You shouldn't be refuting me, you should be refuting the person who very clearly said she calibrates her family's life around her husband's so he can earn a million dollars a year. There was zero mention of quality of life. |
Well first of all, my point simply was that it's a rational decision. You might not make it but it's understandable why other people do. Especially if they don't have family money to fall back on and instead have to build their net worth entirely on their own. Secondly, in some fields, I don't think it's so simple as making a choice between money on one side and quality time on the other. My husband works in finance. As he becomes more senior in his company, he has more responsibility but he also has more flexibility. He's proven himself. He doesn't have to put so much face time in at the office anymore. He can come and go as he pleases to attend events at the kids' schools or leave early on a Friday afternoon to get a earlier flight for a vacation, etc. |
yeah but you're forgetting that in community property states you split assets acquired during the marriage. In states where fault comes into play, the wronged wife can walk away with more than 50%. I mean, I'm assuming we're all talking about very privileged people here with millions of dollars in assets. |
This entire paradigm always perpetuates the success and support of the husband. You talk yourself into knots trying to justify or rationalize your decisions, but I'm not asking you to. It's clear that you want to stay at home--so that's great. This post is about women who don't really want to make that decision, but nevertheless find themselves struggling to achieve a work-life balance because their husband is on some trajectory to make a lot more money or travel more. HIS energy towards work simply cannot be compromised, so women become the default for giving up their own career ambitions. I am just trying to get people to see beyond what they have already rationalized for themselves. Let's imagine a paradigm inversion, in which dads are shamed for having career ambitions, or can attend school events without having to prove himself at work first. |
What you are talking about is unrealistic for families. Sorry, I should say MOST families. MOST families can't handle the stress of having two parents who both work 50-65 hour weeks and travel frequently. That's just the reality of dealing with time constraints and the needs of dependent children. Some families can make it work because they have an unusually dependable nanny or a grandma who moves in but those situations are something of a unicorn. Look at all the posts on here complaining about lacking a village. So then couples start looking at the numbers. If one parent has to scale back, it makes sense to choose the person who will earn less. In many cases (many but not all) it is the man who is on track to earn more. Anyway, people aren't telling her to give up work. She has choices. She can go part time, she can hire more out, she can try being a SAHM. It's not all or nothing. Aside from that, she ASKED for people to who have been in her situation to share their stories. So that's what people have been doing. And you are attacking them for sharing their personal details, which again, is what the OP asked for. You obviously have an agenda against SAHMs so I'm not sure what you're even doing in this post. |
I have no ill will towards SAHMs. It's the patriarchy that I disdain. We've normalized the inequality in the workforce, and now it's just a fact that "the man is on track to earn more." This is what troubles me. The OP and moms like her to make some tough "choices," while her spouse doesn't have to. I wish this wasn't the norm. Also, it's just not helpful to suggest that I'm "attacking" you. If you're looking for drama, pick up a romance novel. |
NP. Take a step back and read what she’s saying. She is not attacking SAHMs. She is saying that OPs husband and men like him pushing women who don’t want to SAH are bullshit. If you WANT to SAHM, great! If you don’t and your husband makes it impossible for you to work because he is so very important and what you want doesn’t matter, boo! That’s all. |
If you love being a SAH and have retirement fully set up ( full funded at the time of SAH , in other words, financially set regardless if husband dies or divorce you) , then be it.
If this is not in your passion, then both of you need to sit down and discuss the need of three sides : the husband, wife kid. Husband is not a single man anymore. He can not just one decided that he will dedicate to his career / more money without considering the need of his family ( you and his kid) . He is a dad so he need s to man up and think about his responsible to his kid as well( not just financially) . If he refuse to hear you thoughts and Doaa soon now,?, then it will be worse when you are a SAH, relying on him to financially support you. Nightmare! |
That may be but realize that you're not talking to the "patriarchy" in here though. It's all women. So you're essentially blaming the victims. |
No. She asked why couples sometimes prioritize the man's career over the woman's. I answered. Money. Frequently in these situations (and the OP's seems to fall into this as well) the man is on track to earn a sh*t ton of money if he is able to throw most of his energy at work and doesn't need to work around sick kids or unable to travel, etc. So they say ok he will do that and the wife will take care of the house and kid(s). They think about all that they can offer their kids with more money. If OP doesn't want to do that, she doesn't have to. She has options, which people have laid out for her. Hire help, go part time, try SAH for a year. She is also free to leave her husband if he is a workaholic who refuses to work less. That is an option as well. |
Wow. All bragging with no useful information for the OP AND a swipe at other women. What an a** you are. |
My experience, for what it's worth:
I NEVER thought I'd SAH. And I remember the exact moment I realized I might end up doing just that, and I remember clearly the horror and shame that I felt. I had been so ambitious in my career, and there were so many parts of it that I loved. And yet... My DH clearly loved his career more than I loved mine, and I saw how happy it made him, and I was jealous. His career also paid way more generously, with the potential for serious wealth, whereas mine never would. And slowly I realized that although I did love aspects of my career, I also loved being with my children all day (not everyone does, and that's okay) and doing all sorts of little domestic tasks. I'm sure I could have been happy if I'd kept working, but not working has made our family life so much more relaxed. My DH would not have stayed in his career had I not quit my job, and he regularly credits how (relatively!) stress-free our life is to my choice to stay home. It also helped his career take off, and now we are reaping the financial benefits. In total I've been a SAHM for almost 10 years, through 3 kids. I would like to work part-time in a couple years, but I would always like to be able to pick the kids up from school, take them to doctors appointments, volunteer for field trips, and be the one who stays home on sick and snow days, so I know my future career is still going to be limited. But, I wouldn't trade it for anything. It was the right choice, for me. Kids grow up so fast. Everyone regrets something, and there are times when I long for a career, but (for me) I'd rather long for a career than long for more time with my children. It has to be a choice you and your DH make together, though. Don't feel like you MUST stay home because DH refuses to scale back. That's a recipe for resentment. It's important, as a SAHM, to feel appreciated by your spouse. Also, it's important to know that NOTHING IS PERMANENT. I never ever ever thought I'd be home for 10 years. Every year I reevaluated. And I think doing so helped me feel in control. Good luck! |
+ 1 I wish these anti SAHMs understood. Very few men post on this web site at all, let alone in random parenting posts with topics headed "Unexpected SAHM." |
The patriarchy is not simply an audience of men. It is systemic in that it normalizes inequality, especially in the workforce. Men, on average, can work extra hours and not feel societal pressure to obtain a "work-life" balance. Indeed, they are often celebrated for showing up to basic childhood events like recitals and games. Women, on average, feel more pressure in the workforce with less guarantee of promotion. They continue to do more work at home, and take on the majority of childcare duties. So, the choice to stay at home often looks "rational." Often it does take career stress of the mother--but that doesn't mean the entire process was somehow rational. If it were rational, then a more equal number of men and women would stay at home in support of the working spouse. Please stop interpreting any commentary about structural inequality as victim blaming or attacking SAHM. You can really enjoy your life and be satisfied with your decisions, AND ALSO see that the system is rigged against mothers. |
Reducing people to being "anti-SAHM" is pretty disingenuous and superficial. |