SAHMs and marriage dynamics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a big law partner and a lot of my male colleagues have wives who are SAHMs. I'm not super involved in their marriages, obviously, but just from hearing how they talk amongst themselves, it seems like a lot of them lose respect for their wives. All conversations become about the kids or the household, and they start seeing their wives more as a mother to their kids than a true partner and equal. They do love their wives, and I think their marriages are mostly happy, but it does sometimes feel like they see their colleagues (male and female) as their peers and their wives as a step beneath - and that's with the good ones. As you probably know, cheating is rampant in big law. This may be unique to law, and big law in particular, where people tend to make their career their personality and most of their self worth.

troll.

Lest I forget, SUPER!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately, every marriage would be destroyed in this kind of situation. Men just don’t find it attractive.

That doesn’t make any sense. The primary role of a wife was to raise kids and maintain the household since the beginning of time. Yes some women worked outside of the home or somehow earned a living, but the identity of a wife was raising kids and taking care of the home.

That’s why I don’t really buy the posts saying men are turned off by a SAHM and want a professional woman who looks good in meetings. This goes against biological desire. A woman having a high earning job in an office is something relatively new. To say that now a man wants that sexually is too much of a change in a short period of time.

Huh? Where did you learn your history?

In many societies the vast majority of women are working in the fields or factories and their children are being raised by extended family. Elite women always had wet nurses and others to raise their kids. I think this idea of women as full time mothers is very modern and coincides with certain socioeconomic changes. It is definitely not happening for elite women or women who have to work in the nineteenth century…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately, every marriage would be destroyed in this kind of situation. Men just don’t find it attractive.

That doesn’t make any sense. The primary role of a wife was to raise kids and maintain the household since the beginning of time. Yes some women worked outside of the home or somehow earned a living, but the identity of a wife was raising kids and taking care of the home.

That’s why I don’t really buy the posts saying men are turned off by a SAHM and want a professional woman who looks good in meetings. This goes against biological desire. A woman having a high earning job in an office is something relatively new. To say that now a man wants that sexually is too much of a change in a short period of time.

Huh? Where did you learn your history?

In many societies the vast majority of women are working in the fields or factories and their children are being raised by extended family. Elite women always had wet nurses and others to raise their kids. I think this idea of women as full time mothers is very modern and coincides with certain socioeconomic changes. It is definitely not happening for elite women or women who have to work in the nineteenth century…

I bet their husbands were turned on by their ambition and drive working in the field. They would have been so bored with a wealthy woman staying at home.

[Anonymous]

Just pay grandparents to raise grandkids, its a win-win for all. If grandparents have money, they can do it for free.

[Anonymous]

If more men start doing at home parenting when needed, it would become fair and acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately, every marriage would be destroyed in this kind of situation. Men just don’t find it attractive.

That doesn’t make any sense. The primary role of a wife was to raise kids and maintain the household since the beginning of time. Yes some women worked outside of the home or somehow earned a living, but the identity of a wife was raising kids and taking care of the home.

That’s why I don’t really buy the posts saying men are turned off by a SAHM and want a professional woman who looks good in meetings. This goes against biological desire. A woman having a high earning job in an office is something relatively new. To say that now a man wants that sexually is too much of a change in a short period of time.

Huh? Where did you learn your history?

In many societies the vast majority of women are working in the fields or factories and their children are being raised by extended family. Elite women always had wet nurses and others to raise their kids. I think this idea of women as full time mothers is very modern and coincides with certain socioeconomic changes. It is definitely not happening for elite women or women who have to work in the nineteenth century…

yep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately, every marriage would be destroyed in this kind of situation. Men just don’t find it attractive.

That doesn’t make any sense. The primary role of a wife was to raise kids and maintain the household since the beginning of time. Yes some women worked outside of the home or somehow earned a living, but the identity of a wife was raising kids and taking care of the home.

That’s why I don’t really buy the posts saying men are turned off by a SAHM and want a professional woman who looks good in meetings. This goes against biological desire. A woman having a high earning job in an office is something relatively new. To say that now a man wants that sexually is too much of a change in a short period of time.

Huh? Where did you learn your history?

In many societies the vast majority of women are working in the fields or factories and their children are being raised by extended family. Elite women always had wet nurses and others to raise their kids. I think this idea of women as full time mothers is very modern and coincides with certain socioeconomic changes. It is definitely not happening for elite women or women who have to work in the nineteenth century…

I bet their husbands were turned on by their ambition and drive working in the field. They would have been so bored with a wealthy woman staying at home.

Wealthy men had multiple wives or partners

[Anonymous]

Get a nanni. Stay at home moms lose their appeal to their husbands. This is ironic because many men ask their wives to be stay at home moms...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately, every marriage would be destroyed in this kind of situation. Men just don’t find it attractive.

That doesn’t make any sense. The primary role of a wife was to raise kids and maintain the household since the beginning of time. Yes some women worked outside of the home or somehow earned a living, but the identity of a wife was raising kids and taking care of the home.

That’s why I don’t really buy the posts saying men are turned off by a SAHM and want a professional woman who looks good in meetings. This goes against biological desire. A woman having a high earning job in an office is something relatively new. To say that now a man wants that sexually is too much of a change in a short period of time.

Huh? Where did you learn your history?

In many societies the vast majority of women are working in the fields or factories and their children are being raised by extended family. Elite women always had wet nurses and others to raise their kids. I think this idea of women as full time mothers is very modern and coincides with certain socioeconomic changes. It is definitely not happening for elite women or women who have to work in the nineteenth century…

I bet their husbands were turned on by their ambition and drive working in the field. They would have been so bored with a wealthy woman staying at home.

You missed the point. Wealthy women were not SAHMs in the modern sense. They did not raise their kids. They had wet nurses, people to look after their kids 24/7 in a separate wing, people who took the kids out without their parents, sent their kids away to boarding school at a very young age.

My dad was born wealthy in another country, he’s old (80s). His mother did not provide hands on care like todays SAHMs. He had wet nurses, caretakers, people to take him places 24/7. Kids went off to boarding school around 8 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately, every marriage would be destroyed in this kind of situation. Men just don’t find it attractive.

That doesn’t make any sense. The primary role of a wife was to raise kids and maintain the household since the beginning of time. Yes some women worked outside of the home or somehow earned a living, but the identity of a wife was raising kids and taking care of the home.

That’s why I don’t really buy the posts saying men are turned off by a SAHM and want a professional woman who looks good in meetings. This goes against biological desire. A woman having a high earning job in an office is something relatively new. To say that now a man wants that sexually is too much of a change in a short period of time.

Huh? Where did you learn your history?

In many societies the vast majority of women are working in the fields or factories and their children are being raised by extended family. Elite women always had wet nurses and others to raise their kids. I think this idea of women as full time mothers is very modern and coincides with certain socioeconomic changes. It is definitely not happening for elite women or women who have to work in the nineteenth century…

I bet their husbands were turned on by their ambition and drive working in the field. They would have been so bored with a wealthy woman staying at home.

You missed the point. Wealthy women were not SAHMs in the modern sense. They did not raise their kids. They had wet nurses, people to look after their kids 24/7 in a separate wing, people who took the kids out without their parents, sent their kids away to boarding school at a very young age.

My dad was born wealthy in another country, he’s old (80s). His mother did not provide hands on care like todays SAHMs. He had wet nurses, caretakers, people to take him places 24/7. Kids went off to boarding school around 8 years old.

Yet it’s not like wealthy women worked. They were the idle rich. So I don’t know what your point is, besides they don’t do work like the average middle class SAHM. They still managed the household budget and directed the servants and held parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get a nanni. Stay at home moms lose their appeal to their husbands. This is ironic because many men ask their wives to be stay at home moms...

Not staying at home moms doesn't get cheated, abused or divorced? Work because you want to, not because you are afraid.

[Anonymous]

My big law partner husband is very much into me and loves that I stay at home with our five children. He is very well aware that all the important work I do on the home front affords him the ability to give a 100% at work. His meteoritic rise is directly attributable to the home life that I have worked so hard to create for him and our children. He values and respects what I do and that really makes a massive impact on our daily happiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a big law partner and a lot of my male colleagues have wives who are SAHMs. I'm not super involved in their marriages, obviously, but just from hearing how they talk amongst themselves, it seems like a lot of them lose respect for their wives. All conversations become about the kids or the household, and they start seeing their wives more as a mother to their kids than a true partner and equal. They do love their wives, and I think their marriages are mostly happy, but it does sometimes feel like they see their colleagues (male and female) as their peers and their wives as a step beneath - and that's with the good ones. As you probably know, cheating is rampant in big law. This may be unique to law, and big law in particular, where people tend to make their career their personality and most of their self worth.

My husband is a big law partner and I’m a SAHM and right now he’s working his a$$ off. What kind of law do you do that gives you time to hang out in DCUM in the middle of the day?

He’s just telling you he is working his a$$ off.

It some if that work is with women. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If neither parent wants to be there for the children, may be you are career oriented people not children oriented people. There is nothing wrong with that. You don't have to have children. Just foster from time to time.

Definitely. On my unemployed people should have kids.

Nothing about our political economy post-industrial revolution is conducive to raising children or future citizens. Not a whole lot we can do about it since govts will always put short-term GDP over the health of it's citizens but the mommy wars are a welcome distraction for them.

Exactly, these problems are mostly systemic, not individual, and most women are both SAHMs and working at some point. DCUM is addicted to the dopamine hit of judging and blaming individuals so as to feel superior, so these wars keep going, distracting us from the real problems which are:

1. capitalism and profit over people
2. capitalism and profit over health (health of people and health of planet)
3. "corporations are people" legally
4. money in politics, we are not represented

There is a relentless drive to transfer wealth up to the .01%. Everything, every stage and moment of life is monetized, in a subscription model if at all possible. Whatever you have left is taken by the health care system at the end.

Interesting. I think capitalism is directly responsible for improving the quality of life and lifespan of billions of people!

Interesting. I think both can be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I stay at home and have the same arrangement with my husband. Everything is equal and I buy whatever I want for myself with *our* money.
You realize that staying home to raise children is a pretty intense job if done right? The alternative is a stranger of questionable intelligence and motivation raising one’s kids for $60-70k per year after tax. So why couldn’t I buy myself jewelry or whatever if I do that job for free and better than a nanny?

Are you talking about homeschooling? If not, what do you know that’s so intense once your kids are out of school?

School is 8:30am-3pm, 170 days in a year. You do the math.
And yes, kids need us even after they start school. There are health issues, appointments, homework, after school activities, social drama etc to navigate. I cook home made, healthy meals. I read to them every day. And so on.
Sure, someone with inferior decision making abilities owning to inferior education could navigate some of that while I am at work, but that is not what I wanted for my family.