Do spouses automatically deserve half... (Ohio, quotes, spend, best)
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 was pretty much my life until I went back to work this year. I did my "job" and beyond. He came home and sat down and relaxed...I kept on going until the chores were done and the kids were showered and in bed. The fantasy would have been him helping when he walked in the door every night and NOT expecting praise for doing what he should have been doing.
Actually, my husband helps when he gets home. The kids bedtime is only an hour after he gets home, so we eat dinner and then he takes over with them from there. If he didn't help out, he wouldn't see the kids.
And the husband who comes home to a clean and maintained house, food in the fridge and on the table, clothes in the closet, bills organized and paid, clean, fed, and educated children, and who never has to sit up all night with a sick kid or never has to use vacation days to run errands or to wait for the cable guy or plumber is not getting a luxury service?
The husband may be coming back to a clean home, but HE'S MAKING THE HOUSE POSSIBLE with HIS payments through his intelligence, resourcefulness, training, studying, and sacrifice of time. HE'S MAKING THE HOUSE POSSIBLE AND PAYING THE MORTGAGE without it there's no house, and any house whether clean or not is better than NO HOUSE.
If the wife worked as a associate director to a multinational investment management corporation OR a technical contractor, she would frown upon her husband if all he did was a clean and maintained house, food in the fridge and on the table, clothes in the closet, bills organized and paid, clean, fed, and educated children, and who never has to sit up all night with a sick kid or never has to use vacation days to run errands or to wait for the cable guy or plumber.
If the roles were reversed, society would lambast this man into a pulp (not me, but society). Either both are respectable and honorable, or both aren't. But it can't be one or the other in a double standard.
And the average women would NOT have their husband do that, embellishing that double standard.
Anyway, I have to go back to work now. I do admit that most girls I've known have been little gold-diggers who are VERY VERY entitled, as well as the rude ass ******* who the PUAs say they are and who love bad boys. It is shocking to me the idea that there are women who aren't this way. Must be where I live. I have a hard time believing that this not the case. Our realities aren't congruent in that respect.
Actually, my husband helps when he gets home. The kids bedtime is only an hour after he gets home, so we eat dinner and then he takes over with them from there. If he didn't help out, he wouldn't see the kids.
My husband helped when he felt like it. He played the "but the kids want YOU" or the "but you do it better" card all the time and I didn't have the patience to fight with him about it.
Working is nice, especially when I work late. If he gets home first he'll start dinner
The husband may be coming back to a clean home, but HE'S MAKING THE HOUSE POSSIBLE with HIS payments through his intelligence, resourcefulness, training, studying, and sacrifice of time. HE'S MAKING THE HOUSE POSSIBLE AND PAYING THE MORTGAGE without it there's no house, and any house whether clean or not is better than NO HOUSE.
Do you really not get that SHE'S making his career possible by ensuring that all life's little necessities are taken care of, and that he can work late without worrying about who's going to walk and feed the dog, and he can travel without worrying about childcare? Plus, he doesn't have to spend his entire weekend doing chores trying to catch up. A stay-at-home parent is more than pulling their weight for the family.
My husband helped when he felt like it. He played the "but the kids want YOU" or the "but you do it better" card all the time and I didn't have the patience to fight with him about it.
Working is nice, especially when I work late. If he gets home first he'll start dinner
He's seen me go on strike back when I was working and pregnant with our first. He got a clear idea of just how much I get done. I haven't had a problem since.
Do you really not get that SHE'S making his career possible by ensuring that all life's little necessities are taken care of, and that he can work late without worrying about who's going to walk and feed the dog, and he can travel without worrying about childcare? Plus, he doesn't have to spend his entire weekend doing chores trying to catch up. A stay-at-home parent is more than pulling their weight for the family.
THERE ARE MANY people who have VERY VERY great careers while single. Adam Silver, deputy comissioner of the NBA is one example and he's a 50 year old making millions. There's many successful men who's children are in daycare, because their wives actually HAVE A WORK ETHIC, instead of excuses to be lazy and scale down her work hours to play on the copmuter.
How about women trying to have their OWN careers rather than latch on to somebody? I'm aware they exist, on the same time there's many hot young gold-diggers who have no desire for a career and just want to life off someone else (an option very few men in comparison).
And it seems way too convenient in her end to LATCH onto someone with a career, as opposed to getting HER OWN CAREER. Way too convenient. Maybe it's a way of getting money because maybe that one particular woman may not have the same potential, or maybe she didn't want to work all of those hours herself in a job or study. But that arrangement doesn't seem fair to the man, and you cannot in good conscience tell me that doing "little things" MAKE UP AND IS EQUAL TO being an associate director in multinational investment management corporation in a divorce context.
Anyone can do those "life's little necessities", but few can be associate director which is why he or she makes over $200000. They are NOT equal in divorce. It's not like the divorcing SAHM to an associate director making $200000K did more than the divorcing SAHM to the junior accountant for the first one to get more money.
Most importantly,
Women talk highly of stay-at-home parents, but if the woman were working and their husband wanted to stay-at-home (switch roles), then she wouldn't feel the same way about stay-at-home parents anymore. It will be a hail of insults to the husband, and then divorce. Why is there this hypocrisy? I would like an honest answer to this. Sure, they can say they admire men who stay at home. UNLESS IT'S THE WOMAN HERSELF WHO'S OWN HUSBAND IS EVER A SAHD. Another "how convenient" example. SAHD's are very rare, not because men don't want to be SAHD's, but because women will put the kibosh immediately in the early stages of dating (as the role of selector).
I advocate independence and EVERYONE WORKS.
Last edited by AbsolutePwnage; 06-11-2013 at 03:54 PM..
THERE ARE MANY people who have VERY VERY great careers while single. Adam Silver, deputy comissioner of the NBA is one example and he's a 50 year old making millions. I don't think fleetiebelle was denying this. However, is one is working 60+ hours a week consistently and wants a family life, something has to give. Either their family suffers, they don't have a family, or they have a SAH parent/part time/flexible career parent.
How about women trying to have their OWN careers rather than latch on to somebody? I'm aware they exist, on the same time there's many hot young gold-diggers who have no desire for a career and just want to life off someone else (an option very few men in comparison).
And it seems way too convenient in her end to LATCH onto someone with a career, as opposed to getting HER OWN CAREER. Way too convenient. Maybe it's a way of getting money because maybe that one particular woman may not have the same potential, or maybe she didn't want to work all of those hours herself in a job or study. But that arrangement doesn't seem fair to the man, and you cannot in good conscience tell me that doing "little things" MAKE UP AND IS EQUAL TO being an associate director in multinational investment management corporation in a divorce context. Not all marriages will have two spouses in equally high power careers. I can't really think of when a career is ever truly comparable or 50/50. Most healthy couples realize that it is unfair to hold a spouse to a "low" standard because they happen to choose a different career. And if a man complains about the situation being unfair for marrying a gold digger, whose fault is that? If you are so upset about your spouse having a lowly/nonexistent career, don't marry them, don't date them. Many women dream of being home makers and not career women. Many men want these women in their homes at night. It's a fabulous setup for many.
Most importantly,
Women talk highly of stay-at-home parents, but if the woman were working and their husband wanted to stay-at-home (switch roles), then she wouldn't feel the same way about stay-at-home parents anymore. It will be a hail of insults to the husband, and then divorce. Why is there this hypocrisy? I would like an honest answer to this.
I really think with the rise of the woman becoming more of a breadwinner/equal breadwinner these days, this will change in the coming years. I'm only in my early 20's, but my SO and I discuss children and he said he would happily be a SAHD or work per diem for me not to sacrifice my career. I know several young couples who exercise this option.
I advocate independence and EVERYONE WORKS.
And I advocate people choose what works best for their families.
I'm okay with sinking all of my time and effort into my husband with the guarantee that we are financially bonded. I've never gotten upset when my money became our money. When my inheritance from my great-aunt became our inheritance. When my career took a back burner to his career. At parties, when people go around and talk about what they do for a living, I'm okay with being the loser that says she stays at home with her kids. I can take all of that. As long as at the end of the day, I know that we are one team and one financial entity. That is my security. I have worked hard and I reserve rights to our collective finances.
You have made substantive contributions to your marital union with your husband, regardless of which partner earned what, and in what circumstances. I apologize to you personally and to all members of this board if my next question will be phrased abrasively, but there's no diplomatic way to phrase it: why do you feel justified in making such substantial investment of your person, your emotions and your wherewithal, when there's a Sword of Damocles hanging over you, in the form of potential exit by your spouse - and that further, such exit might leave you devastated and impoverished? By all means, I applaud wholehearted plunge into a committed relationship called marriage, and I don't want to see that institution whither. But if our laws are so written that it CAN be broken with light cause, does this not cheapen and profane your hard work as a committed spouse?
On the other hand, our discussion in the preceding pages has assumed a stay-at-home-parent who takes primary or even complete responsibility for domestic operations. But the divorce court does not care if the stay at home spouse is a selfless caretaker of home and children, or a shiftless grand dame of leisure who spends her days shopping and playing golf, while servants clean the house and prepare meals - servants who are paid from the husband's stock market speculations. In either case, marital assets will be split 50/50 - even if the aforementioned dame of leisure cheats on her husband with the pool boy and infects her husband with an STD.
AbPwn, I pity the world you live in.
A world where
1. Every woman is a lazy golddigger.
2. Raising your kids isn't a "real job," so why not let strangers do it?
3. Men can't stay at home because "women won't let them" and these same men are such ball-less wimps that they care more about what "society" thinks than what is good for their family.
4. Money is the most important thing in the world, so everyone should bow down to the,earner in the family (never mind that HE MADE THE DECISION TO HAVE A FAMILY IN THE FIRST PLACE...now they should all kiss his magnanimous feet for"making their lives possible").
If this is the world you live in, NEVER get marriedand FTLOG,NEVER EVER have kids.
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.
