Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not bashing SAHM but I wonder sometimes why any woman would want to be so vulnerable to be in the position of being a SAHM. If you have skills and 10yrs go by you will have to fight tooth and nail to get them back and get back out there. Marriages end and they end often so why throw all your eggs in one basket and hope for the best. Women with children need to be able to fend for themselves with or with out a husband/boyfriend and being a SAHM is a very vulnerable position to be in even if wealthy.

Some women don't mind being vulnerable and some men simultaneously don't mind the responsibility of providing for a family. Not saying there is an objective correct answer to issue, but I wonder why people go into marriage while hedging against the possibility that the relationship won't go bad. Prudent? Yes, but can total trust exist without vulnerability?

Well if you run the numbers it isn't worth the risk. Even if the stats aren't correct that 50% or all first marriages end in divorce that is a hell of a chance you take with yourself and potentially your children.

Teasing the data out on this question is nearly impossible. Divorce rate for college educated couples is very low, but then you would need to adjust for college educated couples with stay at home moms.

But there is a more significant problem: if you really think there is a serious risk that things aren't going to work out with your spouse to the extent that you could seriously end up in a bad position post-divorce, why would you ever have a kid with that person. "I don't trust you enough to quit my job but I do trust you enough to have kids with you."

Doesn't make sense to me.

Bingo.

Anonymous wrote:Why are the SAHM bashers being so nasty in here? I'll believe you if you say it's not jealous IF you give me a logical explanation for what it actually is. Why do you care so much to call other people "indolent," "lazy," "useless," "leeches" akin to "welfare queens," etc.? I'm really curious.

Because after everything women have been through, it's pretty disgusting see educated women with so many opportunities give it all up to live off a man. I could stay home million times over, but I don't want my boys to see me making daddy a martini while he brings in the bucks. We both work, we both take care of our kids, and we are a family of equals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not bashing SAHM but I wonder sometimes why any woman would want to be so vulnerable to be in the position of being a SAHM. If you have skills and 10yrs go by you will have to fight tooth and nail to get them back and get back out there. Marriages end and they end often so why throw all your eggs in one basket and hope for the best. Women with children need to be able to fend for themselves with or with out a husband/boyfriend and being a SAHM is a very vulnerable position to be in even if wealthy.

Some women don't mind being vulnerable and some men simultaneously don't mind the responsibility of providing for a family. Not saying there is an objective correct answer to issue, but I wonder why people go into marriage while hedging against the possibility that the relationship won't go bad. Prudent? Yes, but can total trust exist without vulnerability?

Well if you run the numbers it isn't worth the risk. Even if the stats aren't correct that 50% or all first marriages end in divorce that is a hell of a chance you take with yourself and potentially your children.

Teasing the data out on this question is nearly impossible. Divorce rate for college educated couples is very low, but then you would need to adjust for college educated couples with stay at home moms.

But there is a more significant problem: if you really think there is a serious risk that things aren't going to work out with your spouse to the extent that you could seriously end up in a bad position post-divorce, why would you ever have a kid with that person. "I don't trust you enough to quit my job but I do trust you enough to have kids with you."

Doesn't make sense to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not bashing SAHM but I wonder sometimes why any woman would want to be so vulnerable to be in the position of being a SAHM. If you have skills and 10yrs go by you will have to fight tooth and nail to get them back and get back out there. Marriages end and they end often so why throw all your eggs in one basket and hope for the best. Women with children need to be able to fend for themselves with or with out a husband/boyfriend and being a SAHM is a very vulnerable position to be in even if wealthy.

Some women don't mind being vulnerable and some men simultaneously don't mind the responsibility of providing for a family. Not saying there is an objective correct answer to issue, but I wonder why people go into marriage while hedging against the possibility that the relationship won't go bad. Prudent? Yes, but can total trust exist without vulnerability?

Well if you run the numbers it isn't worth the risk. Even if the stats aren't correct that 50% or all first marriages end in divorce that is a hell of a chance you take with yourself and potentially your children.

It depends. It sounds like you ran the numbers and for you, it isn't worth the risk. Others have different circumstances, personalities, options and risk taking abilities. IME, dual WOHP works as the default and when it doesn't alternatives are needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not bashing SAHM but I wonder sometimes why any woman would want to be so vulnerable to be in the position of being a SAHM. If you have skills and 10yrs go by you will have to fight tooth and nail to get them back and get back out there. Marriages end and they end often so why throw all your eggs in one basket and hope for the best. Women with children need to be able to fend for themselves with or with out a husband/boyfriend and being a SAHM is a very vulnerable position to be in even if wealthy.

Some women don't mind being vulnerable and some men simultaneously don't mind the responsibility of providing for a family. Not saying there is an objective correct answer to issue, but I wonder why people go into marriage while hedging against the possibility that the relationship won't go bad. Prudent? Yes, but can total trust exist without vulnerability?

Well if you run the numbers it isn't worth the risk. Even if the stats aren't correct that 50% or all first marriages end in divorce that is a hell of a chance you take with yourself and potentially your children.

Anonymous wrote:I am not bashing SAHM but I wonder sometimes why any woman would want to be so vulnerable to be in the position of being a SAHM. If you have skills and 10yrs go by you will have to fight tooth and nail to get them back and get back out there. Marriages end and they end often so why throw all your eggs in one basket and hope for the best. Women with children need to be able to fend for themselves with or with out a husband/boyfriend and being a SAHM is a very vulnerable position to be in even if wealthy.

Some women don't mind being vulnerable and some men simultaneously don't mind the responsibility of providing for a family. Not saying there is an objective correct answer to issue, but I wonder why people go into marriage while hedging against the possibility that the relationship won't go bad. Prudent? Yes, but can total trust exist without vulnerability?

Anonymous wrote:I am not bashing SAHM but I wonder sometimes why any woman would want to be so vulnerable to be in the position of being a SAHM. If you have skills and 10yrs go by you will have to fight tooth and nail to get them back and get back out there. Marriages end and they end often so why throw all your eggs in one basket and hope for the best. Women with children need to be able to fend for themselves with or with out a husband/boyfriend and being a SAHM is a very vulnerable position to be in even if wealthy.

I think a lot of it depends on the job. I have friends who are teachers who worked for several years pre-kids, then took 5-10 years off, and so far have been able to reenter the work force.

I have friends who were nurses, and they've also been able to reenter the work force, although often after some additional education and normally starting part time working non-optimal shifts first.

I work in technology, and my friends who opted out of the work force while their children were little have not had the same success rate at reentry. If I took time off to be a SAHM, I think I'd need to retrain &/or change careers to get back in. Some women aren't faced with that prospect. And others are just apparently superbly confident that nothing catastrophic will happen.

I am not bashing SAHM but I wonder sometimes why any woman would want to be so vulnerable to be in the position of being a SAHM. If you have skills and 10yrs go by you will have to fight tooth and nail to get them back and get back out there. Marriages end and they end often so why throw all your eggs in one basket and hope for the best. Women with children need to be able to fend for themselves with or with out a husband/boyfriend and being a SAHM is a very vulnerable position to be in even if wealthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother went back to work her SAHM friend was suddenly widowed and with no work and skills had to enter the workforce. It was a wake up call. My mother was an RN. She did the night shift. As we went out to school in the morning sh was coming home. As my father came home she was going out to work. She did a 36/40 work week, i.e. Three days on and four off. So, somebody was always home.

This seems like more of a reason to get life insurance on your dad, not to go to work.

I was going to say the same thing.

I think most people would still have to go to work even with great life insurance today. Life insurance is a great safety net, but even with a great policy, if DH dies in early 40s, that is a long time potentially to live off that money and go on the exchange and get insurance for a family. I guess it depends on your goals - I'd like to help my kids with college. I feel like most able-bodied women would go back to work at some point. And for some people that may mean keeping up with their training, network, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother went back to work her SAHM friend was suddenly widowed and with no work and skills had to enter the workforce. It was a wake up call. My mother was an RN. She did the night shift. As we went out to school in the morning sh was coming home. As my father came home she was going out to work. She did a 36/40 work week, i.e. Three days on and four off. So, somebody was always home.

This seems like more of a reason to get life insurance on your dad, not to go to work.

I was going to say the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:My mother went back to work her SAHM friend was suddenly widowed and with no work and skills had to enter the workforce. It was a wake up call. My mother was an RN. She did the night shift. As we went out to school in the morning sh was coming home. As my father came home she was going out to work. She did a 36/40 work week, i.e. Three days on and four off. So, somebody was always home.

This seems like more of a reason to get life insurance on your dad, not to go to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could but you don't have to -- and don't --- because you've got a hubby making big bucks. Come back and post again when you can actually relate to the issues people are commenting on, Dr. 1%.

Yup, guessed right, a Sanders supporter who wants to work no more than 40 hours but still thinks they should get paid the as if they worked more. Most likely also a millennial.

I worked 60 hours a week for more than ten years at big law and my Dh worked for peanuts for 12 years while getting a phD, doing a surgical residency and transplant fellowship all while working 80 plus hours a week, you can tell me how cushy my life is when you have done the same.

You live in Dc, where there are plenty of six figure 40 hour a week jobs thanks to the government, take the time to get the qualifications that will get you one, don't expect someone to legislate one for you.

It's also entirely possible to afford having one parent stay home while the working parent works a job that has reasonable hours in the DC area. But you have to be willing to forego a lot of the material luxury that people around here feel like they need.

Anonymous wrote:Why are the SAHM bashers being so nasty in here? I'll believe you if you say it's not jealous IF you give me a logical explanation for what it actually is. Why do you care so much to call other people "indolent," "lazy," "useless," "leeches" akin to "welfare queens," etc.? I'm really curious.

You must be new here. This is DCUM standard. In places where power is valued over humanity, this is typical. In places where people give a damn about people, they do a better job of letting others live as they choose.

Why are the SAHM bashers being so nasty in here? I'll believe you if you say it's not jealous IF you give me a logical explanation for what it actually is. Why do you care so much to call other people "indolent," "lazy," "useless," "leeches" akin to "welfare queens," etc.? I'm really curious.

My mother went back to work her SAHM friend was suddenly widowed and with no work and skills had to enter the workforce. It was a wake up call. My mother was an RN. She did the night shift. As we went out to school in the morning sh was coming home. As my father came home she was going out to work. She did a 36/40 work week, i.e. Three days on and four off. So, somebody was always home.