Girlfriend "won't" find a job

[zengirl]

I spend a huge amount of time taking care of my grandmother. I do a 5 hour drive every friday to spend the weekend with her... then another 5 hour drive back. My father takes care of her during the week. I actually had to move in with her during last summer. I still work full time.

 

I'm Ok with a woman not getting a career as a GF... it's really not a big deal.

 

IF I plan on marrying a woman I'm not going to marry one that can't or won't work. Any marriage has about an 85% chance of ending in divorce. Having a stay at home mom is the the easiest way to ensure I get screwed.

 

And that's fine. I'm not suggesting anyone marry someone who wants a different family setup than I do. I'd NEVER marry a man who wanted a SAHW, because I couldn't be one, and I couldn't afford a SAHH, so I wouldn't marry a guy like that either. That's cool.

 

Kaylan just totally bashed people --- not said he wouldn't marry them --- for choices that might work in other relationships was my point.

 

And good on you for taking care of your family, UF.

[stillafool]

I have been with my girlfriend for almost 2 years (April will be 2 years). She graduated college about a month after we met and since then hasn't really done much with her life. A few months ago I really got on her about searching for jobs, and she filled out a few applications but didn't seem to make a "real" attempt at it.

 

She currently makes some money for taking care of her grandma, but its nowhere near enough to pay all of her bills, let alone provide a future. This "job" isn't even giving her much experience, as basically she would fix up a few meals for her grandma and maybe do her laundry. She hasn't even really done this lately as she has been staying with her cousin that lives about 45 minutes away for a large part of this time.

 

The rest of the time she is "running errands" as she explains it to me. Exactly what this entails, I don't really know. I know that she will go to several stores to return things, buy things, or do whatever. This past week a whole day was wasted going with her cousin to look for things for the new house her family moved into. Basically just complete time wasting.

 

She does take care of some things such as paying bills and for her family, but she isn't setting any sort of future for herself, which is something that I think is VERY important in a relationship. I think most people want their partners to be at least somewhat successful or have a future in which they can contribute financially to the relationship. I have tried to explain to her that although I am not supporting her right now, I desire her to have a work ethic that will give me the secure feeling that she will be a dependable girlfriend and possibly a wife down the road. She doesn't seem to get this and argues back with me that im not supporting her now, so why should I care, etc.

 

She is 26 years old and has worked ONE seasonal job in her life which lasted a few months. She still lives at home and depends in a large way on support from her mom.

 

I am by no means very successful though but I believe I have and am still setting up a good future for myself. I am 25, in the Marine Corps Reserves, I have worked since the day I was legally able to, I have a good job that pays decently well and with hard work can lead to a successful career, I am very close to finishing my degree (delayed by military service), and I continue to do personal study to gain certifications for career advancement. I live with a few friends and completely rely on myself for support, no parental help.

 

I feel like I have waited for 2 years for something to change with her and I have seen myself grow tremendously in those 2 years while she hasn't changed a bit. I don't want to be an ******* because I know that she does help out with family stuff, but I don't see her doing enough that it justifies her sacrificing her own future. Most people pay their bills, run errands, take care of family matters after work and on the weekends. For her this is a 24/7 job when it in reality takes no where near that amount of time and I know for a fact it doesn't because of how she describes her days to me.

 

I try to have calm discussions about this with her but they always seem to end in a fight. I thought that possibly she is depressed or scared, she hasn't worked in so long (basically has never worked) and it scares the crap out of her to have to go out and look for a job. I have talked about this with her and it still gets nothing accomplished. I have left her my laptop to give her a tool to look for jobs, given her what advice I can give, even a few times browsed job sites for things that may work for her.

 

I feel that I am right to be upset and nervous about a future with her but wanted to get everybody's input.

 

Thanks.

 

I hope you know better than to marry this girl. At 26 she should definitely have some work experience. Did she work a part-time job while in college? Something tells me she didn't. I know people younger than her who have worked and spent their off time taking care of people. She is lazy.

[tigressA]

Were you a full time live in care taker for a family member? Or was a it a job elsewhere?

 

Either way, your situation sounds far different from OPs girlfriend. I dunno why people keep comparing her situation to others where the women are actually working their tails off. This chick isnt doing it.

 

I give you props from what you did though tigress. I couldnt do it unless it was for an immediate family member.

 

It wasn't for a family member. It was just a job--I couldn't find anything, it came my way, I took it. There are very few jobs I would refuse to do. No one could question my work ethic in that regard.

 

However, that doesn't preclude someone from having an issue with how I do things, and that is what is similar to the OP's GF. I had plenty of threads about my last relationship where he complained about me not making enough money--for awhile he saw that as a problem. With the OP, he sees his GF's supposed lack of effort in finding 'gainful employment' as a problem (this is only from his side), though she has never asked for anything from him and she doesn't depend on him.

 

In both situations, these guys have a problem with something someone else--granted, their SO, but still, not themselves--is doing or not doing. The OP has options as to what to do. He can stay with her and hope she'll change; he can stay with her and accept her as she is, or he can leave her. What he shouldn't do is make her responsible for how he feels about something that is not his problem.

[kaylan]

It wasn't for a family member. It was just a job--I couldn't find anything, it came my way, I took it. There are very few jobs I would refuse to do. No one could question my work ethic in that regard.

Ok. But that only further confirms that your situation is far different from the OP. You actually had a job you were doing, and full time as well. OPs girlfriend sounds like a part time worker who doesnt do a lot of hard work.

 

However, that doesn't preclude someone from having an issue with how I do things, and that is what is similar to the OP's GF. I had plenty of threads about my last relationship where he complained about me not making enough money--for awhile he saw that as a problem. With the OP, he sees his GF's supposed lack of effort in finding 'gainful employment' as a problem (this is only from his side), though she has never asked for anything from him and she doesn't depend on him.

Two different issues. Your relationship was simply about money. You actually had a job and strong work ethnic. Ops girlfriend has neither.

 

She doesnt depend on him, but they are 25 and 26. The relationship has to either move forward or backwards. If they stay together and move towards marriage, you can bet she will expect him to take care of her. Which is why the OP is right to be concerned with her behavior.

In both situations, these guys have a problem with something someone else--granted, their SO, but still, not themselves--is doing or not doing. The OP has options as to what to do. He can stay with her and hope she'll change; he can stay with her and accept her as she is, or he can leave her. What he shouldn't do is make her responsible for how he feels about something that is not his problem.

I agree. Hopefully he wises up, bails, and finds a chick who shares his strong work ethnic.

[kaylan]

And that's fine. I'm not suggesting anyone marry someone who wants a different family setup than I do. I'd NEVER marry a man who wanted a SAHW, because I couldn't be one, and I couldn't afford a SAHH, so I wouldn't marry a guy like that either. That's cool.

 

Kaylan just totally bashed people --- not said he wouldn't marry them --- for choices that might work in other relationships was my point.

 

And good on you for taking care of your family, UF.

Who did I bash? I said his girlfriend sounds lazy, which is spot on the money. I also said women with her attitude who expect to be taken care of without doing much work or without having children are lazy. Im not bashing, Im giving an accurate assessment.

 

Do you gloss over my responses? Because I definitely said in this thread that being a care taker is a commendable thing and so is being a home maker if you are actually hard working and doing all that needs to be done.

 

Dont read selectively. Read my entire response if you want to talk about what I am doing. Jeez.

[Untouchable_Fire]

And that's fine. I'm not suggesting anyone marry someone who wants a different family setup than I do. I'd NEVER marry a man who wanted a SAHW, because I couldn't be one, and I couldn't afford a SAHH, so I wouldn't marry a guy like that either. That's cool.

Kaylan just totally bashed people --- not said he wouldn't marry them --- for choices that might work in other relationships was my point.

And good on you for taking care of your family, UF.

 

Well... I think the problem most guys like me are facing with a SAHW is simply the liability factor. I would love for my wife to be able to choose whatever she wants.

 

The reality is that until laws change this type of family is going to be exclusively for those who a have low divorce potential. Which means pretty much nobody.

[zengirl]

Who did I bash?

 

The bashing was in response to the "many women" who wanted to be SAHW who you were bringing into this convo. We don't know that his GF has even expressed that desire.

 

I said his girlfriend sounds lazy, which is spot on the money.

 

I've agreed she sounds potentially lazy. What I disagree with was the Elswyth's speculation was impossible or any less reasonable than any other (she was only asking questions) and that this is a gender issue.

 

I read your whole responses and I find some of them flawed, some of them potentially true (I've said many time's: OP's girl may be lazy, I don't know), and I don't know why you needed to make it a gender issue. Really don't.

 

Well... I think the problem most guys like me are facing with a SAHW is simply the liability factor. I would love for my wife to be able to choose whatever she wants.

 

The reality is that until laws change this type of family is going to be exclusively for those who a have low divorce potential. Which means pretty much nobody.

 

I think it's risky to be a SAHW/H/M/D if you get divorced; I find the other person (the working person) carries less risk. But that's my perspective. Either way, you can't leave someone with nothing, so I don't see laws changing, though I do hope (and have seen the courts include) SAHH/D get the same rights in divorce proceedings as their female counterparts.

[kaylan]

The problem with that is I consider most people here hostile witnesses then. *shrug*

 

And we admit many, many things that factually would NOT be included in a courtroom, such as the OP giving a description of the GF's caretaking job (that truly is legal hearsay and speculation, except for his description of what he actually saw). In a REAL courtroom, we'd likely call the GF to the stand, and I think that's what Elswyth was pointing out.

With all that being said, at the end of this day, this applies:

 

OPs account of the events > Respondents speculation

 

Simple.

Right, but his repeating it to us makes it hearsay. HER stating it would not be. I have direct knowledge of events dealing with my employees, but if I have someone else testify that I TOLD them something happened, it would not be admissible in an unemployment hearing. That's why I have to be on the phone for every damn one and can't have my assistant take the calls! And if I wasn't the one who has direct knowledge, I have to get the manager who was on the call. That's something I deal with regularly.

You really have no idea what hearsay is.

 

If someone said "well OPs girlfriend said she does this all day" THATS hearsay. Its not hearsay if he is testifying that "my girlfriend said she did this all day" With your version of hearsay then almost anything said in court could be hearsay. Especially in cases of multiple defendants.

 

If OP was testifying in a case, his testimony would be admissible because the information about his girlfriend comes directly from the horses mouth. HER. The info about her is not coming from someone else. Please brush up on your legal terminology.

It sounds like she's out and about running errands for her family from the OP. We don't know what those errands are or what they entail. We don't really know where she is. The OP knows she's not at home and can report things she's said, but only to a degree. My point is, if you want to make it like a court, we're falling way short, which is why I suggest we don't. *shrugs*

Ok then I guess we have to wait until he posts a bit more to clear some things up. She still sounds lazy to me.

 

At any rate, I think he should break up with her if he's not happy with the life they have together and with what she brings to the relationship and with what her life priorities are, regardless of whether she's taking excellent care of granny and being a great family member or just avoiding the workforce. Again, I don't think the woman has to be vilified or glorified at all---though we can ask many questions, hopefully for the benefit of the OP thinking about them, getting them answered, or thinking on the answers. The idea is to help the OP, not trash his GF, right?

I dont think he should dump her if shes being an excellent care taker. Thats a great reason to not be in the workforce. If my mom became ill Id either work part time outside of the house, or work enough overtime to afford at home care for her. That all being said, if she actually is just avoiding the workforce, than thats good reason to bail.

 

And spare me the moral high road of not passing judgment on the girlfriend. You do that in threads, I do that in threads, everyone does that here. Everyone passes judgments in life in general. Why all of a sudden should we not call a spade a spade, if it looks like a spade?

 

Again, we don't know if her family prefers her not working. We don't know. I'm not saying they do---I'm saying we don't know. Therefore, it's a leap to suggest that she expects a husband to provide for her, unless she's expressed that to her BF. It's certainly something they should TALK about, as I presume he has the ability to discuss such things with her after 2 years together. I'm all for discussing things and getting real answers, rather than speculating on them is all.

You want me to believe that she doesnt expect her bf to take care of her in the future when she hasnt taken care of herself nor held a real job her whole life? Its not a leap to think that shed expect a husband to provide for her. Shes 26, has never truly worked, has always had someone take care of her, and wouldnt magically be able to take care of herself well in the future without getting her feet wet.

 

And according to the OP, hes tried to talk with her and that doesnt work at all. She doesnt seem like she wants to communicate about this any longer...hence he should find a chick who fits into his life better.

OP has the right to be bothered by ANYTHING is my point. If the OP doesn't want a girl who still lives at home and is codependent with her family (we don't really know if they are as dependent on her as she is on them!), then that's cool too, even if she is caretaking granny with excellent loving care. I'm cool with him breaking up with anyone he doesn't think would make him happy.

Cool beans. Something we agree on.

Now, this is true, but in the OP it sounded to me like he was a bit afraid to really communicate --- I'd say push through and really talk about these things, even if it leads to a fight or a breakup. It sounded to me like he was fearing and avoiding a fight (which may be real or may be imagined, you never know if you avoid it). I say: charge in and ask the tough questions. But don't expect someone to be exactly who you want them to be---they won't. Just assess whether the person works for you or not and exercise your option to leave if it doesn't.

I agree with this. But the reason he walks on eggshells is because she apparently doesnt respond well when he tries to communicate with her about this. If thats the case, theres no use in him fighting with her just to have a discussion.

 

I think any family set up is okay as long as both parties agree to it. I won't throw any "supposed to"s onto anyone else's household, and they can't throw any onto mine. I'm not suggesting most women will be SAHWs now; I don't think most WANT to be, honestly. I am suggesting that being a SAHW/H, even without kids, could have value to some family setups.

But as you said, both sides have to agree with it. When I mentioned the setup where someone stays home even though kids are not involved, the guys werent ok with that. And it creates a rift. I dont see why people dont figure this stuff out early on.

 

But bait and switches do happen. Ive read several threads of working women all of a sudden telling hubby they dont wanna go back to work. Oh wells, life aint easy...hopefully I find a chick who knows exactly what she wants and doesnt switch up on me.

I guess I don't see it as a gender thing because most of the SAH people I know are husbands (fathers, in most cases, but not all), and they aren't freeloaders perse. They do contribute, just in different ways.

Thats a first. I dont know any guys who stay at home. And whenever I read about it, the guys usually get grief for it in some way.

 

Is there a particular reason these dudes dont work? Do they work at home? Are they unable to leave the house? Is the woman the breadwinner? Is she absolutely fine with the arrangement?

 

I ask the last question because Ive read some women saying they respect a man less who doesnt work, so that would lead me to think some women would grow to resent a SAHD...or end up falling for the career type dude at work who fits a more masculine stereotype.

[TheBigQuestion]

 

 

 

I've agreed she sounds potentially lazy. What I disagree with was the Elswyth's speculation was impossible or any less reasonable than any other (she was only asking questions) and that this is a gender issue.

 

.

 

 

 

 

If you think the responses in this thread wouldn't have been more harsh if the OP was about a man, you're living on another planet.

[TheBigQuestion]

And to settle the hearsay issue (I was in Evidence last semester and am in Trials this semester), here's a fine and dandy definition.

 

RULE 801. DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO THIS ARTICLE; EXCLUSIONS FROM HEARSAY

 

The following definitions apply under this article:

 

(a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.

 

(b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement.

 

© Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

 

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

 

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

 

Keep in mind there are over 30 exceptions to the rule.

[kaylan]

You really have no idea what hearsay is.

 

If someone said "well OPs girlfriend said she does this all day" THATS hearsay. Its not hearsay if he is testifying that "my girlfriend said she did this all day" With your version of hearsay then almost anything said in court could be hearsay. Especially in cases of multiple defendants.

 

If OP was testifying in a case, his testimony would be admissible because the information about his girlfriend comes directly from the horses mouth. HER. The info about her is not coming from someone else. Please brush up on your legal terminology.

To further clarify what I was saying here...OPs girlfriend directly told him something about her own actions. How is it hearsay if he shares that information for others to judge it?

 

It would be hearsay if he said someone else told him something she said. But in this case, he got the information directly from her. Hence, admissible testimony, not hearsay. He was not making an assertion. He was simply repeating facts given to him by his girlfriend.

The bashing was in response to the "many women" who wanted to be SAHW who you were bringing into this convo. We don't know that his GF has even expressed that desire.

How exactly did I bash them. You have to show me, because I dont see how I did. If anything I bashed lazy women, not hard working caretakers/homemakers.

I've agreed she sounds potentially lazy. What I disagree with was the Elswyth's speculation was impossible or any less reasonable than any other (she was only asking questions) and that this is a gender issue.

 

I read your whole responses and I find some of them flawed, some of them potentially true (I've said many time's: OP's girl may be lazy, I don't know), and I don't know why you needed to make it a gender issue. Really don't.

I do think this is partly a gender issue in regards to the responses. Lets be real here. On this forum we know double standards exist and certain topics get different responses based on the gender of the people in the stories.

 

Why ignore this? I simply agreed with veggirl that people would be singing a different tune with swapped genders. Lets not pretend things dont get looked at different when it comes to men and women as the main character.

Edited March 1, 2012 by kaylan

[zengirl]

To further clarify what I was saying here...OPs girlfriend directly told him something about her own actions. How is it hearsay if he shares that information for others to judge it?

 

He was, in his post, filling in the gaps; where he filled in the gaps, he may have been using hearsay. He can report the precise things she said, of course. And since this isn't a court, he can include whatever---we have no exclusion rules. Nothing Elswyth said was hearsay at all and that's where you brought the term in, so I'm thinking YOU don't understand what it is, but whatever. I'm fine with the OP. I think it's silly to use court rules on LS. I've said WHY and that's all I'll deal with this. I actually do have work to do today, so that's as long as I'm willing to indulge this debate. Sorry.

 

How exactly did I bash them. You have to show me, because I dont see how I did. If anything I bashed lazy women, not hard working caretakers/homemakers.

 

You wrote a whole paragraph bashing women who wanted to stay at home even before they had children.

 

I do think this is partly a gender issue in regards to the responses. Lets be real here. On this forum we know double standards exist and certain topics get different responses based on the gender of the people in the stories.

 

I saw no evidence of that before you brought the notion of gender into the thread.

 

I think asking questions is good is all, and you apparently think it's better not to suggest we do any critical thinking and jump to the easiest possible conclusion. I've learned that it's better to consider all possible conclusions and then get any extra data you can. You can choose your way if you like, but don't pretend you're playing by any extra courtroom logic than anyone else.

[kaylan]

He was, in his post, filling in the gaps; where he filled in the gaps, he may have been using hearsay. He can report the precise things she said, of course. And since this isn't a court, he can include whatever---we have no exclusion rules. Nothing Elswyth said was hearsay at all and that's where you brought the term in, so I'm thinking YOU don't understand what it is, but whatever. I'm fine with the OP. I think it's silly to use court rules on LS. I've said WHY and that's all I'll deal with this. I actually do have work to do today, so that's as long as I'm willing to indulge this debate. Sorry.

Whatever you say Ms. Z. I still stick by the facts OP gives us.

You wrote a whole paragraph bashing women who wanted to stay at home even before they had children.

Yes, I criticized lazy women who wanted to just stay home when theres barely anything to be taken care of are trying to pull a fast one on their husbands. Even when he objects and think they should get a part time job to save for the future when they do have kids, such a woman protests. They are a different breed than the hard working mother.

 

Why else would someone want to sit home all day when they have no kids? How much work is there actually to do with 2 adults in a house? Without kids you dont need to clean up behind someone all day, or feed and take them to appointments. All there is to do if dishes, laundry for the week, and dinner in the evening. Hardly time consuming with 2 adults in the house.

 

Any thing Ive read about stay at home moms without kids who refused to work has shown me a lazy woman.

 

I saw no evidence of that before you brought the notion of gender into the thread.

You are blind if you dont see the difference in responses to certain issues based on the gender of the main character. It happens here, as well as in life all around us.

I think asking questions is good is all, and you apparently think it's better not to suggest we do any critical thinking and jump to the easiest possible conclusion. I've learned that it's better to consider all possible conclusions and then get any extra data you can. You can choose your way if you like, but don't pretend you're playing by any extra courtroom logic than anyone else.

Hey, the best possible conclusion is finding a chick that gels with the OPs long term goals. You said it yourself. So why cant we jump to such an easy conclusion. He would be happier with such a woman. Edited March 1, 2012 by kaylan

[GorillaTheater]

Keep in mind there are over 30 exceptions to the rule.

 

I generally just say I'm not offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. That generally does the trick.

 

But who cares? In responding to a post, what information do we have to go on in the original post that's not hearsay? It's a freakin' internet forum, we're all a bunch of pixels on a screen, and the Rules of Evidence or Civil/Criminal Procedure don't have much of a place. Hearsay my ass.

[zengirl]

Whatever you say Ms. Z. I still stick by the facts OP gives us.

 

He has no knowledge in how her family (the people supporting her) feel about the arrangement or if they feel it's more in their favor than hers.

 

Yes, I criticized lazy women who wanted to just stay home when theres barely anything to be taken care of are trying to pull a fast one on their husbands. Even when he objects and think they should get a part time job to save for the future when they do have kids, such a woman protests. They are a different breed than the hard working mother.

 

And I said they weren't all trying to "pull a fast one." That, even without kids, there can be circumstances one might want a domestic partner (I don't, and I don't want to be one, so I've no dog in the fight---I just know it's true). Granted, if the couple doesn't agree on the arrangement, that's odd, but your original paragraph ASSUMED these women could not find partners who wanted SAHWs. That's not necessarily true.

 

Why else would someone want to sit home all day when they have no kids? How much work is there actually to do with 2 adults in a house? Without kids you dont need to clean up behind someone all day, or feed and take them to appointments. All there is to do if dishes, laundry for the week, and dinner in the evening. Hardly time consuming with 2 adults in the house.

 

Depends on the other partner's job, really. Men or women with really demanding jobs can often use a spouse who will organize their personal affairs. I've seen it and know some people who do that for their spouses (they're both men, btw) and take care of things around the house and ALL sorts of work that benefits the partnership.

 

Hey, the best possible conclusion is finding a chick that gels with the OPs long term goals. You said it yourself. So why cant we jump to such an easy conclusion. He would be happier with such a woman.

 

I agree on this part, but I see no need to vilify the woman is all. They may not be a good match. That doesn't make anyone right or wrong perse, especially not with details still missing.

 

And now, I seriously should get to work. I will try to stop dilly dallying.

[zengirl]

I generally just say I'm not offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. That generally does the trick.

 

But who cares? In responding to a post, what information do we have to go on in the original post that's not hearsay? It's a freakin' internet forum, we're all a bunch of pixels on a screen, and the Rules of Evidence or Civil/Criminal Procedure don't have much of a place. Hearsay my ass.

 

Well, right. I was never arguing we shouldn't read the OP because of it---just that, ironically, the OP was closer to the exclusion rule than Elswyth's post, which he called hearsay. I don't think courtroom rules apply very well to LS or that really it's about 'right' and 'wrong' judgments in most relationships.

[TheBigQuestion]

LS truly is lawyer city.

 

No wonder it's a hotbed for people with dysfunctional relationships/views about relationships.

[carhill]

Note that the OP is absent past the original post. I guess interacting isn't a priority right now.

[GorillaTheater]

LS truly is lawyer city.

 

No wonder it's a hotbed for people with dysfunctional relationships/views about relationships.

 

 

Tough to argue with that, at least in my case.

[kaylan]

He has no knowledge in how her family (the people supporting her) feel about the arrangement or if they feel it's more in their favor than hers.

Well we know how he feels about it, and we know what he says she spends her days doing. If hes not cool with her work ethic, and sees a future where he may have to support her 100%, then he can bail.

 

And I said they weren't all trying to "pull a fast one." That, even without kids, there can be circumstances one might want a domestic partner (I don't, and I don't want to be one, so I've no dog in the fight---I just know it's true). Granted, if the couple doesn't agree on the arrangement, that's odd, but your original paragraph ASSUMED these women could not find partners who wanted SAHWs. That's not necessarily true.

Its pulling a fast one when the husband doesnt agree. The situations that I mentioned were ones where the husband did not agree at all. So that is pulling a fast one. Especially when its a bait and switch. How are you going to meet someone, work the whole time you know them, then all of a sudden when its time to get married, you finally tell them you dont want to work anymore ...And then when the guy objects you dont even try and compromise... If thats not pulling a fast one then I dont know what is.

 

And its true, a gal whos wants to be a SAHW will be hard pressed to find a guy who wants that. Most guys wont, and the dudes who are ok with a stay at home spouse are cool with it AFTER kids. Thats how we are raised nowdays...men are raised to see a non working women, who staying home and not taking care of children, as a lazy woman.

 

Depends on the other partner's job, really. Men or women with really demanding jobs can often use a spouse who will organize their personal affairs. I've seen it and know some people who do that for their spouses (they're both men, btw) and take care of things around the house and ALL sorts of work that benefits the partnership.

Those situations are a rarity, but even in those situations, its AGREED upon. Partners who simply say "I dont want to work and want someone to take care of me", even when their partner protests, really need to chill. If their partner is taking care of their own business, then what other reason do they have to be home without kids other than laziness?

 

A simple google search finds a good amount of threads about this topic. Every one includes a lazy man or woman.

I agree on this part, but I see no need to vilify the woman is all. They may not be a good match. That doesn't make anyone right or wrong perse, especially not with details still missing.

 

And now, I seriously should get to work. I will try to stop dilly dallying.

You dont need to work. You can dilly dally with me all day

[LexiB]

To further clarify what I was saying here...OPs girlfriend directly told him something about her own actions. How is it hearsay if he shares that information for others to judge it?

 

It would be hearsay if he said someone else told him something she said. But in this case, he got the information directly from her. Hence, admissible testimony, not hearsay. He was not making an assertion. He was simply repeating facts given to him by his girlfriend.

 

Just an FYI...

 

The simplest way to determine hearsay is to map out the chain from the original speaker (OP's GF) to the present hearer (LS). If there's any middle man (in this case it's OP himself), & the middleman intends what he's repeating to be accepted as TRUTH of the very statement he's repeating (i.e., OP says, "GF said she never wants to work" to prove that she indeed said she never wants to work), then it is hearsay.

 

The chain here would be OP's GF --> OP --> LS.

 

You're right in saying that this makes most statements hearsay. But this is where exceptions and exclusions to the rule come in.

 

 

But who cares? In responding to a post, what information do we have to go on in the original post that's not hearsay? It's a freakin' internet forum, we're all a bunch of pixels on a screen, and the Rules of Evidence or Civil/Criminal Procedure don't have much of a place. Hearsay my ass.

 

Agreed.

[Ariadne]

Im wondering if youd say the same thing about a man who didnt want to work.

 

No, men should work, that's what they are for.

 

Unless they are super rich and then they don't need to.

 

Women = domestic, Men = of the world

 

[kaylan]

No, men should work, that's what they are for.

 

Unless they are super rich and then they don't need to.

 

Women = domestic, Men = of the world

 

All humans are meant to work when living in a progressive, egalitarian, modern society.

 

It comes with the territory of wanting to have a say in how the world runs and is shaped.

 

You want a say? You work. Thats how I see it at least.

[Ariadne]

All humans are meant to work when living in a progressive, egalitarian, modern society.

 

It comes with the territory of wanting to have a say in how the world runs and is shaped.

 

You want a say? You work. Thats how I see it at least.

 

Women should have a say with their husbands and family.

 

Let the men figure out how to run the world.

[kaylan]

Women should have a say with their husbands and family.

 

Let the men figure out how to run the world.

Thats your belief. Thats not how the world is working out though.

 

In todays world, women want the same things men have access to. Because of this they are now working in the same way men are, minus physical feats that are too much for most women.