Stay at home mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life is give and take, every choice has positives and negatives. Pick one you can live with. Its not like people are marrying young in teen years and can't think for themselves. Most people are marrying around 30 and are mature enough to make decisions.

This forum would say otherwise... After all, why are there all these unhappily married people on here if they made good decisions?

I feel like people marrying late make worse decisions as they are driven by fear of missing out, have limited choices and are more set in their independent ways so merging lives is frustrating and gets worse after kids.

You think 30's is marrying late? I don't. I would love for people to have to state their stats when they post. I'm curious how many of these unhappy people married younger versus older.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the standard is now that you work FT and handle all logistics, planning etc.

I don’t recommend having kids unless you go in with eyes wide open about this.

Even if your husband is supportive of you staying home, it’s a terrible move because it places you in a precarious position.

^^This. You need to realize, OP, that you are competing with women who will provide to a man all the benefits of SAHM (bear the mental load, handle all the newborn stuff while healing from a major medical event, clean, caretake, be first line of defense when kid is sick) and also be pulling in a few hundred Ks of salary. How do you market yourself to be more attractive than that?

Are women really competing to marry men like this? Why would anyone put up with this if they were capable of pulling in a few hundred KS of salary? At that point it makes absolute sense to me to save and plan for single parenthood ( as a PP suggested) while remaining open to finding the right partner.

I have no idea - I would have never gotten married or had kids with my husband if the deal hadn't been that we would both be 50% caretakers of the kids. Even at the beginning we did bottle feeding so he could participate. No way would I work the same amount of hours and make the same amount of money only to do more around the house or with the kids. Why anyone signs up for that deal is beyond me.

My spouse and I also split things evenly. I did take on more in the beginning because I chose to breastfeed but in the grand scheme it's not a big deal. We have two boys so, for instance, he does all swim practices so we don't have to wait in line for the family changing rooms.

I'm happy with our setup, neither of us has to work crazy hours and we both get to be involved parents.

who found the swim lessons options and who chose and booked the one you're in? just curious.

Curious too. I don’t even care if household chores are split 50/50 or not. The things that grind me down are the finding all the doctors; setting up all the appointments at appropriate times that work for everyone; keeping up with when the kids need new shoes, lunchboxes, backpacks, haircuts, underwear, etc; taking the pulse on everyone’s emotions before/during/after any changes and adjusting things to appropriately support the kids; making sure the house is stocked in food, cleaning supplies, paper products; planning and buying everything for all birthday parties plus making the guest list and sending invites; meal planning around 4 people’s preferences and needs; ensuring the kids are doing the appropriate amount of music or sports and researching all those and signups and uniform and equipment purchases and maintenance; fostering emotional intimacy with and support for my kids and learning about their friends and who they are becoming and checking in regularly about any issues; keeping informed on their academics and reading the 1,000s of emails from schools lest we miss some opportunities that I also must sign them up for and pay for; getting the house ready for any and all entertaining or guests; teaching my kids how to develop good habits in eating, sleep, studying, friendships; and I could think of a zillion more things.

I would happily do all laundry, cleaning, and cooking if the rest were shared 50/50. But men in general completely check out of thinking about anyone but themselves when they look at the big picture. My DH can’t be bothered to give AF about my emotional wellbeing or goals and dreams, why would he do that for his kids?

I think what you're missing is that a 50/50 split doesn't mean you do trash and I do laundry, you do dogs and I do Christmas shopping. It's that this week there are things that will take 20 hours to do, whether those things are physical labor (i.e. mowing the lawn) or mental labor (i.e. researching in-network PT options). We will each do 10 hours of work to get all the things done. And it's not a weekly thing, some weeks one of us is doing more than the other and vice versa, but it's fine because we know the other isn't looking to shirk responsibility. We're a team.

The operative question is whether both partners have the proverbial list/ticker tape going through their minds about what needs to be done, or whether only one partner maintains that ongoing mental list and tasks the other partner with handling certain items from it.

The very maintenance of the ongoing list and initiating whatever it is that is necessary to get things done is work that most men do not do.

It just seems so inefficient to have two people running two ticker tapes about all the same things at the same time. Having two different “lists” doesn’t make things inequitable. Surely a division of labor, clear ownership, and delegation of tasks on each list as required makes the most sense.

If your partner has to tell you what to do, then you are not really a partner.

It's not inefficient to have multiple people running ticker tapes about what needs to be done. The mental lists do not need to overlap and indeed should probably not overlap. But an adult in a partnership who is responsible for a family needs to have their own list of responsibilities, with ownership from conception.

???

If DH asks me to not water the garden on Tuesday because he’s fertilizing the lawn. I just say OK and don’t water that day. I don’t keep track of his weird fertilize the lawn schedule, but I’m grateful that he has one and I cooperate with him on his plan. That’s being a partner too!

Okay. But he’s in charge of the lawn, and you are occasionally helping out. You aren’t doing half.

Are we expecting 50/50 in EVERYTHING? That certainly is a choice…[to make yourself miserable]

The people who want to argue that all men suck will always pick at this and argue about each of you doing half of everything. It's missing the point but they can't acknowledge that some men are wonderful and equal partners and that some women are actually happily married so they have to pick at whatever you say in order to try and shoot it down. Even the person who said that they know many men who are involved got show down by some "study" that says that most men aren't like that, which also misses the point.

Why do you put the word "study" in quotation marks? Is that your attempt to discredit the existence of legitimate studies done by reputable institutions?

https://www.powershealth.org/about-us/newsroom/health-library/2024/12/30/moms-take-on-70-of-mental-load-for-household-tasks-study

https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/the-unseen-inequity-of-cognitive-labor

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12893982/

[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:Unfortunately the standard is now that you work FT and handle all logistics, planning etc.

I don’t recommend having kids unless you go in with eyes wide open about this.

Even if your husband is supportive of you staying home, it’s a terrible move because it places you in a precarious position.

^^This. You need to realize, OP, that you are competing with women who will provide to a man all the benefits of SAHM (bear the mental load, handle all the newborn stuff while healing from a major medical event, clean, caretake, be first line of defense when kid is sick) and also be pulling in a few hundred Ks of salary. How do you market yourself to be more attractive than that?

Are women really competing to marry men like this? Why would anyone put up with this if they were capable of pulling in a few hundred KS of salary? At that point it makes absolute sense to me to save and plan for single parenthood ( as a PP suggested) while remaining open to finding the right partner.

It’s not that they are knowingly competing for it. The engrained societal expectation is that most women work and handle everything or most things related to kids and the home. If you’re fortunate you’ll have a DH who takes on some tasks but he will do 30-40% of it max and you’ll need to assign him responsibilities. All the mental load will fall on you. Most young women in the marriage market aren’t aware of this. Ignorance is bliss until you’re a FT mom with young kids or you’re earning $0 because you had kids.

A few years ago I posted on here that I didn’t see how I could keep working my high earning/demanding job and have the second child my husband demanded. I shared my husband earns around $500k which could have influenced the responses attacking me. The consensus was that I’m unreasonable and my husband should/will leave me if I insist on quitting my job to have the second child. Some comments went as far to say my DH should find someone else to replace me and gladly work while having two young kids.

The sad reality is that most women don’t have the income to properly support a family on their own. Some do, but most do not. A man is still a ticket to more income and income to support the kids.

Stop telling people this because it makes them think that they have no choice but to marry losers like this. It just isn't true that there aren't any good men out there.

Also, if your husband is DEMANDING that you have a second child, your husband is an AH, I don't know what else to tell you. But guess what? Some of us aren't married to men who only do the bare minimum or who need to be assigned responsibilities and we sure as hell aren't married to men who would demand that we have another child.

Young women reading this - if you want to marry a man like OP who will agree that you should stay at home, that is fine, just be sure that you find one who is on board with that, because not all men are. And if you want to marry a man who will agree to do his half of childcare and house management because you both work, that is also fine, just be sure you find one who is on board with that, because not all men are. But don't settle and marry some loser who will demand that you have kids and then not help with them. It would be better to be single and childless than to be married to someone like that. Bottom line - know what you want, make it clear, and be picky. This is the rest of your life and your children's lives that you are signing up for. It should not be a decision to be taken lightly.

Women on here claim to have husbands doing 50/50. But I’ve never actually seen this in real life. While dads do a lot more than previous generations, it’s still the moms I know throwing birthday parties, handling sick days, planning the family vacations etc. Even when the DW is the higher earner. Almost all studies support this.

It’s disingenuous to act as though men doing 50% really is the norm.

Ok so what's your suggestion? That women just settle for men who don't do their share?

I don't know why you're calling me (or any of the other PPs) liars, but my husband does do 50%, actually maybe more than that if I'm being generous. One of our kids is in PT (they're in middle school now so sick days are a thing of the past) and he has been the one to take her to the last 8 appointments. I have only done 1. I know other men who do at least half. One of our best friends works, his wife does only very part-time, he also drives the kid more, cleans the house, and plans everything. His wife is subject to migraines and he is a Type A who does well with lots of tasks.

If it's not the norm for men to do half (and I never said it was the norm, by the way), then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. But telling women to just suck it up and marry these losers doesn't seem like a good answer to me. It's certainly not what I'm advising my own daughters (I don't have sons).

Most men I know take kids to appointments. The problem is you have to manage the appointments. They won’t make annual appointments or think to take the kid to the dentist. They don’t submit forms to schools. You’re not mentioning the planning and invisible labor. Your spouse is doing the visible stuff like most men.

+1

The real work lies in the conception and planning. The execution of tasks is the least of it.

Yes and my husband and many men I know take
Ownership of the conception and planning of may things that are required in a family.

That's great. According to studies however, most men do not do this.

Most of the men I know do this. The point is PICK BETTER MEN.

Stats do show millennial men are spending way more time with their kids than previous generations.

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/millennials-and-fatherhood

I'm a millennial and very involved Dads are the norm in my peer group.

That's a start, but doesn't address the issues discussed in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I both work, he's doing more of the chores and childcare right now because I'm 8 months pregnant with our second and I've reached the uncomfortable and always tired stage. With our first I handled the vast majority of night wake ups because I chose to breastfeed.

I of course handled all the house stuff when his mom got sick and he was with her for her surgeries and chemo.

It's not a constant bean counting thing, you have to be a team.

+1000

Your point also goes to the OP, which is that you need to be with someone who agrees to work with you on life. Guaranteed you'll be thrown a curveball or two, so the point to OP is that you need to find someone who understands your feelings on something but is also flexible enough to handle changes to that. I would never marry someone who said they would never let their wife work or they would definitely want a SAHM. Too many things could happen that could change that scenario, and being married to someone who has one rigid idea of how things go is a recipe for disaster.

I'm a woman who'd never be a SAHM, because my mom was and I experienced what happens as a kid when your Dad gets diagnosed with brain cancer and all of a sudden your SAHM has to scramble to figure out working so you don't lose the house. My sister was just a baby when this happened. My grandmother helped us out to the extent she could. Dad ended up okay but it could have gone differently.

Life really does throw curveballs, you can't plan for everything but I at least can make sure I'm not in that position.

Ha! I became a SAHM (or worked very part time anyway) for kind of a similar reason. My cousin died when her kids were in elementary school, and they had this whole community of people that stepped up and made sure that they didn’t fall behind at school and still got to their extracurriculars and everything. I was working at the time and felt like I didn’t know anyone who also knew my kids and family. There just wasn’t enough time to devote to those relationships. I took a few years and built up our network of friends and family that were involved in our lives and involved with our kids.

Are you saying others should raise your kids when you are not able to provide for them in case of your husband's death? This is the crazier s..t I've ever read on this forum

+1

Bizarre

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry for your heartbreak. I think it’s for the best. I sympathize with your sentiment but I think it’s very hard for most people to realize just how much parenthood changes their lives. there might be room for compromise too- what if you went part time and had a part time nanny? You might actually prefer that and it’s a safer option in one way as sahms can get screwed if they leave the workplace entirely and struggle if forced to re-enter. We chose this route but it meant we bought a house on one salary and with 20% down to give ourselves the wiggle room. That meant a modest house in an exurb. Make sure you are willing to sacrifice the ‘dream house in north bethesda’ scenario and see if he’s willing to. Good luck. Also, I met my spouse at 35 and we have three kids so you still have a chance.

+1

It is generally *extremely* risky to be fully and 100% out of the workforce. There are things you lose that may not even occur to you right now (someone who can write you a reference letter, access to other adults and adult conversation, ramifications of 0$ income years for Social Security..).

Even a super low-paying 1x a week gig doing something is valuable, bc you never know. You may also find that your view on this changes when you’re in it. Plus - it can be helpful to have a physical “space” or sphere to go to outside your home where your non-parenting skills are valued and where you are staying current on basic tech and job skills, etc.

(And I say this as someone who fully believes that parenting is its own valuable and full-time job!)

Are you scrappy as a person, in other ways? Can you be flexible/proactive about planning contingencies and considering the above? I think you’re in a stronger position if you state to someone that your preference is SAHM, but you’re aware of the risks and planning/thinking accordingly and generally able to pivot if needed.

Life will throw unexpected things at you. I’d be wary of anyone saying they want to be SAHP but then not expressing proactive planning + flexibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I both work, he's doing more of the chores and childcare right now because I'm 8 months pregnant with our second and I've reached the uncomfortable and always tired stage. With our first I handled the vast majority of night wake ups because I chose to breastfeed.

I of course handled all the house stuff when his mom got sick and he was with her for her surgeries and chemo.

It's not a constant bean counting thing, you have to be a team.

+1000

Your point also goes to the OP, which is that you need to be with someone who agrees to work with you on life. Guaranteed you'll be thrown a curveball or two, so the point to OP is that you need to find someone who understands your feelings on something but is also flexible enough to handle changes to that. I would never marry someone who said they would never let their wife work or they would definitely want a SAHM. Too many things could happen that could change that scenario, and being married to someone who has one rigid idea of how things go is a recipe for disaster.

I'm a woman who'd never be a SAHM, because my mom was and I experienced what happens as a kid when your Dad gets diagnosed with brain cancer and all of a sudden your SAHM has to scramble to figure out working so you don't lose the house. My sister was just a baby when this happened. My grandmother helped us out to the extent she could. Dad ended up okay but it could have gone differently.

Life really does throw curveballs, you can't plan for everything but I at least can make sure I'm not in that position.

Ha! I became a SAHM (or worked very part time anyway) for kind of a similar reason. My cousin died when her kids were in elementary school, and they had this whole community of people that stepped up and made sure that they didn’t fall behind at school and still got to their extracurriculars and everything. I was working at the time and felt like I didn’t know anyone who also knew my kids and family. There just wasn’t enough time to devote to those relationships. I took a few years and built up our network of friends and family that were involved in our lives and involved with our kids.

Are you saying others should raise your kids when you are not able to provide for them in case of your husband's death? This is the crazier s..t I've ever read on this forum

No…I’m saying that if I die, my bereaved husband and children will have a community of people around to love and support them.

I never questioned whether or not I could handle everything if my husband died!

And that establishing that community just in case something happened was a reason to SAH with your kids?

🤯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I both work, he's doing more of the chores and childcare right now because I'm 8 months pregnant with our second and I've reached the uncomfortable and always tired stage. With our first I handled the vast majority of night wake ups because I chose to breastfeed.

I of course handled all the house stuff when his mom got sick and he was with her for her surgeries and chemo.

It's not a constant bean counting thing, you have to be a team.

+1000

Your point also goes to the OP, which is that you need to be with someone who agrees to work with you on life. Guaranteed you'll be thrown a curveball or two, so the point to OP is that you need to find someone who understands your feelings on something but is also flexible enough to handle changes to that. I would never marry someone who said they would never let their wife work or they would definitely want a SAHM. Too many things could happen that could change that scenario, and being married to someone who has one rigid idea of how things go is a recipe for disaster.

I'm a woman who'd never be a SAHM, because my mom was and I experienced what happens as a kid when your Dad gets diagnosed with brain cancer and all of a sudden your SAHM has to scramble to figure out working so you don't lose the house. My sister was just a baby when this happened. My grandmother helped us out to the extent she could. Dad ended up okay but it could have gone differently.

Life really does throw curveballs, you can't plan for everything but I at least can make sure I'm not in that position.

Insurance policies can cover dire situations. Sah, for my family, was worth the risk of the types of disaster scenarios pps have brought out. Being with my young children every day and being there before and after school and to care for them when they were sick means more to me and dh than any amount of money. This isn't a knock on anyone else's choices. We both felt having an at home parent was our top priority and the best way to ensure our children grew up in the home and family we desired for them. That is what we valued the most. It went well and the kids are great.

Insurance only goes so far, unfortunately. I remember a horrible moment where my Dad pointed out that we had Insurance for if he died but the insurance didn't remotely cover the cost of "Dad's brain isn't working".

The pressure on my Dad and the horrible feeling of failure he had when he couldn't fill that role through no fault of his own. I never want anyone I love to feel like that.

That sounds traumatic for the whole family. Fortunately, brain cancer is rare and my family made it through my being home without any major financial distress. My father also had a life altering medical emergency and condition starting when I was 11. I was traumatized by that, for sure. It is also part of the reason I wanted to spend every day with my young kids. I would do it again.

I mean it goes both ways. Mom working means Dad gets to spend more time with the kids too.

I don’t think this is very common

Actually it is an established fact that fathers with working spouses consistently spend more time on child care than those with stay-at-home partners.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4568757/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I both work, he's doing more of the chores and childcare right now because I'm 8 months pregnant with our second and I've reached the uncomfortable and always tired stage. With our first I handled the vast majority of night wake ups because I chose to breastfeed.

I of course handled all the house stuff when his mom got sick and he was with her for her surgeries and chemo.

It's not a constant bean counting thing, you have to be a team.

+1000

Your point also goes to the OP, which is that you need to be with someone who agrees to work with you on life. Guaranteed you'll be thrown a curveball or two, so the point to OP is that you need to find someone who understands your feelings on something but is also flexible enough to handle changes to that. I would never marry someone who said they would never let their wife work or they would definitely want a SAHM. Too many things could happen that could change that scenario, and being married to someone who has one rigid idea of how things go is a recipe for disaster.

I'm a woman who'd never be a SAHM, because my mom was and I experienced what happens as a kid when your Dad gets diagnosed with brain cancer and all of a sudden your SAHM has to scramble to figure out working so you don't lose the house. My sister was just a baby when this happened. My grandmother helped us out to the extent she could. Dad ended up okay but it could have gone differently.

Life really does throw curveballs, you can't plan for everything but I at least can make sure I'm not in that position.

Insurance policies can cover dire situations. Sah, for my family, was worth the risk of the types of disaster scenarios pps have brought out. Being with my young children every day and being there before and after school and to care for them when they were sick means more to me and dh than any amount of money. This isn't a knock on anyone else's choices. We both felt having an at home parent was our top priority and the best way to ensure our children grew up in the home and family we desired for them. That is what we valued the most. It went well and the kids are great.

Insurance only goes so far, unfortunately. I remember a horrible moment where my Dad pointed out that we had Insurance for if he died but the insurance didn't remotely cover the cost of "Dad's brain isn't working".

The pressure on my Dad and the horrible feeling of failure he had when he couldn't fill that role through no fault of his own. I never want anyone I love to feel like that.

That sounds traumatic for the whole family. Fortunately, brain cancer is rare and my family made it through my being home without any major financial distress. My father also had a life altering medical emergency and condition starting when I was 11. I was traumatized by that, for sure. It is also part of the reason I wanted to spend every day with my young kids. I would do it again.

I mean it goes both ways. Mom working means Dad gets to spend more time with the kids too.

I don’t think this is very common

Actually it is an established fact that fathers with working spouses consistently spend more time on child care than those with stay-at-home partners.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4568757/

Yes, Dads may want a more equal set up because they want to parent more. Nothing wrong with that.

My spouse would have to take a job that requires significant travel at OT to even make up a fraction of my income. No coaching little league, no dinner with the kids every night, no bedtime dance parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I both work, he's doing more of the chores and childcare right now because I'm 8 months pregnant with our second and I've reached the uncomfortable and always tired stage. With our first I handled the vast majority of night wake ups because I chose to breastfeed.

I of course handled all the house stuff when his mom got sick and he was with her for her surgeries and chemo.

It's not a constant bean counting thing, you have to be a team.

+1000

Your point also goes to the OP, which is that you need to be with someone who agrees to work with you on life. Guaranteed you'll be thrown a curveball or two, so the point to OP is that you need to find someone who understands your feelings on something but is also flexible enough to handle changes to that. I would never marry someone who said they would never let their wife work or they would definitely want a SAHM. Too many things could happen that could change that scenario, and being married to someone who has one rigid idea of how things go is a recipe for disaster.

I'm a woman who'd never be a SAHM, because my mom was and I experienced what happens as a kid when your Dad gets diagnosed with brain cancer and all of a sudden your SAHM has to scramble to figure out working so you don't lose the house. My sister was just a baby when this happened. My grandmother helped us out to the extent she could. Dad ended up okay but it could have gone differently.

Life really does throw curveballs, you can't plan for everything but I at least can make sure I'm not in that position.

Ha! I became a SAHM (or worked very part time anyway) for kind of a similar reason. My cousin died when her kids were in elementary school, and they had this whole community of people that stepped up and made sure that they didn’t fall behind at school and still got to their extracurriculars and everything. I was working at the time and felt like I didn’t know anyone who also knew my kids and family. There just wasn’t enough time to devote to those relationships. I took a few years and built up our network of friends and family that were involved in our lives and involved with our kids.

Are you saying others should raise your kids when you are not able to provide for them in case of your husband's death? This is the crazier s..t I've ever read on this forum

No…I’m saying that if I die, my bereaved husband and children will have a community of people around to love and support them.

I never questioned whether or not I could handle everything if my husband died!

And that establishing that community just in case something happened was a reason to SAH with your kids?

🤯

Yes. I mean, it’s nice to have a community for a variety of reasons, but this is one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I both work, he's doing more of the chores and childcare right now because I'm 8 months pregnant with our second and I've reached the uncomfortable and always tired stage. With our first I handled the vast majority of night wake ups because I chose to breastfeed.

I of course handled all the house stuff when his mom got sick and he was with her for her surgeries and chemo.

It's not a constant bean counting thing, you have to be a team.

+1000

Your point also goes to the OP, which is that you need to be with someone who agrees to work with you on life. Guaranteed you'll be thrown a curveball or two, so the point to OP is that you need to find someone who understands your feelings on something but is also flexible enough to handle changes to that. I would never marry someone who said they would never let their wife work or they would definitely want a SAHM. Too many things could happen that could change that scenario, and being married to someone who has one rigid idea of how things go is a recipe for disaster.

I'm a woman who'd never be a SAHM, because my mom was and I experienced what happens as a kid when your Dad gets diagnosed with brain cancer and all of a sudden your SAHM has to scramble to figure out working so you don't lose the house. My sister was just a baby when this happened. My grandmother helped us out to the extent she could. Dad ended up okay but it could have gone differently.

Life really does throw curveballs, you can't plan for everything but I at least can make sure I'm not in that position.

Ha! I became a SAHM (or worked very part time anyway) for kind of a similar reason. My cousin died when her kids were in elementary school, and they had this whole community of people that stepped up and made sure that they didn’t fall behind at school and still got to their extracurriculars and everything. I was working at the time and felt like I didn’t know anyone who also knew my kids and family. There just wasn’t enough time to devote to those relationships. I took a few years and built up our network of friends and family that were involved in our lives and involved with our kids.

Are you saying others should raise your kids when you are not able to provide for them in case of your husband's death? This is the crazier s..t I've ever read on this forum

No…I’m saying that if I die, my bereaved husband and children will have a community of people around to love and support them.

I never questioned whether or not I could handle everything if my husband died!

And that establishing that community just in case something happened was a reason to SAH with your kids?

🤯

Yes. I mean, it’s nice to have a community for a variety of reasons, but this is one of them.

Working parents have a strong community too. One of my son's closest friends is the daughter of one of my work friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life is give and take, every choice has positives and negatives. Pick one you can live with. Its not like people are marrying young in teen years and can't think for themselves. Most people are marrying around 30 and are mature enough to make decisions.

This forum would say otherwise... After all, why are there all these unhappily married people on here if they made good decisions?

I feel like people marrying late make worse decisions as they are driven by fear of missing out, have limited choices and are more set in their independent ways so merging lives is frustrating and gets worse after kids.

You think 30's is marrying late? I don't. I would love for people to have to state their stats when they post. I'm curious how many of these unhappy people married younger versus older.

Early 30's, no but later, yes. That's not my opinion, biology dictates our chronology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I both work, he's doing more of the chores and childcare right now because I'm 8 months pregnant with our second and I've reached the uncomfortable and always tired stage. With our first I handled the vast majority of night wake ups because I chose to breastfeed.

I of course handled all the house stuff when his mom got sick and he was with her for her surgeries and chemo.

It's not a constant bean counting thing, you have to be a team.

+1000

Your point also goes to the OP, which is that you need to be with someone who agrees to work with you on life. Guaranteed you'll be thrown a curveball or two, so the point to OP is that you need to find someone who understands your feelings on something but is also flexible enough to handle changes to that. I would never marry someone who said they would never let their wife work or they would definitely want a SAHM. Too many things could happen that could change that scenario, and being married to someone who has one rigid idea of how things go is a recipe for disaster.

I'm a woman who'd never be a SAHM, because my mom was and I experienced what happens as a kid when your Dad gets diagnosed with brain cancer and all of a sudden your SAHM has to scramble to figure out working so you don't lose the house. My sister was just a baby when this happened. My grandmother helped us out to the extent she could. Dad ended up okay but it could have gone differently.

Life really does throw curveballs, you can't plan for everything but I at least can make sure I'm not in that position.

Ha! I became a SAHM (or worked very part time anyway) for kind of a similar reason. My cousin died when her kids were in elementary school, and they had this whole community of people that stepped up and made sure that they didn’t fall behind at school and still got to their extracurriculars and everything. I was working at the time and felt like I didn’t know anyone who also knew my kids and family. There just wasn’t enough time to devote to those relationships. I took a few years and built up our network of friends and family that were involved in our lives and involved with our kids.

Are you saying others should raise your kids when you are not able to provide for them in case of your husband's death? This is the crazier s..t I've ever read on this forum

+1

Bizarre

If you loose a partner, you don't have as much time or energy to raise them anyway as an only breadwinner. Often with two live and earning parents, most don't have more than two hours before kids go to sleep and parents also have to do chores in same hours and have little energy left so not quality time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life is give and take, every choice has positives and negatives. Pick one you can live with. Its not like people are marrying young in teen years and can't think for themselves. Most people are marrying around 30 and are mature enough to make decisions.

This forum would say otherwise... After all, why are there all these unhappily married people on here if they made good decisions?

I feel like people marrying late make worse decisions as they are driven by fear of missing out, have limited choices and are more set in their independent ways so merging lives is frustrating and gets worse after kids.

You think 30's is marrying late? I don't. I would love for people to have to state their stats when they post. I'm curious how many of these unhappy people married younger versus older.

Early 30's, no but later, yes. That's not my opinion, biology dictates our chronology.

Then...you didn't read? The post said marrying around 30, which implies late 20's to early 30's. That was the age being discussed. You said then that people marrying late blah blah blah and now you just said people marrying in early 30's aren't marrying late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I both work, he's doing more of the chores and childcare right now because I'm 8 months pregnant with our second and I've reached the uncomfortable and always tired stage. With our first I handled the vast majority of night wake ups because I chose to breastfeed.

I of course handled all the house stuff when his mom got sick and he was with her for her surgeries and chemo.

It's not a constant bean counting thing, you have to be a team.

+1000

Your point also goes to the OP, which is that you need to be with someone who agrees to work with you on life. Guaranteed you'll be thrown a curveball or two, so the point to OP is that you need to find someone who understands your feelings on something but is also flexible enough to handle changes to that. I would never marry someone who said they would never let their wife work or they would definitely want a SAHM. Too many things could happen that could change that scenario, and being married to someone who has one rigid idea of how things go is a recipe for disaster.

I'm a woman who'd never be a SAHM, because my mom was and I experienced what happens as a kid when your Dad gets diagnosed with brain cancer and all of a sudden your SAHM has to scramble to figure out working so you don't lose the house. My sister was just a baby when this happened. My grandmother helped us out to the extent she could. Dad ended up okay but it could have gone differently.

Life really does throw curveballs, you can't plan for everything but I at least can make sure I'm not in that position.

Insurance policies can cover dire situations. Sah, for my family, was worth the risk of the types of disaster scenarios pps have brought out. Being with my young children every day and being there before and after school and to care for them when they were sick means more to me and dh than any amount of money. This isn't a knock on anyone else's choices. We both felt having an at home parent was our top priority and the best way to ensure our children grew up in the home and family we desired for them. That is what we valued the most. It went well and the kids are great.

Insurance only goes so far, unfortunately. I remember a horrible moment where my Dad pointed out that we had Insurance for if he died but the insurance didn't remotely cover the cost of "Dad's brain isn't working".

The pressure on my Dad and the horrible feeling of failure he had when he couldn't fill that role through no fault of his own. I never want anyone I love to feel like that.

That sounds traumatic for the whole family. Fortunately, brain cancer is rare and my family made it through my being home without any major financial distress. My father also had a life altering medical emergency and condition starting when I was 11. I was traumatized by that, for sure. It is also part of the reason I wanted to spend every day with my young kids. I would do it again.

I mean it goes both ways. Mom working means Dad gets to spend more time with the kids too.

I don’t think this is very common

Actually it is an established fact that fathers with working spouses consistently spend more time on child care than those with stay-at-home partners.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4568757/

Yes, Dads may want a more equal set up because they want to parent more. Nothing wrong with that.

My spouse would have to take a job that requires significant travel at OT to even make up a fraction of my income. No coaching little league, no dinner with the kids every night, no bedtime dance parties.

+1 we can both have jobs with work-life balance (and still have a decent HHI) because we both work

[Anonymous]

I caution people to see that any number of factors (age of marriage, dual or single income, work with long hours versus work life balance, mother versus father as equal or imbalanced parents...) are still very individual scenarios. You could say certain combos are detrimental but there will always be plenty of people making that combo work best for their family. Others would be very unhappy with the situations you claim as ideal. Personalities, relationships, kids needs, goals, opportunities and privilege differ enough that there is no best prescription for winning at life.

Even when you have seen a lot of anecdotal evidence in your community the flipside outcomes might be prevalent elsewhere. I wish I had been more thoughtful about all of that when I made choices in reaction to how I was raised as my set up is so much more privileged and my parents were just different people and their successes are more obvious with age, while I focused more on their failures in my youth