Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an answer for you but I agree with you. (I'm a woman, FWIW, no kids, don't want them.) It just so often seems like a woman wants to get married now because she's madly in love with her husband, but because the husband is a means to an end (children). Then the children come and the husband is secondary, always. I don't get it. Your spouse is supposed to be your number one teammate and life partner. And don't you want your kids to have a marriage to someone they are madly in love with? Don't you want to set an example of what true love looks like? I'm with you OP.

+1 I agree with this. Men are often a means to an end. The woman often gets married for the baby. I do not believe that men primarily marry for children. Men marry for companionship which includes sex and because they like the woman as she is. Men are often surprised when the woman changes her behavior and attitude to line up her goals and objectives after marriage. Women, on the other had, are often surprised (an angry and upset) when they find that their husbands are not on-board with their new found goals and objectives. I really think part of the issue is that women have a long term agenda and they use short term tactics to get what they want. Prior to marriage they are focused on "getting a husband" so they do and say things to "get one." This; however, isn't the real goal. Their real goal is babies, or a social status or money, or... whatever...

In effect, they "pivot" (to use a political phrase) after they marry. Bottom line... they built a constituency in the husband and then they abandoned their political base after they get elected. What happens? Well their political base they become upset that they got abandoned and vote for someone new (think AP, or second wife).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the "unqualified to comment" childless poster. If you don't want my opinion stop reading. But I believe that children are supposed to be the fruit of a true love and life partner. They should not be a substitute, or supersede, the marriage of two people who are madly in love. It's just my personal opinion so feel free to discount it. But what I'm saying is ladies, don't use your husband as a vessel for children. The children should be a living symbol of your love for each other, not a substitute. You can value your children and your spouse equally and make both an equal #1 priority. The love may be different but should not be unequal.

+1

Also a childless (by choice). You hit the nail on the head. Hubby and I had the children talk long before we got married. I made it clear and upfront that I never wanted kids, and he agreed. If we had wanted kids, I would certainly make time for my husband, and I would expect husband to make time for myself. I feel that people put their kids first too much to the point that they stop having a marriage. If you don't put yourselves first once in awhile, you lose that passion and all the reason you fell in love with your spouse to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an answer for you but I agree with you. (I'm a woman, FWIW, no kids, don't want them.) It just so often seems like a woman wants to get married now because she's madly in love with her husband, but because the husband is a means to an end (children). Then the children come and the husband is secondary, always. I don't get it. Your spouse is supposed to be your number one teammate and life partner. And don't you want your kids to have a marriage to someone they are madly in love with? Don't you want to set an example of what true love looks like? I'm with you OP.

+1 I agree with this. Men are often a means to an end. The woman often gets married for the baby. I do not believe that men primarily marry for children. Men marry for companionship which includes sex and because they like the woman as she is. Men are often surprised when the woman changes her behavior and attitude to line up her goals and objectives after marriage. Women, on the other had, are often surprised (an angry and upset) when they find that their husbands are not on-board with their new found goals and objectives. I really think part of the issue is that women have a long term agenda and they use short term tactics to get what they want. Prior to marriage they are focused on "getting a husband" so they do and say things to "get one." This; however, isn't the real goal. Their real goal is babies, or a social status or money, or... whatever...

In effect, they "pivot" (to use a political phrase) after they marry. Bottom line... they built a constituency in the husband and then they abandoned their political base after they get elected. What happens? Well their political base they become upset that they got abandoned and vote for someone new (think AP, or second wife).

Anonymous wrote:Are you sharing the parenting load, OP? I'm a DW and I'm afraid my husband might feel the way you do but honestly being the parent who deals with our younger child's special needs is crushing me. I've tried to explain this and ask that we work together as partners and it always winds up being me at meetings alone, at every therapy appointment, etc. I want to repair our relationship but sometimes I feel like I can't breathe, let alone take care of one more person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP You're not going to get much support here because most of the women on this board ARE the woman you describe.

+1

There's is a balance to everything you do in life. As a woman when I read some of these threads the obsession over every little details of their child's lives is incredible. I don't know if it's boredom or if it's a D.C. culture issue... I really don't know. I have been around many women with husbands that successfully balance spending time with husband and time with children.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We're not talking about an infant, tolddler or even ES age child here. We have a fully functional teen, yet DW insists on doing everything for her. She is way too involved in her life and day-to-day life for the child's age and the child is chafing at it.

Added to this is that the be all and end all of everything is the goddamned house. I pay 1/3 of my salary towards it every month, so you damn right I hate it. DW puts nothing towards it even though she makes just as much money as me. DW never wants to do anything fun. She wants to clean the house and have the perfect lawn, which means me doing the work or paying for it. She is uninteresting. The only things she talks about are shopping, work and the neighbors.

When I suggest we do things, or she listen to a certain piece of music or read a book she says she "doesn't have time." No, DW, you will not make time that is the difference and it is destroying your marriage.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We're not talking about an infant, tolddler or even ES age child here. We have a fully functional teen, yet DW insists on doing everything for her. She is way too involved in her life and day-to-day life for the child's age and the child is chafing at it.

Added to this is that the be all and end all of everything is the goddamned house. I pay 1/3 of my salary towards it every month, so you damn right I hate it. DW puts nothing towards it even though she makes just as much money as me. DW never wants to do anything fun. She wants to clean the house and have the perfect lawn, which means me doing the work or paying for it. She is uninteresting. The only things she talks about are shopping, work and the neighbors.

When I suggest we do things, or she listen to a certain piece of music or read a book she says she "doesn't have time." No, DW, you will not make time that is the difference and it is destroying your marriage.

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an answer for you but I agree with you. (I'm a woman, FWIW, no kids, don't want them.) It just so often seems like a woman wants to get married now because she's madly in love with her husband, but because the husband is a means to an end (children). Then the children come and the husband is secondary, always. I don't get it. Your spouse is supposed to be your number one teammate and life partner. And don't you want your kids to have a marriage to someone they are madly in love with? Don't you want to set an example of what true love looks like? I'm with you OP.

Anonymous wrote:I am on the verge of divorcing my DW. The reason is she is an obsessive mother to the point that the kids take all of her "time" and she ignores the marital relationship. Why don't women realize that they need to keep the home fires burning with their DH's and are surprised when the kids fly the coop that DH does not want to stick around?

Anonymous wrote:I am the "unqualified to comment" childless poster. If you don't want my opinion stop reading. But I believe that children are supposed to be the fruit of a true love and life partner. They should not be a substitute, or supersede, the marriage of two people who are madly in love. It's just my personal opinion so feel free to discount it. But what I'm saying is ladies, don't use your husband as a vessel for children. The children should be a living symbol of your love for each other, not a substitute. You can value your children and your spouse equally and make both an equal #1 priority. The love may be different but should not be unequal.