Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's bull. I have a mother who worked full-time alongside my father, who worked full time, and both retired with pensions on their own right, and I turned out alright. This idea that raising a kid is this big job that equals the opportunity cost of chasing a career is bunk. My mother's case study is an illustration that your argument is a cop out. That you're indignated by your SOs mid life crisis has nothing to do with your attempt at monetizing what should be the non-economic joint responsibility of watching over a kid. Put simply, you figured pushing the agenda that "raising a kid was a profession" was an easier out than having to juggle raising kids and showing up at work. Women like my mother would probably have a word or two about the "plight" of this country's SAHMs.
Furthermore, your argument is one also brought up by many military wives. "We promoted, we got the job done, we, we we". You didn't take the MBA test for him, you didn't put in the physical work, you were a mere support structure. A support structure, that as I pointed out, does not exist in many households and yet fathers and mothers all over this country manage to get paid while simultaneously raise relatively productive members of society. Yours is a fairly recent development of an entitlement culture. Among catholic circles is called the "Pharisee's plight". A pharisee goes up to God when he doesn't end up rich off his righteousness: "But God, I didn't end up in jail, I didn't abuse drugs, I never stole from my neighbor", and God goes "...really man?....YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO NOT STEAL FROM THY NEIGHBOR" See where I'm going with this? You cannot monetize your responsibilities as if they were optional and therefore monetary in value.
If you wanted a career and having kids was getting on the way of that you should have foregone kids. My father and mother BOTH wanted kids; where in the heck is this "he made me have kids and forego my future!" pity party coming from anyways? My mother didn't lose out on any more career prospects than my father did when they decided to have kids. You just want to get paid like a banker for what is in reality a social cost of your household. It's your kid, you can't seek compensation from your own liabilities.
As to your husband, that's his opportunity cost of entering into a punitive economic agreement (marriage) and deciding to foreclose on the transaction. From that angle, all is well in a forewarned battle. As someone else pointed out, his best bet would be to keep you around and pursuing separate lives to remain financially intact. But to each their own as far as determining what's worth to each one of us. But the Joan of Arc martyr child bearer support structure promissory note angle is bunk.
Wow. Maybe we resented our mommy working full time? You need to work this out.
Right not we have the option, rather she has the option, of a portion of my paycheck going into a survivor benefit plan. 5%, 10%, 20%, however much she wants from my paycheck to pay into this SBP, and after I die she would than receive a payment as my widow.
Can you explain this better? You're saying that she has the power, right now, to designate how much money is deducted from your paycheck to go into a plan to protect her after you die? Even if what she wants to put into it is more than what you want to put into it?
Wow. Maybe we resented our mommy working full time? You need to work this out.
LOL, don't misunderstand my passionate statement with having "anything to work out". I just don't think there's much value to the SAHM case when it has been illustrated that full-time working parents are capable of raising well-adjusted children. If there is no aggregate distinction between children raised by SAHM and those raised by working parents or even single parents, then that is illustration of the lack of merit to the SAHM. We agree to disagree.
To each their own, I just don't agree there's any "value-adding" to being raised by a SAHM. As such, the implication on the part of SAHMs that there is a monetization value to the "sacrifice" of not pursuing a career over the time spent with children is not valid, which is what my original reply dealt with. I don't have anything against SAHM from a "life choice" angle, I just don't think their attempt at the monetization of their life responsibility is a valid one (as currently disproven by the ability of others to multi-task), nor particularly morally noble to begin with. So no I don't have any mommy issues, and yes I probably don't admire or empathize with the life angle put forth by SAHMs. Oh well, we can't all see eye to eye in this life.
LOL, don't misunderstand my passionate statement with having "anything to work out". I just don't think there's much value to the SAHM case when it has been illustrated that full-time working parents are capable of raising well-adjusted children. If there is no aggregate distinction between children raised by SAHM and those raised by working parents or even single parents, then that is illustration of the lack of merit to the SAHM. We agree to disagree.
To each their own, I just don't agree there's any "value-adding" to being raised by a SAHM. As such, the implication on the part of SAHMs that there is a monetization value to the "sacrifice" of not pursuing a career over the time spent with children is not valid, which is what my original reply dealt with. I don't have anything against SAHM from a "life choice" angle, I just don't think their attempt at the monetization of their life responsibility is a valid one (as currently disproven by the ability of others to multi-task), nor particularly morally noble to begin with. So no I don't have any mommy issues, and yes I probably don't admire or empathize with the life angle put forth by SAHMs. Oh well, we can't all see eye to eye in this life.
But see here, no-one is saying that either one is better than the other, but it sure came across that way in your post. When couples get divorced, for whatever reason, it is monetarized, jsut a fact of life. And when a couple decides that one parent is to be a SAHM then the other parent accepts the responsibilities of that decision. So yeah, I don't have one bit of a problem with a SAHM getting half of everything, that is what marriage is all about and just because one party or both decides to call it quits, doesn't mean the working parent is off the hook.
But see here, no-one is saying that either one is better than the other, but it sure came across that way in your post. When couples get divorced, for whatever reason, it is monetarized, jsut a fact of life. And when a couple decides that one parent is to be a SAHM then the other parent accepts the responsibilities of that decision. So yeah, I don't have one bit of a problem with a SAHM getting half of everything, that is what marriage is all about and just because one party or both decides to call it quits, doesn't mean the working parent is off the hook.
Ceece... some children were raised by daycares rather than mothers and have a different view of things... don't let them make you feel bad.
My dh likes to tell men that think that I should get a "real job" that he takes pride in the fact that he can support his family... without financial help from his wife... you know, the way MEN used to.
Wow, while we are at it, lets go ahead and start digging up everything from the past thats no longer feasible. I wonder how a comment like "Im proud my wife is barefoot,pregnant, and domestically confined like WOMEN used to be", or "My kids work 12 hour days and are illiterate, like CHILDREN used to be".
I thnik waht men are not use to is the fac that a non-workig house wife has value there days. I can remmeebr when a married woman was consider one divorce away from poverty.Bascailly i yexas ech is entitled to half of everyhting accumulated during the marriage unless one is proven to have committed adultery as the reason for divorce. The the injuried party get 60%.IMO marriage is much like a eqaul partnership in many ways.But its also a fact that a good marriage general allows a much better life and inmnay studies; more success.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So no I don't have any mommy issues, and yes I probably don't admire or empathize with the life angle put forth by SAHMs. Oh well, we can't all see eye to eye in this life.
