KinAZ Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 LOL, I don't mean to cause anymore confusion. But what I took from it was that a SAHP is not out there in the world doing all of the things that would "indicate drive and application of ability" to some. I was a SAHM so I know how it is, and I'm still waiting for my vacation. But yes, to plenty of people, if you're not out there in the work force holding down a job AND house, you're not living up to your full potential. No, this opinion is not my own, and I don't think that carhill was saying that this is the case, but rather asking if someone chooses to stay home for the sake of their family as opposed to working a job to buy a bigger house or save more money, are they also underachievers. And yes, in a way, (though not always) the two situations can be similar.
carhill Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 I don't think that carhill was saying that this is the case, but rather asking if someone chooses to stay home for the sake of their family as opposed to working a job to buy a bigger house or save more money, are they also underachievers. Affirmative If I met a woman who was living at home with her parents and her ambition was to be the best possible SAHM and household manager possible, would I consider her an under-achiever? Or, the reverse? My posting was specifically to TBF's assertion that men who don't meet her qualifications of "success" are "under-achievers" and, speculatively, that the manifestation of such is living at home with mommy and daddy as an adult. I find that entire train of logic to be disingenuous to both sexes and entirely antiquated. Odd that I would think that way, having grown up with a SAHM mom and a dad who was defined as "successful" by TBF's standards, eh? I thank my parents every day for their insight.
blind_otter Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Affirmative If I met a woman who was living at home with her parents and her ambition was to be the best possible SAHM and household manager possible, would I consider her an under-achiever? Or, the reverse? My posting was specifically to TBF's assertion that men who don't meet her qualifications of "success" are "under-achievers" and, speculatively, that the manifestation of such is living at home with mommy and daddy as an adult. I find that entire train of logic to be disingenuous to both sexes and entirely antiquated. Odd that I would think that way, having grown up with a SAHM mom and a dad who was defined as "successful" by TBF's standards, eh? I thank my parents every day for their insight. To be fair - my Dad was a SAHP; he had retired from a career in the Navy by the time I was a young child, so he stayed at home and raised the kids. And yet I still have "living at home with parents" listed as a dealbreaker for me. It's not about success, to me. It's about having to date the guy, and his parents. I dated a man who lived with his mother, years ago. It got to the point where it felt like his mother was the third party in our relationship. I couldn't go over and just spend time with him - I had to spend time with him, and his mother. It got real old, real fast. And I know, there are those out there who say - well you can just go to his room and close the door. But come on. That is just not something most women will tolerate after high school....
MaxManwell Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Girl friends getting jealous of the boyfriends family... lol.. If it were me and there were a girl, make me decide between some fluuzy and my parents I'll take my parents and send the girl and her vagina packing. Even though I don't get along well they're my family and if I could live with them right now I would. Crazy silly people talking about independance, what a load of rot.
carhill Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 I dated a man who lived with his mother, years ago. It got to the point where it felt like his mother was the third party in our relationship. I couldn't go over and just spend time with him - I had to spend time with him, and his mother. It got real old, real fast. Can't speak for other "guys", but I had a car (actually two, plus a race car) and money for a movie and a hotel room (if appropriate, though it never was for me) when "living at home". I was a college dropout working a blue collar job. A classic "under-achiever" My "under-achiever" male friends who weren't married were living quite similarly. We defined the class I'm still looking for my sugar momma Editorially, I think that each person has to define for themselves the aspects of the "value" of a person they might choose to become involved with. I might debate the philosophy here, but, ultimately, it's what is "right" for each of us. None of us is the final arbiter of that reality for anyone but ourselves. The notable quote by George Santayana might be appropriate. "When men and women agree, it is only in their conclusions; their reasons are always different."
Calisto Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 I lived at home while in graduate school for 3 years before my mother got cancer so I went to a grad school to home. I was age 27 when she died, and I was so thankful that I spent all the time with her before she passed away. I was no underachiever. Affirmative If I met a woman who was living at home with her parents and her ambition was to be the best possible SAHM and household manager possible, would I consider her an under-achiever? Or, the reverse? My posting was specifically to TBF's assertion that men who don't meet her qualifications of "success" are "under-achievers" and, speculatively, that the manifestation of such is living at home with mommy and daddy as an adult. I find that entire train of logic to be disingenuous to both sexes and entirely antiquated. Odd that I would think that way, having grown up with a SAHM mom and a dad who was defined as "successful" by TBF's standards, eh? I thank my parents every day for their insight.
sumdude Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Hmm... At 19 I moved to Boston for a year then came back. Moved into a group house then came back... moved out again at 27 and that was about it. Hard to say... I come from an Eastern European family, 1st generation born here. I've been closer to my family than most other Americans that I know, just a cultural thing I guess. I did get on my ex wife's nerves at times.. she couldn't understand why. Back to the original point? I wasn't especially driven during those years.. it was my 20's and I was enjoying myself. I don't know if financial accomplishment should be a be all of existence or too much of a barometer in choosing a mate. Think how many people are married to very successful people and just miserable. Because they always come 2nd or below to the 'business' and the families end of getting all the 'things' they require or want but not the things they really need. In the last year being single again at 40 and my dad being a widower I considered moving in with him. He has a 3 story house with just him in it. I almost did it but his health really changed to the point where he needs someone around 24/7 and a lot of care. I couldn't move in and become his caregiver.. I am just a couple miles away and see him almost every day.
I Luv the Chariot OH Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Oh people are funny! My EX 23 lives alone BUT his parents paid his way... He was in college. Me? Put MYSELF through college paid rent worked full-time. NOW at 25 I'm back at home. I owe a lot in student loans and living at home helps me, but I am independent. My parents have NEVER paid any of my bills in fact I have paid THEIRS! So no not a big deal. My EX is spoiled I am NOT! And who is living "on their own" technically my ex but I am responsible he is not. Exactly. Here are two people I know in real life: Guy #1 is 25. His parents paid for his way through university and when he finished, bought him a house. Guy #2 is 26. He paid his own way through university and is now living at home, paying that debt off. Who is the real loser here?
KinAZ Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 To be fair - my Dad was a SAHP; he had retired from a career in the Navy by the time I was a young child, so he stayed at home and raised the kids. And yet I still have "living at home with parents" listed as a dealbreaker for me. It's not about success, to me. It's about having to date the guy, and his parents. I dated a man who lived with his mother, years ago. It got to the point where it felt like his mother was the third party in our relationship. I couldn't go over and just spend time with him - I had to spend time with him, and his mother. It got real old, real fast. And I know, there are those out there who say - well you can just go to his room and close the door. But come on. That is just not something most women will tolerate after high school.... Why not just go to your place then? I can understand the preference. But the problem is the suggestion that such people are not living up to their full potential simply because they live with their parents. I would prefer a guy who lived on his own, but I'm not going to sell a man short just because he's with his parents. My friend was seeing a guy who had his own place, but his mother was always their cooking and cleaning. hahaha
Trialbyfire Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 So, if your mother was a SAHM, would you consider her an "under-achiever"? What if the reverse were true, say your mother was a doctor and your dad was a SAHD who managed the family finances and ran the house so your mother could pursue her career? Would dad be an "under-achiever"? Why? Flawed logic, supporting the expression of an antiquated genetic predisposition. Truth be told, my Mom was a SAHM for awhile, taking care of the brood. You're assuming that I consider a SAHM or a SAHD underachieving and no, in many ways, they have the more difficult job. They're working with the children which is different than sponging off parents. As for myself, if I ever plan to be a SAHM, I will be a self-supporting one, since I've already done and am still doing the career thing, to ensure for independence.
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 I moved 500 miles away to college at 17. I spent one summer at home the next year, but then never lived at home again. Last year I bought a condo. I lived in a rent controlled apartment for 9 years. I wanted to move out after a few years, but it was cheap so I thought it would be a good financial decision to stay. It ended up to be a great decision because the bottom fell out of my industry and I ended up going back to school. After I graduated, I stayed so I could save money for a condo. I was able to save enough for a down payment on a great little place in one of the coolest neighborhoods in town. So.....when I met this guy I really liked not too long ago, I thought it was pretty weird that he lived at home. I didn't get it. Turns out his parents had gone through a terrible divorce and his mom was in pretty bad shape. The kids stayed in the house so that they could help her make the mortgage payments and give her moral support. She wasn't ready to leave the family home of 30 years and the kids wanted to be there for their mom. Their dad left her after 30 years for another woman. Both brothers now live on their own. Every situation is unique.
MalachiX Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 It's hard for me to judge. I ended up moving back in with my parents for a year after college because my city sunk (New Orleans post Katrina) and I couldn't really afford a place to stay. I ended up just saving for a year but, after that time, I figured I was too old to still be living with Mom and Dad and I moved out to a bigger city. I still didn't have a job but I had enough savings to survive. Money is still very tight these days and there are certainly times where I think how much I'd be saving if I still lived at home. On the other hand, being in this city is finally starting to pay off as far as contacts and possible jobs go. More than that, I found it was really important for me to be independent. I'm 24 years old now and, while I'm certainly struggling (especially with freaking gas prices), it's important to me that I'm on my own without my parents. I know I'll have them to fall back on if things get bad but I didn't want to end up being one of those guys in their late 20s who's still living at home. That said, I don't live in a city like New York, LA, or San Fransisco. I've got a studio apartment for which I pay $440 a month and it probably comes out to about $600 a month when I factor in utilities and food (factoring gas just makes me too depressed). If I was in New York where I'd be paying $1000 a month in rent alone and have food prices at nearly double, I don't know if I'd be in a position to look down on living with Mom and Dad.
Recommended Posts