Am I the only one who doesn't feel bored as a stay at home mom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't feel comfortable knowing that my life is made entirely possible by someone else's largesse. I've always felt this way, even as a child when I realized some moms don't work outside the home. It's an uncomfortable feeling.

I've been married 30 years and have been at home all but about six of them. DH and I are both 50. I feel 100% comfortable knowing my life is made entirely possible by my DH's income. He would tell you that his life is made 100% possible by me managing our home. So it works out well in our family.

But if it gives you an uncomfortable feeling, you should definitely continue working.

Fantastic answer and 100% true. I worked for 11 years and have been fortunate enough to be home for 12. I just laugh at the simpletons who can't grasp that marriage is a team effort, not an exercise in bean counting. My husband is my biggest champion, and I am his - no matter which way our "division of duties" is divvied up.

MY marriage is not a team effort, it's an exercise in bean counting, which is why we both work full time. Not ideal, but yeah, it is, so neither of us would ever let the other SAH. In fact, we both make roughly the same amount (in 2016, I made 55% of the HHI).

That is pretty pathetic that you even admit yours is a marriage based on bean counting. And that neither of you would "ever let the other SAH." Wow. How awful, to compete not only at work, but also in your marriage. Sad for your kids, too.

At least I'm not in denial. Many SAHMs think they are equal partners, when really, their husbands pick the vacation destination or the next car, and let their wives worry about the details. What can a SAHM do if her husband decides to stay for a couple of days of vacation after a business trip?

Wow! A few things are crystal clear, just from reading your post.
1. Your marriage sounds incredibly tense and passive aggressive. Not to mention, sad and strange.
2. You're projecting your baggage onto people with much healthier marriages.

In my family, we ALL pick the vacation destination and then I get the fun of planning it, which I love.
When my husband goes on a business trip, he's the first to try and make it as short as possible because he'd rather just come home. Unless I go with him on said trip, however, which I do about once or twice a year. Then he definitely takes some extra vacation days that we can enjoy together. You should try it sometime!

The car and vacation examples are both drawn from two real life SAHM friends. In both cases, the women are not only SAH, they are 8 and 12 years younger than their husbands. In the car example, my friend wanted a family car when theirs broke down, her husband wanted something more business friendly. He said, "If we can't agree, I'll just buy the car I want without your agreement." Not all marriages with a WOHH and a SAHW are healthy.

Duh. Just like not all marriages with 2 working spouses are healthy. All I know is that mine is egalitarian. And at no time has my husband ever done something like what you describe. Those women should definitely get jobs stat. I wouldn't advocate for any of my children becoming a SAHP until I know what kind of person they choose to marry. There are too many terrible ones out there. However, if they choose well, a SAHP can be a great thing for a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The one thing happy SAHMs that I know have in common is no matter how intelligent or well educated, they don't have a strong professional drive.

Does this mean that high professional drive women don't have high drive to become mothers? If so, then why do they have kids?

See, inferences like these are what make people think that stay at home moms aren't very smart. How exactly does your statement follow from hers, logically?

Not the PP, but you must be joking. The question is absolutely relevant, especially if we're to entertain the first statement, that SAHMs "don't have a strong professional drive."

I realize that it must be difficult to process the second question because it clearly hit a nerve (especially if you're the mom who had 50 hours/week of childcare). But try reading slowly. I know you can do it!

God, you're stupid. You didn't read about logical fallacy, did you? The drive to become a mother is biological; working in no way interferes with the desire to be a mother. Educate yourself.

You're the person who uses 50 hours of childcare per week, right? Sounds like your "desire to become a mother" was no more than your desire to check that task off your to-do list. But sure, we believe you. Especially if you're the PP who keeps coming back to tell SAHMs what a poor choice they made and how if we're "secure in our choices," then criticism shouldn't bother us. I suggest you take your own advice.

It's curious that you're trolling a thread which has nothing to do with you, dontcha think? Kind of an insecure thing to do.

Why is a dad considered a good parent if he is gone more than 40 hours a week for work, but not a mom? Would you feel differently if I said I was gone from my kids for work for 47 hours a week, but instead of childcare, my husband was a SAHD?

He probably isn't. I don't think that the solution is to have two uninvolved parents.

Working full time is not the same as being uninvolved as a parent, even if the work is full time plus a commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The implication in this thread is that staying at home is preferable to working and the women posting that they aren’t bored seem to be gloating about it. So that is what is bringing out the venom from the working moms. Maybe I should start a thread about how great it is to be a working mom and see how the SAHMs respond.

I can’t image very many would respond at all. I have lots of friends who WOH. I’m amazed at their ability to juggle so much.

The only time I judge a WOHM is when she she spends 50+ hours a week away from her kids. I would say the same about a SAHM who was never with her kids. And I will admit to feeling strongly that babies and young children need to be with their mothers. When men carry a baby for nine months and are able to breastfeed, I’ll feel differently. Everything about the way we are designed makes it clear that it is not natural or healthy for a mother to spend hours and hours away from her baby.

I had 50 hours of childcare per week for more than 10 years. I used about 47 of them regularly. When you don't have any family to give you a break and have a demanding career, it's necessary. My relationships with my now teens is just fine, and unlike you, didn't feel that I needed to cut back on my career.

The only appropriate response to this is: Holy shit.

Why? I am raising wonderful children and we are a close family. Plus both of us parents managed to maintain our careers full steam. To me, that's success.

Sure, whatever you need to tell yourself! I'm certain that one hour per day you spend with your kids is really paying dividends in the "close family" department.

LOL at one hour a day. My kids are gone from 8 to 6 each day in clubs or sports (middle and high school aged, no more childcare needed) but we find plenty of time to be together in the evenings as a family. How many hours does your DH spend with the children on the average weekday, or are you raising the kids on behalf of both parents, so he doesn't need to spend time with them since he has you as his proxy?

Mine doesn't spend enough. A lot more on the weekends, but definitely not enough during the week. The solution is not to have both parents do this. Like it or not, kids do need quantity of time with parents. Many dual parent couples can manage to do this and both work, but I don't think having kids without either parent for so much time is good for them.

I think kids spending 3 or 4 hours per weekday with a parent or both parents is just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't feel comfortable knowing that my life is made entirely possible by someone else's largesse. I've always felt this way, even as a child when I realized some moms don't work outside the home. It's an uncomfortable feeling.

I've been married 30 years and have been at home all but about six of them. DH and I are both 50. I feel 100% comfortable knowing my life is made entirely possible by my DH's income. He would tell you that his life is made 100% possible by me managing our home. So it works out well in our family.

But if it gives you an uncomfortable feeling, you should definitely continue working.

Fantastic answer and 100% true. I worked for 11 years and have been fortunate enough to be home for 12. I just laugh at the simpletons who can't grasp that marriage is a team effort, not an exercise in bean counting. My husband is my biggest champion, and I am his - no matter which way our "division of duties" is divvied up.

MY marriage is not a team effort, it's an exercise in bean counting, which is why we both work full time. Not ideal, but yeah, it is, so neither of us would ever let the other SAH. In fact, we both make roughly the same amount (in 2016, I made 55% of the HHI).

That is pretty pathetic that you even admit yours is a marriage based on bean counting. And that neither of you would "ever let the other SAH." Wow. How awful, to compete not only at work, but also in your marriage. Sad for your kids, too.

At least I'm not in denial. Many SAHMs think they are equal partners, when really, their husbands pick the vacation destination or the next car, and let their wives worry about the details. What can a SAHM do if her husband decides to stay for a couple of days of vacation after a business trip?

Wow! A few things are crystal clear, just from reading your post.
1. Your marriage sounds incredibly tense and passive aggressive. Not to mention, sad and strange.
2. You're projecting your baggage onto people with much healthier marriages.

In my family, we ALL pick the vacation destination and then I get the fun of planning it, which I love.
When my husband goes on a business trip, he's the first to try and make it as short as possible because he'd rather just come home. Unless I go with him on said trip, however, which I do about once or twice a year. Then he definitely takes some extra vacation days that we can enjoy together. You should try it sometime!

The car and vacation examples are both drawn from two real life SAHM friends. In both cases, the women are not only SAH, they are 8 and 12 years younger than their husbands. In the car example, my friend wanted a family car when theirs broke down, her husband wanted something more business friendly. He said, "If we can't agree, I'll just buy the car I want without your agreement." Not all marriages with a WOHH and a SAHW are healthy.

You do understand that it is a relationship and individual dynamic vs a result of SAH vs WOH?
Selfish spouses are going to put self before family, like buy a car for their sole needs or overstay trips or stray or whatever. And they will do this whether spouse works or not.

Now in such a contentious relationship the woman working is better off as it gives you financial security, but then that couple is better off divorced in the first place.

However this thread is for happily married couples, who do exist in both SAH vs WOH families.

There is also the situation where both spouses working and one handling the second shift leads to divorce. Divorce happens to working moms too, and onnthe whole, even working moms come out of divorce on a less advantageous financial situation than their male spouse. This thread ignores entirely that many working moms have limited their careers amd compensation via the mommy track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The one thing happy SAHMs that I know have in common is no matter how intelligent or well educated, they don't have a strong professional drive.

Does this mean that high professional drive women don't have high drive to become mothers? If so, then why do they have kids?

See, inferences like these are what make people think that stay at home moms aren't very smart. How exactly does your statement follow from hers, logically?

Not the PP, but you must be joking. The question is absolutely relevant, especially if we're to entertain the first statement, that SAHMs "don't have a strong professional drive."

I realize that it must be difficult to process the second question because it clearly hit a nerve (especially if you're the mom who had 50 hours/week of childcare). But try reading slowly. I know you can do it!

God, you're stupid. You didn't read about logical fallacy, did you? The drive to become a mother is biological; working in no way interferes with the desire to be a mother. Educate yourself.

You're the person who uses 50 hours of childcare per week, right? Sounds like your "desire to become a mother" was no more than your desire to check that task off your to-do list. But sure, we believe you. Especially if you're the PP who keeps coming back to tell SAHMs what a poor choice they made and how if we're "secure in our choices," then criticism shouldn't bother us. I suggest you take your own advice.

It's curious that you're trolling a thread which has nothing to do with you, dontcha think? Kind of an insecure thing to do.

Why is a dad considered a good parent if he is gone more than 40 hours a week for work, but not a mom? Would you feel differently if I said I was gone from my kids for work for 47 hours a week, but instead of childcare, my husband was a SAHD?

He probably isn't. I don't think that the solution is to have two uninvolved parents.

Working full time is not the same as being uninvolved as a parent, even if the work is full time plus a commute.

50 hours of childcare per week is de facto uninvolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The one thing happy SAHMs that I know have in common is no matter how intelligent or well educated, they don't have a strong professional drive.

Does this mean that high professional drive women don't have high drive to become mothers? If so, then why do they have kids?

See, inferences like these are what make people think that stay at home moms aren't very smart. How exactly does your statement follow from hers, logically?

Not the PP, but you must be joking. The question is absolutely relevant, especially if we're to entertain the first statement, that SAHMs "don't have a strong professional drive."

I realize that it must be difficult to process the second question because it clearly hit a nerve (especially if you're the mom who had 50 hours/week of childcare). But try reading slowly. I know you can do it!

God, you're stupid. You didn't read about logical fallacy, did you? The drive to become a mother is biological; working in no way interferes with the desire to be a mother. Educate yourself.

You're the person who uses 50 hours of childcare per week, right? Sounds like your "desire to become a mother" was no more than your desire to check that task off your to-do list. But sure, we believe you. Especially if you're the PP who keeps coming back to tell SAHMs what a poor choice they made and how if we're "secure in our choices," then criticism shouldn't bother us. I suggest you take your own advice.

It's curious that you're trolling a thread which has nothing to do with you, dontcha think? Kind of an insecure thing to do.

Why is a dad considered a good parent if he is gone more than 40 hours a week for work, but not a mom? Would you feel differently if I said I was gone from my kids for work for 47 hours a week, but instead of childcare, my husband was a SAHD?

He probably isn't. I don't think that the solution is to have two uninvolved parents.

Working full time is not the same as being uninvolved as a parent, even if the work is full time plus a commute.

50 hours of childcare per week is de facto uninvolved.

Disagree. Every single person I know who works at my company, which requires 45 hours a week in the office, uses that much childcare/school time unless they have a SAHP. If we are ALL uninvolved, who is the default parent, or do you think school + aftercare is raising our kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The one thing happy SAHMs that I know have in common is no matter how intelligent or well educated, they don't have a strong professional drive.

Does this mean that high professional drive women don't have high drive to become mothers? If so, then why do they have kids?

See, inferences like these are what make people think that stay at home moms aren't very smart. How exactly does your statement follow from hers, logically?

Not the PP, but you must be joking. The question is absolutely relevant, especially if we're to entertain the first statement, that SAHMs "don't have a strong professional drive."

I realize that it must be difficult to process the second question because it clearly hit a nerve (especially if you're the mom who had 50 hours/week of childcare). But try reading slowly. I know you can do it!

God, you're stupid. You didn't read about logical fallacy, did you? The drive to become a mother is biological; working in no way interferes with the desire to be a mother. Educate yourself.

You're the person who uses 50 hours of childcare per week, right? Sounds like your "desire to become a mother" was no more than your desire to check that task off your to-do list. But sure, we believe you. Especially if you're the PP who keeps coming back to tell SAHMs what a poor choice they made and how if we're "secure in our choices," then criticism shouldn't bother us. I suggest you take your own advice.

It's curious that you're trolling a thread which has nothing to do with you, dontcha think? Kind of an insecure thing to do.

Why is a dad considered a good parent if he is gone more than 40 hours a week for work, but not a mom? Would you feel differently if I said I was gone from my kids for work for 47 hours a week, but instead of childcare, my husband was a SAHD?

He probably isn't. I don't think that the solution is to have two uninvolved parents.

Working full time is not the same as being uninvolved as a parent, even if the work is full time plus a commute.

50 hours of childcare per week is de facto uninvolved.

Disagree. Every single person I know who works at my company, which requires 45 hours a week in the office, uses that much childcare/school time unless they have a SAHP. If we are ALL uninvolved, who is the default parent, or do you think school + aftercare is raising our kids?

That's fine. We can disagree. This is the reason I stay home. I think kids benefit from a lot more time with parents. You don't. No issues from me. You are free to do as you wish and so am I.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The one thing happy SAHMs that I know have in common is no matter how intelligent or well educated, they don't have a strong professional drive.

Does this mean that high professional drive women don't have high drive to become mothers? If so, then why do they have kids?

See, inferences like these are what make people think that stay at home moms aren't very smart. How exactly does your statement follow from hers, logically?

Not the PP, but you must be joking. The question is absolutely relevant, especially if we're to entertain the first statement, that SAHMs "don't have a strong professional drive."

I realize that it must be difficult to process the second question because it clearly hit a nerve (especially if you're the mom who had 50 hours/week of childcare). But try reading slowly. I know you can do it!

God, you're stupid. You didn't read about logical fallacy, did you? The drive to become a mother is biological; working in no way interferes with the desire to be a mother. Educate yourself.

You're the person who uses 50 hours of childcare per week, right? Sounds like your "desire to become a mother" was no more than your desire to check that task off your to-do list. But sure, we believe you. Especially if you're the PP who keeps coming back to tell SAHMs what a poor choice they made and how if we're "secure in our choices," then criticism shouldn't bother us. I suggest you take your own advice.

It's curious that you're trolling a thread which has nothing to do with you, dontcha think? Kind of an insecure thing to do.

Why is a dad considered a good parent if he is gone more than 40 hours a week for work, but not a mom? Would you feel differently if I said I was gone from my kids for work for 47 hours a week, but instead of childcare, my husband was a SAHD?

He probably isn't. I don't think that the solution is to have two uninvolved parents.

Working full time is not the same as being uninvolved as a parent, even if the work is full time plus a commute.

50 hours of childcare per week is de facto uninvolved.

Disagree. Every single person I know who works at my company, which requires 45 hours a week in the office, uses that much childcare/school time unless they have a SAHP. If we are ALL uninvolved, who is the default parent, or do you think school + aftercare is raising our kids?

That's fine. We can disagree. This is the reason I stay home. I think kids benefit from a lot more time with parents. You don't. No issues from me. You are free to do as you wish and so am I.

How many hours a day do you spend with your children, and how old are they? Do you homeschool? Do they have activities other than school that take them away from you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newsflash: Raising kids is a contribution to society.

Of course it is, but let's not be thick here. My kids pediatrician is a mom, and her work as a physician is contributing to society in a way that is different Han her raising her own kids.

This is a ridiculous argument. I am a woh, but can think of many ways that sah moms in my community have benefitted my kids, not just their own—by volunteering at school, planning the big fundraiser, and leading a Brownie troop,

Anyone arguing that being a sah or being a woh has more intrinsic value just looks overly defensive and foolish.

If you are truly happy with your own choices, why post about how much better (or more “valuable”) that makes you than someone else? That is the territory of the insecure.

All those volunteer activities can and are done by both SAH and WOH moms (and dads).

If you are not a troll, you have zero self awareness, zero. You might benefit from counseling to address your pathological resentment (jealousy) of sah moms.

Personally, I don’t know any woh moms leading after school Brownie or volunteering at the school three times a week. I certainly don’t have time for it, and I work a 40 hour week as a government attorney. My guess is you don’t do these things either,

I used to lead a Brownie troop. I also work on the administration and finance committee of my church. I do volunteer at school, but not three times a week. I like to let the SAHMs who can find childcare help out

This isn't anything to brag about. Volunteering = unpaid labor. I hate seeing SAHMs volunteer because it means they are doing so much work at home and for the charity for $0 pay. How many men do you think would willingly sign up for that? We need to STOP doing unpaid work for men. Half of these charities have highpaid execs and are pretty much businesses anyway.

Ok. So then you won't ever rely on any help that comes in the form of volunteering, correct? If you have an elderly parent in a nursing home, you won't allow the volunteers there to make her more comfortable, or entertain her. You'll refuse the aid of hospice volunteers for yourself or loved ones. You'll decline adopting pets from shelters because volunteers run those places. And you'd certainly never help out at your kids' schools, or let your kids be aided by volunteers there. Correct? Just wanted to be sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The implication in this thread is that staying at home is preferable to working and the women posting that they aren’t bored seem to be gloating about it. So that is what is bringing out the venom from the working moms. Maybe I should start a thread about how great it is to be a working mom and see how the SAHMs respond.

Go ahead. I do think staying home is great. That is why I do it. Why should I pretend that it sucks? If you prefer working, fine by me.

Seriously! I agree completely. Besides which, we hear all the time from these DCUM WOHMs how they vastly prefer working to SAH. Doesn't bother me or affect me one iota.

If you're totally secure that you are using your intellectual ability and won't regret the time at home, it shouldn't bother you.

And if you're totally secure that you've made the right choice by working when your kids are young, then it shouldn't bother you that SAHMs are chatting about how much they enjoy staying home, and how their entire family benefits from this choice. Can't imagine why you decided to insert yourself on a thread that has zero to do with you and your choices. It couldn't possibly be insecurity...

[Anonymous]

When are women going to let this topic go? It's so played out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The one thing happy SAHMs that I know have in common is no matter how intelligent or well educated, they don't have a strong professional drive.

Does this mean that high professional drive women don't have high drive to become mothers? If so, then why do they have kids?

See, inferences like these are what make people think that stay at home moms aren't very smart. How exactly does your statement follow from hers, logically?

Not the PP, but you must be joking. The question is absolutely relevant, especially if we're to entertain the first statement, that SAHMs "don't have a strong professional drive."

I realize that it must be difficult to process the second question because it clearly hit a nerve (especially if you're the mom who had 50 hours/week of childcare). But try reading slowly. I know you can do it!

God, you're stupid. You didn't read about logical fallacy, did you? The drive to become a mother is biological; working in no way interferes with the desire to be a mother. Educate yourself.

You're the person who uses 50 hours of childcare per week, right? Sounds like your "desire to become a mother" was no more than your desire to check that task off your to-do list. But sure, we believe you. Especially if you're the PP who keeps coming back to tell SAHMs what a poor choice they made and how if we're "secure in our choices," then criticism shouldn't bother us. I suggest you take your own advice.

It's curious that you're trolling a thread which has nothing to do with you, dontcha think? Kind of an insecure thing to do.

Why is a dad considered a good parent if he is gone more than 40 hours a week for work, but not a mom? Would you feel differently if I said I was gone from my kids for work for 47 hours a week, but instead of childcare, my husband was a SAHD?

He probably isn't. I don't think that the solution is to have two uninvolved parents.

Working full time is not the same as being uninvolved as a parent, even if the work is full time plus a commute.

50 hours of childcare per week is de facto uninvolved.

Disagree. Every single person I know who works at my company, which requires 45 hours a week in the office, uses that much childcare/school time unless they have a SAHP. If we are ALL uninvolved, who is the default parent, or do you think school + aftercare is raising our kids?

That's fine. We can disagree. This is the reason I stay home. I think kids benefit from a lot more time with parents. You don't. No issues from me. You are free to do as you wish and so am I.

How many hours a day do you spend with your children, and how old are they? Do you homeschool? Do they have activities other than school that take them away from you?

3 year old - all but 6 hours a week
Elementary school kids - I drop them off at 8:30 and pick up at 3:45. Twice a week one has a sports activity that goes until 5. Once a week the kindergartener does. They also do play dates, parties, etc, but often at our house. They wake up at 7 and go to sleep at 8:30.

When I worked, I saw them 6:30-bedtime. I didn't think that this was enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't feel comfortable knowing that my life is made entirely possible by someone else's largesse. I've always felt this way, even as a child when I realized some moms don't work outside the home. It's an uncomfortable feeling.

I've been married 30 years and have been at home all but about six of them. DH and I are both 50. I feel 100% comfortable knowing my life is made entirely possible by my DH's income. He would tell you that his life is made 100% possible by me managing our home. So it works out well in our family.

But if it gives you an uncomfortable feeling, you should definitely continue working.

Fantastic answer and 100% true. I worked for 11 years and have been fortunate enough to be home for 12. I just laugh at the simpletons who can't grasp that marriage is a team effort, not an exercise in bean counting. My husband is my biggest champion, and I am his - no matter which way our "division of duties" is divvied up.

MY marriage is not a team effort, it's an exercise in bean counting, which is why we both work full time. Not ideal, but yeah, it is, so neither of us would ever let the other SAH. In fact, we both make roughly the same amount (in 2016, I made 55% of the HHI).

That is pretty pathetic that you even admit yours is a marriage based on bean counting. And that neither of you would "ever let the other SAH." Wow. How awful, to compete not only at work, but also in your marriage. Sad for your kids, too.

At least I'm not in denial. Many SAHMs think they are equal partners, when really, their husbands pick the vacation destination or the next car, and let their wives worry about the details. What can a SAHM do if her husband decides to stay for a couple of days of vacation after a business trip?

Huh. Sounds like you're projecting your own (very peculiar) marital dynamic onto others who have no idea what you're talking about. Talk about denial!

My entire family decides where to go on vacation, and I plan all the details because I enjoy it - and I have time to do so. Cars? How strange that you'd think our husbands decide what we'll drive.

As for vacations, my husband and I plan a few trips together each year around his business trips - so of course he's going to extend his vacation days so we can do this. Often, the whole family will come along, if his trip coincides with a school break. He would laugh at the suggestion that when he travels alone, he's going to "decide to stay for a couple of days," rather than come home. The last thing he wants is to extend a business trip, unless it's part of a vacation.

What your post is really saying is that this is what you *imagine* must occur in a marriage with a SAHP. In other words, wishful thinking on your part. Sorry to disappoint!

[Anonymous]

It's a white privilege issue. It's nice if you can afford to stay home OP and rally round the flag for you. But, it just isn't possible for most people in this area.To another poster, I do wonder why someone would go to all of the trouble to go to law school and then stay home.

[Anonymous]

4 hours a weekday is plenty when your kids are teenagers. Seeing them for only a couple hours a weeknight is an investment in your future career when your children are older and more independent.