Anonymous wrote:"But OP is working. Why does she need DH to provide for her financially. Looks like what she wants is a two income lifestyle on a single income budget - ain't gonna happen."

You apparently did not read that OP's family is in debt. This isn't about her being spoiled, it is about her being stressed that they have serious financial problems and her H isn't stepping up to help.

I was raised that one does whatever is necessary to make sure your family's finances are in order. In my book, whether male or female, with young or grown kids, planned or unplanned SAHP, anyone at home not bringing in income needs to find a way to help bring in income (waiting tables, bartending, stocking grocery shelves in the evening, whathaveyou) when the family is in debt.

I guess if you have the wrong kind of debt. However, I've been after my SAHW to start bringing in income for five years. Yes,at age 40, despite her Ivy League education, she should do whatever is necessary. However, she feels entitled. I made her that way. My bad.

I find the suggestions to divorce him or offer an ultimatum astonishing. Switch genders: now how does this sound? I agree with the PP who said that, if a man wrote this post arguing that his SAH wife needed to get a job or he was considering divorce, comments would be resoundingly against him.

Also, OP, can you have a little compassion for the guy? Long-term unemployment sucks away people's confidence. It is expecially hard on men. He probably isn't doing much because he feels diminished and frozen. This is someone whom you presumably love -- quit feeling sorry for yourself and consider how he feels.

Anonymous wrote:But OP is working. Why does she need DH to provide for her financially. Looks like what she wants is a two income lifestyle on a single income budget - ain't gonna happen. If you were smart - and that goes for anyone on this board, even if you are both working - you should be living a lifestyle that only requires one income. And I do not believe, even with the high cost of housing in this region, that this is impossible for people in the higher income brackets. I can understand, say, if a couple where the take home income is less than $100K, but if both partners are each making $100K they should be able to do it. The secret? Downsize - smaller house, cheaper cars, no private school, free entertainment. It is all to be had here. Do not tell me it is bullsh*t 'cause we live it. There are houses in our neighborhood -split levels and ranches built in the 1950s - going for $300K or less. We have high ceilings, a great open kitchen family room plan, walk out to the deck, etc. I describe our house as sort of like the Brady house in its design. It's pretty cool. Oh, and we are one mile to metro. DH works downtown. I work in Rockville. Love our neighborhood. Quiet, great neighbors, schools nearby. And, no, in today's post-feminist world, IT IS NOT the man's job to provide!

OP never said that. She said she needs for her DH to *contribute*. I need the same thing from my DH just as he does from me.

"But OP is working. Why does she need DH to provide for her financially. Looks like what she wants is a two income lifestyle on a single income budget - ain't gonna happen."

You apparently did not read that OP's family is in debt. This isn't about her being spoiled, it is about her being stressed that they have serious financial problems and her H isn't stepping up to help.

I was raised that one does whatever is necessary to make sure your family's finances are in order. In my book, whether male or female, with young or grown kids, planned or unplanned SAHP, anyone at home not bringing in income needs to find a way to help bring in income (waiting tables, bartending, stocking grocery shelves in the evening, whathaveyou) when the family is in debt.

Anonymous wrote:
You jumped to the conclusion that I was single, because it your head**, 50K is what you make when you're just out of college and you can live in a group house, but by the time you're a real adult with kids etc. you're making 100K. It's so obvious! Someone who posts about making 50K must surely be young and single!

**in your head, I meant.

By the way, in my own situation, we're fine even though I make the salary of a 22 year old. Because my DH does very well. But if he wouldn't or couldn't work? We literally could not afford to live here on my salary even though I am a professional with a real job. There are places in the country I could support my family on 50K, but this is not one of them.

So when I see someone like the OP saying that she's worried about finances and making it on one income, I don't jump to the conclusion that the OP must make 100K+ and is just resistant to cutting back her expenses. I think it actually is within the realm of possibility that the OP literally doesn't make enough money to live here on one salary.

None of us knows, of course, what the OP's actual salary is. I'm just trying to express that the assumption that everyone makes 100K+, and related lectures about cutting back expenses and cheap houses, aren't really very helpful.

Anonymous wrote:I never assumed that they were. But if you are single and making $50K in Washington, DC, I do not see how that is not enough to live on and get by. When I started out 20 some odd years ago, my starting salary was $17K. Adjusted for inflation that is about $34,000 today. I lived in a group house, which made for a very good social and dating life.

Now, what I do get upset at - and I am a FED - is one SES colleagues of mine bitch about not being able to get by in Washington on $150K plus in earshot of that GS-11 single mom. They are so so spoiled.

FYI, most rooms in a group house go for between 1200 and 1500 a month these days. Studios are usually in 1800 to 2100 range. One bedrooms 2000 2600.

City has changed a lot in 20 years.

Anonymous wrote:I never assumed that they were. But if you are single and making $50K in Washington, DC, I do not see how that is not enough to live on and get by. When I started out 20 some odd years ago, my starting salary was $17K. Adjusted for inflation that is about $34,000 today. I lived in a group house, which made for a very good social and dating life.

Now, what I do get upset at - and I am a FED - is one SES colleagues of mine bitch about not being able to get by in Washington on $150K plus in earshot of that GS-11 single mom. They are so so spoiled.

I'm the one who said she's earning 50K. What in the world made you think I was single, or talking about being single? I'm married with 2 kids and in my 30s.

You jumped to the conclusion that I was single, because it your head, 50K is what you make when you're just out of college and you can live in a group house, but by the time you're a real adult with kids etc. you're making 100K. It's so obvious! Someone who posts about making 50K must surely be young and single!

But not everyone lives on that track where 100K+ is a given, even here in the DC area, and that was my point. Some real grownups with families still only make 50K. Or 60K or 80K or, yeah, 34K.

Anonymous wrote:I never assumed that they were. But if you are single and making $50K in Washington, DC, I do not see how that is not enough to live on and get by. When I started out 20 some odd years ago, my starting salary was $17K. Adjusted for inflation that is about $34,000 today. I lived in a group house, which made for a very good social and dating life.

Now, what I do get upset at - and I am a FED - is one SES colleagues of mine bitch about not being able to get by in Washington on $150K plus in earshot of that GS-11 single mom. They are so so spoiled.

I don't see how this is relevant to the OP's situation. She isn't single. She's married with a child. Grind your ax on another thread. Your posts aren't responsive to the question being posed here.

I never assumed that they were. But if you are single and making $50K in Washington, DC, I do not see how that is not enough to live on and get by. When I started out 20 some odd years ago, my starting salary was $17K. Adjusted for inflation that is about $34,000 today. I lived in a group house, which made for a very good social and dating life.

Now, what I do get upset at - and I am a FED - is one SES colleagues of mine bitch about not being able to get by in Washington on $150K plus in earshot of that GS-11 single mom. They are so so spoiled.

Anonymous wrote:But OP is working. Why does she need DH to provide for her financially. Looks like what she wants is a two income lifestyle on a single income budget - ain't gonna happen. If you were smart - and that goes for anyone on this board, even if you are both working - you should be living a lifestyle that only requires one income. And I do not believe, even with the high cost of housing in this region, that this is impossible for people in the higher income brackets. I can understand, say, if a couple where the take home income is less than $100K, but if both partners are each making $100K they should be able to do it. The secret? Downsize - smaller house, cheaper cars, no private school, free entertainment. It is all to be had here. Do not tell me it is bullsh*t 'cause we live it. There are houses in our neighborhood -split levels and ranches built in the 1950s - going for $300K or less. We have high ceilings, a great open kitchen family room plan, walk out to the deck, etc. I describe our house as sort of like the Brady house in its design. It's pretty cool. Oh, and we are one mile to metro. DH works downtown. I work in Rockville. Love our neighborhood. Quiet, great neighbors, schools nearby. And, no, in today's post-feminist world, IT IS NOT the man's job to provide!

I love how it's just an afterthought, barely considered, that someone might not make 100K.

Damn. I was thrilled when I broke 50K last year, and I'm in a professional job that requires a college degree. Obviously I'm in a particularly low-paying field, but...there are thousands and thousands just like me. We're all around you.

I totally agree with you that a family can get by on 100K in the area if they are lucky and smart, but 100K+ individual salaries are not a given.

Anonymous wrote:But OP is working. Why does she need DH to provide for her financially. Looks like what she wants is a two income lifestyle on a single income budget - ain't gonna happen. If you were smart - and that goes for anyone on this board, even if you are both working - you should be living a lifestyle that only requires one income. And I do not believe, even with the high cost of housing in this region, that this is impossible for people in the higher income brackets. I can understand, say, if a couple where the take home income is less than $100K, but if both partners are each making $100K they should be able to do it. The secret? Downsize - smaller house, cheaper cars, no private school, free entertainment. It is all to be had here. Do not tell me it is bullsh*t 'cause we live it. There are houses in our neighborhood -split levels and ranches built in the 1950s - going for $300K or less. We have high ceilings, a great open kitchen family room plan, walk out to the deck, etc. I describe our house as sort of like the Brady house in its design. It's pretty cool. Oh, and we are one mile to metro. DH works downtown. I work in Rockville. Love our neighborhood. Quiet, great neighbors, schools nearby. And, no, in today's post-feminist world, IT IS NOT the man's job to provide!

This is the immediately previous PP. You have no idea what you're talking about. My "good salary" barely cracks six figures and I support a family of 5 on this. We certainly aren't starving, but this isn't about some masculine ego thing. It is about not having to struggle financially in a high COL area. So get off your high horse already.

But OP is working. Why does she need DH to provide for her financially. Looks like what she wants is a two income lifestyle on a single income budget - ain't gonna happen. If you were smart - and that goes for anyone on this board, even if you are both working - you should be living a lifestyle that only requires one income. And I do not believe, even with the high cost of housing in this region, that this is impossible for people in the higher income brackets. I can understand, say, if a couple where the take home income is less than $100K, but if both partners are each making $100K they should be able to do it. The secret? Downsize - smaller house, cheaper cars, no private school, free entertainment. It is all to be had here. Do not tell me it is bullsh*t 'cause we live it. There are houses in our neighborhood -split levels and ranches built in the 1950s - going for $300K or less. We have high ceilings, a great open kitchen family room plan, walk out to the deck, etc. I describe our house as sort of like the Brady house in its design. It's pretty cool. Oh, and we are one mile to metro. DH works downtown. I work in Rockville. Love our neighborhood. Quiet, great neighbors, schools nearby. And, no, in today's post-feminist world, IT IS NOT the man's job to provide!

OP, I have been in a situation similar to yours for almost 15 years now. It IS very stressful, as DH hasn't made any real money in longer than I can recall. He has his own business but makes only a few thousand yearly on average.

I went through many of the feelings you are struggling with -- anger, frustration, sadness, wondering if we should divorce. I tried all the coaxing, pep talks, as well as the less positive communication methods, such as tantrums, silence. Nothing changed the situation.

In my case, I know DH feels really bad and his reasons for not earning are complicated. Self-esteem problems from when he was younger, mostly, that led to a string of poor decisions that effectively have shut doors for him at this stage in life. I coped with finding a therapist and deciding to go back to school so that I could become the primary breadwinner. In those years we barely scaped by financially, but we made it. I now have a good salary and DH over the years gradually has become the SAH parent to our kids. He's pretty good at it too. It's not really what either of us wanted, but he's a good guy in most other respects, so I try to make my piece with it. But some days it's still very hard. Not going to lie -- he has lost some love and respect in my eyes, despite the many awesome qualities he has. It is painful for him too, and I know he wishes he could rewind time and do differently. It isn't going to happen at this point. It is sad, but I stay with my eyes open after much soul searching.

My suggestion is to do your own soul searching and decide what you need to be happy. If there's enough else about your husband that makes it worth staying, then that is one thing. If not, I'd make the decision to leave so you can find what you do need. Good luck.

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.

Yea, well-guess what? It IS a man's job to provide. This is biology babe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would give him an ultimatum -- marriage counseling or divorce.

Agree with this.

Personally, I wouldn't pay for extras for him like cable or cell phone or whatever his toys are, either. Car, either, really.

Yup, I'd make his life hell.