calizaggy Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 I grew up in a traditional household. My father worked, mother stayed home. Disadvantages might have been fewer vacations, same furniture, kept cars longer, cheaper clothes, etc. On the other hand, my sister and I never ate McDonalds or any other fast food until we were adults. My mother cooked everyday, and nobody in my family was ever overweight. Another advantage to my upbriging was that everyone had more time. When my father was off work he would take me to play sports, since he did not have to come home, cook, clean etc. Time and health to me are far more important than money. Are there women out there who yearn for a slower, more traditional life? Or do most women view life as showing off to girlfriends and earning their own money in case of divorce? It just seems selfish to me. I feel most men CAN support a family with a good wife on a single income. If a wife cooks from scratch that saves a ton of money. Money on daycare is saved..Everyone is more healthy and has far more time. What i remember about my childhood, and appreciate is the amount of time I spent with my parents.. If we lived in a bigger box, or drove a newer piece of metal I do not think that would have made my childhood any better.
RedDevil66 Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 I think the younger generation would say money, but people who are in their 40's and older would say health. No women really want to stay home and take care of a man. I never did, never will and yet, I could care less about money. I also got very ill and almost died, so health is the #1 for me
Author calizaggy Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 But why isn't it viewed as 2 people taking care of each other? And once kids are in the picture, if they are fed crap it almost seems like child abuse to me.
RedDevil66 Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 But why isn't it viewed as 2 people taking care of each other? And once kids are in the picture, if they are fed crap it almost seems like child abuse to me. Because the world doesn't work like this anymore. Women are gaining their independence and don't want to rely on men for their security. I agree, feeding a child bad food is a form of abuse, but many people don't understand that. If a parent is obese, they don't see anything wrong with their child being the same way.
BUENG1 Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 But why isn't it viewed as 2 people taking care of each other? And once kids are in the picture, if they are fed crap it almost seems like child abuse to me. I know what you mean. I know of a family who supports 4 on 50k(single income) a year(northeast too, not cheap living). They live decent, alot of family time, but only 1 car, not everyone has a cell phone etc. It's all about what your priorities are.
alphamale Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 I feel most men CAN support a family with a good wife on a single income. teh average american man makes around $40,000/yr. it is possible that he could support a wife and two kids on that salary but it would be tight. they would have to live in a small house/apartment with one car and few, if any, luxuries. No HD tv, no expensive dinners out, no vacations or private schools. How would you expect them to keep up with the Joneses down the street? In addition, this would be considered un-american by many and anti-capitalism/consumerism.
Author calizaggy Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 Because the world doesn't work like this anymore. Women are gaining their independence and don't want to rely on men for their security. I agree, feeding a child bad food is a form of abuse, but many people don't understand that. If a parent is obese, they don't see anything wrong with their child being the same way. That is what it seems like. But what is the point to getting married if 2 people refuse to take the full leap and rely on each other? I guess maybe they should just live together and not have children. It seems if anything is done "half ass" it will not have a successful outcome. When people choose "independence" over health, time, quality and length of life, it seems our priorities are in the wrong place.
Kamille Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 I think each couple has to find the scenario that works best for them. While most couple around me are double-income, I know one couple with a STAHM and one couple with a STAHD. Guess I don't understand why you feel it should be the woman who stays at home? Would you be willing to stay at home for the sake of the family while your wife works? If not, why not?
RedDevil66 Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 That is what it seems like. But what is the point to getting married if 2 people refuse to take the full leap and rely on each other? I guess maybe they should just live together and not have children. It seems if anything is done "half ass" it will not have a successful outcome. When people choose "independence" over health, time, quality and length of life, it seems our priorities are in the wrong place. It's just a matter of simple evolution. And many people are not having kids because it cost too much. My health depends on being independent and not having kids. If I had them or depended on a man to take care of me, I would not be a well person. It's about choices and what works for one may not work for another.
knaveman Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 The world changes constantly, all we can do is try to keep up. I remember having a discussion with a girlfriend I had planned on marrying. She wanted to know what I thought about her being a stay at home mom. I told her I had no problem with it at all. We wouldn't be able to afford her expensive girly hair cuts or Goodwill shopping sprees anymore. She told me that the child support from her ex could pay for that. I also told her that if I worked to support the household, I would expect to come home to dinner of some sort and a house that wasn't trashed. (I'm a bit of a neat freak so I thought not being trashed was a compromise:)) She thought about it for a few minutes then said she would rather work. I live alone now.
carhill Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 No question, health. I would have said the same 20 years ago. In fact, when I started posting on the internet 13 years ago, my tag line was 'longevity is the ultimate success'.
Author calizaggy Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 While it is becoming more rare to find "traditional" women, it is probably 100 times more rare to find a woman who wants to start a family, give birth, go right back to work, and have the obligation of supporting a husband and family for the rest of her life. So that is all the time i will spend on that question. I was on various job sites, and honestly was jealous of the immigrant workers.. On lunch time their wives and girlfriends would actually bring them home cooked meals, while the high earning bosses are scarfing down some McDonalds then drive home to pop something in the microwave.
Kamille Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) What if you did find a woman who was willing to be the breadwinner (they do exist) - one who made enough income to support a family. Would you consider staying at home for the health of your family and partner? Edited December 16, 2009 by Kamille
carhill Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Absolutely and set my business up to be a SAHD.
Kamille Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Absolutely and set my business up to be a SAHD. That's the exact scenario with two of my friends and it works really great for them. She has the steady high-earning job. He's the primary care-giver and does photography on the side. It works really well for them. Of course she struggled to get back to work, but she loves that baby is with dad and not with a sitter.
Author calizaggy Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Ok, so some attractive woman wants to marry me while I stay home to teach the children, read, work out, play tennis, cook, pay the bills, etc. Sure, why not. If things don't work out, I can always make money in the future, and I would be entitled to alimoney and child support on top of that. That is not my ideal situation, as I enjoy working. But if it came down to it, i would much prefer that to both of us working. Do you have a job? I know some unemployed men i could hook you up with. Edited December 16, 2009 by calizaggy
Kamille Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 She didn't marry him expecting him 'to stay at home'. She married him because she loved him. They married and have found that this arrangement works best for their family for now. He was contractual (free-lance artists and photographer) while she has a permanent well-paid position. It made more sense to them that she keep her job. He does take studio time on the weekend while she stays with the baby.
Author calizaggy Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 kamille, I have an idea for you.. When you get rich I want a cut.. Go to the bank, take out some money and hire a web designer. Start a new dating site catering to all the women who want to support men.. Make the women pay to join, and let the men join for free. "Succesful women seeking unemployed men to support forever." Anyway, what do you feel is more important? Less stress, being a little more "selfless", eating better and living longer? Or having 2 people work for more stuff? In my idea, both the man and woman are to be selfless. The man works and spends his money on his wife and kids. The woman spends her time making the home a wonderful place to come home to. I feel those are closer to our natural roles than what you suggested.
allina Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Ok, so some attractive woman wants to marry me while I stay home to teach the children, read, work out, play tennis, cook, pay the bills, etc. Sure, why not. Question. In your opinion can your wife, the SAHM go out to lunch with the baby and another SAHM friend? Can she take a yoga class? Is she free to take care of herself and have fun or does she have to stay home and clean and cook all day?
Author calizaggy Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Question. In your opinion can your wife, the SAHM go out to lunch with the baby and another SAHM friend? Can she take a yoga class? Is she free to take care of herself and have fun or does she have to stay home and clean and cook all day? It depends on how efficient she is.. I have dated women that take 2 hours to cook a bowl of soup. I would not marry that woman. Some women do many things quickly. I would want her to have interests, whether they be the gym, tennis, art, reading, writing, yoga etc. It would be great if she had friends to see on a daily basis.Then when I come home, everything is taken care of, and we have all evening to spend together or with the kids. Edited December 16, 2009 by calizaggy
Kamille Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Anyway, what do you feel is more important? Less stress, being a little more "selfless", eating better and living longer? Or having 2 people work for more stuff? Less stress and eating better. There is no question. And I feel like I've managed to make that happen in my two past relationships. I've always been in pretty equal partnerships, where we each made about the same income and shared household chores, such as cooking. I'm a foodie and a health-freak with a flex-time schedule. The same is true of my two exes (we were all Ph.D students with an income fluctuating between 25 000 to 40 000). I love cooking as did my exes. There was a moment when my ex made a lot more money than I did, so we tried to split 40-60. He would buy the fancier cheese and I would go for very low-cost meals. Living arrangements have never been an issue in any of my relationships. But then, none of those relationships involved children. I would hope, there, too, that we could share responsibility. So, basically, here are the three things that my partners and i have had to compromise on in the past: Housechores: (we shared according to who was busiest at the time, with some designated tasks. I hate mopping floors and bf1 hated cleaning bathrooms. We swapped those) Careers: never been an issue (other then when one of us has to move for a job) Expenses: never been an issue. We each bought food for the house and usually split bills when going out. Health (food): if one of us felt like cooking, he or she would inform the other that they're making dinner. If neither of us came up with an idea, we would open fridge door, look at ingredients and come up with a dinner plan. There was always, also, the left-over option (you can freeze almost anything!) If we felt like treating ourselves, we would eat out (and split bill). And then, every once in awhile, one of us would treat the other to a fancy dinner. See, my point is, there are ways to prioritize health even when both partners work. One of them is that each partner cuts back a little on work.
Author calizaggy Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Kamille, I agree that everything could be done with both people working, and raising kids, etc.. But I feel there are far more efficient ways of doing things that allow both people to have more down time, freedom, quality time, etc. As an example, let's say I have a boy and I am married.. I could get home at 5, we eat as a family, then I could take him to the park, play sports, etc. If everything is split, then from 5-7 me and my wife are both cooking, cleaning, etc.. Trip to the park is postponed until the weekend. Small example. Not to forget that people do get burned out..Does a man really want to work all day to come home and work more? Does a woman? It is a lot for people to have on their plate to deal with work, driving, raising kids, household chores,cooking, and trying to be romantic with one another. Too much to do day after day after day. I am in favor of division of responsibilities. Edited December 16, 2009 by calizaggy
Kamille Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 I am in favor of division of responsibilities. And that's perfectly fine. My friend does enjoy being a SAHM and it does work wonderfully for them. I love my work, so the partnership scenario works better for me. The thing is, I think there's plenty of options out there, which would allow each of us to have the kind of relationship that we want. I have found three guys in a row who also favored the partnership scenario, and my friend is an example of a non-materialistic woman who enjoys being STAH. There's got to be others like her who would love the opportunity to STAH.
burning 4 revenge Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 And that's perfectly fine. My friend does enjoy being a SAHM and it does work wonderfully for them. I love my work, so the partnership scenario works better for me. The thing is, I think there's plenty of options out there, which would allow each of us to have the kind of relationship that we want. I have found three guys in a row who also favored the partnership scenario, and my friend is an example of a non-materialistic woman who enjoys being STAH. There's got to be others like her who would love the opportunity to STAH. Did you change your hairstyle?
Author calizaggy Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) And that's perfectly fine. My friend does enjoy being a SAHM and it does work wonderfully for them. I love my work, so the partnership scenario works better for me. The thing is, I think there's plenty of options out there, which would allow each of us to have the kind of relationship that we want. I have found three guys in a row who also favored the partnership scenario, and my friend is an example of a non-materialistic woman who enjoys being STAH. There's got to be others like her who would love the opportunity to STAH. Ok, you love you work.. So you loving your work is more important than the welfare and health of yourself, husband and kids? I mean if you ever became married..Are you open to marrying a guy who wants you to support him. I mean you keep mentioning STAH. The above to me is selfish.. Sure, we can vaguely say "All sorts of situations work", but when thought of in a logical matter, obviously quality of life will suffer when both parents are working full time. Edited December 16, 2009 by calizaggy
Recommended Posts