Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing his first 7 years to her last 3 years isn't apples to oranges. He had the entire financial burden of the family to carry. That's not to blame her -- she was doing her part by maintaining the home front. But the fact is that she's not confronting a similar financial situation when making decisions about how to balance work and family.

OP isn’t worried about the financial burden, apparently. He just cannot handle the burden of deciding if it’s spaghetti or filet for dinner every night, and thinks this should be up to his wife. Well, that and the whole she should be available for sex thing.


OP had his wife’s support for YEARS, in a much more difficult transaction (being SAH). She supported his needs and wants for years. He wouldn’t likely be in the position he is now without her. Her income after many years out of the workforce is nothing to sneeze at, plus it sounds she feels work is part of her identity. It’s her turn. What he is being asked to do is no more than a lot of women are this board are tasked with.

I just think OP likes to feel like “the man” and has certain gender role sterotypes in his mind, whether he sees it or not.

You are so absorbed in your political rhetoric that you've lost sight of the fact that this woman is spending almost zero time with her children. That is not the norm for working moms.

You made that up. She's home for dinner at least 4 nights a week and spends all weekend with them. More time than he spent with them when she was a SAHM.

People on this board are such zealots that they can't even argue from a position of good faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing his first 7 years to her last 3 years isn't apples to oranges. He had the entire financial burden of the family to carry. That's not to blame her -- she was doing her part by maintaining the home front. But the fact is that she's not confronting a similar financial situation when making decisions about how to balance work and family.

No one needs half a million dollars to live on. OP could be making half that much and they could be quite comfortable. I doubt anyone just threw an extra $250k at him for the heck of it, he made that additional money because he worked harder than he needed to. So let's not pretend OP didn't choose to absent himself from the family more than necessary during those years to pursue his professional ambitions. Go ahead and call his wife out if you disagree with her choices, but at least hold OP to the same standard.

My husband makes twice what op makes and is home for dinner most every night. It is very possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing his first 7 years to her last 3 years isn't apples to oranges. He had the entire financial burden of the family to carry. That's not to blame her -- she was doing her part by maintaining the home front. But the fact is that she's not confronting a similar financial situation when making decisions about how to balance work and family.

OP isn’t worried about the financial burden, apparently. He just cannot handle the burden of deciding if it’s spaghetti or filet for dinner every night, and thinks this should be up to his wife. Well, that and the whole she should be available for sex thing.


OP had his wife’s support for YEARS, in a much more difficult transaction (being SAH). She supported his needs and wants for years. He wouldn’t likely be in the position he is now without her. Her income after many years out of the workforce is nothing to sneeze at, plus it sounds she feels work is part of her identity. It’s her turn. What he is being asked to do is no more than a lot of women are this board are tasked with.

I just think OP likes to feel like “the man” and has certain gender role sterotypes in his mind, whether he sees it or not.

You are so absorbed in your political rhetoric that you've lost sight of the fact that this woman is spending almost zero time with her children. That is not the norm for working moms.

Anonymous wrote:Comparing his first 7 years to her last 3 years isn't apples to oranges. He had the entire financial burden of the family to carry. That's not to blame her -- she was doing her part by maintaining the home front. But the fact is that she's not confronting a similar financial situation when making decisions about how to balance work and family.

OP isn’t worried about the financial burden, apparently. He just cannot handle the burden of deciding if it’s spaghetti or filet for dinner every night, and thinks this should be up to his wife. Well, that and the whole she should be available for sex thing.


OP had his wife’s support for YEARS, in a much more difficult transaction (being SAH). She supported his needs and wants for years. He wouldn’t likely be in the position he is now without her. Her income after many years out of the workforce is nothing to sneeze at, plus it sounds she feels work is part of her identity. It’s her turn. What he is being asked to do is no more than a lot of women are this board are tasked with.

I just think OP likes to feel like “the man” and has certain gender role sterotypes in his mind, whether he sees it or not.

OP, (female here) we went through sometime very similar after I went back to work to a very demanding but fulfilling job after six years at home with the kids. I definitely worked more than DH but made less (but I still made in the mid six figures). We didn't "need" my income, but it was very important to me in terms of my identity and the kind of role model I wanted to be to my kids (that there were career options for working moms, etc.). My husband was a bit worried about how it would impact our family but overall was super, super supportive and my biggest cheerleader. And the job about knocked my socks off in terms of stress, hours, expectations and pace. I felt overwhelmed but also energized about being valued and "needed" at work and being a real leader in terms of making big decisions, etc. I will also say that I did a terrible job of setting boundaries early on. I think I was so intent on proving myself and showing that I still "had it" after many years away, that I overdid it and took on too much.

It became a set of very delicate conversations with my husband. If he came complaining to me that I was "doing" it all wrong (work, family life, attention to him, etc.), I have no doubt that I would have lost it completely - I would have been so, so angry at him for criticizing me and expecting me to do it all right at first, have all the answers, meet *his* needs all the time, etc. But he did a great job of couching it in terms of real in-depth conversations (how did *I* feel about my job, how *I* was doing, how I felt about my balance, etc.) and in a, "I care about you and want to support you how you want to be supported way." He also continued his cheerleading and helped me gain confidence that I was rocking my job and could therefore have the 'capital' at work to say no to a few things. He constantly encouraged me by saying how lucky my firm was to have me there, etc. etc.

These conversations (over a series of months and months) really helped *me* come to the conclusion that I really needed to dial back and make some changes - and I did. Not because he was being a baby and wanted me around to take care of all the things, but because it felt out of whack to ME and because I felt confident in my job after over investing over a period of time to really establish myself.

I think you definitely need to take the long-game here and make it more about aspriational vision for each of you as a family and for your individual careers vs. 'you work too much and I'm not getting enough sex.' Oh and on the sex thing, that was less an issue for us as we are believers in planning it so we had standing nights each week (usually twice/ sometimes three times) where we just knew it was happening. So no worry about rejection or initiation - it just happened because we prioritized it.

Good luck - you sound like a lovely, caring father and husband.

Anonymous wrote:Comparing his first 7 years to her last 3 years isn't apples to oranges. He had the entire financial burden of the family to carry. That's not to blame her -- she was doing her part by maintaining the home front. But the fact is that she's not confronting a similar financial situation when making decisions about how to balance work and family.

No one needs half a million dollars to live on. OP could be making half that much and they could be quite comfortable. I doubt anyone just threw an extra $250k at him for the heck of it, he made that additional money because he worked harder than he needed to. So let's not pretend OP didn't choose to absent himself from the family more than necessary during those years to pursue his professional ambitions. Go ahead and call his wife out if you disagree with her choices, but at least hold OP to the same standard.

Comparing his first 7 years to her last 3 years isn't apples to oranges. He had the entire financial burden of the family to carry. That's not to blame her -- she was doing her part by maintaining the home front. But the fact is that she's not confronting a similar financial situation when making decisions about how to balance work and family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How could he have travelled more but been home more frequently than the wife who is not travelling and sometimes home M-T for dinner and always home F-Sun for dinner???

He couldn't have, OP is lying (or in denial) about that. Has said he worked longer hours during that time than he does now and traveled "a lot." If OP is getting home at 6 every day now, longer hours means he wasn't getting home any earlier than 7 during that time (and I suspect it was often later than that), so at most OP's wife is currently working an extra 5 hours a week than OP did during non-travel periods, but she doesn't also travel on top of it. OP is losing more and more credibility every time he posts to this thread because his story just doesn't add up, which means that the reality of their situation would probably paint his far less favorably than his account here does.

When did you start hating men? OP easily could have been working from home in the evenings. In any case, two wrongs don't make a right. Both parents should be present in the kids life, which means, at a minimum, being home for dinner on a regular basis.

Working from home in the evenings is still working, and it means he wasn't present for his family while he did it. He may have done it after the kids went to bed, but that just means that he gave what was leftover to the kids and his wife got the scraps, so to speak. You are correct that two wrongs don't make a right, but OP doesn't seem his previous work habits as a wrong, so that expression doesn't apply here. Unless OP

Oh, and your misogyny is showing with that "hating men" comment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How could he have travelled more but been home more frequently than the wife who is not travelling and sometimes home M-T for dinner and always home F-Sun for dinner???

He couldn't have, OP is lying (or in denial) about that. Has said he worked longer hours during that time than he does now and traveled "a lot." If OP is getting home at 6 every day now, longer hours means he wasn't getting home any earlier than 7 during that time (and I suspect it was often later than that), so at most OP's wife is currently working an extra 5 hours a week than OP did during non-travel periods, but she doesn't also travel on top of it. OP is losing more and more credibility every time he posts to this thread because his story just doesn't add up, which means that the reality of their situation would probably paint his far less favorably than his account here does.

When did you start hating men? OP easily could have been working from home in the evenings. In any case, two wrongs don't make a right. Both parents should be present in the kids life, which means, at a minimum, being home for dinner on a regular basis.

Anonymous wrote:How could he have travelled more but been home more frequently than the wife who is not travelling and sometimes home M-T for dinner and always home F-Sun for dinner???

He couldn't have, OP is lying (or in denial) about that. Has said he worked longer hours during that time than he does now and traveled "a lot." If OP is getting home at 6 every day now, longer hours means he wasn't getting home any earlier than 7 during that time (and I suspect it was often later than that), so at most OP's wife is currently working an extra 5 hours a week than OP did during non-travel periods, but she doesn't also travel on top of it. OP is losing more and more credibility every time he posts to this thread because his story just doesn't add up, which means that the reality of their situation would probably paint his far less favorably than his account here does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How could he have travelled more but been home more frequently than the wife who is not travelling and sometimes home M-T for dinner and always home F-Sun for dinner???

He didn't. That PP misquoted him, he didn't say that he was home more frequently, but that *when* he was home he was home for dinner more frequently.

And the angry PP who has come along in the last few pages and repeatedly accused OP's wife of "not parenting" or "ignoring her kids" missed that he says right in the OP that she gives all her attention to her kids, he's complaining he's left with "scraps."

Honestly OP needs to just outsource more and see about asking her if she can make an effort to leave work earlier. Turning himself into a martyr over doing less than she did when she was supporting him, or trying to belittle her career (she only brings home low-six-figures, not the mid-six-figures that he was able to work up to by having a dedicated, supporting SAH spouse) are not good looks.

Congrats OP, you've reached the "or worse" part of "for better or for worse," when you have to play a supporting role for a period of your marriage. Be grateful you have a spouse who did it for you and make it work. The fact that you acknowledge you didn't thank her for her work when she was SAH but now want to be validated for handling dinners alone some weekdays means that if you really want to recalibrate, you should open with an apology, not a demand for sex and compliments.

If that is the 'for worse' part, sign me up! OP doesn't realize how good he has it.

Anonymous wrote:How could he have travelled more but been home more frequently than the wife who is not travelling and sometimes home M-T for dinner and always home F-Sun for dinner???

He didn't. That PP misquoted him, he didn't say that he was home more frequently, but that *when* he was home he was home for dinner more frequently.

And the angry PP who has come along in the last few pages and repeatedly accused OP's wife of "not parenting" or "ignoring her kids" missed that he says right in the OP that she gives all her attention to her kids, he's complaining he's left with "scraps."

Honestly OP needs to just outsource more and see about asking her if she can make an effort to leave work earlier. Turning himself into a martyr over doing less than she did when she was supporting him, or trying to belittle her career (she only brings home low-six-figures, not the mid-six-figures that he was able to work up to by having a dedicated, supporting SAH spouse) are not good looks.

Congrats OP, you've reached the "or worse" part of "for better or for worse," when you have to play a supporting role for a period of your marriage. Be grateful you have a spouse who did it for you and make it work. The fact that you acknowledge you didn't thank her for her work when she was SAH but now want to be validated for handling dinners alone some weekdays means that if you really want to recalibrate, you should open with an apology, not a demand for sex and compliments.

How could he have travelled more but been home more frequently than the wife who is not travelling and sometimes home M-T for dinner and always home F-Sun for dinner???

[vimeo]i

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she makes 20% of the income, it's a hobby. She has the luxury of doing what she loves because she doesn't have the burden and stress of absolutely having to supporting a family on the income. And she's been at it for three years -- that's plenty of time to get into the swing of things and re-establish an equitable work/life balance.

Work is more fun for her than boring old husband and kids. She's being selfish. And don't pretend like her being SAHM while he was working outside of the house was something she altruistically did solely for DH's benefit. He's making $500k per year. She obviously profits greatly from what she helped him achieve.

I would agree if her 20% is $20k, or $50k, or sure, $70k. But with DCUM salaries..... her 20% could be a freaking college education. Nothing to turn your nose up at.

After staying home for 7 years it will take time for her to get up to a reasonable ratio of HHI. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth the effort.

And as a woman, and a mother of daughters, I'd say it's important for the wife to have the ability to produce "only" $100k or what have you. A man is not a plan.

I’d say it’s more important any for both parents to be spending significant time with kids. We are talking about whether she should be working, but why she spends zero quality time with her family. What you are espousing is incredibly selfish. If op’s wife to focus all her time on her career, she should never have had kids. That is a perfectly fine choice. Too many dcum posters seem to have never wanted children and write post after post trying to justify that. Ignoring your children is not feminism.

I think it's important for both parents to have the ability to support the family. Spouse may not be there someday. Not selfish; practical.

You can easily support your family without ignoring your children. They are actually mutually exclusove outside the miserable world of some posters here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she makes 20% of the income, it's a hobby. She has the luxury of doing what she loves because she doesn't have the burden and stress of absolutely having to supporting a family on the income. And she's been at it for three years -- that's plenty of time to get into the swing of things and re-establish an equitable work/life balance.

Work is more fun for her than boring old husband and kids. She's being selfish. And don't pretend like her being SAHM while he was working outside of the house was something she altruistically did solely for DH's benefit. He's making $500k per year. She obviously profits greatly from what she helped him achieve.

Any job making six figures is not a hobby. That OP earns more does not mean she has to bend to his will and sacrifice who she is to his paycheck (which would still be true even if she weren't making six figures). If that's what OP expects, they both may be better off if he gets a divorce and a fleshlight.

Way to burn down that straw man. OP wants her to be home for dinner with the family and have a regular sex life with his spouse. That's hardly "bending to his will" and "sacrificing who she is." I get that indignation is easier if you turn it into something melodramatic. But OP isn't asking for anything particularly harsh or unreasonable in a marriage.

it's a melodramatic to say they are not having a "regular sex life" with 2 elementary school age kids, 2 full time workers and getting it once a week. It's also melodramatic to say she misses 90% of dinner when he said she is home Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

The reality is they have a normal sex life and she is home for about 50% of the dinners.

He can't handle the workload that most women complain about so it's fine, it is unhealthy to work that much if you are a H or a W. But the reasons he give are all about him, not about her health.

He wants more "atta boys" for doing what most parents do every day.

As Chris Rock would say, "What do you want, a cookie?"

Your life sure sounds miserable if this is what u looks like. I pity the kids in allot these situations,