Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I take issue with your emphasizing that she needed to get a job and contribute to the family financially. When I saw that written my stomach actually turned in disgust. I wouldn't suggest a man ever marry a woman with size-able student loans, and I wouldn't suggest that he marry someone without the expectation that he be taking the full financial load up through early childhood and significantly thereafter.

Most women, especially those with full-time jobs and children but even those staying at home with children, are seriously overworked and exhausted. So I would hardly call it retirement. The fact that you suggest so reveals even more of your pitiful and repulsive view on the matter. I'd be depressed if I was married to you, too. *Shiver*

So a man should be prepared to fully support his wife and children financially, simply because he is a man, but a woman should not expect that she might need to do the same?

Yes, that is 100% correct. You see, men and women are not the same.
Taking on children is scary and difficult for BOTH men and women. Sorry pal, if you can't handle it just get one of those robotic blow up dolls. I hear they're getting pretty good.

Then provide something of value to the man. $$$$, a clean house, and blow jobs. Pick any two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is one thing I have learned from reading DCUM, it is that women despise men who are unemployed.

Wouldn't you? It's a tale as old as time that men should be the breadwinners. But recent Forbes poll indicated that 29% of American households have a female as the major breadwinner. They don't take into account however the different percentages of single working mothers, lesbian parents, or heterosexual married working mothers.

Because the entitled attitude of the DCUM crowd is ridiculous. Is this 1965 or 2015? The middle class is dying and women expect a powerful breadwinner to keep them in comfort despite macroeconomic trends. Right, and I deserve a supermodel who is going to keep the house clean.

I don't think anyone is suggesting go back to 1965. The options are not a) 1965 model with woman completely and permanently out of the workforce and b) man=woman=2 full-time careers model.

The best option for most people is keep living expenses inline with man's income and woman works when it's feasible depending on age of children. Many women are happy to contribute and want to do so. No woman wants to feel the pressure of having to keep things afloat. Instant and total killer of the sex drive.

There are 2 realities make this unavoidable:
1) Stressed out women don't want to have sex
2) Men don't want to be married to someone who doesn't want to have sex.

So, those 2 facts need to be accommodated. They ain't going anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is one thing I have learned from reading DCUM, it is that women despise men who are unemployed.

Wouldn't you? It's a tale as old as time that men should be the breadwinners. But recent Forbes poll indicated that 29% of American households have a female as the major breadwinner. They don't take into account however the different percentages of single working mothers, lesbian parents, or heterosexual married working mothers.

Because the entitled attitude of the DCUM crowd is ridiculous. Is this 1965 or 2015? The middle class is dying and women expect a powerful breadwinner to keep them in comfort despite macroeconomic trends. Right, and I deserve a supermodel who is going to keep the house clean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I take issue with your emphasizing that she needed to get a job and contribute to the family financially. When I saw that written my stomach actually turned in disgust. I wouldn't suggest a man ever marry a woman with size-able student loans, and I wouldn't suggest that he marry someone without the expectation that he be taking the full financial load up through early childhood and significantly thereafter.

Most women, especially those with full-time jobs and children but even those staying at home with children, are seriously overworked and exhausted. So I would hardly call it retirement. The fact that you suggest so reveals even more of your pitiful and repulsive view on the matter. I'd be depressed if I was married to you, too. *Shiver*

So a man should be prepared to fully support his wife and children financially, simply because he is a man, but a woman should not expect that she might need to do the same?

I'm a woman who works full time and yes. If he's a man with any pride. Yes. Otherwise he's an embarrassment to himself.

That's fine, but stop making excuses for women who won't work and grouse about SAH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I take issue with your emphasizing that she needed to get a job and contribute to the family financially. When I saw that written my stomach actually turned in disgust. I wouldn't suggest a man ever marry a woman with size-able student loans, and I wouldn't suggest that he marry someone without the expectation that he be taking the full financial load up through early childhood and significantly thereafter.

Most women, especially those with full-time jobs and children but even those staying at home with children, are seriously overworked and exhausted. So I would hardly call it retirement. The fact that you suggest so reveals even more of your pitiful and repulsive view on the matter. I'd be depressed if I was married to you, too. *Shiver*

So a man should be prepared to fully support his wife and children financially, simply because he is a man, but a woman should not expect that she might need to do the same?

I'm a woman who works full time and yes. If he's a man with any pride. Yes. Otherwise he's an embarrassment to himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I take issue with your emphasizing that she needed to get a job and contribute to the family financially. When I saw that written my stomach actually turned in disgust. I wouldn't suggest a man ever marry a woman with size-able student loans, and I wouldn't suggest that he marry someone without the expectation that he be taking the full financial load up through early childhood and significantly thereafter.

Most women, especially those with full-time jobs and children but even those staying at home with children, are seriously overworked and exhausted. So I would hardly call it retirement. The fact that you suggest so reveals even more of your pitiful and repulsive view on the matter. I'd be depressed if I was married to you, too. *Shiver*

So a man should be prepared to fully support his wife and children financially, simply because he is a man, but a woman should not expect that she might need to do the same?

Yes, that is 100% correct. You see, men and women are not the same.
Taking on children is scary and difficult for BOTH men and women. Sorry pal, if you can't handle it just get one of those robotic blow up dolls. I hear they're getting pretty good.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone getting married should assume that there may be a point in time where they have to carry the load financially for the family. That being said, I think that its much harder for a woman with children to be the main breadwinner. Even if a woman WANTS to lean in and have a demanding, high profile career, she will always have to battle the assumption that her husband is the main breadwinner, that she will stop putting in the same level of effort, or that she will eventually stop working to stay home with the kids. IMO, once a woman has kids, she is immediately "mommy tracked." On the other hand, men with kids are taken more seriously in the workplace, because its assumed that they will work harder when they have a family to support.

I work full time as an attorney and my husband and I have an 18 month old son. Since I had my son, I have been on several interviews, and I have been asked inappropriate questions about being a mother in about two thirds of them. In a final round interview, I was asked if I have kids, how old my son is, and if I have day care covered. The interview also went on to tell me that his wife stopped working once they had their second kid. I'm sorry, but there is NO WAY he would have brought this up if I were a man. I did not get the job.

I NEVER got questions like this when I was unmarried without children.

How would these interviewers know that you had a child?

Anonymous wrote:Am in same boat. 2+ years and kids that are in elementary but it's getting tiresome and hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel. My H is depressed and has suffered a huge loss of confidence. Our children love having him at home and most of the time that is the only thing I can focus on. The resentment grows when I hear that here are no jobs when I know others in his field finding employment and hear regularly about other openings he is qualified for. I cheerlead and prop up. It's exhausting. I am happy to do it for my kids but I am starting to be less happy doing it for him. I find him surfing he internet day in and day out and checked out when he could be taking classes or networking. I am hopeful each day will bring an opportunity and pray that it will be soon. Our savings has dwindled and we cannot afford the things I wish we could provide. I work hard and would love, for once, to be able to not worry about all of the little things.

Funny how little things become bigger when there is more income though.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone getting married should assume that there may be a point in time where they have to carry the load financially for the family. That being said, I think that its much harder for a woman with children to be the main breadwinner. Even if a woman WANTS to lean in and have a demanding, high profile career, she will always have to battle the assumption that her husband is the main breadwinner, that she will stop putting in the same level of effort, or that she will eventually stop working to stay home with the kids. IMO, once a woman has kids, she is immediately "mommy tracked." On the other hand, men with kids are taken more seriously in the workplace, because its assumed that they will work harder when they have a family to support.

I work full time as an attorney and my husband and I have an 18 month old son. Since I had my son, I have been on several interviews, and I have been asked inappropriate questions about being a mother in about two thirds of them. In a final round interview, I was asked if I have kids, how old my son is, and if I have day care covered. The interview also went on to tell me that his wife stopped working once they had their second kid. I'm sorry, but there is NO WAY he would have brought this up if I were a man. I did not get the job.

I NEVER got questions like this when I was unmarried without children.

1. I've watch both of my sisters get married and then begin having children. both of them told their employers that they were not going to stay home after child birth. Each of them stayed until they gave birth.... took FLMA leave... then on their first day back gave their notice. While I understand that they wanted to stay home with their children employers know that a significant portion of the time as woman will stay just long enough to keep medical insurance and then get FLMA and paid vacation.

2. everyone thinks their plight is worse than the other. While I know you want to think working women have it worse women get a lot of perks being in the work force... especially when they are younger.

Anyone getting married should assume that there may be a point in time where they have to carry the load financially for the family. That being said, I think that its much harder for a woman with children to be the main breadwinner. Even if a woman WANTS to lean in and have a demanding, high profile career, she will always have to battle the assumption that her husband is the main breadwinner, that she will stop putting in the same level of effort, or that she will eventually stop working to stay home with the kids. IMO, once a woman has kids, she is immediately "mommy tracked." On the other hand, men with kids are taken more seriously in the workplace, because its assumed that they will work harder when they have a family to support.

I work full time as an attorney and my husband and I have an 18 month old son. Since I had my son, I have been on several interviews, and I have been asked inappropriate questions about being a mother in about two thirds of them. In a final round interview, I was asked if I have kids, how old my son is, and if I have day care covered. The interview also went on to tell me that his wife stopped working once they had their second kid. I'm sorry, but there is NO WAY he would have brought this up if I were a man. I did not get the job.

I NEVER got questions like this when I was unmarried without children.

Anonymous wrote:Men prefer that you identify the particular issue rather than the situation. Rather than asking him how the job hunt is going (which is the loaded question), have a discussion with him about his job characteristics. Tell him that while you understand that he has been working hard, that his choice to work evening and weekends is really hard on you. Explain that you understand that the tips are better at nights and weekends, but the schedule is very hard and he needs to find alternatives that allow him to be home supporting you and the family at least some of the evenings or weekends. If he can find a decent bartending job that gives you back some of that time, that's fine or he needs to find an alternative day job. His choice, but you need him home some evenings and some part of the weekend to help with the household and children.

This. I was reading the post and it sounds like the kids are in childcare or school during the day. It didn't sound like he was working his shifts during that time nor does he use it to be on top of all the household things. He picks the kids up from school and maybe helps with homework and the you come home and have the kids most evenings plus the weekends. He had a portable degree with teaching but chose not to keep up with it because it would have been a step back after being an administrator and instead opted for non-family friendly job options that paid less money. He could have looked into teaching at a private school where the kids could have gotten a tuition discount, looked into the tutoring franchises like Kumon or SSAT prep, been a substitute teacher , looked into a charter school as a teacher etc. He has finally agreed to look into re-certification in teaching.

Look, when I was being laid off, I had to consider how my job decisions impacted my family and discuss options with DH. Long hours, long commute, travel lots of nights and weekends all have to be weighed against the money and the impact on family. If that is the ONLY option that can bring in money needed to keep a roof over your head that is one thing, but if you have a choice, it's not fair to unilaterally pick the one that burdens your spouse. So I'm with PP that you have to be specific with what you need giving him the option how he does it.

Np This thread is helpful in that it shows others have had similar experiences but overall depressing. For me it has been (is) a long slog. Does anyone have an experience where a DH regained adequate employment, built up confidence, marriage improved, etc?

Am in same boat. 2+ years and kids that are in elementary but it's getting tiresome and hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel. My H is depressed and has suffered a huge loss of confidence. Our children love having him at home and most of the time that is the only thing I can focus on. The resentment grows when I hear that here are no jobs when I know others in his field finding employment and hear regularly about other openings he is qualified for. I cheerlead and prop up. It's exhausting. I am happy to do it for my kids but I am starting to be less happy doing it for him. I find him surfing he internet day in and day out and checked out when he could be taking classes or networking. I am hopeful each day will bring an opportunity and pray that it will be soon. Our savings has dwindled and we cannot afford the things I wish we could provide. I work hard and would love, for once, to be able to not worry about all of the little things.

Anonymous wrote:We make plans and God laughs at us. Op you just need to role with it. You can't make him do anything. You love him and you need to just suck it up and live in your truth. This is your truth right now and that's fine.

Thank you for your funny and wise words. Not the OP here, but similar situation. Unemployed spouse 2+ years. He is always looking but just can't find. My kids are getting older and certainly don't need a stay at home dad at this point. He tried to keep the house clean and does a decent job. He is a good dad and driver for the kids and pretty sweet to me.

Many times, I try to say--this is my life and truth and just live it. Other times, I am in tears and resentful. It is a hard life.

Anonymous wrote:

I take issue with your emphasizing that she needed to get a job and contribute to the family financially. When I saw that written my stomach actually turned in disgust. I wouldn't suggest a man ever marry a woman with size-able student loans, and I wouldn't suggest that he marry someone without the expectation that he be taking the full financial load up through early childhood and significantly thereafter.

Most women, especially those with full-time jobs and children but even those staying at home with children, are seriously overworked and exhausted. So I would hardly call it retirement. The fact that you suggest so reveals even more of your pitiful and repulsive view on the matter. I'd be depressed if I was married to you, too. *Shiver*

So a man should be prepared to fully support his wife and children financially, simply because he is a man, but a woman should not expect that she might need to do the same?