Anonymous wrote:back to OP. I think its been very hard on you, and you feel bad because you're resentful, but you know that hasn't helped, and he's depressed, so you dont want to make it worse, yadda yadda.

I think you need to now focus on doing what you can to ensure he is up to date with certification and getting a job in teaching. If he's truly committed to it, then I think you have to let go of the past 3 years and focus on the future. But make sure he understands that he really has to move in that direction and bartending is not an option for much longer.

I would cast it less as 'you need a real job' and more as the fact that your schedules are untenable, you dont have family time together and its exhausting. But I would point out that during the day, he can and should be doing things to take the load off you, since presumably you have full time care of kids every night. Can you make it not about blame and just about creating a schedule so that you both have time for work, sleep and a relatively balanced load with the kids? a couple sessions of therapy might help, and some individual for you, just to have a place to deal with your volatile feelings.

+1 to the bolded advice.
The current situation is not working for you. He needs to be involved in finding a better solution. It could be going back to teaching, or it could be that he decreases (or quits) bartending and picks up more child/house care work (although from your previous posts it sounds like that's not something he wants to do). You guys can work this out if you can talk to each other about what you each want/need and find a way to compromise. A couples therapist will help mediate those discussions. Find one that is covered by your insurance, and think of the $35 copay as an investment in your marriage. GL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The problem with this is that most men are horrible husbands. If your daughter marries young, doesn't have any decent career, and ends up like 75% of the women with an arrogant bastard of a husband who cheats on her and treats her badly, she will be very unhappy. I am guessing you are a good man who treats his wife well, but really those are rare. Look at the men around you. Would you want to be under their thumb?

You seem big on realism. Realistically, for a woman, she should plan on supporting herself and her children with a job that makes enough money so she can be comfortable. If she is one of the rare women who catches a decent man, she can always fall back to your dream plan.

I'm a woman actually. With a wonderful husband, and while I am grateful everyday, I'm not the only one with a wonderful husband. There are many good people in the world (and many crappy ones).

I agree that a woman should plan for the possibility of supporting herself and her children. I never suggested that a woman not work (unless she works that arrangement out with her husband and is comfortable with the risk).

Then your advice is good advice. Just as long as your daughters know that a good man is hard to find, and worth far more than rubies or pearls. (Better not to marry at all than try to live as the little woman to a man who is not a good man)

I'm sorry from the bottom of my heart that the men you've known have not been good men (as your comment seems to imply). I have seen people of both genders behave badly, and I know a lot of great men and great women. I believe most people are fundamentally good.

In any case, whether rare or not, a good spouse is certainly worth more than anything you could physically own, so, there I completely agree with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The problem with this is that most men are horrible husbands. If your daughter marries young, doesn't have any decent career, and ends up like 75% of the women with an arrogant bastard of a husband who cheats on her and treats her badly, she will be very unhappy. I am guessing you are a good man who treats his wife well, but really those are rare. Look at the men around you. Would you want to be under their thumb?

You seem big on realism. Realistically, for a woman, she should plan on supporting herself and her children with a job that makes enough money so she can be comfortable. If she is one of the rare women who catches a decent man, she can always fall back to your dream plan.

I'm a woman actually. With a wonderful husband, and while I am grateful everyday, I'm not the only one with a wonderful husband. There are many good people in the world (and many crappy ones).

I agree that a woman should plan for the possibility of supporting herself and her children. I never suggested that a woman not work (unless she works that arrangement out with her husband and is comfortable with the risk).

Then your advice is good advice. Just as long as your daughters know that a good man is hard to find, and worth far more than rubies or pearls. (Better not to marry at all than try to live as the little woman to a man who is not a good man)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument is fantastically black and white, like a cheap IKEA rug, and just as threadbare. Children need someone in a flexible work path, therefore, one spouse should sacrifice their career, and it should be a woman, because if it's the husband, then the wife wouldn't want to have sex with him, and the husband will be mad, because no sex. Delightfully stupid in its rigidity, childish even. As if you've never heard of shared sacrifices, or women not thinking of their husbands in such neanderthal terms, or both spouses taking medium-load careers to spend time with children, or outsourced housework, or a multitude of other paths to fulfillment. Yes, it must all be your way, because eyes and ears, and if someone actually is living a life that's not based on your rules, then "good for you, you're an exception". LOL.

I know you are being sarcastic, but this seems to be correct.

Despite the claims equality, men are still expected to be earners, and if they are not, women lose respect for them and starting thinking about divorce. This message has been consistent, loud and clear -- to the point where I honestly find it difficult to believe anyone who claims otherwise. On the other hand, SAHMs also get resentful towards men who makes lots of money and work long hours. These 2 topics alone constitute about %60 of the threads on DCUM.

It seems like most men should marry women who work "mommy-track" jobs. That way, the man can still be the "earner" and the fact that he does less around the house can be rationalized by the fact that the woman works a more flexible job. Both women who are super ambitious and women who have zero interested in work should be avoided.

Thank for this lesson. I'm not even joking at all. I have learned much from DCUM. Thank you!

I think you are taking two different kinds of women who post here and melding them into a single woman. But they are separate. There are women who want big earners. There are women who want a best friend. Only a very small fraction think they should have both. For the rest, some prefer one, some the other.

I appreciate this point, and I think it's insightful.

I am the woman with the "fantastically black and white argument".

I definitely fall into the "prefer a best friend" camp. My husband has a good paying (not rich) and family-friendly job. When we were dating, he was able to spend a lot of time with me and we became very close. This is one of the main reasons I married him - men I had dated previously may have had higher paying jobs but were always working. I knew that wasn't going to work for me. It will work for some women, as you pointed out.

We don't live a super fancy lifestyle. And I do work, but we keep our main expenses low enough so that I know I can scale back work or quit my job if family demands (aging parents, for example) become heavy. Knowing that my husband could and would swing it by himself if he had to and that he would never expect me to take care of us financially (unless he himself became ill or there was some other tragedy) is a very good feeling.

If other women want to make other choices, go ahead. I'm not sharing my view for religious reasons or because I need my own choices validated. I'm simply just making observations and drawing conclusions based on them. If you think I'm wrong, do whatever you want. What the hell do I care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The problem with this is that most men are horrible husbands. If your daughter marries young, doesn't have any decent career, and ends up like 75% of the women with an arrogant bastard of a husband who cheats on her and treats her badly, she will be very unhappy. I am guessing you are a good man who treats his wife well, but really those are rare. Look at the men around you. Would you want to be under their thumb?

You seem big on realism. Realistically, for a woman, she should plan on supporting herself and her children with a job that makes enough money so she can be comfortable. If she is one of the rare women who catches a decent man, she can always fall back to your dream plan.

I'm a woman actually. With a wonderful husband, and while I am grateful everyday, I'm not the only one with a wonderful husband. There are many good people in the world (and many crappy ones).

I agree that a woman should plan for the possibility of supporting herself and her children. I never suggested that a woman not work (unless she works that arrangement out with her husband and is comfortable with the risk).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument is fantastically black and white, like a cheap IKEA rug, and just as threadbare. Children need someone in a flexible work path, therefore, one spouse should sacrifice their career, and it should be a woman, because if it's the husband, then the wife wouldn't want to have sex with him, and the husband will be mad, because no sex. Delightfully stupid in its rigidity, childish even. As if you've never heard of shared sacrifices, or women not thinking of their husbands in such neanderthal terms, or both spouses taking medium-load careers to spend time with children, or outsourced housework, or a multitude of other paths to fulfillment. Yes, it must all be your way, because eyes and ears, and if someone actually is living a life that's not based on your rules, then "good for you, you're an exception". LOL.

I know you are being sarcastic, but this seems to be correct.

Despite the claims equality, men are still expected to be earners, and if they are not, women lose respect for them and starting thinking about divorce. This message has been consistent, loud and clear -- to the point where I honestly find it difficult to believe anyone who claims otherwise. On the other hand, SAHMs also get resentful towards men who makes lots of money and work long hours. These 2 topics alone constitute about %60 of the threads on DCUM.

It seems like most men should marry women who work "mommy-track" jobs. That way, the man can still be the "earner" and the fact that he does less around the house can be rationalized by the fact that the woman works a more flexible job. Both women who are super ambitious and women who have zero interested in work should be avoided.

Thank for this lesson. I'm not even joking at all. I have learned much from DCUM. Thank you!

I think you are taking two different kinds of women who post here and melding them into a single woman. But they are separate. There are women who want big earners. There are women who want a best friend. Only a very small fraction think they should have both. For the rest, some prefer one, some the other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument is fantastically black and white, like a cheap IKEA rug, and just as threadbare. Children need someone in a flexible work path, therefore, one spouse should sacrifice their career, and it should be a woman, because if it's the husband, then the wife wouldn't want to have sex with him, and the husband will be mad, because no sex. Delightfully stupid in its rigidity, childish even. As if you've never heard of shared sacrifices, or women not thinking of their husbands in such neanderthal terms, or both spouses taking medium-load careers to spend time with children, or outsourced housework, or a multitude of other paths to fulfillment. Yes, it must all be your way, because eyes and ears, and if someone actually is living a life that's not based on your rules, then "good for you, you're an exception". LOL.

I know you are being sarcastic, but this seems to be correct.

Despite the claims equality, men are still expected to be earners, and if they are not, women lose respect for them and starting thinking about divorce. This message has been consistent, loud and clear -- to the point where I honestly find it difficult to believe anyone who claims otherwise. On the other hand, SAHMs also get resentful towards men who makes lots of money and work long hours. These 2 topics alone constitute about %60 of the threads on DCUM.

It seems like most men should marry women who work "mommy-track" jobs. That way, the man can still be the "earner" and the fact that he does less around the house can be rationalized by the fact that the woman works a more flexible job. Both women who are super ambitious and women who have zero interested in work should be avoided.

Thank for this lesson. I'm not even joking at all. I have learned much from DCUM. Thank you!

Anonymous wrote:

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

The problem with this is that most men are horrible husbands. If your daughter marries young, doesn't have any decent career, and ends up like 75% of the women with an arrogant bastard of a husband who cheats on her and treats her badly, she will be very unhappy. I am guessing you are a good man who treats his wife well, but really those are rare. Look at the men around you. Would you want to be under their thumb?

You seem big on realism. Realistically, for a woman, she should plan on supporting herself and her children with a job that makes enough money so she can be comfortable. If she is one of the rare women who catches a decent man, she can always fall back to your dream plan.

Has your husband looked into substituting until he gets recertified? If he had a certification and let it lapse, all he needs to do is take the PRAXIS I and II tests. Public schools are always looking for good substitutes, especially for long term leaves. The pay is not too shabby ( starting around $20/hour for certified teachers).
It is a start.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Must be a nice life, to need to neither work and nor take care of kids/the household.

Wow. Very closed-minded.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument is fantastically black and white, like a cheap IKEA rug, and just as threadbare. Children need someone in a flexible work path, therefore, one spouse should sacrifice their career, and it should be a woman, because if it's the husband, then the wife wouldn't want to have sex with him, and the husband will be mad, because no sex. Delightfully stupid in its rigidity, childish even. As if you've never heard of shared sacrifices, or women not thinking of their husbands in such neanderthal terms, or both spouses taking medium-load careers to spend time with children, or outsourced housework, or a multitude of other paths to fulfillment. Yes, it must all be your way, because eyes and ears, and if someone actually is living a life that's not based on your rules, then "good for you, you're an exception". LOL.

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.

There was also a woman posting upthread that her husband does EVERYTHING around the house when he doesn't work, and she hopes (rephrasing) he never works again. Sounds like not ALL husbands don't help out. You're generalizing.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You saying "most people don't" or "most women don't" doesn't count as empirical evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Must be a nice life, to need to neither work and nor take care of kids/the household.