Anonymous wrote:The suggestion that in 2021, you need a sahw to fully allow a man to fully succeed in his career.... ? What world do you ladies live in? Is this what you tell yourselves to justify your set ups?

I'm a partner in big law. Yes, twenty years ago the male partners all had sahws. Not any more. I look around my immediate team, and the partners' wives are: counsel for a major corporation (probably making $400k), counsel for a smaller company (makes $240k), special needs therapist, medical research doctor running a fancy national research program, G15 type job at state department, trophy wife and trophy wife. The two trophy wife guys are both in their 60s and close to retirement. Everyone else is 40s and 50s. These guys work a ton, but are all involved in their kids and outsource appropriately at home. Having someone at home folding their underwear is not remotely a necessity for their professional success. No matter what you tell yourself.

I'm sure posters will respond and say that we don't all make high salaries like that. But the whole point of your argument is that your staying home supports your husband's career trajectory. So I assume he's making at least $300k. Most men making that kind of income statistically are married to women with equal income potential. You ladies just opted out.

Men making $200k a year rarely have sahws in hcol areas like dc. Most families all across america have two working parents. No one needs a sahw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The value of what a sahm gets while still married can be valued - half the mortgage, half the utilities, half the insurance premiums, clothing, food, entertainment. Basically, every dollar the household spends. Half of that is what she is getting 'paid'. So for those who suggest a sahm, on divorce, should get backpay for 20 years of being a nanny.... Okay, do that calculation, then subtract the value of all those benefits she's been receiving. I suspect that leaves her in a net negative position.

This. Unfortunately I think many SAHMs don’t understand this when they say they are owed money. Probably if there is a nice lifestyle involved it would not come out equal even if you factor on her labor at market rates.

I am a lawyer turned SAHM. I think understand alimony in Virginia better than you do!

Can you tell us why the court thinks an able bodied person in their 40s or 50s should be entitled to lifetime support?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The value of what a sahm gets while still married can be valued - half the mortgage, half the utilities, half the insurance premiums, clothing, food, entertainment. Basically, every dollar the household spends. Half of that is what she is getting 'paid'. So for those who suggest a sahm, on divorce, should get backpay for 20 years of being a nanny.... Okay, do that calculation, then subtract the value of all those benefits she's been receiving. I suspect that leaves her in a net negative position.

This. Unfortunately I think many SAHMs don’t understand this when they say they are owed money. Probably if there is a nice lifestyle involved it would not come out equal even if you factor on her labor at market rates.

I am a lawyer turned SAHM. I think understand alimony in Virginia better than you do!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The value of what a sahm gets while still married can be valued - half the mortgage, half the utilities, half the insurance premiums, clothing, food, entertainment. Basically, every dollar the household spends. Half of that is what she is getting 'paid'. So for those who suggest a sahm, on divorce, should get backpay for 20 years of being a nanny.... Okay, do that calculation, then subtract the value of all those benefits she's been receiving. I suspect that leaves her in a net negative position.

This. Unfortunately I think many SAHMs don’t understand this when they say they are owed money. Probably if there is a nice lifestyle involved it would not come out equal even if you factor on her labor at market rates.

I am a lawyer turned SAHM. I think understand alimony in Virginia better than you do!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The value of what a sahm gets while still married can be valued - half the mortgage, half the utilities, half the insurance premiums, clothing, food, entertainment. Basically, every dollar the household spends. Half of that is what she is getting 'paid'. So for those who suggest a sahm, on divorce, should get backpay for 20 years of being a nanny.... Okay, do that calculation, then subtract the value of all those benefits she's been receiving. I suspect that leaves her in a net negative position.

This. Unfortunately I think many SAHMs don’t understand this when they say they are owed money. Probably if there is a nice lifestyle involved it would not come out equal even if you factor on her labor at market rates.

Anonymous wrote:The value of what a sahm gets while still married can be valued - half the mortgage, half the utilities, half the insurance premiums, clothing, food, entertainment. Basically, every dollar the household spends. Half of that is what she is getting 'paid'. So for those who suggest a sahm, on divorce, should get backpay for 20 years of being a nanny.... Okay, do that calculation, then subtract the value of all those benefits she's been receiving. I suspect that leaves her in a net negative position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing: the things that a stay at home parent does is undervalued. Think of it this way: what would it cost to pay someone to:
1. Keep your house tidy and clean daily;
2. Manage all doctors appointments and take your children to those appointments
3. Pick up your children from school
4. Make sure homework is done, and provide tutoring to your children (tutors cost at least $100/hour, often more in the DMV)
5. Do all of the grocery shopping
6. Do your laundry and take clothes to the cleaners
7. Pick up all family members Rx and run errands
8. Plan and cook meals
9. Stay home with your kids when they are sick or pick them up early if the school nurse calls

I quit a good paying job about five years ago at the urging of my husband. When I was working, we were constantly negotiating who would take the kids to the doctor, pick them up from school. We made this decision to have less stress in our family life. Not only did it make our lives less stressful, we also did this because our kids were struggling with anxiety and depression. I've not been eating bonbons. It's been grueling and not easy to shift into this role, but it has been really important for our children's mental health.

At this point, as I'm pushing 50, I'm not a great candidate in the workforce. It saddens me to see the callous comments in this thread about women who make this sacrifice for their family. Ultimately, it is a benefit to society if a parent can afford to stay home with children who are depressed, etc. I realize not everyone has this luxury - it is no doubt holding us back financially, but being there for kids with special needs in particular is something society should not be shaming.

Let's leave the special needs scenario aside as it is a special case.

For the neurotypical families, the mindset of "what would you pay for someone to do XYZ" is not justified. A SAHM cannot be compared to hired help for one simple reason: the help does not enjoy the fruit of their labor. A personal chef does not eat what he cooks. A nanny doesn't acquire 50% interest in your children. A housekeeper does not live in your house. Everything a SAHM does, she does 50% for herself. Do you grocery shop, plan and cook meals? Half of that is for you. Do you tutor your children? Half of that is on you. Do you have a clean, nicely decorated house? Congratulations, you live there too and you enjoy it. Don't compare your labor for your family with what hired help does, delivers to you and goes home.

It would have cost us more than my salary for child care and I have a masters. Plus, taking care of my mil. What would you propse? A nanny and an aide? Whose paying for all that? Not everyone is high income.

I propose that you see these trials as simple shit life flings at pretty much everyone. It's not an equivalent to paid labor. It's not something you do FOR someone. It's your life.

So, what do you propose? It was a joint choice to have kids. It was a joint choice to take care of my husband's mom. It absolutely is something you have to do for someone. If I didn't care for my kids, who would? If I didn't care for my MIL, who would? My husband's earning ability was significantly higher than mine and I was more qualified to handle the caretaking. Just because you wouldn't care for your MIL and set a good example for your kids, doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't be decent people and do it.

You sound like a nasty vindictive person. Life must be so hard for you.

Reality is if you cannot afford to pay someone, you have to do it yourself and sometimes some cannot afford to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing: the things that a stay at home parent does is undervalued. Think of it this way: what would it cost to pay someone to:
1. Keep your house tidy and clean daily;
2. Manage all doctors appointments and take your children to those appointments
3. Pick up your children from school
4. Make sure homework is done, and provide tutoring to your children (tutors cost at least $100/hour, often more in the DMV)
5. Do all of the grocery shopping
6. Do your laundry and take clothes to the cleaners
7. Pick up all family members Rx and run errands
8. Plan and cook meals
9. Stay home with your kids when they are sick or pick them up early if the school nurse calls

I quit a good paying job about five years ago at the urging of my husband. When I was working, we were constantly negotiating who would take the kids to the doctor, pick them up from school. We made this decision to have less stress in our family life. Not only did it make our lives less stressful, we also did this because our kids were struggling with anxiety and depression. I've not been eating bonbons. It's been grueling and not easy to shift into this role, but it has been really important for our children's mental health.

At this point, as I'm pushing 50, I'm not a great candidate in the workforce. It saddens me to see the callous comments in this thread about women who make this sacrifice for their family. Ultimately, it is a benefit to society if a parent can afford to stay home with children who are depressed, etc. I realize not everyone has this luxury - it is no doubt holding us back financially, but being there for kids with special needs in particular is something society should not be shaming.

Let's leave the special needs scenario aside as it is a special case.

For the neurotypical families, the mindset of "what would you pay for someone to do XYZ" is not justified. A SAHM cannot be compared to hired help for one simple reason: the help does not enjoy the fruit of their labor. A personal chef does not eat what he cooks. A nanny doesn't acquire 50% interest in your children. A housekeeper does not live in your house. Everything a SAHM does, she does 50% for herself. Do you grocery shop, plan and cook meals? Half of that is for you. Do you tutor your children? Half of that is on you. Do you have a clean, nicely decorated house? Congratulations, you live there too and you enjoy it. Don't compare your labor for your family with what hired help does, delivers to you and goes home.

It would have cost us more than my salary for child care and I have a masters. Plus, taking care of my mil. What would you propse? A nanny and an aide? Whose paying for all that? Not everyone is high income.

I propose that you see these trials as simple shit life flings at pretty much everyone. It's not an equivalent to paid labor. It's not something you do FOR someone. It's your life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing: the things that a stay at home parent does is undervalued. Think of it this way: what would it cost to pay someone to:
1. Keep your house tidy and clean daily;
2. Manage all doctors appointments and take your children to those appointments
3. Pick up your children from school
4. Make sure homework is done, and provide tutoring to your children (tutors cost at least $100/hour, often more in the DMV)
5. Do all of the grocery shopping
6. Do your laundry and take clothes to the cleaners
7. Pick up all family members Rx and run errands
8. Plan and cook meals
9. Stay home with your kids when they are sick or pick them up early if the school nurse calls

I quit a good paying job about five years ago at the urging of my husband. When I was working, we were constantly negotiating who would take the kids to the doctor, pick them up from school. We made this decision to have less stress in our family life. Not only did it make our lives less stressful, we also did this because our kids were struggling with anxiety and depression. I've not been eating bonbons. It's been grueling and not easy to shift into this role, but it has been really important for our children's mental health.

At this point, as I'm pushing 50, I'm not a great candidate in the workforce. It saddens me to see the callous comments in this thread about women who make this sacrifice for their family. Ultimately, it is a benefit to society if a parent can afford to stay home with children who are depressed, etc. I realize not everyone has this luxury - it is no doubt holding us back financially, but being there for kids with special needs in particular is something society should not be shaming.

Let's leave the special needs scenario aside as it is a special case.

For the neurotypical families, the mindset of "what would you pay for someone to do XYZ" is not justified. A SAHM cannot be compared to hired help for one simple reason: the help does not enjoy the fruit of their labor. A personal chef does not eat what he cooks. A nanny doesn't acquire 50% interest in your children. A housekeeper does not live in your house. Everything a SAHM does, she does 50% for herself. Do you grocery shop, plan and cook meals? Half of that is for you. Do you tutor your children? Half of that is on you. Do you have a clean, nicely decorated house? Congratulations, you live there too and you enjoy it. Don't compare your labor for your family with what hired help does, delivers to you and goes home.

It would have cost us more than my salary for child care and I have a masters. Plus, taking care of my mil. What would you propse? A nanny and an aide? Whose paying for all that? Not everyone is high income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing: the things that a stay at home parent does is undervalued. Think of it this way: what would it cost to pay someone to:
1. Keep your house tidy and clean daily;
2. Manage all doctors appointments and take your children to those appointments
3. Pick up your children from school
4. Make sure homework is done, and provide tutoring to your children (tutors cost at least $100/hour, often more in the DMV)
5. Do all of the grocery shopping
6. Do your laundry and take clothes to the cleaners
7. Pick up all family members Rx and run errands
8. Plan and cook meals
9. Stay home with your kids when they are sick or pick them up early if the school nurse calls

I quit a good paying job about five years ago at the urging of my husband. When I was working, we were constantly negotiating who would take the kids to the doctor, pick them up from school. We made this decision to have less stress in our family life. Not only did it make our lives less stressful, we also did this because our kids were struggling with anxiety and depression. I've not been eating bonbons. It's been grueling and not easy to shift into this role, but it has been really important for our children's mental health.

At this point, as I'm pushing 50, I'm not a great candidate in the workforce. It saddens me to see the callous comments in this thread about women who make this sacrifice for their family. Ultimately, it is a benefit to society if a parent can afford to stay home with children who are depressed, etc. I realize not everyone has this luxury - it is no doubt holding us back financially, but being there for kids with special needs in particular is something society should not be shaming.

Let's leave the special needs scenario aside as it is a special case.

For the neurotypical families, the mindset of "what would you pay for someone to do XYZ" is not justified. A SAHM cannot be compared to hired help for one simple reason: the help does not enjoy the fruit of their labor. A personal chef does not eat what he cooks. A nanny doesn't acquire 50% interest in your children. A housekeeper does not live in your house. Everything a SAHM does, she does 50% for herself. Do you grocery shop, plan and cook meals? Half of that is for you. Do you tutor your children? Half of that is on you. Do you have a clean, nicely decorated house? Congratulations, you live there too and you enjoy it. Don't compare your labor for your family with what hired help does, delivers to you and goes home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing: the things that a stay at home parent does is undervalued. Think of it this way: what would it cost to pay someone to:
1. Keep your house tidy and clean daily;
2. Manage all doctors appointments and take your children to those appointments
3. Pick up your children from school
4. Make sure homework is done, and provide tutoring to your children (tutors cost at least $100/hour, often more in the DMV)
5. Do all of the grocery shopping
6. Do your laundry and take clothes to the cleaners
7. Pick up all family members Rx and run errands
8. Plan and cook meals
9. Stay home with your kids when they are sick or pick them up early if the school nurse calls

I quit a good paying job about five years ago at the urging of my husband. When I was working, we were constantly negotiating who would take the kids to the doctor, pick them up from school. We made this decision to have less stress in our family life. Not only did it make our lives less stressful, we also did this because our kids were struggling with anxiety and depression. I've not been eating bonbons. It's been grueling and not easy to shift into this role, but it has been really important for our children's mental health.

At this point, as I'm pushing 50, I'm not a great candidate in the workforce. It saddens me to see the callous comments in this thread about women who make this sacrifice for their family. Ultimately, it is a benefit to society if a parent can afford to stay home with children who are depressed, etc. I realize not everyone has this luxury - it is no doubt holding us back financially, but being there for kids with special needs in particular is something society should not be shaming.

I have always done all of that and I also WAH full-time bringing in $175k.

Are your children special needs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family law attorney here

Look people, you might not like it, but don't spread misinformation in here. In a long marriage like this, where the wife hasn't worked by choice of both partners, yes she will be awarded some type of alimony unless her lawyer is a real incompetent. which I doubt because you'd have to be a huge fool not to present a case for it.

What if she didn’t work because she didn’t want to, and the partner voiced concern and told them to get a job but they didn’t Is the only option to divorce when a spouse refuses to work if you disagree? if you do not divorce will you have to pay alimony? If you immediately divorce do you still pay alimony? It now seems to me that not working should be a new automatic divorce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have indefinite spousal support. Still happens. Went to court to get it.

How do you make your case?