP. So, be mentally prepared for things to change - for better or worse and in sickness and health.

That being said - plan out your kids, be financially stable and live on one paycheck when you do not have kids.

For many people, this is just not possible: Social workers, teachers, people working for minimum wage - they cannot live on one paycheck.

Also note that all men and women should know: When you have kids, there may be a situation in your family that requires that you work for money to support your children. So, be prepared to do that. Do not have children that you, personally, cannot support.

This is EXACTLY it, and so, so many women in this area (and on this post!) just don't get it.

I think you are so obsessed with the SAH issue that you and the many others that are obsessed with the financial side it don't get it. OP never said they were financially struggling because she does not work. He said it would be financially better if she returns to work and that there are various other aspects of her not working that he does not like, including the stress of being the sole earner.

From there, it is basic common sense. If you want someone to do x, and they do not want to do x, you need to understand their objections to x
and address those objections in order to persuade them to do x. Here x is returning to paid work. Until OP understands why his wife doesn't want to return, he never will be able to persuade her to return. This is true whether or not you think her objections are rational or not.

She doesn't have the right to opt out of work without her husband's agreement. Period.

Right, because once you marry, you are chattel.

No, not because she is chattel. Because marriage is a partnership between adults who work together for the good of the family.

Not allowing her to quit is as unilateral as her quitting, except it is someone else making the decision for her.

[Anonymous]

but PP, if she quits, she hurts other people. Who does she hurt by not being allowed to quit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:but PP, if she quits, she hurts other people. Who does she hurt by not being allowed to quit?

Herself-- apparently she thought her own well-being matters? Perhaps the job was reducing her quality of life in some way, or the kids'. Kind of like how the OP thinks his strain of being the breadwinner is hurting him, and staying home is not what's best for the kids.

[Anonymous]

I have a question OP...Prior to having children together...Or even getting married...Did you + your wife even discuss your future plans together and what your roles would be once you had children?

I.e., Would one parent stay home full-time, would the children go to daycare, etc.?

Did your wife agree that they would be in daycare and that she would have a career, then once they were here, she simply quit her job and just stayed home instead, yet at the same time is now complaining about her decision?? If that is the case, then I can totally see why you are resentful. I would be too.

However, if you and her never discussed what your plans would be once you had children together and you just ASSUMED that she would continue working, then it really isn't her fault how things turned out.

Personally, I think it's best for the children to stay home w/their mother during these early years vs. being cared for by strangers in a daycare. If they had a nanny, I would be more okay w/it, but not daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Says the poster who loves unilateral statements. OP hasn't addressed what occurred when dw left her job; quite possible he didn't object because he believed it would be temporary.

I disagree with you btw. No one should continue to work in a job that makes them miserable, unless it is necessary to pay rent and buy food. Not the case here. If my dh told me he couldn't stand his job and needed to take some time to figure his life out or to be with our kids, I wouldn't force him to work, particularly if it was a financially wash in the short term. Spouses support one another.

First, this is an anonymous board so let's stop with the nonsense of "says the poster". You don't know who's posting what so don't pretend like you do.

Secondly, there is no evidence that a conversation like this occurred. OP was put in front of the fact. And you don't actually disagree with me, because you begin with "if my DH told me", which already implies a mutual decision.

Thirdly, no one should continue to work in a job that makes them miserable (although many do) but it's not the only job available on the planet. Who put a gun to her head to only look at misery-inducing job? Why couldn't she have looked for what makes her feel happy?

[Anonymous]

Did your wife agree that they would be in daycare and that she would have a career, then once they were here, she simply quit her job and just stayed home instead, yet at the same time is now complaining about her decision?? If that is the case, then I can totally see why you are resentful. I would be too.

That is exactly what happened. They both planned on working even with kids. This isn't the script they agreed to before having kids.

[Anonymous]

"Personally, I think it's best for the children to stay home w/their mother during these early years vs. being cared for by strangers in a daycare. If they had a nanny, I would be more okay w/it, but not daycare. "

Oh, brother!