Anonymous wrote:There are a number of posts on here where one person doesn't want to move, the other does or someone gets a great career opportunity in another city. Let's see it is a couple where there is a SAHM. I can understand that someone who hates hot weather is not going to want to move to Miami or a person who loves the ocean is not going to be comfortable in Nebraska. But other than these examples, does a SAHM really have the "right" to veto a move that would be financially beneficial to a family?

I think you know this depends on individual couples and not a generic rule for marriage.

My husband would never uproot us for a better financial opportunity. I'm sure he feels like his wife would never hold him back from taking a better financial opportunity. Everyone has their own POV and the point of a marriage to work together to create a POV both can live with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it should be a discussion. No one should be making the decision unilaterally or vetoing.

OP: I get that. Nobody wants to be married to a domestic dictator. But if one person has all the financial pressure, shouldn't he/she be accommodated?

If it is between job and no job and the family needs the $, sure. Otherwise, no.

Most moves for a breadwinner are rarely a choice between job and no job. It’s usually a choice between the current well paying job and a promotion in a different location. When you are part of a family everyone’s wellbeing should be taken into account. Maybe a 50k raise sounds tempting but it might not be worth it if it means the rest of your family would be miserable. On the other hand if the breadwinner is miserable in the current job I think the spouse needs to be much more open to moving. It’s a give and take. And just because one possible move doesn’t make sense for the family doesn’t mean that all moves would be viewed the same way. Maybe living in a small town in Texas would be miserable but spouse would be open to a small town on the east coast.

The attitude that because one spouse stays home they should blindly accommodate any relocation by the breadwinner is nuts.

It's not an easy answer because there is a wide continuum as to why people might need to move from losing a job here and the only job available requires a move to job X that requires a move is more interesting than the current job here to job X pays $400K per year vs the current job that pays $300K per year.

There's other considerations such as moving away from family that I think the SAH spouse would get a vote on.

Believe it or not, SAHMs do not give up all rights when they stay home. Hopefully it was a mutual decision for the person to stay home and hopefully it will be a mutual decision whether to move. Big decisions should be made together.

My spouse works at a Big 4 firm. Nearly all the male partner's wives are SAHW/SAHMs. When the wives want to stay in a certain metropolitan area after a rotation ends, you'd be surprised at how hard the partners will often work to keep their SAHW/SAHMs happy. Since they don't work and their husband is gone working for much of the day, I think it takes a long time for a SAHW/SAHM to build up support network. Once they have it, they don't want to leave it and rebuild.

I know DCUM would like to think that SAHM/SAHW are at the total mercy of their husbands but - at least among first marriages in this economic class of people that I've observed - I just don't see that. The women are not disempowered shrinking violets. They often have robust social calendars and they're involved in their communities. Since these partner husbands are almost universally married to their college sweetheart, usually all the assets were accumulated during the marriage and there is almost never a prenup. The payouts in these divorces can be to the tune of many millions.

So, yeah, in practice, I think it's often that SAHW/SAHMs get a lot of say. That said, I don't think they should be allowed to be a "domestic dictator". Ideally, a couple should come to an agreement together that weighs all factors.

People should stop thinking that making money is the only way to contribute to a family unit. Obviously it's not.

Everyone deserves to be heard before big decisions are made.

The truth is that the person with the most willpower and motivation will make the decision, because it takes a lot of energy and drive to argue one's case, and keep coming back to wear everyone else down. Sometimes it's a kid in the house, not an adult!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it should be a discussion. No one should be making the decision unilaterally or vetoing.

OP: I get that. Nobody wants to be married to a domestic dictator. But if one person has all the financial pressure, shouldn't he/she be accommodated?

That person should not be accommodated, but that financial pressure is a factor to consider when making the joint decision.

I would assume that married adults make family decisions about whether it is best for one parent to be home with the kids, and likewise they make joint decisions as to whether to move or make any other big decisions. There are many pressures in the world, financial, those of being a hands-on parent, and many more. Also, family decisions are made based on issues other than pressures as well. The parties’ happiness? Anticipated security? All sorts of things. I can’t imagine what my response would be if I were a stay at home parent and my husband came home and said that he had the right to make final decisions about huge family issues, like where we live, because we had decided together that it would be best for one of us to be home with the kids. That approach pretty much assumes that, and being home with kids, be working spouse is somehow accommodating the spouse providing the hands-on childcare. That the at home spouse in a fact works for the dominant, prioritized spouse who works outside of the home. To me, that’s just crazy. FWIW, I am a WOHP mom with a time intensive job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it should be a discussion. No one should be making the decision unilaterally or vetoing.

OP: I get that. Nobody wants to be married to a domestic dictator. But if one person has all the financial pressure, shouldn't he/she be accommodated?

No
Dont be crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it should be a discussion. No one should be making the decision unilaterally or vetoing.

OP: I get that. Nobody wants to be married to a domestic dictator. But if one person has all the financial pressure, shouldn't he/she be accommodated?

l

Not necessarily. There are other factors to consider

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it should be a discussion. No one should be making the decision unilaterally or vetoing.

OP: I get that. Nobody wants to be married to a domestic dictator. But if one person has all the financial pressure, shouldn't he/she be accommodated?

If it is between job and no job and the family needs the $, sure. Otherwise, no.

Anonymous wrote:Of course it should be a discussion. No one should be making the decision unilaterally or vetoing.

OP: I get that. Nobody wants to be married to a domestic dictator. But if one person has all the financial pressure, shouldn't he/she be accommodated?

Of course it should be a discussion. No one should be making the decision unilaterally or vetoing.

My mom was at home with us when my dad got a job at a university in a town she did not want to live in. They were in a bind because he only had one job offer and his field wasn't one where there were a ton of other options. My mom dropped out of high school, and her going back to work wasn't a viable alternative to my dad taking the job. She tried really hard to make it work, but her unhappiness killed their marriage and they were divorced within 2 years of moving.

My opinion is that large family decisions should be made jointly because in the example of a move, everyone has to live there. If the breadwinner spouse is currently employed in a stable situation and is just trading up, the trade-up has to be considered comprehensively. It's not really a trade-up if your spouse is miserable and you end up divorced.

There are a number of posts on here where one person doesn't want to move, the other does or someone gets a great career opportunity in another city. Let's see it is a couple where there is a SAHM. I can understand that someone who hates hot weather is not going to want to move to Miami or a person who loves the ocean is not going to be comfortable in Nebraska. But other than these examples, does a SAHM really have the "right" to veto a move that would be financially beneficial to a family?