I’m a WOHM who has made more than my DH for the entire time we’ve been together (over a decade) and sometimes way more. (He’s actually finally finished with medical training, so that will end next year!) I preface with that only to indicate that I have no direct dog in this fight, BUT I hate the assumptions throughout this thread that SAHMs all chose to be SAHMs with no input from their DHs and would somehow have more “rights” if they worked. In all of the couples I know where one person stays home, it was a joint decision often driven by the working partner who felt thehad r home life was just too difficult/their share of things
Was just too much to handle if their partner also worked. If that’s the scenario (unlike a SAHM who begged to stay home and her DH reluctantly agreed), I don’t see why she wouldn’t get as much of a say as if she worked... maybe even a bigger say since she’s the one who sacrificed her career for the “family’s” good.

Joint.

But SAHM can't force WOHM to stick with a horrible job / commute.

So my DW could insist we stay in DC area, but if I got sick of my firm job then I have the right to bail and find something new to do in life, which might result in a townhouse in Olney due to $$$. Can't say must be DC and must be Bethesda and you need to pay for it all.

Luckily I'm more materialistic than DW so it's never been an issue. But I think she's a diamond in the rough so not sure I can extrapolate.

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?

OP, I agree with you. I think it would be ridiculous for a SAHM to veto a move that is needed to keep the working parent employed or would greatly improve the working parent’s career. But if the move is merely for the working parent’s preference, then the working parent shouldn’t be a jerk and lord his/her money making over the SAHM.

Would it be okay for a WOHM to veto a move that would keep her partner employed or greatly improve their career? This just seems like something that would have to be up for discussion no matter what.

Does preference make the woking parent happy, then yes, the woking parent gets to decide. Nothing like being a breadwinner and being miserable at work.

If a $0 earning spouse is given the luxury of permission to do anything besides keeping quiet and enjoying the change of scenery, then she should be on her knees in gratitude.

I’m joking when I say that I know better than to bite the hand that feeds me, but I really do know that my lifestyle is dependent upon my ability to be flexible and roll with changes. So when it comes to making decisions, I can and do push back with questions, but nobody has unilateral decision making power. Unless it’s London. Then he knows there’s no need to ask me. Just send me the flight info so I can get us packed.

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?

OP, I agree with you. I think it would be ridiculous for a SAHM to veto a move that is needed to keep the working parent employed or would greatly improve the working parent’s career. But if the move is merely for the working parent’s preference, then the working parent shouldn’t be a jerk and lord his/her money making over the SAHM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there are some very valid reasons why a SAHP would object to a move.

Things like:
- family is close by and elders may need care soon, or already do
- kids are in good schools
- object to moving to a city without good medical care when you live in a city where that exits (especially if anyone in family has special needs)
-objecting to making a move to a higher COL city, where things would a family's financial situation would change for the worse

Weather, friends (for socially healthy people), liking the area or the climate or amenities are things to consider, but it is not really fair to veto on this basis alone.

This. I see a bunch of people above who said their moms hated new cities so much that they got divorced. Sounds like their relationships were tenuous to begin with, because a good marriage should survive a few friendless years in Cleveland. SAHM doesn't get to veto a good financial/professional opportunity because they have friends and a pool club they don't want to leave.

It depends on the number of hours that the other spouse works and how boring the city is.

If a spouse works long hours and the other spouse is finding it difficult to make new friends/a new support system, that can create serious issues in an otherwise good marriage. This would especialy be the case if the working spouse forced the move down the throat of the other spouse.

Anonymous wrote:I think there are some very valid reasons why a SAHP would object to a move.

Things like:
- family is close by and elders may need care soon, or already do
- kids are in good schools
- object to moving to a city without good medical care when you live in a city where that exits (especially if anyone in family has special needs)
-objecting to making a move to a higher COL city, where things would a family's financial situation would change for the worse

Weather, friends (for socially healthy people), liking the area or the climate or amenities are things to consider, but it is not really fair to veto on this basis alone.

This. I see a bunch of people above who said their moms hated new cities so much that they got divorced. Sounds like their relationships were tenuous to begin with, because a good marriage should survive a few friendless years in Cleveland. SAHM doesn't get to veto a good financial/professional opportunity because they have friends and a pool club they don't want to leave.

I am a WOHM and I take offense to the fact that you think her right is up for discussion. Just because she stays home doesn;t mean that suddenly she is not an equal partner in the marriage, if the decision was driven by job through moving or no food, I understand but this is ridiculous.

I think there are some very valid reasons why a SAHP would object to a move.

Things like:
- family is close by and elders may need care soon, or already do
- kids are in good schools
- object to moving to a city without good medical care when you live in a city where that exits (especially if anyone in family has special needs)
-objecting to making a move to a higher COL city, where things would a family's financial situation would change for the worse

Weather, friends (for socially healthy people), liking the area or the climate or amenities are things to consider, but it is not really fair to veto on this basis alone.

What's concerning- and I see this on DCUM often- is the working spouse isn't really looking for a better job, they just happen to hear of one and decide that specific job is the only thing that will make them happy. usually it doesn't actually make them happy- it's just that the grass looked greener- and they start wondering what the grass looks like elsewhere. I wouldn't agree to uproot my family on a whim; I would only move if my spouse had spent several months actually looking for a better job locally and turned up nothing.

This X100. I doubt its often about a SAHM not wanting to leave her own support network. If the family depends on only income a move could be very risky unless its to an area with many job opportunities for the other spouse. There are significant costs involved in moving an entire family. Moves can be hard on kids. Yes they survive but it is a loss for them and its sad to see your kids grieving for their home and friends.