SAHMs and marriage dynamics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does division of labor in a two adult partnership have to be SO gender-based?

Women do the non-paid labor, men made the decisions that impact lots of people or make lots of money. Men have offices and staff, women wash dishes, vacuum and dress drooling toddlers.

If we are actually intellectual equals, why is this not offensive? (And who thinks it is not sending negative messages, to the children growing up in such environments?)

It’s no more offensive than a division of labor in which the stay at home parent is the dad. Kids in modern America see all situations - working moms, SAHMs, moms who are older and now retired, women who are not moms. No one is living in a vacuum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Aww, don't worry. He's probably not cheating on you.

No actually I’m inviting men over while he’s at work and cheating on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does division of labor in a two adult partnership have to be SO gender-based?

Women do the non-paid labor, men made the decisions that impact lots of people or make lots of money. Men have offices and staff, women wash dishes, vacuum and dress drooling toddlers.

If we are actually intellectual equals, why is this not offensive? (And who thinks it is not sending negative messages, to the children growing up in such environments?)

What’s offensive is YOUR thinking the domestic work is somehow beneath you. You’d be ok outsourcing it to your Hispanic housekeeper or nanny but won’t do it yourself? What message does THAT send your children? “Taking care of you and our home is beneath me because I’m SUCH an intellectual“. I happen to love dressing my “drooling” toddler. My teens love having long discussions with their educated mother who actually has time for those conversations because I am not rushing off to work or distracted. There is no better way for me to use my intellect and talent than in service to my family.

And your post about Hispanics is offensive.

+1 Ouch, that’s racist

I think it’s great that your teens love having long discussions with you but aren’t you also showing them that it’s normal for women to not work? Like dad makes all the money, mom takes care of us. So what is the point of them trying hard in school and having good careers if that’s their destiny too?

I’m an attorney (my mom was a SAHM). By modeling being an attorney, I’m not showing my kids this is the only way, just that this is my way. My mom was a great SAHM -she approached it with energy, enthusiasm, joy, and a great work ethic. All those personality traits she modeled for me helped shape me to aim for my own particular goals. I do not understand this unimaginative, siloed thinking that we are such a brain dead people that we can only mimic what is right before our eyes.

Parental anxiety--every single moment and aspect of our lives has to be "optimized" for the perceived benefit of our offspring. It also makes us think we have a lot more control over the trajectory of their lives than we actually do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does division of labor in a two adult partnership have to be SO gender-based?

Women do the non-paid labor, men made the decisions that impact lots of people or make lots of money. Men have offices and staff, women wash dishes, vacuum and dress drooling toddlers.

If we are actually intellectual equals, why is this not offensive? (And who thinks it is not sending negative messages, to the children growing up in such environments?)

What’s offensive is YOUR thinking the domestic work is somehow beneath you. You’d be ok outsourcing it to your Hispanic housekeeper or nanny but won’t do it yourself? What message does THAT send your children? “Taking care of you and our home is beneath me because I’m SUCH an intellectual“. I happen to love dressing my “drooling” toddler. My teens love having long discussions with their educated mother who actually has time for those conversations because I am not rushing off to work or distracted. There is no better way for me to use my intellect and talent than in service to my family.

It's beneath your husband, though.

You know nothing about my DH. He is VERY involved. And no, he doesn’t think wiping his preschool son’s arse is beneath him at all.

Women with full-time jobs, guess what, are also VERY involved. But they're not making domestic work the focus of their lives. Much like your husband.

And? So what? You can make that choice. And I can make another. And guess what? One does not affect the other. Plus, you THINK you are highly involved, but you just aren’t able to be as engaged as a SAH. Sorry that’s the cold facts.

I’ve been both SAH and WOH (and actually at one time a full-time student mom) and your facts aren’t the cold hard facts you think they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does division of labor in a two adult partnership have to be SO gender-based?

Women do the non-paid labor, men made the decisions that impact lots of people or make lots of money. Men have offices and staff, women wash dishes, vacuum and dress drooling toddlers.

If we are actually intellectual equals, why is this not offensive? (And who thinks it is not sending negative messages, to the children growing up in such environments?)

Counter-point as a SAHM I was actually able to enjoy my intelligence. I listened to history and philosophy podcasts while cleaning and doing laundry. I took my kids to amazing art museums. And I was able teach myself photography and other creative skills.

Meanwhile my DH does command a decent salary, but a lot of his day is responding to emails. When I went back to work it was just a lot of meeting complaining about bother departments and copy and pasting spreadsheets. Was insanely intellectually under-stimulated, but it paid well.

That said, in our society money = power and it does influence dynamics within a marriage. When the kids were little it didn’t feel that way for me, but it definitely does now that they are older.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone else view being a SAHM as being a luxury? We can't afford it, but I view the option to live off 1 salary as being a luxury. A few of my friends have the same view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else view being a SAHM as being a luxury? We can't afford it, but I view the option to live off 1 salary as being a luxury. A few of my friends have the same view.

It definitely is which is why being a SAHM when you are short on money is not the same lifestyle. Just like two people working at McDonalds isn't the same as both of them being lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else view being a SAHM as being a luxury? We can't afford it, but I view the option to live off 1 salary as being a luxury. A few of my friends have the same view.

Its a luxury in an ego free, loving, committed marriage where it doesn't matter who is doing what and who is earning what. Combined goal is to have a happy, healthy and smoothly functioning prosperous household.

In a marriage where a partner's value is merely dependent on their earnings or chore-ing, fidelity is not a given and egos clash regularly or money is very tight, its not a luxury but a liability for both partners.

Same goes for two job family, if egos are fragile, fidelity is questionable, dividing money and chores is a battle than material luxuries are of little benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else view being a SAHM as being a luxury? We can't afford it, but I view the option to live off 1 salary as being a luxury. A few of my friends have the same view.

Its a luxury in an ego free, loving, committed marriage where it doesn't matter who is doing what and who is earning what. Combined goal is to have a happy, healthy and smoothly functioning prosperous household.

In a marriage where a partner's value is merely dependent on their earnings or chore-ing, fidelity is not a given and egos clash regularly or money is very tight, its not a luxury but a liability for both partners.

Same goes for two job family, if egos are fragile, fidelity is questionable, dividing money and chores is a battle than material luxuries are of little benefit.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else view being a SAHM as being a luxury? We can't afford it, but I view the option to live off 1 salary as being a luxury. A few of my friends have the same view.

Its a luxury in an ego free, loving, committed marriage where it doesn't matter who is doing what and who is earning what. Combined goal is to have a happy, healthy and smoothly functioning prosperous household.

In a marriage where a partner's value is merely dependent on their earnings or chore-ing, fidelity is not a given and egos clash regularly or money is very tight, its not a luxury but a liability for both partners.

Same goes for two job family, if egos are fragile, fidelity is questionable, dividing money and chores is a battle than material luxuries are of little benefit.

Spoken like a true DCUMer. Most people here have no idea what it's like to not have money. They just don't understand in the slightest. Two people without money and kids with a lot of needs or needs of their own no matter what love they have for each other will have issues. They understand it's a luxury they can't afford for either the mom or dad to stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else view being a SAHM as being a luxury? We can't afford it, but I view the option to live off 1 salary as being a luxury. A few of my friends have the same view.

Yeah, though so are some jobs--like people with hobby jobs and passion jobs when the spouse earns more. They're basically living off of one salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else view being a SAHM as being a luxury? We can't afford it, but I view the option to live off 1 salary as being a luxury. A few of my friends have the same view.

Its a luxury in an ego free, loving, committed marriage where it doesn't matter who is doing what and who is earning what. Combined goal is to have a happy, healthy and smoothly functioning prosperous household.

In a marriage where a partner's value is merely dependent on their earnings or chore-ing, fidelity is not a given and egos clash regularly or money is very tight, its not a luxury but a liability for both partners.

Same goes for two job family, if egos are fragile, fidelity is questionable, dividing money and chores is a battle than material luxuries are of little benefit.

Spoken like a true DCUMer. Most people here have no idea what it's like to not have money. They just don't understand in the slightest. Two people without money and kids with a lot of needs or needs of their own no matter what love they have for each other will have issues. They understand it's a luxury they can't afford for either the mom or dad to stay home.

Actually, the truly poor stay home. If you can afford childcare so you can work, you are far ahead of working poor families. That doesn’t mean you have a nice house, or a decent school district, or vacations, but you are better off than a lot of Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else view being a SAHM as being a luxury? We can't afford it, but I view the option to live off 1 salary as being a luxury. A few of my friends have the same view.

Its a luxury in an ego free, loving, committed marriage where it doesn't matter who is doing what and who is earning what. Combined goal is to have a happy, healthy and smoothly functioning prosperous household.

In a marriage where a partner's value is merely dependent on their earnings or chore-ing, fidelity is not a given and egos clash regularly or money is very tight, its not a luxury but a liability for both partners.

Same goes for two job family, if egos are fragile, fidelity is questionable, dividing money and chores is a battle than material luxuries are of little benefit.

Spoken like a true DCUMer. Most people here have no idea what it's like to not have money. They just don't understand in the slightest. Two people without money and kids with a lot of needs or needs of their own no matter what love they have for each other will have issues. They understand it's a luxury they can't afford for either the mom or dad to stay home.

I get where you’re coming from but I don’t think we can deny that having money problems makes life harder, and harder circumstances for an individual often take a toll on a relationship. They don’t have to, but I think it requires a lot of dedication, strong values, and emotional maturity. Not all of us have those things in spades.

It is actually nice, I think, the idea that the problem in a marriage is money, because if you see the problem as an external thing and not something fundamentally wrong with the other person, then it’s easier to roll with the punches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else view being a SAHM as being a luxury? We can't afford it, but I view the option to live off 1 salary as being a luxury. A few of my friends have the same view.

Its a luxury in an ego free, loving, committed marriage where it doesn't matter who is doing what and who is earning what. Combined goal is to have a happy, healthy and smoothly functioning prosperous household.

In a marriage where a partner's value is merely dependent on their earnings or chore-ing, fidelity is not a given and egos clash regularly or money is very tight, its not a luxury but a liability for both partners.

Same goes for two job family, if egos are fragile, fidelity is questionable, dividing money and chores is a battle than material luxuries are of little benefit.

Spoken like a true DCUMer. Most people here have no idea what it's like to not have money. They just don't understand in the slightest. Two people without money and kids with a lot of needs or needs of their own no matter what love they have for each other will have issues. They understand it's a luxury they can't afford for either the mom or dad to stay home.

Plenty of people without money stay at home. Either the mom earns so little it makes sense not to work or the dads job, while not high earning, makes it hard for the mom to find a steady job. Think enlisted military. They aren’t making lots but high numbers of SAHMs especially at some remote bases

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else view being a SAHM as being a luxury? We can't afford it, but I view the option to live off 1 salary as being a luxury. A few of my friends have the same view.

Its a luxury in an ego free, loving, committed marriage where it doesn't matter who is doing what and who is earning what. Combined goal is to have a happy, healthy and smoothly functioning prosperous household.

In a marriage where a partner's value is merely dependent on their earnings or chore-ing, fidelity is not a given and egos clash regularly or money is very tight, its not a luxury but a liability for both partners.

Same goes for two job family, if egos are fragile, fidelity is questionable, dividing money and chores is a battle than material luxuries are of little benefit.

Spoken like a true DCUMer. Most people here have no idea what it's like to not have money. They just don't understand in the slightest. Two people without money and kids with a lot of needs or needs of their own no matter what love they have for each other will have issues. They understand it's a luxury they can't afford for either the mom or dad to stay home.

Plenty of people without money stay at home. Either the mom earns so little it makes sense not to work or the dads job, while not high earning, makes it hard for the mom to find a steady job. Think enlisted military. They aren’t making lots but high numbers of SAHMs especially at some remote bases

My point was that it's not just about egos as and long as your ego is in check then it's smooth sailing whether you both work or not. Money is central to raising a family. Often both parents have to work and grandma raises the children. The military has serious benefits compared to civilian life along with many issues they are dealing with as well.