Modern Day Princesses

[stillafool]

Quoted for truth.

 

 

 

 

 

It's really funny how both of you are the two sides of the same coin; acting like the man/woman is being taken advantage of and put upon.

 

Both of you seemed to miss the point that the people in question made the CHOICE to do so; nobody's twisting their arms or holding a gun to their head. Mortensorchid's friend could well have chosen differently, but she didn't. Equally so, the dudes JJS is mentioning could very well have chosen their pick of career women, especially if they are as wealthy, good-looking, and sociable as you say. The fact that they DIDN'T choose a fellow female CEO, or successful lawyer, or specialist (sorry, no, doctors don't make a lot of money, specialists do) is their choice and theirs alone.

 

I agree. I think for alot of those men having a wife who doesn't work and spends her time shopping, lunching, etc., see this as a sign of their success. Maybe when they come home from their stressful jobs they do not want a stressed out wife.

[EasyHeart]

As I've entered my 30s, I've noticed a trend I might not have expected when I was in my 20s. It's what I call the modern day princess.

 

As some of my female friends and male friends have started to marry and I've met their female friends through social circles, I've noticed a substantial amount of women who are married and don't have to work. They may or may not work in the future, but their husbands make enough $ so they don't ever have to. And for the most part, they haven't.

 

But we're not talking about sitting on some couch in the suburbs watching 4 toddlers race tricycles around the house. Some of them have kids, some don't. I'm talking about women who have a free pass at life. In NYC. CA. Going out 3 to 4 times a week with friends. Traveling to other countries regularly. Living in nice apartments in hip parts of the city. Now we're not talking about Kate Middleton posh. Their husbands are relatively normal Joes who earn in the 200K to 300K range. But by and large, they can wake up and decide to do with each day as it comes. Do their art. Work a job only if it is interesting or appealing to them without regard to income.

 

And here's the kicker. They like their husbands. I've met them. Or their husbands are my friends. They are nice guys who are decent looking, funny, charming fellows. Of course, the women are all of a certain level of physical attractiveness and are mostly nice, charming people as well.

 

The word 'trophy wife' has been thrown around too. But these women actually do like their husbands.

 

The first thing that comes to my mind is jealousy, in that I wish I had their life. Instead of slaving away at school, work or both to make sure I have enough security to snag 'somebody'.

 

The second thought is that I wouldn't want somebody like that.

 

So, guys would you buy into that situation?

 

Women, are you jealous?

This describes most of the couples I know. It's a big reason I never married: I can't stand being around women like that.

 

You're young; give it a little time. In about 10 years things won't be so rosy. The women will keep finding more things to spend money on, especially as the kids get older. None of it will be driven by need. It's all about status and competing with her friends to show how "tasteful" she is by spending $800 on a tea kettle.

 

She will resent that her husband is always working and "doesn't care about her". He will grow resentful because she keeps spending more and more money while simultaneously demanding that he come home earlier so that he can "do his fair share" of driving the kids around to their various planned activities and that he doesn't understand how hard her life is. Their kids will hate both of them, but the parents will both be oblivious and think it's cute, even when the kid writes a school essay called "I Hate My Dad". After all, the only purpose of having kids is to compete with the other moms. Every little event in the kids' lives is for the sole purpose of one-upping the other parents.

 

Then she'll complain about him getting old and fat and he needs to spend more time in the gym, in addition to 80 hours of work and coming home at 5:00 pm every day to help her with the kids. He'll withdraw emotionally because he's basically become a slave to his wife's lifestyle. She'll get even more resentful and start drinking or screwing her personal trainer. He'll be oblivious because of sheer exhaustion. Then one day she'll announce that she feels unfulfilled and hire the most vicious divorce lawyer she can find (using his money, of course) to take him to the cleaners. She'll get to keep the house, of course, and he'll move into a small condo down the road. The kids will spend one week with the mom and her new boyfriend and the next week crammed into dad's condo. Mom will spend most of her time with the kids telling them what a loser their father is. He'll have to work even harder because now he has to pay for two households.

 

Those are the lucky ones. The unlucky ones will stay married as they become ever more passive aggressive and dysfunctional or sink into chemical dependency. All the while keeping a very happy face to the public because the most important thing in their lives is to convince everyone else that they are "perfect", even if they are miserable and unhealthy.

Edited March 26, 2013 by EasyHeart

[Els]

I agree. I think for alot of those men having a wife who doesn't work and spends her time shopping, lunching, etc., see this as a sign of their success. Maybe when they come home from their stressful jobs they do not want a stressed out wife.

 

That could be part of the reason, yep. Personally I think it's tougher for couples if both of them are extremely career-oriented people. What happens when one person needs to move for an important promotion and the other doesn't want to take the hit to his/her career to follow? What happens when they have children - will they both want to come home from high-flying 70-hour-week careers to do childcare?

 

Some couples choose a balance, ie both of them have moderate careers and they share the childcare and housework, and both make career sacrifices for the sake of their relationship. But most people who make 300k a year are not in 'moderate careers'.

 

But whatever their reason, it just annoys me when people view such Rs as one person taking advantage of the other. If someone feels he would be 'taken advantage of' in such a situation then he is free to date equally career-driven women. Plenty of successful and single women around nowadays, assuming he is willing to make the compromises listed above.

[Got it]

As I've entered my 30s, I've noticed a trend I might not have expected when I was in my 20s. It's what I call the modern day princess.

 

As some of my female friends and male friends have started to marry and I've met their female friends through social circles, I've noticed a substantial amount of women who are married and don't have to work. They may or may not work in the future, but their husbands make enough $ so they don't ever have to. And for the most part, they haven't.

 

But we're not talking about sitting on some couch in the suburbs watching 4 toddlers race tricycles around the house. Some of them have kids, some don't. I'm talking about women who have a free pass at life. In NYC. CA. Going out 3 to 4 times a week with friends. Traveling to other countries regularly. Living in nice apartments in hip parts of the city. Now we're not talking about Kate Middleton posh. Their husbands are relatively normal Joes who earn in the 200K to 300K range. But by and large, they can wake up and decide to do with each day as it comes. Do their art. Work a job only if it is interesting or appealing to them without regard to income.

 

And here's the kicker. They like their husbands. I've met them. Or their husbands are my friends. They are nice guys who are decent looking, funny, charming fellows. Of course, the women are all of a certain level of physical attractiveness and are mostly nice, charming people as well.

 

The word 'trophy wife' has been thrown around too. But these women actually do like their husbands.

 

The first thing that comes to my mind is jealousy, in that I wish I had their life. Instead of slaving away at school, work or both to make sure I have enough security to snag 'somebody'.

 

The second thought is that I wouldn't want somebody like that.

 

So, guys would you buy into that situation?

 

Women, are you jealous?

 

Jealous? No. I like having a career, my own identity and most specific my own financial independence. Having a mom who was a SAHP, I saw the gamble of wanting to do that and how it can put you in a vulnerable situation. Please I like being active, I like the challenges of my career, and I like that I get to use my brain all the time. Even if I was in a situation where I didn't have to work, I would probably just start my own business. The idea of just putter around is foreign to me.

 

But if it makes others happy, good for them.

[Got it]

That could be part of the reason, yep. Personally I think it's tougher for couples if both of them are extremely career-oriented people. What happens when one person needs to move for an important promotion and the other doesn't want to take the hit to his/her career to follow? What happens when they have children - will they both want to come home from high-flying 70-hour-week careers to do childcare?

 

Some couples choose a balance, ie both of them have moderate careers and they share the childcare and housework, and both make career sacrifices for the sake of their relationship. But most people who make 300k a year are not in 'moderate careers'.

 

But whatever their reason, it just annoys me when people view such Rs as one person taking advantage of the other. If someone feels he would be 'taken advantage of' in such a situation then he is free to date equally career-driven women. Plenty of successful and single women around nowadays, assuming he is willing to make the compromises listed above.

 

You make it work. You have a nanny/au pair, or a grandparent who will watch the kids. You work travel schedules around each other and if a move is necessary you look at the pros/cons and whether one can telecommute or travel more.

 

I think "moderate" and 300K depends on where you life. I do not live in NYC or CA, I make over 200K and I do not have this extravagant lifestyle. It's good but I am not dripping in diamonds or anything. My fiance makes six figures, less than me, but does have child support and alimony to deal with and debt.

 

To have what the OP is discussing, we are taking well over 500K to a million a year.

[ImperfectionisBeauty]

That does make me really jealous, I mean who wouldn't want to be taken care of and not have to worry about money or working maybe one day that'll be me lol doubtful

[Els]

You make it work. You have a nanny/au pair, or a grandparent who will watch the kids. You work travel schedules around each other and if a move is necessary you look at the pros/cons and whether one can telecommute or travel more.

 

I certainly agree that it's possible to work out, just tougher. Also, I'd call this 'making career sacrifices for their relationship'. I highly doubt the likes of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Sheryl Sandberg got to where they are/were by working travel schedules around their spouses' career requirements.

 

Some people prefer being in Rs where their career can take precedence, and the ones who are also successful in their Rs generally expect to be the main/sole breadwinner in exchange for this (as opposed to expecting their spouse to play the supporting role and yet still contribute 50% to income). This doesn't make them any better, worse, more disadvantaged, or less, than anyone else; as long as both them and their spouse are happy with the arrangement, all's good. It's just another viewpoint.

[EasyHeart]

Some couples choose a balance, ie both of them have moderate careers and they share the childcare and housework, and both make career sacrifices for the sake of their relationship. But most people who make 300k a year are not in 'moderate careers'.

That's getting harder and harder to do.

 

Overhead for most employees is fixed, so companies make all their profit on the margin. It's cheaper for most companies to have one person working 60 hours a week than two working 30 hours each. Also, just as a matter of morale and attitude, I'd rather have one employee who is totally committed to his/her career than two who are partially committed to their careers.

 

It depends on exactly what kind of job you have, of course.

[xxoo]

It would make me unhappy if my H worked 70-80 hours a week. I'd rather have family time together.

 

I'd also rather have my H than any other man, regardless of income. So, no, no jealousy.

[CarrieT]

I guess I am becoming a Modern Day Princess...

 

Now in my 49th year, I am marrying a man for whom I moved to be with and the job I got only lasted four months before they resized (I got laid off in the past six weeks).

 

We debated long-and-hard about me going back to the corporate world where I have been for the past three decades. And in those three decades, I have also often been self-employed; sometimes full-time and sometimes part-time. In the debate, we have decided that he does not need me to be an income-generating partner in the relationship, as long as I can pay my own bills (credit card debt), but I don't really need to worry about rent or food since he has been paying that anyway.

 

So.... I am returning to my self-employment roots and pushing my artistic and freelance writing endeavors. This also enables me to prepare meals for his family, help him get his kids to school and fix their lunches, and be a part-time Nanny. He has a Nanny for the kids who has been doing their laundry and helping with afterschool shuttling for several years so now she and I divide those duties since each kid has had to sacrifice their interests because the Nanny couldn't get them all to their respective activities.

 

At almost 50 years of age, I thought I would be working a corporate job my entire life and have spent many of my adult years supporting my male partners. This is almost hard for me to do, but I'm not one of those women that will spend my lunches shopping or dining. In some ways, having the freedom to pursue my art without having to worry about rent is a godsend, but it is also a test that I want to feel like a contributing partner in the relationship and family and do MORE to not be a burden or "gold digger."

[Mme. Chaucer]

I seem to have a big axe to grind in the past several days about threads started by men taking issue with things about random women that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the man doing the complaining.

 

Their marriages. Their lifestyles. Their figures. Their jobs. Their dating / sex habits. Their foundation garments.

 

Oh, wait. I've been taking issue with these threads since I arrived here 4 + years ago!

 

Anyway, WHO CARES? Why is it your beeswax? If it works for the people who are doing it, great! If not, it's THEIR problem! Our problem is to figure out how to have the type of relationships with the kind of people that we want and that will enhance OUR lives.

 

Right?

[Got it]

That does make me really jealous, I mean who wouldn't want to be taken care of and not have to worry about money or working maybe one day that'll be me lol doubtful

 

Ummm me. Why the heck would I want to ride on someone else's coat tails when I can be the one moving and shaking things?

 

Way better then sitting home waiting on someone else to solve Life's problems.

 

My fiance says, some people watch things happen, some people talk about things happening and some people make sh*t happen.

 

I make sh*t happen baby!

[Got it]

I certainly agree that it's possible to work out, just tougher. Also, I'd call this 'making career sacrifices for their relationship'. I highly doubt the likes of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Sheryl Sandberg got to where they are/were by working travel schedules around their spouses' career requirements.

 

Some people prefer being in Rs where their career can take precedence, and the ones who are also successful in their Rs generally expect to be the main/sole breadwinner in exchange for this (as opposed to expecting their spouse to play the supporting role and yet still contribute 50% to income). This doesn't make them any better, worse, more disadvantaged, or less, than anyone else; as long as both them and their spouse are happy with the arrangement, all's good. It's just another viewpoint.

 

Since that group is so slim that they are known by name, I think the majority of us fall in the middle of the bell curve. Sure, to be the best of the best you are singularly focused. But if you are wanting to just be the best, well, there is more flexibility.

 

Maybe my viewpoint is that for the second half of my marriage, and my current relationship I do earn more. Even being the woman I have NO desire to stay home with any kids. I am more than happy to support the man to stay home but I have no desire to do so. My career will always be focused on though some flexibility is understood (if I do have kids). I have goals to move farther up than where I am now and want to be at the C level in the next 10 years. To do that you have to be flexible.

[Got it]

That's getting harder and harder to do.

 

Overhead for most employees is fixed, so companies make all their profit on the margin. It's cheaper for most companies to have one person working 60 hours a week than two working 30 hours each. Also, just as a matter of morale and attitude, I'd rather have one employee who is totally committed to his/her career than two who are partially committed to their careers.

 

It depends on exactly what kind of job you have, of course.

 

Actually with ACA having two employees at 29 hours would be cheaper.

[ImperfectionisBeauty]

Ummm me. Why the heck would I want to ride on someone else's coat tails when I can be the one moving and shaking things?

 

Way better then sitting home waiting on someone else to solve Life's problems.

 

My fiance says, some people watch things happen, some people talk about things happening and some people make sh*t happen.

 

I make sh*t happen baby!

 

I am perfectly content watching.

[Got it]

I am perfectly content watching.

 

Good luck with that. To each their own.

[chex]

This describes most of the couples I know. It's a big reason I never married: I can't stand being around women like that.

 

You're young; give it a little time. In about 10 years things won't be so rosy. The women will keep finding more things to spend money on, especially as the kids get older. None of it will be driven by need. It's all about status and competing with her friends to show how "tasteful" she is by spending $800 on a tea kettle.

 

She will resent that her husband is always working and "doesn't care about her". He will grow resentful because she keeps spending more and more money while simultaneously demanding that he come home earlier so that he can "do his fair share" of driving the kids around to their various planned activities and that he doesn't understand how hard her life is. Their kids will hate both of them, but the parents will both be oblivious and think it's cute, even when the kid writes a school essay called "I Hate My Dad". After all, the only purpose of having kids is to compete with the other moms. Every little event in the kids' lives is for the sole purpose of one-upping the other parents.

 

Then she'll complain about him getting old and fat and he needs to spend more time in the gym, in addition to 80 hours of work and coming home at 5:00 pm every day to help her with the kids. He'll withdraw emotionally because he's basically become a slave to his wife's lifestyle. She'll get even more resentful and start drinking or screwing her personal trainer. He'll be oblivious because of sheer exhaustion. Then one day she'll announce that she feels unfulfilled and hire the most vicious divorce lawyer she can find (using his money, of course) to take him to the cleaners. She'll get to keep the house, of course, and he'll move into a small condo down the road. The kids will spend one week with the mom and her new boyfriend and the next week crammed into dad's condo. Mom will spend most of her time with the kids telling them what a loser their father is. He'll have to work even harder because now he has to pay for two households.

 

Those are the lucky ones. The unlucky ones will stay married as they become ever more passive aggressive and dysfunctional or sink into chemical dependency. All the while keeping a very happy face to the public because the most important thing in their lives is to convince everyone else that they are "perfect", even if they are miserable and unhealthy.

 

Haha, this is pretty funny, because my parents are fine together, going on dates every saturday night still, they're also missionaries so most of the time my dad is earning about 1/4th of his normal salary because he's working overseas. He normally makes 100k a year(as a doctor), overseas he makes 25k(and we're overseas about 4x as much) Mom's a teacher, though she quit that a while ago, she works as an administrator at an african community center. Their marriage is fantastic, 27 years together, love 'em both.

 

I think the key to happiness was that there was nothing superficial about their marriage, really. It was a college hookup, and they managed to stay together for a 2 year LDR while mum switched to Florida State because she couldn't afford brown anymore.

[Els]

That's getting harder and harder to do.

 

Overhead for most employees is fixed, so companies make all their profit on the margin. It's cheaper for most companies to have one person working 60 hours a week than two working 30 hours each. Also, just as a matter of morale and attitude, I'd rather have one employee who is totally committed to his/her career than two who are partially committed to their careers.

 

It depends on exactly what kind of job you have, of course.

 

This describes most of the couples I know. It's a big reason I never married: I can't stand being around women like that.

 

You're young; give it a little time. In about 10 years things won't be so rosy. The women will keep finding more things to spend money on, especially as the kids get older. None of it will be driven by need. It's all about status and competing with her friends to show how "tasteful" she is by spending $800 on a tea kettle.

 

She will resent that her husband is always working and "doesn't care about her". He will grow resentful because she keeps spending more and more money while simultaneously demanding that he come home earlier so that he can "do his fair share" of driving the kids around to their various planned activities and that he doesn't understand how hard her life is. Their kids will hate both of them, but the parents will both be oblivious and think it's cute, even when the kid writes a school essay called "I Hate My Dad". After all, the only purpose of having kids is to compete with the other moms. Every little event in the kids' lives is for the sole purpose of one-upping the other parents.

 

Then she'll complain about him getting old and fat and he needs to spend more time in the gym, in addition to 80 hours of work and coming home at 5:00 pm every day to help her with the kids. He'll withdraw emotionally because he's basically become a slave to his wife's lifestyle. She'll get even more resentful and start drinking or screwing her personal trainer. He'll be oblivious because of sheer exhaustion. Then one day she'll announce that she feels unfulfilled and hire the most vicious divorce lawyer she can find (using his money, of course) to take him to the cleaners. She'll get to keep the house, of course, and he'll move into a small condo down the road. The kids will spend one week with the mom and her new boyfriend and the next week crammed into dad's condo. Mom will spend most of her time with the kids telling them what a loser their father is. He'll have to work even harder because now he has to pay for two households.

 

Those are the lucky ones. The unlucky ones will stay married as they become ever more passive aggressive and dysfunctional or sink into chemical dependency. All the while keeping a very happy face to the public because the most important thing in their lives is to convince everyone else that they are "perfect", even if they are miserable and unhealthy.

 

Huh. Seems like a case of being caught between a rock and a hard place, then, eh? Damned if you do it one way and damned if you do it the other.

[chex]

Huh. Seems like a case of being caught between a rock and a hard place, then, eh? Damned if you do it one way and damned if you do it the other.

 

I think living a life of excess is bound to lead to unhappiness.

 

No time to stop and sniff the roses.

 

Or you're just sniffing the roses all day long.

[SpiralOut]

I'm envious of all the free time they have. But I could probably get that for myself if I really wanted to. I just can't stand the idea of getting married. I don't want to give up my apartment or the life I put together for myself, even though it's not perfect, even though I have to work a crappy job just to do it. Being as alone as I've been for the past couple of years has forced me to make serious changes in myself. But if that's what makes those other women happy, hey good for them. I would probably take advantage of that situation too. I would work part-time somewhere instead of full-time, and I would spend lots of time doing volunteer work and pursuing my personal interests. Hell, we'd probably live in a house, which means I'd have a backyard, which means I could buy a greenhouse for myself! Maybe start up my own little business selling plants. That would be awesome.

[Els]

I think living a life of excess is bound to lead to unhappiness.

 

No time to stop and sniff the roses.

 

Or you're just sniffing the roses all day long.

 

Precisely, hence my suggestion of a 'balance', which EasyHeart also countered by saying "I'd rather have one employee who is totally committed to his/her career than two who are partially committed to their careers."

[Radu]

I think a very important thing to watch for in a partner considering their possible career is weather or not they have desires for improving or are they just working that dead-end job.

It's one thing to date a woman who works in retail, and it's another thing to date a woman who works in retail and tries to figure out the full ins and outs of the shop she is working in, the money needed to start it, makes connections to suppliers and tries to actively figure out how to improve her efficiency at the job.

 

I also think that many of the ppl who succeed at careers start setting it up from college, early college.

That's where you make connections, where you stand out from your peers in front of the teachers, etc ...

 

That being said, these are some of the things that's i'm looking for in a woman, because i do not want someone who decides to make SAHM into a career.

Into the SAHM/SAHD situation, the breadwinner who is left needs to compensate by working longer hours and it can drive a massive wedge between the spouses by reducing the time spent alone.

Unfortunately for my country this is reality because after a child, most women take 1yr off from work [paid for by the state at 75% of their wage with the job waiting for them when they come back].

[EasyHeart]

Precisely, hence my suggestion of a 'balance', which EasyHeart also countered by saying "I'd rather have one employee who is totally committed to his/her career than two who are partially committed to their careers."

It's great for the employee. I'm looking at it from the perspective of the employer and 20 years of experiments with various kinds of part-time or reduced-time structures. It is very hard to make them work, at least in my kind of work. I think the basic problem is that part-timers figure, "I'll work half-time, so I'll take a half-salary" and think that's fair. From the employer's perspective, a half-time employee generates half the revenue, but their overhead hasn't changed. So, for instance, if a full-time employee generates $200,000 in revenue and requires $80,000 in overheard, that leaves $120,000 for salary and profits so you can pay the employee $90,000 in salary. If a part-timer generates $100,000 in revenue, they leave $20,000 to pay for salary and overhead. Paying them a half-salary of $45,000 salary means you're losing $25,000 by having that person work.

 

Like I said, it depends on what kind of work you're doing. But if you're a professional of any sort, you're generally paid (directly or indirectly) on the revenue that you generate, so it can be tough to make it work. Especially nowadays when there is a huge labor surplus in most markets. Why take on a part-timer when full-timers are abundant and cheap?

[Els]

It's great for the employee. I'm looking at it from the perspective of the employer and 20 years of experiments with various kinds of part-time or reduced-time structures. It is very hard to make them work, at least in my kind of work. I think the basic problem is that part-timers figure, "I'll work half-time, so I'll take a half-salary" and think that's fair. From the employer's perspective, a half-time employee generates half the revenue, but their overhead hasn't changed. So, for instance, if a full-time employee generates $200,000 in revenue and requires $80,000 in overheard, that leaves $120,000 for salary and profits so you can pay the employee $90,000 in salary. If a part-timer generates $100,000 in revenue, they leave $20,000 to pay for salary and overhead. Paying them a half-salary of $45,000 salary means you're losing $25,000 by having that person work.

 

Like I said, it depends on what kind of work you're doing. But if you're a professional of any sort, you're generally paid (directly or indirectly) on the revenue that you generate, so it can be tough to make it work. Especially nowadays when there is a huge labor surplus in most markets. Why take on a part-timer when full-timers are abundant and cheap?

 

Just to clarify, when I said 'balance' I wasn't actually talking about part-time, but rather moderate full-time work as opposed to 300k/year high-stakes work.

 

That aside, I get what you mean about it being from the perspective of the employer. Many people are still caught between a rock and a hard place, though (including employers themselves who often need to make personal sacrifices to make their business work), which further explains why some people, if they can afford for their spouse to stay home, take care of household responsibilities, and play the supporting role, choose to do so instead of seeking out an equally career-driven spouse. They're hardly being put upon - there are upsides and downsides to everything.

 

Just out of curiousity, what kind of job even requires $80,000 a year of employee overhead?

[EasyHeart]

Office space is expensive.