Explain to Me Being a Non-WOH No-Kid Wife

[Garga]

Really? I had no trouble understanding that she was questioning something bigger. I didn't see her as trying to convince us of anything.I've said it repeatedly, many people here get off on being antagonistc and are way too literal.

 

I'm not sure people get off on being antagonistic, but I do agree that people take things way too literally. I think the "10 minutes" of cleaning might have been some hyperbole. Maybe.

[ebrindam]

 

 

Right now, I can tell you this: nobody in this country can look at me and say I do not deserve to be here. I have a good job, I volunteer, we are finally homeowners, I own my car, I paid for my own education. I feel finally in life, that I'm getting to the point that if I met someone like you in person I could hold my head high.

 

And now this is Wowza?

 

Why? Why do some not have to work?

 

 

Some people don't have to work because their husbands make enough so that they don't have to. Some husband don't work because their wives make enough so they don't have to. It's a choice. Not everyone can afford to make it. If you don't understand that, I'm not sure anyone can help you with this issue. 

[Guest]

With regard to the covenant vs cosntract thing:

 

I wouldn't use the word covenant myself, I would also I think prefer the word sacrament.  But I think what it comes down to is this - the contract view of marriage makes it essentially a kind of business agreement, that people can enter or leave on those terms.  Whatever private emotional issues are attached are just that - private, not part of the substance of the thing.

 

:::snip:::

 

I think for the most part we are in agreement.  I'm not happy with the word "covenant" either--it has too many religious overtones.  I just don't know what other word to use in its place.  

 

I am holding a line between these three:  "business contract ----- "covenant" ----- sacrament"  for the reason that it allows for non-religious to participate in the discussion of what has been (in the US) "traditional" marriage, that is, the creation of a union that goes beyond a mere business contract in its expectations and enactment.  

 

I'm fully confident that any definition I would make of "sacrament" here in this thread would a) be inadequate and b) derail the thread in discussing what constitutes a sacrament, but I use the term anyway, because it allows for the additional infusion of religion into the discussion.  

 

Fair?  

[HS Mom in NC]

Here's why I think this thread is so weird. OP,I genuinely wonder if there's something going on with you more than just a general unfamiliarity with concept of SAHWs. Something a licensed professional of some sort could help you with. I'm not qualified diagnose or even guess at anything, I'm just observing a very far out of the norm inability to process things most people can.I know this thread is long and winding and it's a lot to process but here are things that struck me as out of the norm:

 

You seem to have a hard time with idea that marriage isn't just a contract and joint venture with financially contributing members.  You insist on wanting a list of rules with guaranteed outcomes rather than grasping that there are general principles that are generally applicable with generally good outcomes. You don't seem to be aware of the idea and phrase, "Sh!t happens."  You had a hard time distinguishing between charity to strangers and the family as a unit. You have a hard time grasping the idea of inherent value vs. earning potential.  You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between social acceptability and disinterest.  You asked why it's socially acceptable for her to be at home contributing nothing other than sex when she's capable of contributing in some way other than earning income, which I don't think is socially acceptable because I've never met anyone who advocated staying at home and contributing nothing other sex.  Instead they have an "it's none of my business" attitude. That's different.

 

You prefaced it all with not personally knowing anyone without a job if they have less than 2 kids or their kid is disabled, without factoring in the high COL in Seattle compared to the wide range of COL areas the thousands of readers here will experience,so it reads like you have a hard time intuiting, imagining, considering, thinking up, wide variations. Variations in values, variations in measuring value, variations in individual preferences, variations in regions that come into play in most people's minds when considering things.

 

It really is as simple as people have stated:

 

1. You can't possibly know the whole story, so don't assume you can come to any valid conclusions.

2. Don't believe everything someone tells you about their personal situation.

3. You can't know other people's motivations unless they themselves explicitly stated them to you.

4. Different people have different values.

5. Different couples are content with different arrangements.
6. There are no guarantees in life.

7. There's no way to eliminate risk.

8. It's a very poor mental and emotional habit to fret about someone else's situation that you have no responsibility for.

9. Looking outward comparing yourself and your situation to others rather than looking inward at your own priorities and desires is a psychological trap.

10. Life isn't fair.

11. Not all investments pay off.

12. Not everything of value is measurable and quantifiable.

 

[OneStepAtATime]

And the conversation about the risks to women ( or any SAH spouse ) in taking extended breaks from the workforce is a TOTALLY different conversation to this one, which was about the VALUE of a person not in paid work.

 

"What did she do to deserve to be kept ?' is a whole other thing than 'Is is risk free to be out of the workforce during your most productive years, and how can women mitigate the risk ?'

This.  Yes.  

 

Are there inherent risks to choosing to take extended breaks from the workforce or choosing not to join the workforce to stay at home while a spouse works?  Yes.  And I agree with some posters up thread that choosing that path may place the stay at home spouse in a bad position later on if the relationship ends or the spouse that is bringing in the money can no longer do so (death, divorce, illness, whatever). They have to weigh the pros and cons of that choice.  There are definitely pros and cons.  For some, the pros definitely outweigh the cons for their family (whether they have kids or not).  For others, it doesn't.  I do think that there are things a stay at home spouse can do to mitigate some of the possible negative scenarios that might occur further down the road and discussing that can be useful.  We have definitely had threads along those lines. 

 

But that is not the same conversation as "What is the inherent value of a human being who is not raising children that is also not earning money for a living?", which is what a great deal of the OP's posts refer to.

 

(And FWIW, I hate the word "kept" like someone is a pet in a cage.)

[Rosie_0801]

Do courts really say that non-work spouses have made stupid choices? Or simply that they made a choice that pleased their values at the time, and the court isn't obligated to do anything about mitigating the results of that choice? Not all choices that turn out poorly were stupid in the first place... I don't really get this perspective at all, and I'd be surprised to find gratuitous personal insults in a courtroom (from a judge).

 

IME, courts assume both of you are idiots until proven otherwise, which is a long and expensive process.

Judges, like all report writers, can be biased, insulting and plain wrong if they want to be.

Family court is a terrifying place. It's a highly adversarial system designed to find compromise- very bloody messy.

[OneStepAtATime]

IME, courts assume both of you are idiots until proven otherwise, which is a long and expensive process.

Judges, like all report writers, can be biased, insulting and plain wrong if they want to be.

Family court is a terrifying place. It's a highly adversarial system designed to find compromise- very bloody messy.

Agreed.

[gardenmom5]

I think for the most part we are in agreement.  I'm not happy with the word "covenant" either--it has too many religious overtones.  I just don't know what other word to use in its place.  

 

 

what about hoa covenants?  there are many different types of covenants - and they are all some form of legal agreement/contract.

 

 

 

You prefaced it all with not personally knowing anyone without a job if they have less than 2 kids or their kid is disabled, without factoring in the high COL in Seattle 

 

I agree with what you said - but wanted to address the high col seattle area (which can vary greatly depending upon where you are) . . . since I live in a more expensive part of the seattle metro area.

 

I *know* families where only one spouse works - no kids at home. (and many more where the wife works a *very* part time job to earn some extra money on the side. probably not what OP would consider  a "real" job.  I'm sure what she is also NOT factoring into her assessments the differences in type of employment in which people work.  some jobs pay a heck of a lot more money than others.

 

even though my sister is married to a machinist - a *very* blue-collar/working-class job (I only mention this because OP is focusing on that) - she hasn't worked since her oldest was a baby when she was working as a nanny.  her two children are now both graduated from  collage and married.  she's still home.

[Bluegoat]

I think for the most part we are in agreement.  I'm not happy with the word "covenant" either--it has too many religious overtones.  I just don't know what other word to use in its place.  

 

I am holding a line between these three:  "business contract ----- "covenant" ----- sacrament"  for the reason that it allows for non-religious to participate in the discussion of what has been (in the US) "traditional" marriage, that is, the creation of a union that goes beyond a mere business contract in its expectations and enactment.  

 

I'm fully confident that any definition I would make of "sacrament" here in this thread would a) be inadequate and b) derail the thread in discussing what constitutes a sacrament, but I use the term anyway, because it allows for the additional infusion of religion into the discussion.  

 

Fair?  

 

I think we don't need to use religious language.  This view of marriage was the dominant one for a long time, and is in many places, even in cultures where it doesn't seem to have the same religious underpinning as Christianity gives it.  Marriage is a family union, one that carries the family into the future, and it's understood as having all kinds of implications because of that.

 

The idea that it is just a contract I think may be a bit unusual. 

[HS Mom in NC]

what about hoa covenants?  there are many different types of covenants - and they are all some form of legal agreement/contract.

 

 

I agree with what you said - but wanted to address the high col seattle area (which can vary greatly depending upon where you are) . . . since I live in a more expensive part of the seattle metro area.

 

I *know* families where only one spouse works - no kids at home. (and many more where the wife works a *very* part time job to earn some extra money on the side. probably not what OP would consider  a "real" job.  I'm sure what she is also NOT factoring into her assessments the differences in type of employment in which people work.  some jobs pay a heck of a lot more money than others.

 

even though my sister is married to a machinist - a *very* blue-collar/working-class job (I only mention this because OP is focusing on that) - she hasn't worked since her oldest was a baby when she was working as a nanny.  her two children are now both graduated from  collage and married.  she's still home.

 

Thanks for contributing that.  I don't know anything first hand about the area, so it's helpful when people who are clear things up for us.

 

[LucyStoner]

what about hoa covenants? there are many different types of covenants - and they are all some form of legal agreement/contract.

 

 

I agree with what you said - but wanted to address the high col seattle area (which can vary greatly depending upon where you are) . . . since I live in a more expensive part of the seattle metro area.

 

I *know* families where only one spouse works - no kids at home. (and many more where the wife works a *very* part time job to earn some extra money on the side. probably not what OP would consider a "real" job. I'm sure what she is also NOT factoring into her assessments the differences in type of employment in which people work. some jobs pay a heck of a lot more money than others.

 

even though my sister is married to a machinist - a *very* blue-collar/working-class job (I only mention this because OP is focusing on that) - she hasn't worked since her oldest was a baby when she was working as a nanny. her two children are now both graduated from collage and married. she's still home.

It is important to remember that the demographics of the people we know depend largely on our own demographics.

 

I am betting that Tsuga primarily knows two income families because she's in a two income family and her area is definitely one of the most expensive areas/sought after school districts. And because many families with school age children who recently bought in that area would both need to work to afford it because they weren't around o buy 25+ years ago when 1 blue collar job could support a small family in large parts of the county.

 

When I worked FT I knew few young women and mothers who didn't work outside of the home at least PT. I knew essentially no homeschoolers. Now that I have been mostly home for 4+ years, I know a ton of homeschoolers and a ton of SAHPs. Because my sons take classes in one of the most expensive zip codes around here where a tear down on a tiny lot can fetch 600-700K where all the value is in the land and a 3 bedroom 2000 SF home goes for north of $1million, I now also know a number of 2 parent families where neither parent has a regular job and are either engaged in parenting, managing their assets, travel and/or philanthropy.

 

Who you cross paths with is dependent on where you are after all.

Edited May 29, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bluegoat]

I don't know that the use of the word "covenant" in HOAs is really significant.  I think it's probably just to show that it is not a law and supposedly is about an agreement between all the homeowners. (Yeah, right.)  But it isn't meant to carry the weight I think people who use the term marriage covenant are looking for.

[rattfink]

Having now read the whole thread and thinking about it for a couple of days I have some thoughts.

 

The OP asked originally what value a SAHW provided to her husband such that it was worth it to him to provide her with everything that she needs/wants without her having to work. This will look different for every family. In many single income families (even those with just a husband and a wife) the person who stays home does things like cooking/cleaning/gardening/sewing/shopping/childcare in a way that saves the family as a whole a significant amount of money. I was reminded of this when at lunch with my husband's coworkers and one of them (who I know makes more than DH does and has a spouse that has a similar income) commented that it was impossible for a middle class family to afford more than two children. Considering that I was sitting there with our 3 children and we were actively trying for a fourth I was momentarily taken aback. The coworker then started to elaborate on all of the costs of children and I realized that the vast majority of them did not apply to is as what I did at home mitigated them or eliminated them entirely. Some of this comes down to the cost saved by not having to pay for childcare, but a lot more (for us) comes down to being able to afford very good food (think grassfed meat, mostly organic produce, dairy, and whole grains) on what the USDA would consider to be a "thrifty" budget. We also save a lot because when a vehicle or appliance breaks I have time to figure out how to fix it or to really shop around for the best deal on a replacement without cutting into our evenings or weekends. This has an added benefit that my husband finds to be the most valuable of all. Because I am home doing most of the cooking, cleaning, fixing, and organizing by the time my husband is home we get to spend some time just talking followed by a leisurely sit-down dinner followed by some concentrated one-on-one time most every evening. We have time to play board games, read books together, play through video games, or just sit and talk for a couple of hours every night, even on week nights. Our weekends can be spent hiking or playing with the kids or working on a bigger project or just sitting in the backyard watching the kids play. Some people find that boring or feel that those things are not worth sacrificing an income for. That is totally fine. Different strokes for different folks and lots of different family set-ups all work.

 

The other major thing that I have seen asked is regarding the financial risk to the partner who forgoes an income to provide these services to the family as a whole. It is a risk, but it is one that can be minimized. Yes, my husband might leave me, but it would take a pretty major change in the character of one or both of us. I do keep a savings account in my name to hedge against this and my husband makes sure that part of our budget goes toward building that account. Yes, my husband might die or become disabled, that is why we have a large life insurance policy and a disability insurance policy as well. To hedge against unemployment we have an emergency fund that will cover basic bills and living expenses for a while and I have no problem working a lower wage job to supplement that while my husband looks for new work if needed. We both know that there are no garentees, but these are enough for us to feel that together we can keep ourselves afloat and the quality of life gained by the extra free time is worth the risk to us.

 

Anyway, this is just my perspective. I hope that reading it will help to show where some families that choose a single income model might be coming from. It is certainly not a one size fits all solution and quite frankly no solution ever is. Further more, for any decision that a person makes someone will find fault with it. It might be worth considering their advice, but in most cases it is coming from their own baggage not something that the listener actually did "wrong". It can be hard to ignore criticism and move on, but it is frequently the healthiest course of action.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

what about hoa covenants?  there are many different types of covenants - and they are all some form of legal agreement/contract.

 

 

 

Yeah...it doesn't really need to be a loaded term, but it can be...sigh.  I'm not able to explain myself very well.  Maybe it is not a continuum but a sort of venn diagram, with varying amount of overlaps.  But I'm out of my vocabulary league at this point, and so shall proceed to rearrange my office.  THAT I can manage.   :0)

[Arcadia]

I do keep a savings account in my name to hedge against this and my husband makes sure that part of our budget goes toward building that account.

A guy can come after the money in that account when divorcing. A good friend's ex-husband did come after money in her bank accounts as well ae any assets under her name only. Only those she acquired before marriage were safe from being debated upon in the divorce court. As a close lawyer friend said, divorce lawyers make one of the best money among lawyers :(

 

"It is important to note that although bank accounts are often referred to as "separate" when only one spouse has his name on the account, this is generally not determinative of whether the funds in the account will be treated as marital or separate property in divorce."

 

http://info.legalzoom.com/ex-entitled-separate-bank-account-after-divorce-27159.html

 

ETA:

She was also responsible for half his debt. That is in Los Angeles.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Arcadia

[Arcadia]

This view of marriage was the dominant one for a long time, and is in many places, even in cultures where it doesn't seem to have the same religious underpinning as Christianity gives it. Marriage is a family union, one that carries the family into the future, and it's understood as having all kinds of implications because of that.

I agree.

It has been that way even in the days of the old feudal system in many parts of asia.

 

The feminist movement did confused my high school and college classmates though. With equality, they aren't sure whether it becomes improper to provide since it connotates that ladies are the weaker sex. I am from a traditional family culture and I get "pampered" because my ex-schoolmates don't need to worry about me being offended. They have been scolded by ladies for offering to help.

[eternalsummer]

A guy can come after the money in that account when divorcing. A good friend's ex-husband did come after money in her bank accounts as well ae any assets under her name only. Only those she acquired before marriage were safe from being debated upon in the divorce court. As a close lawyer friend said, divorce lawyers make one of the best money among lawyers :(

 

"It is important to note that although bank accounts are often referred to as "separate" when only one spouse has his name on the account, this is generally not determinative of whether the funds in the account will be treated as marital or separate property in divorce."

 

http://info.legalzoom.com/ex-entitled-separate-bank-account-after-divorce-27159.html

 

ETA:

She was also responsible for half his debt. That is in Los Angeles.

 

And TBH this makes a lot of sense, as one partner could easily be socking away 4/5 of the money for 10 years and then file for divorce and say, well, it's in my name right?

[Arcadia]

And TBH this makes a lot of sense, as one partner could easily be socking away 4/5 of the money for 10 years and then file for divorce and say, well, it's in my name right?

I do agree that it makes sense.

Unfortunately in her case, she work and support the family. He worked, spent everything and rake up credit card debts. The good thing is her ex incurred debts after divorce are now his current wife's problem.

She has her family of orgin to provide for her and her child so it wasn't as bad. Nowhere poverty level after divorce.

[Carol in Cal.]

I was thinking more about the covenant idea, and maybe a better phrase would be 'virtually irrevocable'.  The idea is that in law as well as in society, the operating assumption is always that a marriage will be for life, and so there is a problem associated with that not being so, and there is an injured party who should be able to live as much as possible as though that assumption had been correct. 

 

So to the extent that people still think of marriage that way, it can be extremely difficult to shift into a mode of contract law only.  We see this over and over here at the Hive and IRL.  How many people have we just about yelled at to lawyer up, not to trust their STBX, to track incidents concurrently in writing, to take extreme care not to move out, not to yell, not to be visibly upset--poker face ON!  Just like in a business negotiation.  It is SO HARD to believe that someone is going to move against you legally when your bond is emotional, spiritual, habitual, financial, and in every way intended to be permanent.

 

That's what I meant.

[Guest]

I was thinking more about the covenant idea, and maybe a better phrase would be 'virtually irrevocable'.  The idea is that in law as well as in society, the operating assumption is always that a marriage will be for life, and so there is a problem associated with that not being so, and there is an injured party who should be able to live as much as possible as though that assumption had been correct. 

 

So to the extent that people still think of marriage that way, it can be extremely difficult to shift into a mode of contract law only.  We see this over and over here at the Hive and IRL.  How many people have we just about yelled at to lawyer up, not to trust their STBX, to track incidents concurrently in writing, to take extreme care not to move out, not to yell, not to be visibly upset--poker face ON!  Just like in a business negotiation.  It is SO HARD to believe that someone is going to move against you legally when your bond is emotional, spiritual, habitual, financial, and in every way intended to be permanent.

 

That's what I meant.

 

Me, too.

[rattfink]

The state I live in actually lets you choose from one of two different types of marriage liscense. One is the standard one and the other is actually called a "covenant marriage". The covenant marriage has different rules covering divorce and is much harder to get out of unless your spouse cheats, is abusive, or has an addiction to alcohol, drugs or gambling. The spouse who is having an affair cannot file for divorce, only the one who has been cheated on and they frequently get the lion's share of the assets when they do. A couple can choose jointly to end a covenant marriage, but are required to spend a lot of time in marriage counseling first and then go through a mediator to divide the assets. Even with a more standard marriage in my state alimony is still a pretty normal thing in a divorce where one spouse is working and the other is not or there is a large income disparity, especially if that has been true for most of the marriage and the marriage has been a longer one. Also, here if a spouse is caught cheating the other spouse gets a lot more in the divorce regardless of gender and alimony can go either way depending on who is making the most money.

 

I think that different states and even different cities tend to handle divorce settlements differently and that plays a part in how risky it is to choose to depend on a spouse to be the sole income provider. Here there are huge and politically influential chunks of the population that belong to one or the other of two religions that value children and single income households so judges are more likely to protect that because they are common enough that everyone knows at least a few families with one main breadwinner.

 

Also, as others have said, just how risky it is to trust your spouse not to go off the deep end and divorce you and take all of the money depends a lot on how well you know your spouse and how well you can spot controlling and narcissistic behavior and other mental health red flags. My husband and I dated for over 4 years before we got married and have talked about everything under the sun. His mom is an emotionally abusive narcissist so we have both gotten pretty good at spotting those traits. I have never actually been a straight SAHW as I worked at least part time from home until we got all of our ducks in a row financially and some safeguards in place against job loss and the like. At this point I am really not worried about divorce and the savings is there to make my husband feel better, especially since I have a strong extended family support network if I ever needed it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lewelma]

I am late to the conversation and see that it has drifted from the original questions, but I thought I would describe for Tsunga the relationship of my sister and her husband.  They have no children and do not plan to; they are both in their 40s. She works as a school teacher and has a summer job also.  He stays at home.  This works for them because he does *everything*: all cooking, cleaning, shopping, laundry, financial planning, accounting, house maintenance, gardening, car repair, computer maintenance, record keeping, taxes, etc.  ALL OF IT.  He cleans daily because they have cats and allergies.  It is as if she lives in a hotel. They have a beautiful, spotless house, and well-managed finances. When she comes home, it is to relaxation and joy.  The trade off is good.  She can focus on what she loves and he can focus on what he loves. Totally, absolutely unlike any other couple I have ever met, but it works and they are happy. 

 

Ruth in NZ (my sister lives in America)

Edited May 29, 2016 by lewelma

[heartlikealion]

Having computer issues so it's going to be too hard to quote, but OP, you said to me that you had dinner ready by 7:30 and the house mostly clean with 4 kids, but totally clean with just a couple. Well, I am just going to repeat it. I am telling you, not all of us manage a home that well. I fully admit I suck at certain things in the housewife/mom role. Just take my word for it. So don't assume everyone can have a perfect looking house just because they "only have two kids" or have a hot meal ready every night because you did. You said most of us have cared for a household sans kids. Well, I hardly did that since I was pregnant when we got married and moved into our first home together. I struggled then and I struggle now. I was working long hours at the time not home all day like a SAHW, but still. Some of us are just better at traditional domestic roles than others. I was never taught to cook or clean, really. I never changed a diaper til I had my son.

 

I think you are factoring money into a lot of your responses. You are missing my point. I see value in a volunteer fire fighter because they are helping people. I am not disputing that they can't get a raise and that they can't get criticized for not having money from that role. These are two separate things to me, not one in the same. I don't value someone or something because of the monetary value. Steve Buscemi helped his old fire dept. unit after the 9/11 attacks. I'm sure the people he helped didn't care about his income or that of any of the other volunteers. Most people love their pets, but their pets do not offer money and unless they have a hunting dog or a dog for the blind, etc. then their animal might not offer much more than companionship/love. And is that not valuable to some people?

 

You said you never took a penny so your significant other knew you were not in it for the money. There are two ways I could read that line. Because you didn't take any money, it was obvious you weren't in it for the money. Or you deliberately avoided taking any money as to not be accused of being in it for the money. Which is it? Because who cares if you did take a penny? Is it your own opinion or others that you care about if you do?

 

Risk for the children makes it worth it for the SAHM to not work? I would think the opposite. That the SAHM would have more to lose because if she isn't working she may not have a good resume or up-to-date skills and then be left in pretty bad shape if her spouse left her. You could really look at the scenario either way. Not all moms value breastfeeding or staying close to home, either. I probably would have made a pretty terrible SAHM when ds was born. I barely handled weekends without dh (he worked weekends) for a while there. I flip flop on my feelings about being a SAHM right now to be honest.

[eternalsummer]

Having computer issues so it's going to be too hard to quote, but OP, you said to me that you had dinner ready by 7:30 and the house mostly clean with 4 kids, but totally clean with just a couple. Well, I am just going to repeat it. I am telling you, not all of us manage a home that well. I fully admit I suck at certain things in the housewife/mom role. Just take my word for it. So don't assume everyone can have a perfect looking house just because they "only have two kids" or have a hot meal ready every night because you did. You said most of us have cared for a household sans kids. Well, I hardly did that since I was pregnant when we got married and moved into our first home together. I struggled then and I struggle now. I was working long hours at the time not home all day like a SAHW, but still. Some of us are just better at traditional domestic roles than others. I was never taught to cook or clean, really. I never changed a diaper til I had my son.

 

I think you are factoring money into a lot of your responses. You are missing my point. I see value in a volunteer fire fighter because they are helping people. I am not disputing that they can't get a raise and that they can't get criticized for not having money from that role. These are two separate things to me, not one in the same. I don't value someone or something because of the monetary value. Steve Buscemi helped his old fire dept. unit after the 9/11 attacks. I'm sure the people he helped didn't care about his income or that of any of the other volunteers. Most people love their pets, but their pets do not offer money and unless they have a hunting dog or a dog for the blind, etc. then their animal might not offer much more than companionship/love. And is that not valuable to some people?

 

You said you never took a penny so your significant other knew you were not in it for the money. There are two ways I could read that line. Because you didn't take any money, it was obvious you weren't in it for the money. Or you deliberately avoided taking any money as to not be accused of being in it for the money. Which is it? Because who cares if you did take a penny? Is it your own opinion or others that you care about if you do?

 

Risk for the children makes it worth it for the SAHM to not work? I would think the opposite. That the SAHM would have more to lose because if she isn't working she may not have a good resume or up-to-date skills and then be left in pretty bad shape if her spouse left her. You could really look at the scenario either way. Not all moms value breastfeeding or staying close to home, either. I probably would have made a pretty terrible SAHM when ds was born. I barely handled weekends without dh (he worked weekends) for a while there. I flip flop on my feelings about being a SAHM right now to be honest.

 

 

I like staying at home (although I work from home, so it is not all roses) but otherwise I have a lot in common with your post.  I didn't learn to cook or clean or take care of babies until I absolutely had to as an adult.  I have actually gotten better at it as I've gone along; when DH and I were first living together I was pretty hopeless.  We ordered pizza a lot.  The second year, I figured out how to use a toaster oven so we made a lot of those small frozen pizzas.  Third year I figured out stirfry and he made beans.  Fourth year we had a baby and cooking went mostly out the window, as did any cleaning I had done before (not much).  

 

We have always just lived our lives together.  We have a pretty traditional marriage (I change the diapers, he mows the lawn) but we're not deliberate about it; it is what happens naturally.  

 

Possibly some of this is because we got together very young (15 and 18) and had never had other serious relationships (I had never had any other relationships at all).  We never really had a chance to think of it as a transaction or as two people making some sort of deliberate arrangement one way or another, and compare the pros and cons.  

[SKL]

The pet analogy in this thread reminds me of Elvis' hit:

 

You aint nothin' but a hound dog

Cryin' all the time

You ain't never caught a rabbit and you ain't no friend of mine.

[madteaparty]

A guy can come after the money in that account when divorcing. A good friend's ex-husband did come after money in her bank accounts as well ae any assets under her name only. Only those she acquired before marriage were safe from being debated upon in the divorce court. As a close lawyer friend said, divorce lawyers make one of the best money among lawyers :(

 

"It is important to note that although bank accounts are often referred to as "separate" when only one spouse has his name on the account, this is generally not determinative of whether the funds in the account will be treated as marital or separate property in divorce."

 

http://info.legalzoom.com/ex-entitled-separate-bank-account-after-divorce-27159.html

 

ETA:

She was also responsible for half his debt. That is in Los Angeles.

The separate account won't shield any $, but it is helpful to have when you have to pay a divorce attorney retainer. Also, you won't be completely devastated financially when you divorce because of the common property laws, but you do lose out on future earnings. The flip side that I haven't seen mentioned is that as a woman you may get less custody because you work. Basically you are screwed either way, is my view. And I say this as a complete failure of a SAHM (I'm back to work after a year at home). Edited May 29, 2016 by madteaparty

[flyingiguana]

When I was a kid, we had a neighbor who actually hired a maid to take care of the house and kids.  Even though she was home all day.

 

She slept in, mostly.  We were not allowed to ring the doorbell until after noon because of this.

 

She had no diagnosed illness and people did talk about her as if she were a bit wacky.  But, her husband made a good salary, so it was their business.

 

Years later, she was diagnosed with lupus.  That explained why she was tired all the time.

 

So I suppose it was nice for the rest of us that we all knew why she was "lazy".

 

But the fact remains that it was still THEIR business.  Not ours.  If it works for the couple, that's all that matters.  The fact the husband is complaining does kind of suggest it may not be working for the couple, but that's still their business, not anyone else's.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah, a big reason I stayed home was I couldn't give 100% to my job and my family.  I hated always feeling like I was doing a half arsed job.  Now if I had no choice..then I had no choice, but I did so I chose my family. 

 

Truth be told DH didn't do much housework early on when it was just the two of us.  I suppose after time he would have learned to.  Fact is, however, he didn't do nearly as much and that didn't improve once we had kids. And I didn't want our time spent together to be doing housework.  Or spent with me trying to get him to do housework. 

 

 

 

Having computer issues so it's going to be too hard to quote, but OP, you said to me that you had dinner ready by 7:30 and the house mostly clean with 4 kids, but totally clean with just a couple. Well, I am just going to repeat it. I am telling you, not all of us manage a home that well. I fully admit I suck at certain things in the housewife/mom role. Just take my word for it. So don't assume everyone can have a perfect looking house just because they "only have two kids" or have a hot meal ready every night because you did. You said most of us have cared for a household sans kids. Well, I hardly did that since I was pregnant when we got married and moved into our first home together. I struggled then and I struggle now. I was working long hours at the time not home all day like a SAHW, but still. Some of us are just better at traditional domestic roles than others. I was never taught to cook or clean, really. I never changed a diaper til I had my son.

 

I think you are factoring money into a lot of your responses. You are missing my point. I see value in a volunteer fire fighter because they are helping people. I am not disputing that they can't get a raise and that they can't get criticized for not having money from that role. These are two separate things to me, not one in the same. I don't value someone or something because of the monetary value. Steve Buscemi helped his old fire dept. unit after the 9/11 attacks. I'm sure the people he helped didn't care about his income or that of any of the other volunteers. Most people love their pets, but their pets do not offer money and unless they have a hunting dog or a dog for the blind, etc. then their animal might not offer much more than companionship/love. And is that not valuable to some people?

 

You said you never took a penny so your significant other knew you were not in it for the money. There are two ways I could read that line. Because you didn't take any money, it was obvious you weren't in it for the money. Or you deliberately avoided taking any money as to not be accused of being in it for the money. Which is it? Because who cares if you did take a penny? Is it your own opinion or others that you care about if you do?

 

Risk for the children makes it worth it for the SAHM to not work? I would think the opposite. That the SAHM would have more to lose because if she isn't working she may not have a good resume or up-to-date skills and then be left in pretty bad shape if her spouse left her. You could really look at the scenario either way. Not all moms value breastfeeding or staying close to home, either. I probably would have made a pretty terrible SAHM when ds was born. I barely handled weekends without dh (he worked weekends) for a while there. I flip flop on my feelings about being a SAHM right now to be honest.

 

[coralloyd]

Ok Tsuga, I went to my husband and asked why he was willing to provide, while I stayed home our first year of marriage. Also, why he would still never want me to work. I know you have been wanting to know why a man would do this.

 

The first words out of his mouth were "I married you to be with you". When I asked for further explanation he told me that if I worked we would have to work out both of our schedules anytime we wanted to do something. He says it is so much easier to spend time together when you only have one job schedule to deal with. He ended it by saying "You're my best friend. I married you to be around you as much as possible." :). 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by coralloyd

[Arcadia]

The separate account won't shield any $, but it is helpful to have when you have to pay a divorce attorney retainer. Also, you won't be completely devastated financially when you divorce because of the common property laws, but you do lose out on future earnings.

Just that because the money was regularly given by the spouse as "safety money", it would be debatable in divorce court affecting alimony.

 

My city has less than 50% homeowners. Common property law isn't going to help much when there is no property to sell, savings is low and student loans debt aren't paid up. That may be part of what OP is asking, divorce when the balance sheet is more debt than paycheck, and the SAHP has been out of the workforce for years.

[TX Native]

Ok Tsuga, I went to my husband and asked why he was willing to provide, while I stayed home our first year of marriage. Also, why he would still never want me to work. I know you have been wanting to know why a man would do this.

 

The first words out of his mouth were "I married you to be with you". When I asked for further explanation he told me that if I worked we would have to work out both of our schedules anytime we wanted to do something. He says it is so much easier to spend time together when you only have one job schedule to deal with. He ended it by saying "You're my best friend. I married you to be around you as much as possible." :).

This is beautiful.

[rattfink]

*snip*

 

My city has less than 50% homeowners. Common property law isn't going to help much when there is no property to sell, savings is low and student loans debt aren't paid up. That may be part of what OP is asking, divorce when the balance sheet is more debt than paycheck, and the SAHP has been out of the workforce for years.

It honestly never occurred to me that someone might have a SAHP without kids if they had more debt than paycheck and minimal savings. That just seems unwise unless someone needs to stay home with children because the cost of childcare would offset their potential earnings. My DH and I met when we were freshmen in college and were careful not to take on debt (including student loans) specifically because we knew that someday we wanted someone home if we had kids and debt is expensive. I'm not judging those that make different decisions, just saying that it literally never occurred to me that a couple where one person stays home might have more debt than assets as my husband and I have always both seriously avoided debt wherever reasonably possible. We have had a couple partial car loans at points and we do have a mortgage, but we try to pay those off faster than we need to and put down the biggest down payment we could manage. Things like washing machines we have just gone without until we could fix them ourselves or pay cash to replace them. I know that not everyone avoids debt like we do, but most everyone I know with debt has both partners working to pay it off. The only exceptions the person staying home cannot earn enough to offset childcare costs and plans to renter the workforce once the kids are in school.

 

I think that, again, it really comes down to what the couple values. Some people want lots of things that cost money others enjoy things that take a lot of time, but don't cost much money. Some people love cruises and Disney vacations and others would really rather be tent camping. Neither person/family is better or worse, but those that prefer camping will probably spend a lot less on their vacations and be left with more money for other stuff.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gardenmom5]

It is important to remember that the demographics of the people we know depend largely on our own demographics.

 

I am betting that Tsuga primarily knows two income families because she's in a two income family and her area is definitely one of the most expensive areas/sought after school districts. And because many families with school age children who recently bought in that area would both need to work to afford it because they weren't around o buy 25+ years ago when 1 blue collar job could support a small family in large parts of the county.

 

When I worked FT I knew few young women and mothers who didn't work outside of the home at least PT. I knew essentially no homeschoolers. Now that I have been mostly home for 4+ years, I know a ton of homeschoolers and a ton of SAHPs. Because my sons take classes in one of the most expensive zip codes around here where a tear down on a tiny lot can fetch 600-700K where all the value is in the land and a 3 bedroom 2000 SF home goes for north of $1million, I now also know a number of 2 parent families where neither parent has a regular job and are either engaged in parenting, managing their assets, travel and/or philanthropy.

 

Who you cross paths with is dependent on where you are after all.

  I hate when  that happens.  type a response and it disappears into the ether . . . glare.

 

the bolded was my point - not as clearly made.  the OP says she only knows double income families UNLESS they have more than two kids at home.   that's pretty narrow.

 

I travel in wide geographic and varied economic circles.  I know single, double, and work for fun (re: they don't need the money).  no kids -> lots of kids. public school, homeschool, business/networking, church, etc.  welfare to "very comfortable", third-world immigrants -> always lived in this area.  (we still raz dh for being born in Pasadena. ;p even though he was an army brat and he left when he was 18mos).  high school drop out (a nerd) to docs, just starting out blue-collar -> upper echelons of major corporations -> own their own business (no franchises).  students of course.  even across the political spectrum.  starting out in life -> retirement -> retirement  was boring  so found something  else to do.  from auburn to lk stevens, seattle to Monroe/north bend/carnation.  subsidized apartments -> waterfront.  and many things in between.

 

as for tear downs - you described my street.   we have a few left. one's coming on the market in the next few weeks.   two are currently college student rentals.    one future tear-down will turn into multiple houses.  the owner is in his 90s and plans to stay until he dies.  I  hope his health allows him his wish.  his sweet wife passed away a number of years ago. the neighbor across from us is talking to a builder about tearing down his house and building something else.  dh jokes our "neighborhood is turning".  

[StephanieZ]

Fwiw, there are ways to shield money if desired. I don't do it, but I've seen plenty of chances to do so.

 

For instance, if you inherit money, you can keep it all for yourself if you keep it segregated into your own account and don't mingle it. So, if that is a possibility for you, and you want to preserve it as 'yours' then when you ever inherit any money, keep it in a separate account. Use up joint resources on stuff you want, and save that individual money just for you . . . Later . . .

 

Similarly, it likely makes sense to pay off any of 'your'student loans or other before-marriage debt first, from joint marital money. Then be sure to educate yourself thoroughly to prepare yourself for earning power . . . Again with marital funds.

 

Then there is always the prenup or postnuptial agreement . . . If you are determined to protect yourself financially, then do that.

 

Personally, I've never looked at money that way. When I inherited, I've simply used the money in whatever ways made the most sense for us as a family. And I have not considered pre or postnuptial agreements. But, if financial security in the marriage is scary for you, then for sure, I'd rather have done a post nup or prenup rather than change our entire way of life (by focusing on equitable sharing of finances and future security, rather than considering everything as a couple, as we do).

 

(I do think prenups make sense for marriages with prior children and/or late in life marriages with complicated and/or uneven financial situations, but for me, I don't think they are nice for young marriages without kids yet).

[Carol in Cal.]

Yes, there are some ways to shield money.

And when people think about that, the same conflicts arise--is this going to stop them from being covenantal in their commitment?  Is that going to doom the marriage from the start, conveying as it does that you're going into it with your fingers crossed, however sensibly?

It's all so hard.

[Guest]

This song reminds me of my dad's sister.

 

Dad was raised in poverty. His older sister, at the age of 14, was married off to a man in his 30's because he could provide for her. She had her first baby, my cousin, at 15.

 

Ai. Mom is 16 years older than my brother for the same reason.

 

No elegant New York flat out f that deal though LOL

[Bluegoat]

I really think there are a lot of older marriage customs that make a lot of sense.  A dowry that goes to the women if the marriage fails - that makes total sense to me.  How to translate that into a modern setting that would make any difference I don't know, but the concept to me is a good one.

[shage]

I really think there are a lot of older marriage customs that make a lot of sense. A dowry that goes to the women if the marriage fails - that makes total sense to me. How to translate that into a modern setting that would make any difference I don't know, but the concept to me is a good one.

An investment account and a prenup?

[Arcadia]

It honestly never occurred to me that someone might have a SAHP without kids if they had more debt than paycheck and minimal savings.

Sometimes the husband is the one with student debt and the SAHW has fertility issues that make the husband prefer his wife stay home to increase the odds of TTC. I have friends who tried TTC for many years before having a child, I also have friends who are childless even after trying IVF.

 

In my area, it is possible for a fresh college grad to get about $5k in take home pay per month. Rent for a one bedroom apartment is above $2k now locally and demand is high for the lower end rents. Food cost per month depends of course on diet and any food allergies. Whatever is left after rent, food, utilities and gasoline goes towards student loans and some rainy day savings.

 

I have a single neighbor who paid rent of $2k per month for a multiple year lease and paid off her student loan after she turned 35. She is relocating back to her hometown to hopefully get married. Some couples rather not wait until student loan debts are all paid up whether the case is a spouse or both spouse carrying student loan debts.

[Meriwether]

nm

Edited May 30, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer
This could be said in a way that does not come across as attack.

[Meriwether]

I worked until Dd13 was born. I will probably work part time when the kids are grown. If I could work 30 hours per week and bring home $10,000/ year, I could give each of the kids a couple thousand dollars each year.

[Meriwether]

Ha! I just realize what I typed. I'm obviously okay with Dh providing for me because I would spend my earnings on the kids.

[Joker]

 When oldest dd was born, we lived in California. We purposefully chose to move to a lower COL state (and even live with parents for the first month) so one of us could stay home. Most of the choices we've made since have all been to make it easier for me to stay home but also allow us to do the things we enjoy (mostly travel). Everyone makes choices and they aren't all going to look the same as we all have different goals.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer
Removed quote from deleted content.

[heartlikealion]

 

For instance, if you inherit money, you can keep it all for yourself if you keep it segregated into your own account and don't mingle it. So, if that is a possibility for you, and you want to preserve it as 'yours' then when you ever inherit any money, keep it in a separate account. Use up joint resources on stuff you want, and save that individual money just for you . . . Later . . .

 

I always assume this will come up when it's time to do taxes. I don't know if anyone can hide anything like that. Maybe money in a shoe box lol.

[Laura Corin]

When I was a kid, we had a neighbor who actually hired a maid to take care of the house and kids.  Even though she was home all day.

 

 

I had full-time help when I lived in Asia.  I don't know about your neighbour (and I certainly saw other expatriates who played tennis all day while their amah brought up the kids) but it was amazingly helpful to me in being a good mother.

 

I'm an introvert - there are very often threads on these boards about how hard it is for introverts to be constantly with the kids and unable to get a break.  When I needed a break, I took one.  It made me a better mother, and the amah took the children out for a walk, or read with them at home.  Both boys became very familiar with the family bible because of her readings - they would never have developed that in-depth knowledge otherwise.  When my second child was colicky, I knew that my first was happily absorbed with his beloved 'aunty'.  When the first child fell and cut his face, both Husband and I could be with him full time while the plastic surgeon made emergency repairs.  And for all of their young years, they had a non-stressed mother who was not trying to clean the house while tending to them and later home educating them.  It was brilliant.

 

I used to do most of the shopping and cooking, just because I was a better cook than the amah, so the children would come to the supermarket with me.  But when we got home, the amah would unpack the groceries while the boys and I snuggled up with a book.

 

Was I lazy?  I certainly could have been working harder.  I work harder now that I have a full-time job.  But actually, having full-time help gave me all the time in the world to spend with my boys, and breaks when I needed them.  It was lovely and I was very lucky.

[2squared]

I'm coming late to this conversation, but it's certainly made me think.  I'm the bread winner in our family.  Dh was a SAHD when the first three years we had kids and then again for almost a year when my youngest was 2yo.  I would have been OK with him staying home while the kids are in school if he had managed the home well while I worked.  By well I mean in a way that I enjoyed and that made my life easier, including working to economize our spending.  He worked hard at home, but not in a way that met my goals, so I pushed him back to work the second time he stayed home.  Not sure if that was mean of me or not, but even though our home isn't managed well with two nearly FT incomes, we do have enough income to meet my financial goals.  This is the best I'm going to get while I'm working.  The value of him working surpasses the value of him home.  If he did better domestically or with the kids, the equation could easily tip the other way.  The first time he stayed home he did a great job on the home front, but I think five kids may have been too much for him.

 

If my dh could earn enough to support our family at a lifestyle we would enjoy, we both would have me stay home.  That's my dream......but unlikely to come true.

 

So, I guess my thought is that having one spouse not work benefits the other spouse in some way, whether consciously or not.  The benefit might be social standing, homemaking, etc.

[Guest]

I really think there are a lot of older marriage customs that make a lot of sense.  A dowry that goes to the women if the marriage fails - that makes total sense to me.  How to translate that into a modern setting that would make any difference I don't know, but the concept to me is a good one.

 

Prenups and a paid-to-wife dowry (mahr) are SOP in Islam.

 

You just write it up and make it legal, eagle.

 

And it *is* a good thing imo. The whole community expects it, so there is zero stigma attached to the mahr. 

 

And people do different things with it*...some women waive their right to a dower, of course to be able to get married sooner or just because whatever reason. Or make it the down payment on their house, or even a ring.

 

But the paradigm is different. Husbands have a religious responsibility to provide monetarily, lock, stock and barrel for their wives and children, while women have no such compunction....their right(speaking religiously here) to work OR not work is jealously guarded, and any money they contribute to the household is considered a gift, freely given. IOW a man's money is always his family's, and a woman's money is always hers alone.

 

 

 

*I only have experience with how it's done by younger (than old lol) people in the West, obviously

[Guest]

I always assume this will come up when it's time to do taxes. I don't know if anyone can hide anything like that. Maybe money in a shoe box lol.

 

Hiding it and keeping it separate are not the same. I don't think the pp said anything about keeping an inheritance secret from your spouse. Just putting it aside for the ultimate "rainy day," ykwim?

[Carol in Cal.]

I had full-time help when I lived in Asia.

 

I remember reading once in a feminist source that I can't remember right now the reflection that the modern US (and this extends, I think, to much of Western Europe) is the first very affluent society in the history of the world that does not routinely allow or expect or encourage paid household help much at all.  I thought that that was pretty astute.

 

Also, the supposed 'golden age' of SAHMs, as illustrated in nostalgic shows like "I Love Lucy", still included a lot of help--dairy deliveries, grocery deliveries, the 'Fuller Brush Man', sending laundry out and having it returned folded or pressed and hung, newspaper deliveries, cleaning help, etc.  The Brady Bunch had Alice.  And nobody said, "What does that woman DO all day?" because things were, in general, not nearly as frenetic as they are now, and the home was supposed to be a refuge and a place where everyone wanted to be.

[Guest]

I remember reading once in a feminist source that I can't remember right now the reflection that the modern US (and this extends, I think, to much of Western Europe) is the first very affluent society in the history of the world that does not routinely allow or expect or encourage paid household help much at all.  I thought that that was pretty astute.

 

Also, the supposed 'golden age' of SAHMs, as illustrated in nostalgic shows like "I Love Lucy", still included a lot of help--dairy deliveries, grocery deliveries, the 'Fuller Brush Man', sending laundry out and having it returned folded or pressed and hung, newspaper deliveries, cleaning help, etc.  The Brady Bunch had Alice.  And nobody said, "What does that woman DO all day?" because things were, in general, not nearly as frenetic as they are now, and the home was supposed to be a refuge and a place where everyone wanted to be.

 

I know ppl in third world countries that think it's incredibly selfish for people to be ABLE to afford house-help but choose not to hire anyone.

 

Definitely a lot of different lenses to look at these things through!