Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My number one red flag was when a man assumed I'd birth his children for him. Who does he think he is?

On a side note, I've said the same thing to men because I know I will be so attached to a baby and feel awful leaving a six week old at a daycare. It has less to do with me and more with the baby. I didn't want to marry a man and have children with someone who couldn't sacrifice financially so that I could be there for our children. I will probably work as I have a great career but I want that option. I didn't want to marry someone who expects me to have two full time jobs and while they have one. If working with young kids were to be a requirement, I would most likely decide not to have kids.

PP, you are so, so not smart about things. Yes, an expectation that your partner will financially contribute is reasonable. But what isn't reasonable is an expectation that you don't have to contribute to your family's financial well-being. I have age on my side (I imagine a lot of you are younger 30-40 somethings), but I am going to describe to you a really sad reality four of my good girlfriends are dealing with right now.

They all made the choice to SAHM with their husband's "support." But in reality, their marriages weren't strong enough to survive and they are utterly, utterly screwed. Alimony only runs so long and those kids all went to college so there's no support. And they are stuck.

These were smart women! Women who knew better and thought the world was full of choices, but sadly it isn't. I feel for the OP because I think deep down inside that is what imploded some of my friends' marriages -- an expectation that they would be financially taken care of and had no role in solving financial problems (like layoffs) when they arise. It's sad, but I support my friends rebuilding themselves.

Listen, I have daughters. And I've made it clear to them that they need to plan on working or finding some sort of way to keep their careers going even if they have kids. Because the SAHM thing can breed entitlement and resentment and unless it's an open agreement, it's just a bad idea.

This is a great post. I've seen it happen myself. I also agree that some SAHMs seem entitled. I'm not sure where it was written that the man has to slog off to work while the woman stays home with the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

My number one red flag was when a man assumed I'd birth his children for him. Who does he think he is?

On a side note, I've said the same thing to men because I know I will be so attached to a baby and feel awful leaving a six week old at a daycare. It has less to do with me and more with the baby. I didn't want to marry a man and have children with someone who couldn't sacrifice financially so that I could be there for our children. I will probably work as I have a great career but I want that option. I didn't want to marry someone who expects me to have two full time jobs and while they have one. If working with young kids were to be a requirement, I would most likely decide not to have kids.

PP, you are so, so not smart about things. Yes, an expectation that your partner will financially contribute is reasonable. But what isn't reasonable is an expectation that you don't have to contribute to your family's financial well-being. I have agencies on my side (I imagine a lot of you are younger 30-40 somethings), but I am going to describe to you a really sad reality four of my good girlfriends are dealing with right now.

They all made the choice to SAHM with their husband's "support." But in reality, their marriages weren't strong enough to survive and they are utterly, utterly screwed. Alimony only runs so long and those kids all went to college so there's no support. And they are stuck.

These were smart women! Women who knew better and thought the world was full of choices, but sadly it isn't. I feel for the OP because I think deep down inside that is what imploded some of my friends' marriages -- an expectation that they would be financially taken care of and had no role in solving financial problems (like layoffs) when they arise. It's sad, but I support my friends rebuilding themselves.

Listen, I have daughters. And I've made it clear to them that they need to plan on working or finding some sort of way to keep their careers going even if they have kids. Because the SAHM thing can breed entitlement and resentment and unless it's an open agreement, it's just a bad idea.

Anonymous wrote:

My number one red flag was when a man assumed I'd birth his children for him. Who does he think he is?

On a side note, I've said the same thing to men because I know I will be so attached to a baby and feel awful leaving a six week old at a daycare. It has less to do with me and more with the baby. I didn't want to marry a man and have children with someone who couldn't sacrifice financially so that I could be there for our children. I will probably work as I have a great career but I want that option. I didn't want to marry someone who expects me to have two full time jobs and while they have one. If working with young kids were to be a requirement, I would most likely decide not to have kids.

PP, you are so, so not smart about things. Yes, an expectation that your partner will financially contribute is reasonable. But what isn't reasonable is an expectation that you don't have to contribute to your family's financial well-being. I have age on my side (I imagine a lot of you are younger 30-40 somethings), but I am going to describe to you a really sad reality four of my good girlfriends are dealing with right now.

They all made the choice to SAHM with their husband's "support." But in reality, their marriages weren't strong enough to survive and they are utterly, utterly screwed. Alimony only runs so long and those kids all went to college so there's no support. And they are stuck.

These were smart women! Women who knew better and thought the world was full of choices, but sadly it isn't. I feel for the OP because I think deep down inside that is what imploded some of my friends' marriages -- an expectation that they would be financially taken care of and had no role in solving financial problems (like layoffs) when they arise. It's sad, but I support my friends rebuilding themselves.

Listen, I have daughters. And I've made it clear to them that they need to plan on working or finding some sort of way to keep their careers going even if they have kids. Because the SAHM thing can breed entitlement and resentment and unless it's an open agreement, it's just a bad idea.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many men are sitting in marriages just waiting until the day that their youngest goes off to college to divorce their wives? I wonder how many women are completely shocked by this? And I wonder how many of these women were in the position as the original posters husband?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is insane. Mine wants me to SAH and raise our kids. Now I see what he'd think if I did.

I think the trolls took over this thread a long time ago. Don't listen to what these posters are saying, theres a very obvious agenda being pushed here, one that is held by a very small group, in reality. Most people really respect and admire SAHMs.

Of course, when the hypocritical DCUM harpies get exposed as hypocrites, they're the first to cry AGENDA! AGENDA! Most men respect and admire SAHMs, at least THOSE WHO RETURN TO WORK TO SUPPORT THEIR FUCKING FAMILIES. Too many women hide their laziness and refusal to contribute financially to their families in the guise of "staying home to raise children." You'd think women who actually contribute financially to their families would shame these pieces of shit into going back to work, but NO! They circle the wagons. Pathetic.

My girlfriend is going through this right now. Her sister in law is staying home, indefinitely, to raise children. She hasn't had a job since she married her husband five years ago. She says its because he moves a lot, though they've lived in the same town for four years now (he's a military officer) and because she hasn't found the "right fit." She's got a degree, though it's in something worthless like psychology. The reality is she refuses to take instruction, refuses to play well with others and simply refuses to work. She tries to make it look like she'll go to work "eventually," she wants to start some pie in the sky bullshit children's custom clothing business (LOL), but the reality is SHE DOESN'T WANT TO WORK. And of course GF's white knight brother is COMPLETELY OK with this! Unreal.

Truth fucking hurts, ladies. I will never date any woman who insists on staying at home beyond infant years. I don't give a shit if you're "raising my children," get your ass to fucking work and contribute financially to our family or fuck off.

Anonymous wrote:Surprise, surprise. Our culture is sexist. Some days, like today, I really wish I could time travel +500 years. That is all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The #1 red flag men should always heed is when a woman says she wants to SAH to raise a child. That translates into "I don't want to work...ever."

My number one red flag was when a man assumed I'd birth his children for him. Who does he think he is?

On a side note, I've said the same thing to men because I know I will be so attached to a baby and feel awful leaving a six week old at a daycare. It has less to do with me and more with the baby. I didn't want to marry a man and have children with someone who couldn't sacrifice financially so that I could be there for our children. I will probably work as I have a great career but I want that option. I didn't want to marry someone who expects me to have two full time jobs and while they have one. If working with young kids were to be a requirement, I would most likely decide not to have kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The #1 red flag men should always heed is when a woman says she wants to SAH to raise a child. That translates into "I don't want to work...ever."

My number one red flag was when a man assumed I'd birth his children for him. Who does he think he is?

On a side note, I've said the same thing to men because I know I will be so attached to a baby and feel awful leaving a six week old at a daycare. It has less to do with me and more with the baby. I didn't want to marry a man and have children with someone who couldn't sacrifice financially so that I could be there for our children. I will probably work as I have a great career but I want that option. I didn't want to marry someone who expects me to have two full time jobs and while they have one. If working with young kids were to be a requirement, I would most likely decide not to have kids.

My number one red flag was when a man assumed I'd birth his children for him. Who does he think he is?

On a side note, I've said the same thing to men because I know I will be so attached to a baby and feel awful leaving a six week old at a daycare. It has less to do with me and more with the baby. I didn't want to marry a man and have children with someone who couldn't sacrifice financially so that I could be there for our children. I will probably work as I have a great career but I want that option. I didn't want to marry someone who expects me to have two full time jobs and while they have one. If working with young kids were to be a requirement, I would most likely decide not to have kids.

Anonymous wrote:The #1 red flag men should always heed is when a woman says she wants to SAH to raise a child. That translates into "I don't want to work...ever."