Not sure I can handle another three years of husband's career

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
See, here is the thing. OP does not represent the USG. Her husband does. She is just a spouse.

Every American outside the US represents America. People who travel to places they think of as "sh*&tholes" exude a kind of ugly American attitude that the world is better off without. If OP really feels that way about the next assignment, then it's better for her to stay in the US and develop her own life and meet her husband for several times a year for a week or so at a time.

I don't know why someone would join the foreign service or marry a person in the foreign service and not expect to have to face the choice to travel to these assignments or endure family separations. It's part of the job. If your husband was a firefighter, would you complain that he has to sleep at the station when he was on duty? People join the foreign service thinking it's some kind of roving cocktail party. It's not. It's a service branch. And the US taxpayer doesn't owe you a cushy posting in Paris.

Easy to say, but still hard. Spouses need support. Many spouses (like me) married before the overseas posts came along. The US government provides little to no support for overseas spouses. It's hard and frequently you can't work. It's not an easy job and you give up your career to provide support to your spouse.

[Anonymous]

And your country! Remember, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

[Anonymous]

Agreeing to worldwide availability isn't the same as being front and center volunteering to go to those places.

Her DH is putting together his bid list. If they send him someplace less desirable, that's one thing. OP is in a situation where her DH wants to go someplace less desirable rather than making top 3 on the bid list places that might be more developed, first world, etc. He might bid Paris, Rome and Geneva but still get sent to Oagadagou because that's the reality of worldwide availability and going where they send you. That's different than choosing to bid Kinshasha, Bishkek and Baghdad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
See, here is the thing. OP does not represent the USG. Her husband does. She is just a spouse.

Every American outside the US represents America. People who travel to places they think of as "sh*&tholes" exude a kind of ugly American attitude that the world is better off without. If OP really feels that way about the next assignment, then it's better for her to stay in the US and develop her own life and meet her husband for several times a year for a week or so at a time.

I don't know why someone would join the foreign service or marry a person in the foreign service and not expect to have to face the choice to travel to these assignments or endure family separations. It's part of the job. If your husband was a firefighter, would you complain that he has to sleep at the station when he was on duty? People join the foreign service thinking it's some kind of roving cocktail party. It's not. It's a service branch. And the US taxpayer doesn't owe you a cushy posting in Paris.

Easy to say, but still hard. Spouses need support. Many spouses (like me) married before the overseas posts came along. The US government provides little to no support for overseas spouses. It's hard and frequently you can't work. It's not an easy job and you give up your career to provide support to your spouse.

Yes. Life is Hard. Families in the military face hardship too. People who never leave the US face hardships. I don't know what "married before the overseas posts came" means? Was your DH in the FS before you married? If so, then why did you marry if you didn't want this lifestyle? If your DH didn't join the FS until after marriage, then you and he had ample opportunity to consider the lifestyle before joining. Did you have a non-mobile career before your spouse entered the FS or your married? Why did your family choose entry then, if your career was so important to you? What did you choose to do when you realized your original career choice didn't really translate overseas but you still wanted to continue your relationship? Did you develop any alternatives?

No one gets press-ganged into the FS. I agree that it's hard on spouses. I support anyone who wants to work to pressure the DoS to do better by spouses. But, it's also on the spouses to figure out their own lives. You do NOT have to give up a career to provide support to a spouse. Many dual FS couples I know have great careers and chose postings alternately. Or, one in/one out couples, the second couple has chosen a career that is mobile -- with the second of the pair being in UN or NGO work, or teaching, or writing/editing, or the arts, or whatever. In some ways it's easier, because these hardship postings offer the opportunity to get a LOT of inexpensive support during the early child-raising years. It becomes trickier when the kids are school age, particularly MS and HS, but careful planning helps as well as a willingness to separate (wife and husband in separate countries or kids at boarding school). Some couples I know spend significant time away from each other, and that's not a disaster either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreeing to worldwide availability isn't the same as being front and center volunteering to go to those places.

Her DH is putting together his bid list. If they send him someplace less desirable, that's one thing. OP is in a situation where her DH wants to go someplace less desirable rather than making top 3 on the bid list places that might be more developed, first world, etc. He might bid Paris, Rome and Geneva but still get sent to Oagadagou because that's the reality of worldwide availability and going where they send you. That's different than choosing to bid Kinshasha, Bishkek and Baghdad.

+1
Also, OP has apparently lived in undesirable places for many years. I dont get PPs lecture, as if this is OPs first post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreeing to worldwide availability isn't the same as being front and center volunteering to go to those places.

Her DH is putting together his bid list. If they send him someplace less desirable, that's one thing. OP is in a situation where her DH wants to go someplace less desirable rather than making top 3 on the bid list places that might be more developed, first world, etc. He might bid Paris, Rome and Geneva but still get sent to Oagadagou because that's the reality of worldwide availability and going where they send you. That's different than choosing to bid Kinshasha, Bishkek and Baghdad.

+1
Also, OP has apparently lived in undesirable places for many years. I dont get PPs lecture, as if this is OPs first post.

Exactly! Marriage is a partnership and she's compromised with other assignments. At his level, he can get a decent post if he really wants to. Trust.

[Anonymous]

FSO here. Decent post is all relative. As PPs have pointed out there are pluses and minuses to serving in any post, whether it is the developed or in the developing world and it is all generally in the eye of the beholder. Some people, both spouses and FSOs, thrive on the opportunities offered at posts that are not in the developed world. Others do not. The latter, however, should then be questioning their commitment to a career in the Foreign Service.

One of the balancing acts my DW and I had to deal with are the prospects for spousal employment overseas. In general, we have found the posts in the less developed countries to offer job opportunities for my DW to be better than what we would find in Western Europe. My DW at almost every post has ended up working in well paid, professional jobs with USAID or with USAID contractors, and has been easily able to transfer that work back to Washington when we have come back for state-side assignments. She is also very flexible. You need that in order to do well in the FS life.

The other balancing act has been education, and that has generally been at the forefront of a lot of our assignment decisions. We had one DD attend boarding school for the last three years of high school. Our other DD attended school at our last African posting, which had an excellent school. Both girls grew up with what I see are the advantages of so-called "third culture kids," which I think gave them a tremendous advantage not only in life experience and education, but in attractiveness to recruitment by U.S. colleges and universities. Our oldest DD graduated college two years ago and is working for a large international company overseas as a junior manager. Our other daughter will be completing her studies soon at an SLAC. She has not yet decided on a career path, but I am sure she will do something extraordinary. They have led extraordinary lives for their age, are extremely adaptable and truly broad-minded with true cross - cultural skills that will serve them well going forward in life. My DW and I would not trade the experience that we have had in the FS.

That being said, as another PP pointed out, we FSOs are not indispensable and that FS will easily replace us tomorrow if we quit. When I joined we had a counselor who did two things. 1) She told us to remember that the Department does not care about you. You need to look out for yourself and your family interests; and 2) she had write on a piece of paper why we joined the FS and what we hoped to get out of it. The point of this was to have something to remind us why we were doing what we were doing when we were bogged down in the s**t, so to speak. I still have mine. It is framed on the wall in my office. I am here to "serve my country and see the world while doing so."

I have found that the FS perfectly fits my personality. I want to experience life. The most important things to me are not how much stuff I accumulate, how big a house I have or the kind of car I drive. I want to be able to look back on my life and say it was well-lived: that I did something I felt was important and that I had fun doing it.

Good luck OP!

[Anonymous]

Just want to say that the suggestion that DH goes alone involves a risk. In three years, there can be lots of growing apart. Then just when they are ready to reap the benefits of retiring together they might not be together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FSO here. Decent post is all relative. As PPs have pointed out there are pluses and minuses to serving in any post, whether it is the developed or in the developing world and it is all generally in the eye of the beholder. Some people, both spouses and FSOs, thrive on the opportunities offered at posts that are not in the developed world. Others do not. The latter, however, should then be questioning their commitment to a career in the Foreign Service.

One of the balancing acts my DW and I had to deal with are the prospects for spousal employment overseas. In general, we have found the posts in the less developed countries to offer job opportunities for my DW to be better than what we would find in Western Europe. My DW at almost every post has ended up working in well paid, professional jobs with USAID or with USAID contractors, and has been easily able to transfer that work back to Washington when we have come back for state-side assignments. She is also very flexible. You need that in order to do well in the FS life.

The other balancing act has been education, and that has generally been at the forefront of a lot of our assignment decisions. We had one DD attend boarding school for the last three years of high school. Our other DD attended school at our last African posting, which had an excellent school. Both girls grew up with what I see are the advantages of so-called "third culture kids," which I think gave them a tremendous advantage not only in life experience and education, but in attractiveness to recruitment by U.S. colleges and universities. Our oldest DD graduated college two years ago and is working for a large international company overseas as a junior manager. Our other daughter will be completing her studies soon at an SLAC. She has not yet decided on a career path, but I am sure she will do something extraordinary. They have led extraordinary lives for their age, are extremely adaptable and truly broad-minded with true cross - cultural skills that will serve them well going forward in life. My DW and I would not trade the experience that we have had in the FS.

That being said, as another PP pointed out, we FSOs are not indispensable and that FS will easily replace us tomorrow if we quit. When I joined we had a counselor who did two things. 1) She told us to remember that the Department does not care about you. You need to look out for yourself and your family interests; and 2) she had write on a piece of paper why we joined the FS and what we hoped to get out of it. The point of this was to have something to remind us why we were doing what we were doing when we were bogged down in the s**t, so to speak. I still have mine. It is framed on the wall in my office. I am here to "serve my country and see the world while doing so."

I have found that the FS perfectly fits my personality. I want to experience life. The most important things to me are not how much stuff I accumulate, how big a house I have or the kind of car I drive. I want to be able to look back on my life and say it was well-lived: that I did something I felt was important and that I had fun doing it.

Good luck OP!

Thanks for the lecture. OP and her husband are 3 yrs from retirement - not exactly a point to "question one's commitment to a career in foreign service", as you so wisely advised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just want to say that the suggestion that DH goes alone involves a risk. In three years, there can be lots of growing apart. Then just when they are ready to reap the benefits of retiring together they might not be together.

Yes, but if DH is loving his career and wanting to make this move and OP is not and has the attitude that she has spent her life following her husband around and has never had a chance for her own life/career, then I would say that there is a lot of danger in their marriage already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, PP. I'm a FSO and different strokes for different folks. I know folks who LOVE to stay in Africa while others opt to stay primarily in EUR. Hardship posts are rough if you're the type like me who love the city life, public transportation, Western convenience, etc. I'm in a hardship post now and while I love it, I had to work hard to make it work. I decided that I'm done with anymore posts requiring that my family take malaria pills or where kidnappings of Americans are common or weekend trips can be cancelled because of political unrest. Money isn't as important to everyone as it is to you. Being unhappy for three years is a HUGE cost to pay. You don't get that time back.

Get off your high horse.

"City life, public transportation, Western convenience, etc." describes about 20% of the planet. Why on earth would you choose the Foreign Service when the life you like is not available in the majority of postings the FS offers? And, I agree that being unhappy is a HUGE cost to pay, but the more important question is why did you choose a career that requires you to be so often in places that don't feed your personal needs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, PP. I'm a FSO and different strokes for different folks. I know folks who LOVE to stay in Africa while others opt to stay primarily in EUR. Hardship posts are rough if you're the type like me who love the city life, public transportation, Western convenience, etc. I'm in a hardship post now and while I love it, I had to work hard to make it work. I decided that I'm done with anymore posts requiring that my family take malaria pills or where kidnappings of Americans are common or weekend trips can be cancelled because of political unrest. Money isn't as important to everyone as it is to you. Being unhappy for three years is a HUGE cost to pay. You don't get that time back.

Get off your high horse.

"City life, public transportation, Western convenience, etc." describes about 20% of the planet. Why on earth would you choose the Foreign Service when the life you like is not available in the majority of postings the FS offers? And, I agree that being unhappy is a HUGE cost to pay, but the more important question is why did you choose a career that requires you to be so often in places that don't feed your personal needs?

How is this relevant? It's all water under the bridge. OP sucked it up for many years (not a career she chose, but still supported as a part of marriage) and would now like her husband to go to a nicer place, if possible. She is not dogmatic about it. I am not sure if it is one or two PPs who keep bringing patriotic/FS loyalty into the discussion where it is totally irrelevant. OP "paid her dues", this is a relationship discussion, not a career/politics one.

[Anonymous]

This is OP. My DH is eligible to retire in 3 years. He will be 55. Most likely we would do this tour and then come back to the States for one more tour before he retires. That would enable us to maximize his "high three" for retirement purposes.

I have not regretted one day of my life with DH or with much of our life in the FS. It is not a hard life, but it is hard living. Overall, like the PP who talks about his and his DW's experiences, I pretty much concur. I guess, though, it is just starting to wear on me a little bit at this point. What I cannot stand - and I have seen these - are the FSOs who are just miserable but won't quit and find something else to do. My DH was private sector before joining the FS. Unlike some of his younger colleagues who joined the FS right out of college, he knows that there is a larger life out there in the working world beyond the FS and has never been afraid of being able to find a job elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Who says First World/Third World anymore? Serious ick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who says First World/Third World anymore? Serious ick.

Please. I come from "developing world" (not "third world") and people there use it all the time. Just because its not cool anymore doesn't mean it's useless or even rare.