Anonymous wrote:Ft is full time. As in sahm. As in honorable position. OP apparently has something different. As in sahd. As in leech. Got it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone keep saying that childcare isn't work?

Don't be stupid. In this context work = paycheck. Her issues are with money, not semantics.

Why do you call FT moms "not working"? Why the big lie? Isn't the truth simply easier?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone keep saying that childcare isn't work?

Don't be stupid. In this context work = paycheck. Her issues are with money, not semantics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He would very possibly get custody because he has been the stay-at-home-parent and therefore the courts would see him as the nurturing parent.

This is not true in the District of Columbia. There's presumptive joint custody. Please don't give legal advice when you don't know what you're talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that without a court order AND you are still married, he can take your child out of state legally.

This is OP - yes I have read that, which is why I am concerned. He may just be posturing, but if he goes off the deep end, who knows what he would do. Hence, why I'm wondering if I should talk to a lawyer about this.
I'm worried that once I start bringing up the - "if you refuse counseling then we need to separate"- I"m afraid he will just lose it and decide to take our child out of state to his parents. I highly doubt his parents would be OK with this.
They are sane and caring people. I can't imagine his mother or father being on board with their son taking his child away from its mother. In reality, I really can't imagine him doing this at all. I think he says these things to hurt me, and is bluffing.
But I'd rather not guess when it comes to something like this. People do stupid things when they are not in their right mind. Our child is the only thing he has any kind of control over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Maybe I am sexist. I'm a traditional person. I expect a man to be able to provide. I provide too. I don't expect to stay home. If he's unemployed for 1 year, fine, but 3+ years and no end in sight?? Yes, I am embarrassed. I do not know ANYONE who's husband has been out of work for 3+ years, and hasn't tried to find some kind of job.

I think he is depressed and this is contributing to it, but I also think he refuses to put his pride aside and just get ANY job to help contribute financially. He has his head in the sand and thinks everything will magically get better. I on the other hand have my eyes wide open and I know where we are financially. He doesn't even bother to ask. Maybe so he can still pretend everything is OK.

I cannot handle it alone, and I personally think he is trying to "build a business" so that he doesn't have to take a lower level job. its his excuse to not look. This business of his is not making any money and I don't see it happening ever. So yes I am pissed off and I am mentally breaking down. He does not communicate with me and closes down completely. Any time I try to talk about all of this shit, he just blows up at me like its world war III. Like I have no right to ask.

I feel completely alone in all of this. He refuses to talk to me, or think about trying something else, and just goes off to his room and looks at his iPhone all night. Its all so fucking depressing I can barely come up for air.

Its no way to live.

OP, I'm the one who called you a sexist and honestly, I stand by that. But like the other PPs have mentioned, this is a decision that should be made together, as a couple. I understand your frustration that he has not found a job in 3 years. But it sounds like he considers this "business" of his (which you have not described - is he trying to break into real estate? is he making cupcakes? what is it?) to be a job that he's found. Whether that's right or wrong is not up to me. It's also not totally up to you. But it should be a discussion that you are included in. To have that conversation with your husband, I would strongly advise that you move away from language of obligation ("I expect a man to be able to provide" for example is very different then "We are struggling financially and I feel like I am in this alone" - which of those things would YOU be more likely to want to discuss rationally?)

It does sound like he is depressed, though given the way you've talked about him on this thread, I'm not totally surprised that he blows up when you ask questions about this. You're coming off as entitled and judgmental and entirely dismissive of his wants and needs in this situation. You clearly need a break and some relief from being the person in charge of managing the family, and your husband should be stepping up to do that - not because it's his job as a man to provide for his family, but because you, his wife, are exhausted and need a break.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people trying to turn this into a gender thing? It's what every couple decides for themselves. That's a pretty major thing for any spouse to do - to unilaterally decide they aren't going to contribute financially to the household. It's BS for any spouse to do that.

Because the OP has flat out said that the degree to which she loves and respects her husband is tied to his ability to provide financially for her. I suspect that her opinion would be the same even if they were not struggling financially. She thinks that's the job of men and is pissed that she's stuck playing the "man's role" in her marriage. That's DIRECTLY related to gender.

As for unilaterally deciding, OP doesn't mention how her husband came to be unemployed. Did he get fired, OP? If so, it sounds like doing housework and a lot of childcare is actually contributing - just not by the OP's definition. If he can't bring in money, she doesn't love him.

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone keep saying that childcare isn't work?

Anonymous wrote:I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that without a court order AND you are still married, he can take your child out of state legally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people trying to turn this into a gender thing? It's what every couple decides for themselves. That's a pretty major thing for any spouse to do - to unilaterally decide they aren't going to contribute financially to the household. It's BS for any spouse to do that.

Because the OP has flat out said that the degree to which she loves and respects her husband is tied to his ability to provide financially for her. I suspect that her opinion would be the same even if they were not struggling financially. She thinks that's the job of men and is pissed that she's stuck playing the "man's role" in her marriage. That's DIRECTLY related to gender.

As for unilaterally deciding, OP doesn't mention how her husband came to be unemployed. Did he get fired, OP? If so, it sounds like doing housework and a lot of childcare is actually contributing - just not by the OP's definition. If he can't bring in money, she doesn't love him.