Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s reasonable to generalize about the SAH decision. In my larger circle alone I have examples of each of the below I can point to:

- SAH mutually agreed upon and supported by both spouses, WOH closely involved
- ineffective SAH who quit against wishes of WOH who does a lot at home, deep resentment by WOH
- SAH mutually agreed upon but WOH has become controlling jerk, SAH hides spending and has to ask for money
- SAH who quit with mutual support, years later WOH is rewriting narrative as SAH was unilateral and unwanted
- Reluctant SAH forced into that position by being traveling spouse who is appreciative
- SAH who refused to go back to work after kids were in school despite earlier agreement
- SAH of SN kid where there is disagreement on how to handle SN kid
- SAH where WOH is so checked out he doesn’t know what grade his kids are in
- SAH who is totally alcoholic and non-functioning, WOH hires nannies and scrambles all the time
- SAH who quit with mutual support, WOH has uncontrolled rage issues and SAH won’t leave kids alone with WOH

All married though I suspect a few will eventually fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at this thread. Never get married fellas!

This thread and all the others on here. Financial predators.

Then don’t. Don’t have kids, don’t get married, go play XBox. No one needs you.

Interesting how some grown women think that they should be taken care of financially. Be a feminist and get a job.

This is because you don't see work outside of the house as work. It's actual work. More work most of the time. It never ends. And yes stay at home parents have more time to shop and cook for you, take care of your kids (a nanny alone charges $15 an hour per kid around here), and pets, clean your room and do your laundry. Handle finances and pay taxes, and handle appointments and vacation planning. Buy gifts. Coordinate friend get-togethers. This is also why men want another women right after. They know they don't want to handle this work. But it's actual work. There are actually ways you can outsource this stuff and you can see how it all adds up financially.

I’m a WOHM. You need to be a bit more objective. The childcare part, yes. You covered — his half. You would have had to cover your half from your paycheck if you worked because it’s your child also. So take that $15 and make it $7.50. The rest of the stuff WOHMs do too. You think someone else buys the gifts? Plans the vacations and holidays? I’m folding a load of laundry every other night.

It is not a good financial deal for women to SAH. Not for the husband, not for the wife. There are other intangibles but if you get divorced recognize you had the privilege of not working for many years and that’s what it was. I am not saying there should not be child support and bridge alimony. But a man is not a plan. You can’t plan to live off someone else’s job and never support yourself in life.

100% this.

I 100% recognize this now but I didn't at the time. Since that is the situation, should I forever be up against a financial wall? My earning potential suffered while he never had to miss a meeting, a work dinner, or a business trip. His continued to contribute to retirement while I stayed at home. I took a job earning the same amount as I was making 8 years prior when I left the workforce. I'm happily working full-time now and would not expect spousal support but what about the 1/2 of the retirement contributions and interest for the period that I was at home?

Yes, that’s what you chose when you decided to SAH. I’m not being mean, that’s just life. It’s a trade off and the woman assumes a lot of the risk in that scenario. I would never recommend it to my daughter unless she had a great prenup and even then — why? Life is uncertain, don’t put your eggs in one basket.

It is always important for women to look out for themselves. Many women sell themselves down the river for a Hallmark card slogan one day of the year. If it was such a good deal to stay at home and so valuable and important, men would do it.

I mean sort of except alimony DOES exist for women who make this choice, and rightfully so.

Permanent alimony is only available in 14 states. Taking alimony means you're depending on your ex to pay. My only point is that it's a position of relative vulnerability, which is why you rarely see men taking it. Men look out for themselves. The whole thing is very tricky. I will advise my daughter never to marry someone who isn't willing to make career sacrifices to the same extent that she does. Both parents need to be involved in raising the kids, and both need to take the career hits. Otherwise you're taking a real risk with your financial future, unless you are independently wealthy.

I totally agree with the statement above. A man who is not willing to equally sacrifice his career for kids is not considering his wife an equal. He should contribute equally even if she makes $50K and he makes $500K. It's not about the money, it's about considering the wife a true equal and valuing her work in the office and at home.
My income was not that far from my exH when I was 25 ($85K at 25 vs his $170 at 30+). But when I took the setback, he did not and by the end of the marriage I had zero independent income while he had a $1mm/year. And he decided he was god and I was nobody, cheated on me and we divorced.

This shows in fact how much professional women can loose if they sacrifice themselves for kids and receive no support.

Most wives are not "true equals" from the career standpoint and should not be considered as such. You are a case in point. You were making about half what he did when you started. Then when you got divorced he was making $1m a year. If you hadn't gotten married you would not be making $1m a year. Your career was in no respect equal to his, get outta here with that nonsense.

"He should contribute equally even if she makes $50K and he makes $500K." -- another absolutely ridiculous example. These people are not even close to equal and it is absurd to insist that he should consider her one. If the genders were reversed, she was making $500k and him $50k, let's not even pretend she would consider him an equal. Indeed, they'd be so unequal that she'd never even consider marrying him in the first place.

The cold hard fact is that women don't want to marry an equal - they want to "marry up" - but at the same time they want the man to pretend she is his "true equal". Which is fine if that makes her feel happy during the marriage, but when it comes to making a financial settlement during divorce, nope, forget that sht, you were NOT his equal and you shouldn't be treated as one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at this thread. Never get married fellas!

This thread and all the others on here. Financial predators.

Then don’t. Don’t have kids, don’t get married, go play XBox. No one needs you.

Interesting how some grown women think that they should be taken care of financially. Be a feminist and get a job.

This is because you don't see work outside of the house as work. It's actual work. More work most of the time. It never ends. And yes stay at home parents have more time to shop and cook for you, take care of your kids (a nanny alone charges $15 an hour per kid around here), and pets, clean your room and do your laundry. Handle finances and pay taxes, and handle appointments and vacation planning. Buy gifts. Coordinate friend get-togethers. This is also why men want another women right after. They know they don't want to handle this work. But it's actual work. There are actually ways you can outsource this stuff and you can see how it all adds up financially.

I’m a WOHM. You need to be a bit more objective. The childcare part, yes. You covered — his half. You would have had to cover your half from your paycheck if you worked because it’s your child also. So take that $15 and make it $7.50. The rest of the stuff WOHMs do too. You think someone else buys the gifts? Plans the vacations and holidays? I’m folding a load of laundry every other night.

It is not a good financial deal for women to SAH. Not for the husband, not for the wife. There are other intangibles but if you get divorced recognize you had the privilege of not working for many years and that’s what it was. I am not saying there should not be child support and bridge alimony. But a man is not a plan. You can’t plan to live off someone else’s job and never support yourself in life.

100% this.

I 100% recognize this now but I didn't at the time. Since that is the situation, should I forever be up against a financial wall? My earning potential suffered while he never had to miss a meeting, a work dinner, or a business trip. His continued to contribute to retirement while I stayed at home. I took a job earning the same amount as I was making 8 years prior when I left the workforce. I'm happily working full-time now and would not expect spousal support but what about the 1/2 of the retirement contributions and interest for the period that I was at home?

Yes, that’s what you chose when you decided to SAH. I’m not being mean, that’s just life. It’s a trade off and the woman assumes a lot of the risk in that scenario. I would never recommend it to my daughter unless she had a great prenup and even then — why? Life is uncertain, don’t put your eggs in one basket.

It is always important for women to look out for themselves. Many women sell themselves down the river for a Hallmark card slogan one day of the year. If it was such a good deal to stay at home and so valuable and important, men would do it.

I mean sort of except alimony DOES exist for women who make this choice, and rightfully so.

Permanent alimony is only available in 14 states. Taking alimony means you're depending on your ex to pay. My only point is that it's a position of relative vulnerability, which is why you rarely see men taking it. Men look out for themselves. The whole thing is very tricky. I will advise my daughter never to marry someone who isn't willing to make career sacrifices to the same extent that she does. Both parents need to be involved in raising the kids, and both need to take the career hits. Otherwise you're taking a real risk with your financial future, unless you are independently wealthy.

I totally agree with the statement above. A man who is not willing to equally sacrifice his career for kids is not considering his wife an equal. He should contribute equally even if she makes $50K and he makes $500K. It's not about the money, it's about considering the wife a true equal and valuing her work in the office and at home.
My income was not that far from my exH when I was 25 ($85K at 25 vs his $170 at 30+). But when I took the setback, he did not and by the end of the marriage I had zero independent income while he had a $1mm/year. And he decided he was god and I was nobody, cheated on me and we divorced.

This shows in fact how much professional women can loose if they sacrifice themselves for kids and receive no support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at this thread. Never get married fellas!

This thread and all the others on here. Financial predators.

Then don’t. Don’t have kids, don’t get married, go play XBox. No one needs you.

Interesting how some grown women think that they should be taken care of financially. Be a feminist and get a job.

This is because you don't see work outside of the house as work. It's actual work. More work most of the time. It never ends. And yes stay at home parents have more time to shop and cook for you, take care of your kids (a nanny alone charges $15 an hour per kid around here), and pets, clean your room and do your laundry. Handle finances and pay taxes, and handle appointments and vacation planning. Buy gifts. Coordinate friend get-togethers. This is also why men want another women right after. They know they don't want to handle this work. But it's actual work. There are actually ways you can outsource this stuff and you can see how it all adds up financially.

I’m a WOHM. You need to be a bit more objective. The childcare part, yes. You covered — his half. You would have had to cover your half from your paycheck if you worked because it’s your child also. So take that $15 and make it $7.50. The rest of the stuff WOHMs do too. You think someone else buys the gifts? Plans the vacations and holidays? I’m folding a load of laundry every other night.

It is not a good financial deal for women to SAH. Not for the husband, not for the wife. There are other intangibles but if you get divorced recognize you had the privilege of not working for many years and that’s what it was. I am not saying there should not be child support and bridge alimony. But a man is not a plan. You can’t plan to live off someone else’s job and never support yourself in life.

100% this.

I 100% recognize this now but I didn't at the time. Since that is the situation, should I forever be up against a financial wall? My earning potential suffered while he never had to miss a meeting, a work dinner, or a business trip. His continued to contribute to retirement while I stayed at home. I took a job earning the same amount as I was making 8 years prior when I left the workforce. I'm happily working full-time now and would not expect spousal support but what about the 1/2 of the retirement contributions and interest for the period that I was at home?

Yes, that’s what you chose when you decided to SAH. I’m not being mean, that’s just life. It’s a trade off and the woman assumes a lot of the risk in that scenario. I would never recommend it to my daughter unless she had a great prenup and even then — why? Life is uncertain, don’t put your eggs in one basket.

It is always important for women to look out for themselves. Many women sell themselves down the river for a Hallmark card slogan one day of the year. If it was such a good deal to stay at home and so valuable and important, men would do it.

I mean sort of except alimony DOES exist for women who make this choice, and rightfully so.

Permanent alimony is only available in 14 states. Taking alimony means you're depending on your ex to pay. My only point is that it's a position of relative vulnerability, which is why you rarely see men taking it. Men look out for themselves. The whole thing is very tricky. I will advise my daughter never to marry someone who isn't willing to make career sacrifices to the same extent that she does. Both parents need to be involved in raising the kids, and both need to take the career hits. Otherwise you're taking a real risk with your financial future, unless you are independently wealthy.

You can advise your daughter whatever you want but when the rubber hits the road the full ugly reality of gender roles comes out. I met my husband in law school and we both went straight to biglaw. But he adopted the classic “I’ll do my best she’ll do the rest” approach and my work suffered because I wasn’t willing to let every single domestic ball drop the way he was just because a brief deadline was on the horizon. There is just no way for any woman to know what it will be like in advance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all these posts but my wife and I are heading for divorce and it's a total fiction that she gave up some high powered job to be a SAHM. She will come out the other side far more wealthy than if she stayed single, with about 1.5m in the back at age 44. She has an undergrad in sociology.

I have no problem with short term alimony while she gets back on her feet and no problem with child support. That she isn't going to have the same lifestyle as me going forward is just the price of exit. Life isnt fair. I didn't want the be divorced either and while I recognize my faults, she is just as at fault for us not working out.

This. Hardly being thrown into poverty.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all these posts but my wife and I are heading for divorce and it's a total fiction that she gave up some high powered job to be a SAHM. She will come out the other side far more wealthy than if she stayed single, with about 1.5m in the back at age 44. She has an undergrad in sociology.

I have no problem with short term alimony while she gets back on her feet and no problem with child support. That she isn't going to have the same lifestyle as me going forward is just the price of exit. Life isnt fair. I didn't want the be divorced either and while I recognize my faults, she is just as at fault for us not working out.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all these posts but my wife and I are heading for divorce and it's a total fiction that she gave up some high powered job to be a SAHM. She will come out the other side far more wealthy than if she stayed single, with about 1.5m in the back at age 44. She has an undergrad in sociology.

I have no problem with short term alimony while she gets back on her feet and no problem with child support. That she isn't going to have the same lifestyle as me going forward is just the price of exit. Life isnt fair. I didn't want the be divorced either and while I recognize my faults, she is just as at fault for us not working out.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry my post was inserted mid-quote. I'll try again.

I'm the poster above who stayed home for a number of years. I want to clarify that I would never expect alimony in this situation even though my earning potential took a big hit. I'm doing ok now. Had I not stopped working I'd probably be making at least 200K at least. I left the workforce in 2008 90K came back full-time in 2018 at the same number and am now at 130K. What I'm concerned about is the 401(k) situation. I was so far behind when I went back to work that I'll never make up the ground that I lost. I have 400K and he has 2m.

To the working spouses who were able to manage it all, kudos to you. I've had years to come to terms with the fact that I didn't choose my spouse very well. He would have never been mr. 50% and I couldn't see trying to hold it all together while working and having two small kids. He got to continue with his entitled behavior, advance in his career, make extremely limited contributions at home etc. etc. I'm back at work, doing all the cooking, 90% of driving kids, all household organization, and he is still sailing along. Covid has been a huge blessing to work-life balance for me at least!

Anonymous wrote:Sorry my post was inserted mid-quote. I'll try again.

I'm the poster above who stayed home for a number of years. I want to clarify that I would never expect alimony in this situation even though my earning potential took a big hit. I'm doing ok now. Had I not stopped working I'd probably be making at least 200K at least. I left the workforce in 2008 90K came back full-time in 2018 at the same number and am now at 130K. What I'm concerned about is the 401(k) situation. I was so far behind when I went back to work that I'll never make up the ground that I lost. I have 400K and he has 2m.

To the working spouses who were able to manage it all, kudos to you. I've had years to come to terms with the fact that I didn't choose my spouse very well. He would have never been mr. 50% and I couldn't see trying to hold it all together while working and having two small kids. He got to continue with his entitled behavior, advance in his career, make extremely limited contributions at home etc. etc. I'm back at work, doing all the cooking, 90% of driving kids, all household organization, and he is still sailing along. Covid has been a huge blessing to work-life balance for me at least!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at this thread. Never get married fellas!

This thread and all the others on here. Financial predators.

Then don’t. Don’t have kids, don’t get married, go play XBox. No one needs you.

Interesting how some grown women think that they should be taken care of financially. Be a feminist and get a job.

This is because you don't see work outside of the house as work. It's actual work. More work most of the time. It never ends. And yes stay at home parents have more time to shop and cook for you, take care of your kids (a nanny alone charges $15 an hour per kid around here), and pets, clean your room and do your laundry. Handle finances and pay taxes, and handle appointments and vacation planning. Buy gifts. Coordinate friend get-togethers. This is also why men want another women right after. They know they don't want to handle this work. But it's actual work. There are actually ways you can outsource this stuff and you can see how it all adds up financially.

I'm the poster above who stayed home for a number of years. I want to clarify that I would never expect alimony in this situation even though my earning potential took a big hit. I'm doing ok now. Had I not stopped working I'd probably be making at least 200K at least. I left the workforce in 2008 90K came back full-time in 2018 at the same number and am now at 130K. What I'm concerned about is the 401(k) situation. I was so far behind when I went back to work that I'll never make up the ground that I lost. I have 400K and he has 2m.

To the working spouses who were able to manage it all, kudos to you. I've had years to come to terms with the fact that I didn't choose my spouse very well. He would have never been mr. 50% and I couldn't see trying to hold it all together while working and having two small kids. He got to continue with his entitled behavior, advance in his career, make extremely limited contributions at home etc. etc. I'm back at work, doing all the cooking, 90% of driving kids, all household organization, and he is still sailing along. Covid has been a huge blessing to work-life balance for me at least!


I’m a WOHM. You need to be a bit more objective. The childcare part, yes. You covered — his half. You would have had to cover your half from your paycheck if you worked because it’s your child also. So take that $15 and make it $7.50. The rest of the stuff WOHMs do too. You think someone else buys the gifts? Plans the vacations and holidays? I’m folding a load of laundry every other night.

It is not a good financial deal for women to SAH. Not for the husband, not for the wife. There are other intangibles but if you get divorced recognize you had the privilege of not working for many years and that’s what it was. I am not saying there should not be child support and bridge alimony. But a man is not a plan. You can’t plan to live off someone else’s job and never support yourself in life.

100% this.

I 100% recognize this now but I didn't at the time. Since that is the situation, should I forever be up against a financial wall? My earning potential suffered while he never had to miss a meeting, a work dinner, or a business trip. His continued to contribute to retirement while I stayed at home. I took a job earning the same amount as I was making 8 years prior when I left the workforce. I'm happily working full-time now and would not expect spousal support but what about the 1/2 of the retirement contributions and interest for the period that I was at home?

Yes, that’s what you chose when you decided to SAH. I’m not being mean, that’s just life. It’s a trade off and the woman assumes a lot of the risk in that scenario. I would never recommend it to my daughter unless she had a great prenup and even then — why? Life is uncertain, don’t put your eggs in one basket.

It is always important for women to look out for themselves. Many women sell themselves down the river for a Hallmark card slogan one day of the year. If it was such a good deal to stay at home and so valuable and important, men would do it.

Anonymous wrote:God this is the most pitiful thing I have ever read. What a bunch of bottom feeding losers. Try getting a job.