S/O Why do you care if moms stay home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These arguments are so nasty and non existent in my home country. Most women stay at home. No one is judging anyone’s choice. This post is evidence that some of the American women posting on this thread are miserable.

FTFY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Okay, well, if my husband leaves me or dies and I'm penniless, and I can't find any other job using my education and previous experience, then I will just become a nanny, cook, or maid then! Problem solved!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

NP: You clearly just don't get it. Other people's lives are different from yours and that is OK. If PP has more than enough to retire on and has no need to add to her resume, what's it to you if she says, we have enough and goes on to enjoy her life in a different way than you might choose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

Curious: what’s your opinion of the FIRE movement or Mr Money Moustache? Also, say someone has built up enough retirement savings to retire at 45 - are they allowed to do that? Or do they have to keep working til 65?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHM here.

I hate these threads. They're usually started by a WOHM asking some version of "why don't you want to work a flexible job and not be dependent on a man?"

So you explain how your former industry was not flexible, why you and your husband prize a peaceful, calm existence where one person works and the other takes care of home and kid stuff, and what you have done to mitigate the risk of being financially dependent (large cash savings, continue to invest for your own retirement, large life insurance and disability policies, post nuptial agreements, etc. etc.) and they come back with "well it's not about YOU or your reasons, it's about women in general."

Don't you get that ALL women are making choices based on their unique circumstances and are making good choices mitigating risk in their lives?

Like sorry your dad left your mom high and dry but that's not going to happen to me for various reasons and no amount of bitter wishing on your part is going to make it so. It's just not. If my husband left me tomorrow, which is extremely unlikely for various reasons, I'd walk away with about 3 million dollars. A nice cushion to start over with.

This is more trash and toxicity added to an already toxic subject. You want to stir the pot and you're enjoying the drama. So much for prizing a peaceful, calm existence.

Exactly. Also: step outside your privilege bubble. ALL women don't have the same choices as you.

There was a time in my life when I had to literally choose whether or not to eat or put gas in my car. I chose gas because I had to get to work or I would have no money to pay rent. I was poor. There were times when I went hungry. When I met my dh he was making less than me! He later went on to excel at work.

Decades later, I'm a SAHM. I didn't win the lottery, I didn't find a buried treasure. Dh and I worked our butts off, lived below our means as DINKs and didn't have kids until we were well established.

We have had our own string of bad luck just like everyone else. We have also been lucky at times. But when I look analytically at why we got ahead while others continued to struggle so much it comes down to the small, every day choices that we made in life. Really.

That is not to say that I don't count my blessings every day because I do. I also give to the less fortunate because I have BTDT and I know what it's like. I try to be a good person and I am raising my kids to be good, empathetic people.

What's the point of working your butt off if you can't enjoy the comfort and security that it brings? Why assume that others have it soooo much easier than you or anyone else? Often times we are no different than you are.

Smug, obnoxious, and deeply privilege-blind.

This thread is such a train wreck.

It's interesting; I often find those who had periods of hardship and were able to come out of them can be the most smug. "If I could do it, anyone can!" No, not everyone can.

Those "small, everyday choices" to which you credit your success? They are also the result of luck. I don't think everything is entirely out of our control at all, but I'm also keenly aware that much of life is. I do my best with what I have--and I work(ed) damn hard--AND I recognize that many don't have the privileges that afford me the ability to make these choices. This "looking analytically" business doesn't happen in a vacuum. When the answer you come up with is your own choice, you miss that context entirely.

What's sad is that I think there are two separate posters for whom not working has clearly made them lose touch with reality and compassion and has instead made them insufferable and privilege-blind. (To be clear, I think there are also plenty of insufferable DCUM WOHMs to keep them company.)

These DCUM debates are such nonsense precisely because they're ignorant of the reality of the vast majority of mothers in this country. Most women work because they have to work or their kids don't eat. Those who stay home mostly do it because it's the safest and cheapest option that they have. I remember a thread awhile back where a woman who made something like $65k asked a genuine question about whether it was worth it for her to stay home and it immediately filled up with super rich SAHMs telling her not to worry about her lost income, because they surely didn't worry about it with their husbands who made millions. Then add in the WOHMs who suggest that you should just work because of course you can make six figures and still have a super flexible job that lets you off at 3:00 pm or whatever.

It's obnoxious and insufferable.

O.k. then just accept that some people just have riches fall from the sky into their ever so undeserving laps while others get smacked time and time and time again by life. If you accept that as your reality nothing will ever be your responsibility and circumstances will forever be out of your control.

I'm fat. But it's not my fault, right? There is absolutely nothing that I can do about it. I'm just a fatty, fat, fat. Say that to yourself often enough and it becomes your reality.

I'm the PP above the one you're directly responding to, but why so all or nothing about it? Of course it's shades of gray. We're not saying otherwise, only that claiming everything positive is due to your daily choices is preposterous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

Pp, I would advise you that you only live once and that if a luxurious retirement is a top priority for you then you should keep on putting that 54K away. If you love your job and have the ability to save that much every year, even better. It's your life. You decide.

[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:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

[Anonymous]

^^^The majority of sahms I know are in charge of the family's finances. Today's husbands are not their fathers and grandfathers. You can be a sahm and an equal partner in your marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHM here.

I hate these threads. They're usually started by a WOHM asking some version of "why don't you want to work a flexible job and not be dependent on a man?"

So you explain how your former industry was not flexible, why you and your husband prize a peaceful, calm existence where one person works and the other takes care of home and kid stuff, and what you have done to mitigate the risk of being financially dependent (large cash savings, continue to invest for your own retirement, large life insurance and disability policies, post nuptial agreements, etc. etc.) and they come back with "well it's not about YOU or your reasons, it's about women in general."

Don't you get that ALL women are making choices based on their unique circumstances and are making good choices mitigating risk in their lives?

Like sorry your dad left your mom high and dry but that's not going to happen to me for various reasons and no amount of bitter wishing on your part is going to make it so. It's just not. If my husband left me tomorrow, which is extremely unlikely for various reasons, I'd walk away with about 3 million dollars. A nice cushion to start over with.

This is more trash and toxicity added to an already toxic subject. You want to stir the pot and you're enjoying the drama. So much for prizing a peaceful, calm existence.

Exactly. Also: step outside your privilege bubble. ALL women don't have the same choices as you.

There was a time in my life when I had to literally choose whether or not to eat or put gas in my car. I chose gas because I had to get to work or I would have no money to pay rent. I was poor. There were times when I went hungry. When I met my dh he was making less than me! He later went on to excel at work.

Decades later, I'm a SAHM. I didn't win the lottery, I didn't find a buried treasure. Dh and I worked our butts off, lived below our means as DINKs and didn't have kids until we were well established.

We have had our own string of bad luck just like everyone else. We have also been lucky at times. But when I look analytically at why we got ahead while others continued to struggle so much it comes down to the small, every day choices that we made in life. Really.

That is not to say that I don't count my blessings every day because I do. I also give to the less fortunate because I have BTDT and I know what it's like. I try to be a good person and I am raising my kids to be good, empathetic people.

What's the point of working your butt off if you can't enjoy the comfort and security that it brings? Why assume that others have it soooo much easier than you or anyone else? Often times we are no different than you are.

Smug, obnoxious, and deeply privilege-blind.

This thread is such a train wreck.

It's interesting; I often find those who had periods of hardship and were able to come out of them can be the most smug. "If I could do it, anyone can!" No, not everyone can.

Those "small, everyday choices" to which you credit your success? They are also the result of luck. I don't think everything is entirely out of our control at all, but I'm also keenly aware that much of life is. I do my best with what I have--and I work(ed) damn hard--AND I recognize that many don't have the privileges that afford me the ability to make these choices. This "looking analytically" business doesn't happen in a vacuum. When the answer you come up with is your own choice, you miss that context entirely.

What's sad is that I think there are two separate posters for whom not working has clearly made them lose touch with reality and compassion and has instead made them insufferable and privilege-blind. (To be clear, I think there are also plenty of insufferable DCUM WOHMs to keep them company.)

These DCUM debates are such nonsense precisely because they're ignorant of the reality of the vast majority of mothers in this country. Most women work because they have to work or their kids don't eat. Those who stay home mostly do it because it's the safest and cheapest option that they have. I remember a thread awhile back where a woman who made something like $65k asked a genuine question about whether it was worth it for her to stay home and it immediately filled up with super rich SAHMs telling her not to worry about her lost income, because they surely didn't worry about it with their husbands who made millions. Then add in the WOHMs who suggest that you should just work because of course you can make six figures and still have a super flexible job that lets you off at 3:00 pm or whatever.

It's obnoxious and insufferable.

O.k. then just accept that some people just have riches fall from the sky into their ever so undeserving laps while others get smacked time and time and time again by life. If you accept that as your reality nothing will ever be your responsibility and circumstances will forever be out of your control.

I'm fat. But it's not my fault, right? There is absolutely nothing that I can do about it. I'm just a fatty, fat, fat. Say that to yourself often enough and it becomes your reality.

I'm the PP above the one you're directly responding to, but why so all or nothing about it? Of course it's shades of gray. We're not saying otherwise, only that claiming everything positive is due to your daily choices is preposterous.

A rich woman born into wealth who had never struggled a day in her life would be out of touch with reality. But not all SAHMs are rich and those that are often spent a good many years living paycheck to paycheck before they became rich.

Besides, you really don't have to be rich to SAH. I know plenty of people with normal incomes who SAH for at least a couple of years. Things were pretty tight when I first started to SAH. Yes, there is plenty of gray there.

[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:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

Does anyone have access to their spouse's 401K?