Stay with my underemployed DH for the kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posts here creep me out. As if DH getting a job is a silver bullet, and DW is an innocent victim.

I know. DW needs to go to grad school so she can sit around at home and think deep thoughts while the kids are in daycare and the house a mess.

Maybe she does need to do that. I don't know her. Do you? I know plenty of people who live in museum like houses and have inflated perceptions of themselves, and when it comes down to it, couldn't give a rat's a** about the people they supposedly care for with their supposed volunteerism and donations.

If DH goes back to work, how does it fix possible underlying issues? It could make things worse, not better. Some seem to refuse that this is a possibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, and we wonder why women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Who cares? Is your income the only way you measure the quality of your life?

We should all care that a woman's work is not as valued as a man's. Don't you value your daughters as much as your sons? Don't you educate your daughters as much as your sons?

The choose college majors that result in lower paying jobs.
Women take time off from the workforce which results in fewer raises and promotions.
Women take flexible jobs while children are small and exit the tracks to higher paying executive jobs.

So no, women's work is not valued less.

"But that's not fair! We should organize our society so that women don't have to take all of the childcare duties. We should try to make more women go into higher paying work (even though they frequently don't want to and aren't interested in it)." you say?

Well, nope, that's not going to work. Because:

1) When the rubber meets the road, women don't really want to have half of the financial burden for a household. And they frequently want to spend as much time as possible with their children.
2) Women CERTAINLY don't want to be married to men who take care of the entire household and don't work.
2) Men don't want to be married to angry, stressed out, resentful women.

Those are the constraints that seem small on the surface but CHANGE EVERYTHING.

But why is it such a problem? For women who want children, is giving up a serious career really such a bad sacrifice? Most of us are going to be healthy and working into our 70's. There is SO MUCH that a woman can do with flexible work, ramping up into more involved work as children get older in today's world.

I don't have a daughter, but of course I would value her as much as a son. I would want her to have a happy life with her own happy family and to be stimulated and fulfilled. We live in a world for the first time ever where that is possible.

But too many women are all about ego. They don't want a happy life. They want power and recognition and ego strokes. They want all of the glory and none of the responsibility.

You're trying to mask your 1950s views with 'life is long, you can live a fulfilled life after the kids are grown!' sentiments, but it's not working.

Why would a woman not want to bear half of the financial burden? Or more than half? Why would there be anything wrong with a woman who does?

Why should it only be a man who doesn't want to be married to a stressed out, unhappy person?

What's wrong with a man taking care of children and a household? Why can't a man want to spend as much time as possible with his children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, and we wonder why women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Who cares? Is your income the only way you measure the quality of your life?

We should all care that a woman's work is not as valued as a man's. Don't you value your daughters as much as your sons? Don't you educate your daughters as much as your sons?

The choose college majors that result in lower paying jobs.
Women take time off from the workforce which results in fewer raises and promotions.
Women take flexible jobs while children are small and exit the tracks to higher paying executive jobs.

So no, women's work is not valued less.

"But that's not fair! We should organize our society so that women don't have to take all of the childcare duties. We should try to make more women go into higher paying work (even though they frequently don't want to and aren't interested in it)." you say?

Well, nope, that's not going to work. Because:

1) When the rubber meets the road, women don't really want to have half of the financial burden for a household. And they frequently want to spend as much time as possible with their children.
2) Women CERTAINLY don't want to be married to men who take care of the entire household and don't work.
2) Men don't want to be married to angry, stressed out, resentful women.

Those are the constraints that seem small on the surface but CHANGE EVERYTHING.

But why is it such a problem? For women who want children, is giving up a serious career really such a bad sacrifice? Most of us are going to be healthy and working into our 70's. There is SO MUCH that a woman can do with flexible work, ramping up into more involved work as children get older in today's world.

I don't have a daughter, but of course I would value her as much as a son. I would want her to have a happy life with her own happy family and to be stimulated and fulfilled. We live in a world for the first time ever where that is possible.

But too many women are all about ego. They don't want a happy life. They want power and recognition and ego strokes. They want all of the glory and none of the responsibility.

You're trying to mask your 1950s views with 'life is long, you can live a fulfilled life after the kids are grown!' sentiments, but it's not working.

Why would a woman not want to bear half of the financial burden? Or more than half? Why would there be anything wrong with a woman who does?

Why should it only be a man who doesn't want to be married to a stressed out, unhappy person?

What's wrong with a man taking care of children and a household? Why can't a man want to spend as much time as possible with his children?

If you are smart about setting yourself up with flexible work, you can live a pretty great life with small kids, too. It's working for me just fine.

Women find it romantically disgusting to be involved with a man who can't take care of the family's material needs. They just do, with very few exceptions. It's not a "should" issue. It's just an "is" issue.

The only thing that I agree with you about is that men DO want to spend time with their kids, too. If people make choices knowing spending time with kids will be a priority for them, then it's not impossible to work out.

I am not suggesting that the provider role should be all-consuming and draining. A man can choose wisely and find well paying work that isn't as consuming. There are options.

When women take on the breadwinner role they ARE drained. Because their husband's don't help out. Ask OP.

[Anonymous]

I read your posting and totally could feel your frustration and impatience in every line OP. In other words, I do feel your pain.

You are not some shallow, superficial wife who wants her husband to be her Sugar Daddy.

You simply know that he has the ability to do better for himself, the family...And he doesn't seem to be making much effort on his part.

Meanwhile you work hard, then come home and like you stated, start your second job...The kids, the house, the cleaning, etc....A woman's job never ends, does it??

Well if your husband is working on getting his certifications, then you will just have to wait it out a little more until he does.

However he still has a responsibility to pull his weight to keep the homefires burning. You should not have to come home every day to a messy home and cook dinner then do the dishes.

He needs to do his fair share of the chores to ease your stress load. And he needs to ultimately realize this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is one thing I have learned from reading DCUM, it is that women despise men who are unemployed.

Wouldn't you? It's a tale as old as time that men should be the breadwinners. But recent Forbes poll indicated that 29% of American households have a female as the major breadwinner. They don't take into account however the different percentages of single working mothers, lesbian parents, or heterosexual married working mothers.

Yes, women despise men who are unemployed. If you're trying to wrap your head around it as a man you should imagine having sex with a 60 year old, hairy, 400 pounder.

That said, women have responsibilities that they often shirk, too. Like giving up on marriage when things get tough way too soon (women do initiate most divorces, and if you are a regular reader on this board you can also see that for yourself clear as day).

So, I can see why many men don't feel the duty and responsibility around being a "provider" in the modern climate - for many men, it can be a life-ruining path if the wife starts to feel dissatisfied with the marriage for more than a year or two.

In my opinion, men should be honest with themselves about the fact that no matter how promising a career a woman seems like she is embarking on, he should expect to be the main provider no matter what. He should definitely NOT marry a woman who has a shit ton of student loans.

And the vast majority of women should be realistic about the fact that they basically have 2 options: stay at home with kids or work a mommy job while kids are small.

Adulthood means responsibility. That is why people are so angry at gender roles - because gender roles imply adulthood and duty. People want to imagine that they can have a fantasy life.

I think you have a problem with the notion that someone's life might not follow your prescribed path and still bring them happiness, so you attempt to judge them by calling them irresponsible. It's not up to you to determine the roles within each individual partnership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I take issue with your emphasizing that she needed to get a job and contribute to the family financially. When I saw that written my stomach actually turned in disgust. I wouldn't suggest a man ever marry a woman with size-able student loans, and I wouldn't suggest that he marry someone without the expectation that he be taking the full financial load up through early childhood and significantly thereafter.

Most women, especially those with full-time jobs and children but even those staying at home with children, are seriously overworked and exhausted. So I would hardly call it retirement. The fact that you suggest so reveals even more of your pitiful and repulsive view on the matter. I'd be depressed if I was married to you, too. *Shiver*

So a man should be prepared to fully support his wife and children financially, simply because he is a man, but a woman should not expect that she might need to do the same?

Yes, that is 100% correct. You see, men and women are not the same.
Taking on children is scary and difficult for BOTH men and women. Sorry pal, if you can't handle it just get one of those robotic blow up dolls. I hear they're getting pretty good.

Then provide something of value to the man. $$$$, a clean house, and blow jobs. Pick any two.

I agree with this 100%. I don't see anyone suggesting that the man do all the work of life and the woman lay about.

I just think too many people buy into an ideal that doesn't work - namely that it's shameful for a woman to "only" take care of a family or not to have a fancy career.

Careers are a lot of work. Not a lot of glamour typically. Women need to learn that fact YOUNG and then make choices inline with that fact. Such as not go to expensive grad school unless she knows in her bones she wants to work in a serious way, which some women (but not most) do.

We actually live in a world with a lot of great advantages. Namely, the internet and long life expectancies mean that there are tons of exciting, fulfilling options available to women IF THEY MAKE GOOD CHOICES.

If I had a daughter, unless she was a very dedicated, talented, hard worker hell bent on a certain job, I would

a) encourage her to get married fairly young (25-28ish) to a man who could support a family reasonably well (rich not required).
b) encourage her to have realistic expectations about life and strongly discourage entitlement
c) hope that she would go on to live a rich and fulfilling life of interesting and rewarding work post small-child rearing, which is TOTALLY POSSIBLE in our world today. No, you can't drop out of the workforce and go back and get a job at director level. But there are many options in today's world for a creative, smart person to find decent and fulfilling work. There is nothing wrong with not being on a top executive track.

My two cents

In your world, there will never be women attorneys, doctors or surgeons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you are smart about setting yourself up with flexible work, you can live a pretty great life with small kids, too. It's working for me just fine.

Women find it romantically disgusting to be involved with a man who can't take care of the family's material needs. They just do, with very few exceptions. It's not a "should" issue. It's just an "is" issue.

The only thing that I agree with you about is that men DO want to spend time with their kids, too. If people make choices knowing spending time with kids will be a priority for them, then it's not impossible to work out.

I am not suggesting that the provider role should be all-consuming and draining. A man can choose wisely and find well paying work that isn't as consuming. There are options.

When women take on the breadwinner role they ARE drained. Because their husband's don't help out. Ask OP.

I make four times what my husband makes and I am thrilled to have sex with him. You just aren't the knower of all things you set yourself up to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The choose college majors that result in lower paying jobs.
Women take time off from the workforce which results in fewer raises and promotions.
Women take flexible jobs while children are small and exit the tracks to higher paying executive jobs.

So no, women's work is not valued less.

"But that's not fair! We should organize our society so that women don't have to take all of the childcare duties. We should try to make more women go into higher paying work (even though they frequently don't want to and aren't interested in it)." you say?

Well, nope, that's not going to work. Because:

1) When the rubber meets the road, women don't really want to have half of the financial burden for a household. And they frequently want to spend as much time as possible with their children.
2) Women CERTAINLY don't want to be married to men who take care of the entire household and don't work.
2) Men don't want to be married to angry, stressed out, resentful women.

Those are the constraints that seem small on the surface but CHANGE EVERYTHING.

But why is it such a problem? For women who want children, is giving up a serious career really such a bad sacrifice? Most of us are going to be healthy and working into our 70's. There is SO MUCH that a woman can do with flexible work, ramping up into more involved work as children get older in today's world.

I don't have a daughter, but of course I would value her as much as a son. I would want her to have a happy life with her own happy family and to be stimulated and fulfilled. We live in a world for the first time ever where that is possible.

But too many women are all about ego. They don't want a happy life. They want power and recognition and ego strokes. They want all of the glory and none of the responsibility.

Who are you to dictate how much other women should sacrifice? Who are you to dictate other women's work schedule? Who are you to decide what other women should get happiness from? What do you mean, none of the responsibility? Working and bringing home the money isn't a responsibility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The choose college majors that result in lower paying jobs.
Women take time off from the workforce which results in fewer raises and promotions.
Women take flexible jobs while children are small and exit the tracks to higher paying executive jobs.

So no, women's work is not valued less.

"But that's not fair! We should organize our society so that women don't have to take all of the childcare duties. We should try to make more women go into higher paying work (even though they frequently don't want to and aren't interested in it)." you say?

Well, nope, that's not going to work. Because:

1) When the rubber meets the road, women don't really want to have half of the financial burden for a household. And they frequently want to spend as much time as possible with their children.
2) Women CERTAINLY don't want to be married to men who take care of the entire household and don't work.
2) Men don't want to be married to angry, stressed out, resentful women.

Those are the constraints that seem small on the surface but CHANGE EVERYTHING.

But why is it such a problem? For women who want children, is giving up a serious career really such a bad sacrifice? Most of us are going to be healthy and working into our 70's. There is SO MUCH that a woman can do with flexible work, ramping up into more involved work as children get older in today's world.

I don't have a daughter, but of course I would value her as much as a son. I would want her to have a happy life with her own happy family and to be stimulated and fulfilled. We live in a world for the first time ever where that is possible.

But too many women are all about ego. They don't want a happy life. They want power and recognition and ego strokes. They want all of the glory and none of the responsibility.

Who are you to dictate how much other women should sacrifice? Who are you to dictate other women's work schedule? Who are you to decide what other women should get happiness from? What do you mean, none of the responsibility? Working and bringing home the money isn't a responsibility?

I have no objection to a world with women surgeons nor a world where people find individualized solutions for themselves. I am not a conservative. I'm just a realist.
If you make 4 times what your husband makes and are happy to have sex with him, I'm thrilled for you. Really. I have no inherent objection to that model. But it doesn't work for most people. Are you a frequent reader of this board?

And I don't dictate what people should sacrifice. Resource and biological constraints dictate that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The choose college majors that result in lower paying jobs.
Women take time off from the workforce which results in fewer raises and promotions.
Women take flexible jobs while children are small and exit the tracks to higher paying executive jobs.

So no, women's work is not valued less.

"But that's not fair! We should organize our society so that women don't have to take all of the childcare duties. We should try to make more women go into higher paying work (even though they frequently don't want to and aren't interested in it)." you say?

Well, nope, that's not going to work. Because:

1) When the rubber meets the road, women don't really want to have half of the financial burden for a household. And they frequently want to spend as much time as possible with their children.
2) Women CERTAINLY don't want to be married to men who take care of the entire household and don't work.
2) Men don't want to be married to angry, stressed out, resentful women.

Those are the constraints that seem small on the surface but CHANGE EVERYTHING.

But why is it such a problem? For women who want children, is giving up a serious career really such a bad sacrifice? Most of us are going to be healthy and working into our 70's. There is SO MUCH that a woman can do with flexible work, ramping up into more involved work as children get older in today's world.

I don't have a daughter, but of course I would value her as much as a son. I would want her to have a happy life with her own happy family and to be stimulated and fulfilled. We live in a world for the first time ever where that is possible.

But too many women are all about ego. They don't want a happy life. They want power and recognition and ego strokes. They want all of the glory and none of the responsibility.

Who are you to dictate how much other women should sacrifice? Who are you to dictate other women's work schedule? Who are you to decide what other women should get happiness from? What do you mean, none of the responsibility? Working and bringing home the money isn't a responsibility?

I have no objection to a world with women surgeons nor a world where people find individualized solutions for themselves. I am not a conservative. I'm just a realist.
If you make 4 times what your husband makes and are happy to have sex with him, I'm thrilled for you. Really. I have no inherent objection to that model. But it doesn't work for most people. Are you a frequent reader of this board?

And I don't dictate what people should sacrifice. Resource and biological constraints dictate that.

You have no way of knowing what works for most people. You may only speak for yourself. You not only are trying to dictate what women should sacrifice, you are also trying to tell them how to feel about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The choose college majors that result in lower paying jobs.
Women take time off from the workforce which results in fewer raises and promotions.
Women take flexible jobs while children are small and exit the tracks to higher paying executive jobs.

So no, women's work is not valued less.

"But that's not fair! We should organize our society so that women don't have to take all of the childcare duties. We should try to make more women go into higher paying work (even though they frequently don't want to and aren't interested in it)." you say?

Well, nope, that's not going to work. Because:

1) When the rubber meets the road, women don't really want to have half of the financial burden for a household. And they frequently want to spend as much time as possible with their children.
2) Women CERTAINLY don't want to be married to men who take care of the entire household and don't work.
2) Men don't want to be married to angry, stressed out, resentful women.

Those are the constraints that seem small on the surface but CHANGE EVERYTHING.

But why is it such a problem? For women who want children, is giving up a serious career really such a bad sacrifice? Most of us are going to be healthy and working into our 70's. There is SO MUCH that a woman can do with flexible work, ramping up into more involved work as children get older in today's world.

I don't have a daughter, but of course I would value her as much as a son. I would want her to have a happy life with her own happy family and to be stimulated and fulfilled. We live in a world for the first time ever where that is possible.

But too many women are all about ego. They don't want a happy life. They want power and recognition and ego strokes. They want all of the glory and none of the responsibility.

Who are you to dictate how much other women should sacrifice? Who are you to dictate other women's work schedule? Who are you to decide what other women should get happiness from? What do you mean, none of the responsibility? Working and bringing home the money isn't a responsibility?

I have no objection to a world with women surgeons nor a world where people find individualized solutions for themselves. I am not a conservative. I'm just a realist.
If you make 4 times what your husband makes and are happy to have sex with him, I'm thrilled for you. Really. I have no inherent objection to that model. But it doesn't work for most people. Are you a frequent reader of this board?

And I don't dictate what people should sacrifice. Resource and biological constraints dictate that.

You have no way of knowing what works for most people. You may only speak for yourself. You not only are trying to dictate what women should sacrifice, you are also trying to tell them how to feel about it.

lol yes, right, I have no way of knowing. I don't have eyes and ears. You're now attempting to gaslight me.

[Anonymous]

I'm trying to gaslight you? You can't even count properly in your little list, what with the rubber and the roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to gaslight you? You can't even count properly in your little list, what with the rubber and the roads.

lol is that really all you have? a) who am I to draw conclusions from empirical evidence and b) that I made at typo? Girl, go home, you're drunk.

[Anonymous]

The problem I have is when you say "why is it such a bad sacrifice for a woman who wants children to not work?" Why should it be a sacrifice at all, and why should it be a sacrifice for women only? Yes, it is such a bad sacrifice!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem I have is when you say "why is it such a bad sacrifice for a woman who wants children to not work?" Why should it be a sacrifice at all, and why should it be a sacrifice for women only? Yes, it is such a bad sacrifice!

I didn't say not work. The sacrifice I refer to is the sacrifice of a highly intensive career.

Why is the woman the only one who has to make this sacrifice? Because women don't typically want to be married to men who take on a traditionally feminine role. If you do, that's great. Problem solved for you.

Most top executives and surgeons have stay at home spouses if they have children.

And when they don't? Well, did you happen to read the Atlantic cover story about the Silicon Valley suicides? Kids don't do so hot when both of their parents are absent most of the time at work.

I'm sorry that life involves sacrifices, constraints, and forced choices. I don't delight in that reality.

A woman can always choose to have no children or only one child.