Husbands with SAHMs that prefer they work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not bashing SAHM but I wonder sometimes why any woman would want to be so vulnerable to be in the position of being a SAHM. If you have skills and 10yrs go by you will have to fight tooth and nail to get them back and get back out there. Marriages end and they end often so why throw all your eggs in one basket and hope for the best. Women with children need to be able to fend for themselves with or with out a husband/boyfriend and being a SAHM is a very vulnerable position to be in even if wealthy.

Some women don't mind being vulnerable and some men simultaneously don't mind the responsibility of providing for a family. Not saying there is an objective correct answer to issue, but I wonder why people go into marriage while hedging against the possibility that the relationship won't go bad. Prudent? Yes, but can total trust exist without vulnerability?

Well if you run the numbers it isn't worth the risk. Even if the stats aren't correct that 50% or all first marriages end in divorce that is a hell of a chance you take with yourself and potentially your children.

Teasing the data out on this question is nearly impossible. Divorce rate for college educated couples is very low, but then you would need to adjust for college educated couples with stay at home moms.

But there is a more significant problem: if you really think there is a serious risk that things aren't going to work out with your spouse to the extent that you could seriously end up in a bad position post-divorce, why would you ever have a kid with that person. "I don't trust you enough to quit my job but I do trust you enough to have kids with you."

Doesn't make sense to me.

That is unbelievably naïve statement.
Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are the SAHM bashers being so nasty in here? I'll believe you if you say it's not jealous IF you give me a logical explanation for what it actually is. Why do you care so much to call other people "indolent," "lazy," "useless," "leeches" akin to "welfare queens," etc.? I'm really curious.

Because after everything women have been through, it's pretty disgusting see educated women with so many opportunities give it all up to live off a man. I could stay home million times over, but I don't want my boys to see me making daddy a martini while he brings in the bucks. We both work, we both take care of our kids, and we are a family of equals.

Too bad for you that you seem to think that that would be the default dynamic between you and your DH should you find yourself out of a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not bashing SAHM but I wonder sometimes why any woman would want to be so vulnerable to be in the position of being a SAHM. If you have skills and 10yrs go by you will have to fight tooth and nail to get them back and get back out there. Marriages end and they end often so why throw all your eggs in one basket and hope for the best. Women with children need to be able to fend for themselves with or with out a husband/boyfriend and being a SAHM is a very vulnerable position to be in even if wealthy.

Some women don't mind being vulnerable and some men simultaneously don't mind the responsibility of providing for a family. Not saying there is an objective correct answer to issue, but I wonder why people go into marriage while hedging against the possibility that the relationship won't go bad. Prudent? Yes, but can total trust exist without vulnerability?

Well if you run the numbers it isn't worth the risk. Even if the stats aren't correct that 50% or all first marriages end in divorce that is a hell of a chance you take with yourself and potentially your children.

Teasing the data out on this question is nearly impossible. Divorce rate for college educated couples is very low, but then you would need to adjust for college educated couples with stay at home moms.

But there is a more significant problem: if you really think there is a serious risk that things aren't going to work out with your spouse to the extent that you could seriously end up in a bad position post-divorce, why would you ever have a kid with that person. "I don't trust you enough to quit my job but I do trust you enough to have kids with you."

Doesn't make sense to me.

Because there are things that can go wrong beyond divorce. My husband could get into an accident. He could die suddenly. He could get laid off and be an industry where getting new employment is challenging at best. Any number of things outside his and my control could lead to him no longer being able to bring in money. And some of those possibilities don't include the possibility of a hefty insurance pay out.

[Anonymous]

So who all does the primary care of your children 0-3?
Daycare?
Nannies?
Relatives?
Friends?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not bashing SAHM but I wonder sometimes why any woman would want to be so vulnerable to be in the position of being a SAHM. If you have skills and 10yrs go by you will have to fight tooth and nail to get them back and get back out there. Marriages end and they end often so why throw all your eggs in one basket and hope for the best. Women with children need to be able to fend for themselves with or with out a husband/boyfriend and being a SAHM is a very vulnerable position to be in even if wealthy.

Some women don't mind being vulnerable and some men simultaneously don't mind the responsibility of providing for a family. Not saying there is an objective correct answer to issue, but I wonder why people go into marriage while hedging against the possibility that the relationship won't go bad. Prudent? Yes, but can total trust exist without vulnerability?

Well if you run the numbers it isn't worth the risk. Even if the stats aren't correct that 50% or all first marriages end in divorce that is a hell of a chance you take with yourself and potentially your children.

Teasing the data out on this question is nearly impossible. Divorce rate for college educated couples is very low, but then you would need to adjust for college educated couples with stay at home moms.

But there is a more significant problem: if you really think there is a serious risk that things aren't going to work out with your spouse to the extent that you could seriously end up in a bad position post-divorce, why would you ever have a kid with that person. "I don't trust you enough to quit my job but I do trust you enough to have kids with you."

Doesn't make sense to me.

Because there are things that can go wrong beyond divorce. My husband could get into an accident. He could die suddenly. He could get laid off and be an industry where getting new employment is challenging at best. Any number of things outside his and my control could lead to him no longer being able to bring in money. And some of those possibilities don't include the possibility of a hefty insurance pay out.

Um, the commenter who mentioned the weird logic of having kids with someone you don't fully trust was responding to another PP who brought up the divorce issue. She was referring to WOHMs who insist on staying in the workforce and keep the possibility of divorce at the center of their thought process on the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not bashing SAHM but I wonder sometimes why any woman would want to be so vulnerable to be in the position of being a SAHM. If you have skills and 10yrs go by you will have to fight tooth and nail to get them back and get back out there. Marriages end and they end often so why throw all your eggs in one basket and hope for the best. Women with children need to be able to fend for themselves with or with out a husband/boyfriend and being a SAHM is a very vulnerable position to be in even if wealthy.

Some women don't mind being vulnerable and some men simultaneously don't mind the responsibility of providing for a family. Not saying there is an objective correct answer to issue, but I wonder why people go into marriage while hedging against the possibility that the relationship won't go bad. Prudent? Yes, but can total trust exist without vulnerability?

Well if you run the numbers it isn't worth the risk. Even if the stats aren't correct that 50% or all first marriages end in divorce that is a hell of a chance you take with yourself and potentially your children.

Teasing the data out on this question is nearly impossible. Divorce rate for college educated couples is very low, but then you would need to adjust for college educated couples with stay at home moms.

But there is a more significant problem: if you really think there is a serious risk that things aren't going to work out with your spouse to the extent that you could seriously end up in a bad position post-divorce, why would you ever have a kid with that person. "I don't trust you enough to quit my job but I do trust you enough to have kids with you."

Doesn't make sense to me.

Because there are things that can go wrong beyond divorce. My husband could get into an accident. He could die suddenly. He could get laid off and be an industry where getting new employment is challenging at best. Any number of things outside his and my control could lead to him no longer being able to bring in money. And some of those possibilities don't include the possibility of a hefty insurance pay out.

Still doesn't make sense. If you're afraid of all of the bad things outside of your control that could happen to you that could leave your life in shambles, why have kids? You just upped the downside of bad life outcomes signicantly while only marginally mitigating that risk by working and having children.

Stated differently, if life is too risky to rely on just one income it sure as hell is too risky to have kids.

My point is that if the chiice to continue to work is a rational one, then why not be rational and forgo children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So who all does the primary care of your children 0-3?
Daycare?
Nannies?
Relatives?
Friends?

Well, on DCUM, all dual working parent households are happy and well balanced places. Childcare is always top notch and what is best for the child, whether it be a nanny or daycare. Men and women spilt housework evenly because they all have flexible jobs which allow them plenty of quality time with their children, who aren't suffering at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are the SAHM bashers being so nasty in here? I'll believe you if you say it's not jealous IF you give me a logical explanation for what it actually is. Why do you care so much to call other people "indolent," "lazy," "useless," "leeches" akin to "welfare queens," etc.? I'm really curious.

Because after everything women have been through, it's pretty disgusting see educated women with so many opportunities give it all up to live off a man. I could stay home million times over, but I don't want my boys to see me making daddy a martini while he brings in the bucks. We both work, we both take care of our kids, and we are a family of equals.

Too bad for you that you seem to think that that would be the default dynamic between you and your DH should you find yourself out of a job.

It isn't literal, but I don't expect you to grasp any kind of nuance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who all does the primary care of your children 0-3?
Daycare?
Nannies?
Relatives?
Friends?

Well, on DCUM, all dual working parent households are happy and well balanced places. Childcare is always top notch and what is best for the child, whether it be a nanny or daycare. Men and women spilt housework evenly because they all have flexible jobs which allow them plenty of quality time with their children, who aren't suffering at all.

And that actually exists without a woman becoming a dependent! Isn't it fascinating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are the SAHM bashers being so nasty in here? I'll believe you if you say it's not jealous IF you give me a logical explanation for what it actually is. Why do you care so much to call other people "indolent," "lazy," "useless," "leeches" akin to "welfare queens," etc.? I'm really curious.

Because after everything women have been through, it's pretty disgusting see educated women with so many opportunities give it all up to live off a man. I could stay home million times over, but I don't want my boys to see me making daddy a martini while he brings in the bucks. We both work, we both take care of our kids, and we are a family of equals.

Too bad for you that you seem to think that that would be the default dynamic between you and your DH should you find yourself out of a job.

It isn't literal, but I don't expect you to grasp any kind of nuance.

You just misused the word "nuance".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who all does the primary care of your children 0-3?
Daycare?
Nannies?
Relatives?
Friends?

Well, on DCUM, all dual working parent households are happy and well balanced places. Childcare is always top notch and what is best for the child, whether it be a nanny or daycare. Men and women spilt housework evenly because they all have flexible jobs which allow them plenty of quality time with their children, who aren't suffering at all.

Hence, the high rate of high school drinking parties and then driving in Montgomery and Fairfax Counties, not to mention rampant depression and drug use. And the resulting suicides... It's awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who all does the primary care of your children 0-3?
Daycare?
Nannies?
Relatives?
Friends?

Well, on DCUM, all dual working parent households are happy and well balanced places. Childcare is always top notch and what is best for the child, whether it be a nanny or daycare. Men and women spilt housework evenly because they all have flexible jobs which allow them plenty of quality time with their children, who aren't suffering at all.

Hence, the high rate of high school drinking parties and then driving in Montgomery and Fairfax Counties, not to mention rampant depression and drug use. And the resulting suicides... It's awful.

The parents of those kids must not be DCUM posters. Nothing slips through the cracks in a dual working parent DCUM household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who all does the primary care of your children 0-3?
Daycare?
Nannies?
Relatives?
Friends?

Well, on DCUM, all dual working parent households are happy and well balanced places. Childcare is always top notch and what is best for the child, whether it be a nanny or daycare. Men and women spilt housework evenly because they all have flexible jobs which allow them plenty of quality time with their children, who aren't suffering at all.

Hence, the high rate of high school drinking parties and then driving in Montgomery and Fairfax Counties, not to mention rampant depression and drug use. And the resulting suicides... It's awful.

The parents of those kids must not be DCUM posters. Nothing slips through the cracks in a dual working parent DCUM household.

Wait ... So now kids commit auicide because their parents work? Are you really suggesting that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/upshot/mounting-evidence-of-some-advantages-for-children-of-working-mothers.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are the SAHM bashers being so nasty in here? I'll believe you if you say it's not jealous IF you give me a logical explanation for what it actually is. Why do you care so much to call other people "indolent," "lazy," "useless," "leeches" akin to "welfare queens," etc.? I'm really curious.

Because after everything women have been through, it's pretty disgusting see educated women with so many opportunities give it all up to live off a man. I could stay home million times over, but I don't want my boys to see me making daddy a martini while he brings in the bucks. We both work, we both take care of our kids, and we are a family of equals.

Too bad for you that you seem to think that that would be the default dynamic between you and your DH should you find yourself out of a job.

It isn't literal, but I don't expect you to grasp any kind of nuance.

Lol what (not that poster). Synonym for nuance = subtlety. Is that easier for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who all does the primary care of your children 0-3?
Daycare?
Nannies?
Relatives?
Friends?

Well, on DCUM, all dual working parent households are happy and well balanced places. Childcare is always top notch and what is best for the child, whether it be a nanny or daycare. Men and women spilt housework evenly because they all have flexible jobs which allow them plenty of quality time with their children, who aren't suffering at all.

Hence, the high rate of high school drinking parties and then driving in Montgomery and Fairfax Counties, not to mention rampant depression and drug use. And the resulting suicides... It's awful.

The parents of those kids must not be DCUM posters. Nothing slips through the cracks in a dual working parent DCUM household.

Ha! In their dreams. They're either living it up at the office or at home on DCUM. The kids are raising themselves. All these kids need to do is demand what they want, and they get it. Skateboard, anyone? "Give him the damn skateboard!"

"Now let's put our feet up, and enjoy our kids."