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

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.  [/quote]

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

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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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 [b]me that these people would rather have more money than more time together as a family.[/b] That is sad.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Then don't have kids[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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

+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.[/quote]

I think this is an astute observation.
The US doesn't work this way because those who came here are a self selected group who found their homeland unsatisfactory. Family life, community connections, heritage, culture, etc were lesser priorities than opportunities for advancement, an appetite for risk, wanderlust, and financial gain.
These are salient characteristics to the people who sought to come here from the very beginning. 
And so is it any surprise that there is little social support for preschool or that people in general look down on values that do not square with the American spirit of opportunism? You know, family life and children are obstacles to that self-fulfillment. Outsource anything that gets in the way of work.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics