How many women here divorced primarily due to imbalanced, unsustainable home workload?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see how divorce is going to solve your home workload problem. It will make it worse!

Not really for a few reasons in my case:

- a lot of the day to day resentment and lack of respect towards my clueless partner was gone

Losing your resentment and lack of respect ain't gonna get the dishes done or the floor vacuumed.

It made me 100% happier though. And I didn't have to waste time hoping to be seen or for 'help'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is one reason rich multi-generational household works so well. Grandparent generation coordinate the outsourced stuff to serve everyone. All family members can pitch in however much they can. The parents can continue working without interruption and the kids grow up surrounded with family.

Cleaning, laundry, cooking, grocery, chauffeuring, party planning and catering, home remodelling, nanny, tutoring, landscaping...there is someone to coordinate that.

Spoken like an Asian FOB. I’d rather work full time and do all of the above by myself than live with my Mother in law!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? I was firmly seated on the gravy train by my DH who begged me to quit to be a SAHM. He is a great dad and wanted the very best for our children. Even by outsourcing household work, having a nanny, doing his part, juggling tasks - he knew that our kids were not getting the best.

So, he made sure that I was economically secure forever, we had a whole lot of insurance, and we hired whatever staff we needed, so that I could find it worthwhile to be a SAHM. He has continued to be a very engaged DH and dad even after all that. Yes, we have not earned as much as we could but he is sure having the last laugh among his dual income buddies who are having relationship or parenting issues.

Been married 35 years. I haven't worked for 20 years. Never going back to work. He will retire in 4 more years.

Why divorce over imbalanced home workload? It is a staffing issue, is it not? Not a problem. It is an expense.

Some women want careers for reasons other than money, and who wants to be beholden financially to a spouse? It’s 2025.

You seem to be very confused about what marriage is. Marriage is mainly a social and legal contract for kids, family, legal status and finances.

Live together without marriage. You will not be beholden financially to the partner. Why marry?

Similarly, there is zero reason for most people to have kids. You can have a wonderful life as a childless person.

Good for those women who wanted careers for reasons other than money. I was not a doctor saving lives. I was basically working in corporate America and I was working for money. I am sure most women and men in this country will quit in a second if they win several millions in a lottery.

What I find very interesting is that all the women who want careers for reasons other than money are usually moms with children. And the reason they want careers for reasons other than money is that they can't stand looking after their kids.
Even the title of this thread is probably talking about married moms, rather than married women who are in DINK relationships.

See I think that whole screed was written by the woman’s husband anyway. Either way, this person has some heavy duty internalized misogyny. And this gem: “The reason they want careeers for reasons other than money is that they can’t stand looking after their kids.” At the very least, this latest post means you chose the wrong profession. AND if you are a woman, you married your husband because he had a few million as you equated it to winning the lottery.
- working mom who teachers prek in a public school (I love my job AND being home with my own kids). I would cut back on hours and work in a private preschool, but not quit working if I won the lottery.

Not the PP you are responding to, but you obviously enjoy your job. Most people don't. It's just that most people need to work to live. Your post also makes clear that you would like to work less to spend more time with your kids, but you don't because you need the money. But there are tons of people in this thread who would have more than enough to for one parent to stop working, and yet the parents keep working full time. It really strikes me that these people would rather have more money than more time together as a family. That is sad.

This is true. Many of us know that working is easier than watching children. There is a reason that men like to be out of the home and shirk household responsibilities. That’s great if you enjoy being a nanny/driver/chef, but many of us don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my job in basically that situation. It came down to one or the other and he was never going to make the professional changes. We were both in biglaw.

I don't get this Biglaw starts at 215k these days. So both of you were making atleast 500k, no.

With 100k in house help, you can pretty much outsource 75% of stuff. Why quit?

Things you can not outsource:

Mental accounting of you children. So, who reads the school emails and puts the necessary dates in the calendar? Who lines up day camps for the days they are off school? Who notices it's book fair week and puts money in the backpack? Who remembers the 5 year old needs a snack packed EVERY day? Who keeps track of what size clothing each of the kids wears? Who cleans out the drawers? Who buys the new clothes? Who makes sure they fit? Who figures out what to do with outgrown clothing? Who pays attention to summer camp registration? When it that? What weeks are we going on vacation? What week is their favorite camp held that they don't want to miss? When is the sign up for basketball? Do they need a well visit scheduled? Dentist? When was the last time we had a date night, I should book a sitter. Christmas is looming, time to start tracking what things the kids like and would enjoy. Time to book the special events and start planning visits and doing the gift buying.

AND ON AND ON.

You can outsource laundry and cleaning, sure. Food shopping, sort of. Cooking, maybe if you are very rich. But their is day to day minutia of running a house and having children that is NOT outsourceable, that often falls to moms. We are not better at this, but culturally we have been conditioned to do it. I just had a dad this morning, who is a lawyer, tell me he can't keep up with the school emails. It is not that hard to read the school emails! Do you ignore emails from co-workers? No, you read them, pull out what you need and delete. These are the same skills.

If you could outsource all of this, you are acknowledging that doing these things is A JOB, correct? A job that should pay money, right? So why is it only the mom's job? Men are capable, they just opt out. Women are screaming at the top of their lungs that they can't do it all and are desperate for help. And many men (not all!) will go rake the yard and then ask for a pat on the back. Do you see how that didn't address a single piece of the daily minutia?

It shouldn't be only moms who do it. My DH does, but he is maxed out salary wise at 200k, and I am just starting out after taking a mommy break.

You can bet that when we make a combined 500k and more, we are hiring a household manager to schedule camps, vacations, doctors' visits, pack snacks etc. We already talk about it. Lol.


I know female law firm partners who have household managers. It's actually crazy in your case to give up your career for a man who I'd that self centered. Well, unless you are independently wealthy.

10 years in biglaw later and I don’t know anyone who has actually realized your outsourcing fantasy. Maybe you know someone who found that kind of proactive help, but I don’t.

I honestly do know 2 big law female partners who have very effective household managers. I am surprised it's not more common.

At $30 per walk I cannot even find a dog walker who consistently walks the dog (they all consistently accept the pay, however!). Yet everyone thinks it's so easy to find an "amazing" nanny or household manager to do everything mom would do. Yeah, right....

I have a consistent dog walker for $25/walk. Also a full-time nanny who transitioned to house manager when the kids were in school full-time. Also a gardener. A car cleaning service. A house cleaning service. And somehow I've never had trouble managing or keeping any of them for over a decade.

Do you also work full-time? I do, and have trouble managing all of our help on top of my career and running the kids around (I have to divide and conquer with our nanny several nights).

Yes. I'm a lawyer and have always worked full time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? I was firmly seated on the gravy train by my DH who begged me to quit to be a SAHM. He is a great dad and wanted the very best for our children. Even by outsourcing household work, having a nanny, doing his part, juggling tasks - he knew that our kids were not getting the best.

So, he made sure that I was economically secure forever, we had a whole lot of insurance, and we hired whatever staff we needed, so that I could find it worthwhile to be a SAHM. He has continued to be a very engaged DH and dad even after all that. Yes, we have not earned as much as we could but he is sure having the last laugh among his dual income buddies who are having relationship or parenting issues.

Been married 35 years. I haven't worked for 20 years. Never going back to work. He will retire in 4 more years.

Why divorce over imbalanced home workload? It is a staffing issue, is it not? Not a problem. It is an expense.

Some women want careers for reasons other than money, and who wants to be beholden financially to a spouse? It’s 2025.

You seem to be very confused about what marriage is. Marriage is mainly a social and legal contract for kids, family, legal status and finances.

Live together without marriage. You will not be beholden financially to the partner. Why marry?

Similarly, there is zero reason for most people to have kids. You can have a wonderful life as a childless person.

Good for those women who wanted careers for reasons other than money. I was not a doctor saving lives. I was basically working in corporate America and I was working for money. I am sure most women and men in this country will quit in a second if they win several millions in a lottery.

What I find very interesting is that all the women who want careers for reasons other than money are usually moms with children. And the reason they want careers for reasons other than money is that they can't stand looking after their kids.
Even the title of this thread is probably talking about married moms, rather than married women who are in DINK relationships.

See I think that whole screed was written by the woman’s husband anyway. Either way, this person has some heavy duty internalized misogyny. And this gem: “The reason they want careeers for reasons other than money is that they can’t stand looking after their kids.” At the very least, this latest post means you chose the wrong profession. AND if you are a woman, you married your husband because he had a few million as you equated it to winning the lottery.
- working mom who teachers prek in a public school (I love my job AND being home with my own kids). I would cut back on hours and work in a private preschool, but not quit working if I won the lottery.

Not the PP you are responding to, but you obviously enjoy your job. Most people don't. It's just that most people need to work to live. Your post also makes clear that you would like to work less to spend more time with your kids, but you don't because you need the money. But there are tons of people in this thread who would have more than enough to for one parent to stop working, and yet the parents keep working full time. It really strikes me that these people would rather have more money than more time together as a family. That is sad.

This is true. Many of us know that working is easier than watching children. There is a reason that men like to be out of the home and shirk household responsibilities. That’s great if you enjoy being a nanny/driver/chef, but many of us don’t.

Then don't have kids

[Anonymous]

How many women here divorced primarily due to imbalanced, unsustainable home workload?

Lots. And definitely >90% of gray divorces (other 10% stuck it out for the children due to incapable adulterer husband)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? I was firmly seated on the gravy train by my DH who begged me to quit to be a SAHM. He is a great dad and wanted the very best for our children. Even by outsourcing household work, having a nanny, doing his part, juggling tasks - he knew that our kids were not getting the best.

So, he made sure that I was economically secure forever, we had a whole lot of insurance, and we hired whatever staff we needed, so that I could find it worthwhile to be a SAHM. He has continued to be a very engaged DH and dad even after all that. Yes, we have not earned as much as we could but he is sure having the last laugh among his dual income buddies who are having relationship or parenting issues.

Been married 35 years. I haven't worked for 20 years. Never going back to work. He will retire in 4 more years.

Why divorce over imbalanced home workload? It is a staffing issue, is it not? Not a problem. It is an expense.

Some women want careers for reasons other than money, and who wants to be beholden financially to a spouse? It’s 2025.

You seem to be very confused about what marriage is. Marriage is mainly a social and legal contract for kids, family, legal status and finances.

Live together without marriage. You will not be beholden financially to the partner. Why marry?

Similarly, there is zero reason for most people to have kids. You can have a wonderful life as a childless person.

Good for those women who wanted careers for reasons other than money. I was not a doctor saving lives. I was basically working in corporate America and I was working for money. I am sure most women and men in this country will quit in a second if they win several millions in a lottery.

What I find very interesting is that all the women who want careers for reasons other than money are usually moms with children. And the reason they want careers for reasons other than money is that they can't stand looking after their kids.
Even the title of this thread is probably talking about married moms, rather than married women who are in DINK relationships.

See I think that whole screed was written by the woman’s husband anyway. Either way, this person has some heavy duty internalized misogyny. And this gem: “The reason they want careeers for reasons other than money is that they can’t stand looking after their kids.” At the very least, this latest post means you chose the wrong profession. AND if you are a woman, you married your husband because he had a few million as you equated it to winning the lottery.
- working mom who teachers prek in a public school (I love my job AND being home with my own kids). I would cut back on hours and work in a private preschool, but not quit working if I won the lottery.

Not the PP you are responding to, but you obviously enjoy your job. Most people don't. It's just that most people need to work to live. Your post also makes clear that you would like to work less to spend more time with your kids, but you don't because you need the money. But there are tons of people in this thread who would have more than enough to for one parent to stop working, and yet the parents keep working full time. It really strikes me that these people would rather have more money than more time together as a family. That is sad.

This is true. Many of us know that working is easier than watching children. There is a reason that men like to be out of the home and shirk household responsibilities. That’s great if you enjoy being a nanny/driver/chef, but many of us don’t.

Then don't have kids

To be clear you mean if you know your husband will not and cannot pull his weight with raising children for 18+ years, then you advise the couple to not have kids. Correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? I was firmly seated on the gravy train by my DH who begged me to quit to be a SAHM. He is a great dad and wanted the very best for our children. Even by outsourcing household work, having a nanny, doing his part, juggling tasks - he knew that our kids were not getting the best.

So, he made sure that I was economically secure forever, we had a whole lot of insurance, and we hired whatever staff we needed, so that I could find it worthwhile to be a SAHM. He has continued to be a very engaged DH and dad even after all that. Yes, we have not earned as much as we could but he is sure having the last laugh among his dual income buddies who are having relationship or parenting issues.

Been married 35 years. I haven't worked for 20 years. Never going back to work. He will retire in 4 more years.

Why divorce over imbalanced home workload? It is a staffing issue, is it not? Not a problem. It is an expense.

Some women want careers for reasons other than money, and who wants to be beholden financially to a spouse? It’s 2025.

You seem to be very confused about what marriage is. Marriage is mainly a social and legal contract for kids, family, legal status and finances.

Live together without marriage. You will not be beholden financially to the partner. Why marry?

Similarly, there is zero reason for most people to have kids. You can have a wonderful life as a childless person.

Good for those women who wanted careers for reasons other than money. I was not a doctor saving lives. I was basically working in corporate America and I was working for money. I am sure most women and men in this country will quit in a second if they win several millions in a lottery.

What I find very interesting is that all the women who want careers for reasons other than money are usually moms with children. And the reason they want careers for reasons other than money is that they can't stand looking after their kids.
Even the title of this thread is probably talking about married moms, rather than married women who are in DINK relationships.

See I think that whole screed was written by the woman’s husband anyway. Either way, this person has some heavy duty internalized misogyny. And this gem: “The reason they want careeers for reasons other than money is that they can’t stand looking after their kids.” At the very least, this latest post means you chose the wrong profession. AND if you are a woman, you married your husband because he had a few million as you equated it to winning the lottery.
- working mom who teachers prek in a public school (I love my job AND being home with my own kids). I would cut back on hours and work in a private preschool, but not quit working if I won the lottery.

Not the PP you are responding to, but you obviously enjoy your job. Most people don't. It's just that most people need to work to live. Your post also makes clear that you would like to work less to spend more time with your kids, but you don't because you need the money. But there are tons of people in this thread who would have more than enough to for one parent to stop working, and yet the parents keep working full time. It really strikes me that these people would rather have more money than more time together as a family. That is sad.

This is true. Many of us know that working is easier than watching children.
TRUE. CEREBRAL DESK WORK IS EASIER THAN ACTIVELY TAKING CARE OF YOUR KIDS

There is a reason that men like to be out of the home and shirk household responsibilities.
THEY ARE SELFISH & LAZY & MISOGYNISTIC

That’s great if you enjoy being a nanny/ driver/ chef, but many of us don’t.
NO ONE DOES - UNLESS HIGHLY COMPENSATED & RESPECTED

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? I was firmly seated on the gravy train by my DH who begged me to quit to be a SAHM. He is a great dad and wanted the very best for our children. Even by outsourcing household work, having a nanny, doing his part, juggling tasks - he knew that our kids were not getting the best.

So, he made sure that I was economically secure forever, we had a whole lot of insurance, and we hired whatever staff we needed, so that I could find it worthwhile to be a SAHM. He has continued to be a very engaged DH and dad even after all that. Yes, we have not earned as much as we could but he is sure having the last laugh among his dual income buddies who are having relationship or parenting issues.

Been married 35 years. I haven't worked for 20 years. Never going back to work. He will retire in 4 more years.

Why divorce over imbalanced home workload? It is a staffing issue, is it not? Not a problem. It is an expense.

Some women want careers for reasons other than money, and who wants to be beholden financially to a spouse? It’s 2025.

You seem to be very confused about what marriage is. Marriage is mainly a social and legal contract for kids, family, legal status and finances.

Live together without marriage. You will not be beholden financially to the partner. Why marry?

Similarly, there is zero reason for most people to have kids. You can have a wonderful life as a childless person.

Good for those women who wanted careers for reasons other than money. I was not a doctor saving lives. I was basically working in corporate America and I was working for money. I am sure most women and men in this country will quit in a second if they win several millions in a lottery.

What I find very interesting is that all the women who want careers for reasons other than money are usually moms with children. And the reason they want careers for reasons other than money is that they can't stand looking after their kids.
Even the title of this thread is probably talking about married moms, rather than married women who are in DINK relationships.

See I think that whole screed was written by the woman’s husband anyway. Either way, this person has some heavy duty internalized misogyny. And this gem: “The reason they want careeers for reasons other than money is that they can’t stand looking after their kids.” At the very least, this latest post means you chose the wrong profession. AND if you are a woman, you married your husband because he had a few million as you equated it to winning the lottery.
- working mom who teachers prek in a public school (I love my job AND being home with my own kids). I would cut back on hours and work in a private preschool, but not quit working if I won the lottery.

Not the PP you are responding to, but you obviously enjoy your job. Most people don't. It's just that most people need to work to live. Your post also makes clear that you would like to work less to spend more time with your kids, but you don't because you need the money. But there are tons of people in this thread who would have more than enough to for one parent to stop working, and yet the parents keep working full time. It really strikes me that these people would rather have more money than more time together as a family. That is sad.

This is true. Many of us know that working is easier than watching children. There is a reason that men like to be out of the home and shirk household responsibilities. That’s great if you enjoy being a nanny/driver/chef, but many of us don’t.

Then don't have kids

To be clear you mean if you know your husband will not and cannot pull his weight with raising children for 18+ years, then you advise the couple to not have kids. Correct?

I mean if the parents would rather work than spend time with your kids because it is "easier", then don't have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is one reason rich multi-generational household works so well. Grandparent generation coordinate the outsourced stuff to serve everyone. All family members can pitch in however much they can. The parents can continue working without interruption and the kids grow up surrounded with family.

Cleaning, laundry, cooking, grocery, chauffeuring, party planning and catering, home remodelling, nanny, tutoring, landscaping...there is someone to coordinate that.

Have you been over to the Elder forum? Parents and in-laws have dementia, don't drive, need memory care, need Medicaid.
Or how about the Family forum? Parents and in-laws don't want to help with kids; want to be on phone or on Fox or nap. Expect to be served.

Yes, you are right. The rich multi-gen household works well for certain cultures only. The mainstream American families do not have the generational, cultural, familial scaffolding and bonds for this to work effectively. Family structures are too unstable and temporary for any one to feel deep bonding with family members.

Have you been to the all the relationship forums, money forums etc? Parents wonder how to take rent from their recent graduates who have moved back home. No one wants to sleep on the air mattress in their sibling's house at Thanksgiving. DILs basically hate their MILs for all reasons. Wives cannot stand their husbands.

[Anonymous]

Question - "How many women here divorced primarily due to imbalanced, unsustainable home workload?"

None. It is a staffing issue, not a relationship one. Not a problem, just an expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Title says it all. I’m not saying that there aren’t other contributing factors to issues in the marriage. But I look at the amount of work I do within the home and it’s simply not sustainable for the rest of my life. Husband does literally nothing in the house and refuses to see that it’s a real issue or do anything about it. The resentment is off the charts. And yes we are in couples therapy.

Yes. But the fact that I was doing most of the parenting/housework, paying the bills, providing the benefits, and still, no matter how much sex we had, he couldn't be satisfied, let to the resentment which led to his cheating which led to the divorce.

I am glad I'm divorced but if others can avoid it, I always hope they will find a way to stay married. Divorce just brings a new set of problems. But at least I don't have to s*ck the d*ck of a person who is making me so very angry all the time, just to try to keep the peace.

I'm glad you are out of that marriage.

I am still married in part because yes to a new set of problems. But I do not have sex with my DH anymore. I just really don't want to, and I have so much else on my plate. I can't make myself to have obligatory sex when I'm already doing so many things out of obligation. He doesn't push the issue which is on point in his favor. I don't think he's cheating. If I found out he was, I would primarily be angry at him for spending time, energy, and money on getting laid when he's slacking at work and at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? I was firmly seated on the gravy train by my DH who begged me to quit to be a SAHM. He is a great dad and wanted the very best for our children. Even by outsourcing household work, having a nanny, doing his part, juggling tasks - he knew that our kids were not getting the best.

So, he made sure that I was economically secure forever, we had a whole lot of insurance, and we hired whatever staff we needed, so that I could find it worthwhile to be a SAHM. He has continued to be a very engaged DH and dad even after all that. Yes, we have not earned as much as we could but he is sure having the last laugh among his dual income buddies who are having relationship or parenting issues.

Been married 35 years. I haven't worked for 20 years. Never going back to work. He will retire in 4 more years.

Why divorce over imbalanced home workload? It is a staffing issue, is it not? Not a problem. It is an expense.

Some women want careers for reasons other than money, and who wants to be beholden financially to a spouse? It’s 2025.

You seem to be very confused about what marriage is. Marriage is mainly a social and legal contract for kids, family, legal status and finances.

Live together without marriage. You will not be beholden financially to the partner. Why marry?

Similarly, there is zero reason for most people to have kids. You can have a wonderful life as a childless person.

Good for those women who wanted careers for reasons other than money. I was not a doctor saving lives. I was basically working in corporate America and I was working for money. I am sure most women and men in this country will quit in a second if they win several millions in a lottery.

What I find very interesting is that all the women who want careers for reasons other than money are usually moms with children. And the reason they want careers for reasons other than money is that they can't stand looking after their kids.
Even the title of this thread is probably talking about married moms, rather than married women who are in DINK relationships.

See I think that whole screed was written by the woman’s husband anyway. Either way, this person has some heavy duty internalized misogyny. And this gem: “The reason they want careeers for reasons other than money is that they can’t stand looking after their kids.” At the very least, this latest post means you chose the wrong profession. AND if you are a woman, you married your husband because he had a few million as you equated it to winning the lottery.
- working mom who teachers prek in a public school (I love my job AND being home with my own kids). I would cut back on hours and work in a private preschool, but not quit working if I won the lottery.

Not the PP you are responding to, but you obviously enjoy your job. Most people don't. It's just that most people need to work to live. Your post also makes clear that you would like to work less to spend more time with your kids, but you don't because you need the money. But there are tons of people in this thread who would have more than enough to for one parent to stop working, and yet the parents keep working full time. It really strikes me that these people would rather have more money than more time together as a family. That is sad.

This is true. Many of us know that working is easier than watching children. There is a reason that men like to be out of the home and shirk household responsibilities. That’s great if you enjoy being a nanny/driver/chef, but many of us don’t.

Then don't have kids

To be clear you mean if you know your husband will not and cannot pull his weight with raising children for 18+ years, then you advise the couple to not have kids. Correct?

I mean if the parents would rather work than spend time with your kids because it is "easier", then don't have kids.

+1 and that goes for both parents.

Also, the pp's characterization of parenting as "being a nanny/driver/chef" is inherently problematic. They are defining caring for children by the jobs they would pay other people to outsource this work into. But playing with your own toddler is not "being a nanny." Making dinner for your own family is not "being a chef." Driving family members who are incapable of transporting themselves to school, appointments, and activities is not "being a chauffeur."

The PP doesn't understand that her dismissal of care work and menial labor stems from misogyny and classism. Men don't do that kind of work, unless they are poor, so it must be boring, unimportant, and of little value, right? Better to go work in an office making phone calls, sending emails, and going to meetings. That is inherently more "interesting" and "rewarding" because it is work that men do.

I'm not saying women shouldn't work. I work. But when women put down childcare and household work the way the PP did, they are contributing to a social dynamic that will perpetuate these inequalities. The answer is for men to participate in this work, for all members of society to see taking care of children an homes as valuable work, and to both *want* to participate in it (because it matters and is meaningful) and to value other people who do it.

When you look at countries with the most equal divisions of household labor, they highly value children and families and view time at home, keeping a pleasant home, and caring for children as some of the most important things a person of any gender can do with their lives.

The US doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question - "How many women here divorced primarily due to imbalanced, unsustainable home workload?"

None. It is a staffing issue, not a relationship one. Not a problem, just an expense.

I'm all for outsourcing for cooking, cleaning, landscaping, etc but that's only part of it.

A housekeeper doesn’t fix the mental load, the planning, the remembering, the emotional labor, or the resentment that builds when one person is treated like the default parent or manager of all the things.

Calling it “just an expense” is a lazy way to avoid accountability. And yeah, it’s a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question - "How many women here divorced primarily due to imbalanced, unsustainable home workload?"

None. It is a staffing issue, not a relationship one. Not a problem, just an expense.

I'm all for outsourcing for cooking, cleaning, landscaping, etc but that's only part of it.

A housekeeper doesn’t fix the mental load, the planning, the remembering, the emotional labor, or the resentment that builds when one person is treated like the default parent or manager of all the things.

Calling it “just an expense” is a lazy way to avoid accountability. And yeah, it’s a problem.

As a counterpoint, I am the default pare t and manager of all things, but DH makes about 3x what I make, and works really hard (on his computer at 4 am most days), so I don't mind. If we earned the same and I was the default parent and manager of all things, I would be resentful.