SAHM’s - anyone successfully convince DH to support their staying home long term?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are more at risk when you are young. The older you are, the more assets you have accumulated and also the more likely you are to get alimony.

Did you read? Even when you get alimony, it’s not enough to live on. Unless you’re married to a gazillionaire, you better continue working to protect yourself.

I am not sure “working to protect yourself” isn’t a wholly depressing way to go about life though. I don’t know that, even if something were to happen to my husband, I would trade the days I’ve had with my daughter away to be in an office so I’d be more financially stable in a hypothetical future. I say this from a place of relative privilege because I have family assets and a degree that would support me and my daughter comfortably if I did need to, but I can’t imagine going to work every day thinking “I’m sacrificing time with my child so if my husband leaves me I’m in a marginally better financial position”

A) it’s not a marginally better financial position, B) it’s not an either/or.

Having kept my career I have a low six figure income that will be mine regardless plus benefits and employee contributions to retirement. Should anything happen, god forbid, I will be able to support myself and the kids. Having that security is priceless.

As for time with your kids, the years they are home are very, very short. I WAH for the first year of my baby’s lives and effectively had leave so I could nurse on demand and see their milestones. I had enough seniority so my hours were flexible and I could spend time with them in the toddler years, take them to classes in the morning or come home to eat lunch with them, end work at 4 and work once they were in bed. Nannies handled nap time. It was a good mix of time to myself and feeling connected to them. Due to COVID I’ve been WAH again since my youngest was 3. Loved spending that time with her, but at the same time realized over this last year and a half that I’m not cut out to stay at home. By age 4 they are in preschool most of the day and after that with school I don’t miss a thing — I can flex my schedule to pick them up after school.

It’s been an ideal balance for me and it has taken a lot of juggling and coordinating. A few times when they were babies I wondered if I could handle it all, and really felt that pull not to split my energy. But now that they are in school there’s very little conflict for me and I’m so glad I didn’t quit as I love my work. Giving up your whole life due to arrangements that last a few years doesn’t make sense.

First, your situation is not the norm. It sounds like you had kids relatively late and well into your career, and that your career has a lot of flexibility available. Not everyone is in this position.

Second, that may have been a good balance for you, but lots of women don't want to miss out on anything in the early years. I mean, in their toddler years, most of the day was with a nanny. So maybe that was great for you, but lots of moms feel that that is missing critical and irreplaceable time with the kids. Not to mention, just because kids go to school doesn't mean that WOH parents aren't missing a lot of time with kids while at work. This is not an insult, but it doesn't seem self-evident that there is no "either/or" here.

+1

Every woman needs to make the best decision for her, and we should support whatever she chose. For every mother who regrets SAH, there are also working mothers who regret missing out. Stop trying to feel superior, particularly when your post smacks of so. Much. Privilege. I worked from home after having my oldest. Even in a flexible job, There was no way I could take time out during the day to attend classes. That’s pretty unheard of, especially for most of the feds around here. Generally, the flexibility to juggle and have nannies and leave early is an UMC privilege.

To the OP, way way back, I will say, if there is no financial necessity to work, I would ask my husband to draw up a division of duties. I wouldn’t mind working if he actually took over 50% of the duties, but if you’re still going to have to remember dr appointments, keep up with teachers, schedule house maintenance etc and do all the mental load, I would say absolutely not. Either he writes out a contract clarifying his responsibilities and what will happen if he doesn’t do it, or he finds someone to do the work (even as a working mother, I have presented this to my husband when he complains and he has never done it). And teach your children to value unpaid labor. I have boys - I parent with the goal of making them equal partners rather than the status quo among my generation.

If PP chose her career for the flexibility, good for her. More women opting for that will make more opportunities for everyone. Companies are aware that flexibility is a huge issue and an opportunity to retain good women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are more at risk when you are young. The older you are, the more assets you have accumulated and also the more likely you are to get alimony.

Did you read? Even when you get alimony, it’s not enough to live on. Unless you’re married to a gazillionaire, you better continue working to protect yourself.

I am not sure “working to protect yourself” isn’t a wholly depressing way to go about life though. I don’t know that, even if something were to happen to my husband, I would trade the days I’ve had with my daughter away to be in an office so I’d be more financially stable in a hypothetical future. I say this from a place of relative privilege because I have family assets and a degree that would support me and my daughter comfortably if I did need to, but I can’t imagine going to work every day thinking “I’m sacrificing time with my child so if my husband leaves me I’m in a marginally better financial position”

A) it’s not a marginally better financial position, B) it’s not an either/or.

Having kept my career I have a low six figure income that will be mine regardless plus benefits and employee contributions to retirement. Should anything happen, god forbid, I will be able to support myself and the kids. Having that security is priceless.

As for time with your kids, the years they are home are very, very short. I WAH for the first year of my baby’s lives and effectively had leave so I could nurse on demand and see their milestones. I had enough seniority so my hours were flexible and I could spend time with them in the toddler years, take them to classes in the morning or come home to eat lunch with them, end work at 4 and work once they were in bed. Nannies handled nap time. It was a good mix of time to myself and feeling connected to them. Due to COVID I’ve been WAH again since my youngest was 3. Loved spending that time with her, but at the same time realized over this last year and a half that I’m not cut out to stay at home. By age 4 they are in preschool most of the day and after that with school I don’t miss a thing — I can flex my schedule to pick them up after school.

It’s been an ideal balance for me and it has taken a lot of juggling and coordinating. A few times when they were babies I wondered if I could handle it all, and really felt that pull not to split my energy. But now that they are in school there’s very little conflict for me and I’m so glad I didn’t quit as I love my work. Giving up your whole life due to arrangements that last a few years doesn’t make sense.

First, your situation is not the norm. It sounds like you had kids relatively late and well into your career, and that your career has a lot of flexibility available. Not everyone is in this position.

Second, that may have been a good balance for you, but lots of women don't want to miss out on anything in the early years. I mean, in their toddler years, most of the day was with a nanny. So maybe that was great for you, but lots of moms feel that that is missing critical and irreplaceable time with the kids. Not to mention, just because kids go to school doesn't mean that WOH parents aren't missing a lot of time with kids while at work. This is not an insult, but it doesn't seem self-evident that there is no "either/or" here.

I don’t see it that way. You’re on two naps until ~18 months, how much time are you missing between 8-4 PM if you can be around in the morning and for lunch? By 3, many are in half day preschool then napping. Do you have to see your kid every single minute to make it meaningful? The vast majority of women in this world have to work, it’s a necessity. As for school, they are gone from 8-4 if they go to aftercare. My kids love playing with other kids after school. That’s a lot of time, what are you going to do — sit around and post on Instagram?

You have to ask because you weren't there to experience it. And there is no need to send a 3 yo to preschool or the kids to aftercare if you are at home. Maybe you think that is best for your kids, but plenty of people don't. I have always thought it crazy to send toddlers to daycare if you don't have to be at work.

Also, the "vast majority of women in the world" are working at home with their young kids right there. But maybe the vast majority of women in expensive cities have to do paying work, and that is what it is, but it is a choice for many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are more at risk when you are young. The older you are, the more assets you have accumulated and also the more likely you are to get alimony.

Did you read? Even when you get alimony, it’s not enough to live on. Unless you’re married to a gazillionaire, you better continue working to protect yourself.

I am not sure “working to protect yourself” isn’t a wholly depressing way to go about life though. I don’t know that, even if something were to happen to my husband, I would trade the days I’ve had with my daughter away to be in an office so I’d be more financially stable in a hypothetical future. I say this from a place of relative privilege because I have family assets and a degree that would support me and my daughter comfortably if I did need to, but I can’t imagine going to work every day thinking “I’m sacrificing time with my child so if my husband leaves me I’m in a marginally better financial position”

A) it’s not a marginally better financial position, B) it’s not an either/or.

Having kept my career I have a low six figure income that will be mine regardless plus benefits and employee contributions to retirement. Should anything happen, god forbid, I will be able to support myself and the kids. Having that security is priceless.

As for time with your kids, the years they are home are very, very short. I WAH for the first year of my baby’s lives and effectively had leave so I could nurse on demand and see their milestones. I had enough seniority so my hours were flexible and I could spend time with them in the toddler years, take them to classes in the morning or come home to eat lunch with them, end work at 4 and work once they were in bed. Nannies handled nap time. It was a good mix of time to myself and feeling connected to them. Due to COVID I’ve been WAH again since my youngest was 3. Loved spending that time with her, but at the same time realized over this last year and a half that I’m not cut out to stay at home. By age 4 they are in preschool most of the day and after that with school I don’t miss a thing — I can flex my schedule to pick them up after school.

It’s been an ideal balance for me and it has taken a lot of juggling and coordinating. A few times when they were babies I wondered if I could handle it all, and really felt that pull not to split my energy. But now that they are in school there’s very little conflict for me and I’m so glad I didn’t quit as I love my work. Giving up your whole life due to arrangements that last a few years doesn’t make sense.

First, your situation is not the norm. It sounds like you had kids relatively late and well into your career, and that your career has a lot of flexibility available. Not everyone is in this position.

Second, that may have been a good balance for you, but lots of women don't want to miss out on anything in the early years. I mean, in their toddler years, most of the day was with a nanny. So maybe that was great for you, but lots of moms feel that that is missing critical and irreplaceable time with the kids. Not to mention, just because kids go to school doesn't mean that WOH parents aren't missing a lot of time with kids while at work. This is not an insult, but it doesn't seem self-evident that there is no "either/or" here.

+1

Every woman needs to make the best decision for her, and we should support whatever she chose. For every mother who regrets SAH, there are also working mothers who regret missing out. Stop trying to feel superior, particularly when your post smacks of so. Much. Privilege. I worked from home after having my oldest. Even in a flexible job, There was no way I could take time out during the day to attend classes. That’s pretty unheard of, especially for most of the feds around here. Generally, the flexibility to juggle and have nannies and leave early is an UMC privilege.

To the OP, way way back, I will say, if there is no financial necessity to work, I would ask my husband to draw up a division of duties. I wouldn’t mind working if he actually took over 50% of the duties, but if you’re still going to have to remember dr appointments, keep up with teachers, schedule house maintenance etc and do all the mental load, I would say absolutely not. Either he writes out a contract clarifying his responsibilities and what will happen if he doesn’t do it, or he finds someone to do the work (even as a working mother, I have presented this to my husband when he complains and he has never done it). And teach your children to value unpaid labor. I have boys - I parent with the goal of making them equal partners rather than the status quo among my generation.

If PP chose her career for the flexibility, good for her. More women opting for that will make more opportunities for everyone. Companies are aware that flexibility is a huge issue and an opportunity to retain good women.

I don't think anyone is faulting PP for doing it. What the other posters are faulting is the daftness of a response ignorant of that privilege. To lecture the other posters on it not being an "either/or".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To PP: with a super handy surgeon husband who makes probably $1mm/year you indeed have no worries. Just make sure you invest and don’t spend all the money. Alimony is peanuts - one last I know got $100k alimony for a year, while her exH made several million/year. She was 50 yo and it was in DC

I don’t believe this unless they were married fir a year or something. A 50 year old who’s been married fir a couple decades divorcing a multimillionaire would be fine financially.

[Anonymous]

This is such a stupid thing to fight over. 1. Because every marriage/family situation is different. Some people fight over money but some truly don’t and SAH or not will have little effect on the relationship. 2. People are going to do what they want anyway so why waste time fighting with people about it for forty pages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP: with a super handy surgeon husband who makes probably $1mm/year you indeed have no worries. Just make sure you invest and don’t spend all the money. Alimony is peanuts - one last I know got $100k alimony for a year, while her exH made several million/year. She was 50 yo and it was in DC

I don’t believe this unless they were married fir a year or something. A 50 year old who’s been married fir a couple decades divorcing a multimillionaire would be fine financially.

Yeah. There are two different weird kinds of liars on here about divorce and alimony. The MRA/Red Pill types who think that women marry and then divorce just to get crazy amounts of alimony or child support, even if the husband doesn't make that much or they've only been married a short time. And then the women who insist that other women MUST work because the law will screw them out of any alimony and allow them to be paupers even after many years married and lots of money earned during the marriage. Neither happens. Yes, divorce is financially bad for all involved, but what do you think will happen? You are going from one household being supported to two.

[Anonymous]

OP, I did not have to convince my DH to stay home long term. He and I, both felt it was valuable for me to be at home with the kids until they are successfully launched in life and even after that so that things in our lives ran smoothly. Of course, I can change my mind about working at any time later and go back to work, if I want. We evaluate the needs of the family, and the individuals too.

If you feel that you should stay at home then to convince your DH is your job, no? The pros and cons of both SAHM and WOHM life has been discussed endlessly here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should he work if you won’t?

OP here - my view is, why should I do everything I do now plus a job? I would be insane to agree to that. He’s not going to magically do half.

Well, you shouldn't, so he'll need to step up, but you also likely have to realize that some things you do he may not consider valuable like baking fresh bread every day.


OP, my mother was a SAHM and I honestly don't think I benefited from it greatly. She like you wanted to stay home and do all the things you list. Great ! Live your dream, except her dreams came with the cost of her kids having to take out loans to go to college.

Your kids don't need freshly baked bread every day. They would hugely benefit from not having to take out loans to go to school and your income could help build a nice little nest egg so college could be covered for them.

I do not feel obligated to provide my children with a college education. Adults must choose to sacrifice for things they consider valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP: with a super handy surgeon husband who makes probably $1mm/year you indeed have no worries. Just make sure you invest and don’t spend all the money. Alimony is peanuts - one last I know got $100k alimony for a year, while her exH made several million/year. She was 50 yo and it was in DC

I don’t believe this unless they were married fir a year or something. A 50 year old who’s been married fir a couple decades divorcing a multimillionaire would be fine financially.

Yeah. There are two different weird kinds of liars on here about divorce and alimony. The MRA/Red Pill types who think that women marry and then divorce just to get crazy amounts of alimony or child support, even if the husband doesn't make that much or they've only been married a short time. And then the women who insist that other women MUST work because the law will screw them out of any alimony and allow them to be paupers even after many years married and lots of money earned during the marriage. Neither happens. Yes, divorce is financially bad for all involved, but what do you think will happen? You are going from one household being supported to two.

Exactly: as if the breadwinner in that previous one household retains his income while SAHM doesn’t , the 2nd household will be not twice as poor. It will be 5-6 times poorer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should he work if you won’t?

OP here - my view is, why should I do everything I do now plus a job? I would be insane to agree to that. He’s not going to magically do half.

Well, you shouldn't, so he'll need to step up, but you also likely have to realize that some things you do he may not consider valuable like baking fresh bread every day.


OP, my mother was a SAHM and I honestly don't think I benefited from it greatly. She like you wanted to stay home and do all the things you list. Great ! Live your dream, except her dreams came with the cost of her kids having to take out loans to go to college.

Your kids don't need freshly baked bread every day. They would hugely benefit from not having to take out loans to go to school and your income could help build a nice little nest egg so college could be covered for them.

I do not feel obligated to provide my children with a college education. Adults must choose to sacrifice for things they consider valuable.

Exactly, and it is a continuum. Why does PP feel she is owed a fully paid tuition? And where does it end? Did the PP become an investment banker so that there is more than just a small nest egg? Did PP focus on marrying someone who makes a ton of money to provide even more? Is PP going to continue working until she dies so that her kid has as much money as possible?

A lot of people think that time spent with kids providing moral and intellectual guidance, instead of parking them in childcare or with a nanny, is more important than a small nest egg (or freshly baked bread). Seems like a weird thing for her to think about her own SAHM mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP: with a super handy surgeon husband who makes probably $1mm/year you indeed have no worries. Just make sure you invest and don’t spend all the money. Alimony is peanuts - one last I know got $100k alimony for a year, while her exH made several million/year. She was 50 yo and it was in DC

I don’t believe this unless they were married fir a year or something. A 50 year old who’s been married fir a couple decades divorcing a multimillionaire would be fine financially.

DP here. You'd be surprised at the number of people with 7-figure incomes who don't save much. I'm guessing that might be the situation the PP is describing. High income, low savings, not a lot of assets to divvy up in the divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP: with a super handy surgeon husband who makes probably $1mm/year you indeed have no worries. Just make sure you invest and don’t spend all the money. Alimony is peanuts - one last I know got $100k alimony for a year, while her exH made several million/year. She was 50 yo and it was in DC

I don’t believe this unless they were married fir a year or something. A 50 year old who’s been married fir a couple decades divorcing a multimillionaire would be fine financially.

DP here. You'd be surprised at the number of people with 7-figure incomes who don't save much. I'm guessing that might be the situation the PP is describing. High income, low savings, not a lot of assets to divvy up in the divorce.

Exactly: the couple where exH made millions was spending on travel, timeshares, entertainment, luxury cars, art and expensive social clubs. They only have one marital home to split. The exH retained his income, and the 50yo exW went to work at $120k/year living in new home with huge mortgage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP: with a super handy surgeon husband who makes probably $1mm/year you indeed have no worries. Just make sure you invest and don’t spend all the money. Alimony is peanuts - one last I know got $100k alimony for a year, while her exH made several million/year. She was 50 yo and it was in DC

I don’t believe this unless they were married fir a year or something. A 50 year old who’s been married fir a couple decades divorcing a multimillionaire would be fine financially.

DP here. You'd be surprised at the number of people with 7-figure incomes who don't save much. I'm guessing that might be the situation the PP is describing. High income, low savings, not a lot of assets to divvy up in the divorce.

Exactly: the couple where exH made millions was spending on travel, timeshares, entertainment, luxury cars, art and expensive social clubs. They only have one marital home to split. The exH retained his income, and the 50yo exW went to work at $120k/year living in new home with huge mortgage.

But alimony is based on income. Why would a court not require a more equitable split in alimony, unless there was a prenup or they'd only been married for a short time. This just doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP: with a super handy surgeon husband who makes probably $1mm/year you indeed have no worries. Just make sure you invest and don’t spend all the money. Alimony is peanuts - one last I know got $100k alimony for a year, while her exH made several million/year. She was 50 yo and it was in DC

I don’t believe this unless they were married fir a year or something. A 50 year old who’s been married fir a couple decades divorcing a multimillionaire would be fine financially.

DP here. You'd be surprised at the number of people with 7-figure incomes who don't save much. I'm guessing that might be the situation the PP is describing. High income, low savings, not a lot of assets to divvy up in the divorce.

Exactly: the couple where exH made millions was spending on travel, timeshares, entertainment, luxury cars, art and expensive social clubs. They only have one marital home to split. The exH retained his income, and the 50yo exW went to work at $120k/year living in new home with huge mortgage.

But alimony is based on income. Why would a court not require a more equitable split in alimony, unless there was a prenup or they'd only been married for a short time. This just doesn't make sense.

Generally the judge expects everyone to work. There is no expectation that the exH should be maintaining exW lifestyle. Alimony is given to cover reasonable expenses, and it's temporary. Unless the divorce happens shortly pre-retirement.
She did get the alimony of $100K for 1 year in that case, and went to work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP: with a super handy surgeon husband who makes probably $1mm/year you indeed have no worries. Just make sure you invest and don’t spend all the money. Alimony is peanuts - one last I know got $100k alimony for a year, while her exH made several million/year. She was 50 yo and it was in DC

I don’t believe this unless they were married fir a year or something. A 50 year old who’s been married fir a couple decades divorcing a multimillionaire would be fine financially.

DP here. You'd be surprised at the number of people with 7-figure incomes who don't save much. I'm guessing that might be the situation the PP is describing. High income, low savings, not a lot of assets to divvy up in the divorce.

Exactly: the couple where exH made millions was spending on travel, timeshares, entertainment, luxury cars, art and expensive social clubs. They only have one marital home to split. The exH retained his income, and the 50yo exW went to work at $120k/year living in new home with huge mortgage.

But alimony is based on income. Why would a court not require a more equitable split in alimony, unless there was a prenup or they'd only been married for a short time. This just doesn't make sense.

Generally the judge expects everyone to work. There is no expectation that the exH should be maintaining exW lifestyle. Alimony is given to cover reasonable expenses, and it's temporary. Unless the divorce happens shortly pre-retirement.
She did get the alimony of $100K for 1 year in that case, and went to work

Alimony of 100K for 1 year coming out of a long term marriage to someone making seven figures is very strange. Your friend got screwed by bad lawyering, or is lying to you, or you are lying. But it is unusual and not really pertinent to this conversation.