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

[Guest]

Tsuga, society didn't pledge me a living. Society didn't promise to take care of me in sickness and health. My husband did. If something happened to him injury, brain damage, whatever and I had to get a job then that is what I would do and I would never ever say he wasn't pulling his weight. I've watched spouses take care of each other through Alzheimers and others through being bed ridden. My husband and I have pledged to take care of one another. It isn't a trade agreement. We are one entity according to taxes, according to property ownership, according to census data we report "household income" not individual income.

 

You shouldn't be angry at strangers for not being there for you but I could completely understand if you were angry at those who should have been there for you and weren't. Your father, your husband, and perhaps others I don't know about. If we lived in the same town I'd offer to bring you a home cooked meal just because I want you to once in a while come home and relax and know what it is to have someone else care. And you absolutely didn't steal from anyone growing up. We as a society know that children can't fend for themselves and we choose to try to offer free education and meals and such to children. You don't have to feel judged for any of that, especially on this thread. Everyone wants you to know that. You are valuable.

You said this very well and it needs to be reiterated.

[Tsuga]

You're importing a whole lot of bias into this. I do absolutely believe in the value of hard work and independence.

 

​But not for wives--hard work, though not necessarily economically viable work, and definitely not independence.

 

...A person who isn't employed outside the home is not in the same universe as someone who has ability, skill, and health and takes from the taxes of society instead of working - you are making category errors.

 

Where's the categorical difference? They are both humans. We are supposed to love our neighbor--even atheists can concede that we must be kind to one another. What are the categories that make one person worthy of survival in spite of not earning, and the other person, worthy of disdain?

 

People like 'me' are not the ones you answer to for your life choices.

 

I'm not asking you to answer for my life choices: my life is 100% my fault.

 

People like you are exactly the ones to answer my life choices. So I admit I screwed up, I worked in charity, my husband left me. Mea maxima culpa.

 

You are successful. You have money. You are happy. Your husband loves you. You are proud of yourself, your family, your children, and your life. I'm not: I had to take help. You > me.

 

So tell me why. Tell me how to get there.

 

I want to be paid by you. I want to know what you think so I can tell my kids, hey kids, here's how you do it. You have said that you guys are doing just fine. I want just fine. You are EXACTLY the one I answer. In real life, nobody gives away the secret. On the internet, you can always find answers. People who let slip. People who know the truth about how it works. In real life, people told me "That's so NICE." On the internet, they told me I was an idiot. "Why did you think you deserved that?"

 

Your thinking on this is unhealthy and demeaning, all at once. You don't get to lay that dysfunction on me or anyone else you presume to know everything about.

 

Who said you are dysfunctional? Whose life do I know about? I'm asking questions, you guys are giving answers.

 

Some people get free money. Or not free. Somehow, they get it. Why is that demeaning, to point out that it's free money?

 

[Tsuga]

I guess all I can do is say what the stay at home wives I know of do.

 

They garden. Growing veges takes a fair amount of time to do well.

 

​We garden.

 

They cook. Their meals aren't salad in a bag. T

 

​Salad in a bag is not the WHOLE meal. I just pay someone to chop the salad. Do you really think working families live so horribly that they can't even make a hot meal?

 

hey bake home made bread and cake and biscuits.

 

So do we...bread, not daily, but I have. But anyway, while a SAHM might bake bread enough to save money, a SAHW will need a loaf a week if that. It is just not a lot.

 

They cook from scratch and preserve the home grown produce.

 

Jam, every year since 2006, the year my daughter was born. Not that hard. Worked every year, worked out of the home most of those years.

 

They sew. They don't throw away things that can be fixed.

 

When is the last time you fixed your computer yourself? Because I fix mine. We fixed the vacuum, the car, other things. Headphones.

 

They help mums with babies and special needs kids. They make cards and mail them to sick people and they visit sick people in hospital or at home with meals. They take care of the gifts to the family members, either making or buying. They chase up on cheaper plans for insurance and all the other stuff. They wash dishes by hand. They cut foam and fabric and refurbish their furniture or sand and polish and all these things save money.

 

But honestly, so many of these things are also done by working people, working PARENTS no less. Our PTA is staffed by 4 work outside of the home moms! There are stay at home moms but they don't have time (?!?). Whatever, I'm just saying, the idea that you can't do this if you have a job is bizarre to me.

 

they save less now than in the past probably but they still save. Bagged salad here is $3 a bag - so that would be $21 a week. Prepping a weeks salad from some basic ingredients is maybe $10. Every time I patch a pair of jeans or sew up a hole instead of replacing it I save $15 or $20.

 

Those bags serve equivalent to three salads made from loose-leaf romaine or arugula or whatever. Your math is off. I also patch jeans and sew holes. It takes five minutes! My partner is a working dad, he did our floors. I think there's this idea that 100% of stuff is outsourced but that is not the case. We certainly do cut some corners but they are not at the level you are thinking. I would say my base costs are about $200/mo higher for non-child care related issues when living in a high COL area two working adults, vs. working from home baking 100% of bread myself. That was highly inefficient, by the way. I baked for baking's sake, it saved not a penny. It cost us.

 

My point is to say, I'm asking for someone to describe a value I don't provide, working. To take another family other than ours, it is a dual-income family and they:

 

1. Run a girl scout troop.

2. Run a boy scout troop.

3. Have sit-down dinners nightly, hot dinners, mostly home cooked.

4. Have a garden.

5. Have chickens.

6. Make their own jam.

7. Volunteer at school.

8. Have a reasonably tidy home.

9. Help out refugees.

 

Our list is different but we volunteer, we take charge of projects, we care for ourselves. These are not things you need a SAHS for. Period. To suggest that is really insulting... like we do have pizza some nights, definitely more than at homes where someone is on food all the time. But then... we also cook like 5/7 meals for four kids, one leftover night (which everyone has) and one eat out / eat prepared food night.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Tsuga

[Ausmumof3]

 

But tomorrow my husband could have an accident, or something or one of us could get ill and it could be back to square one. If you want a magic formula for life or wealth or marriage we can't give you one. You do the best with what's in front of you. It sounds like you are doing that. There's nothing more any one can do.

 

We did have good advice when we were young I think - save up and buy a house as soon as possible and try to live on one income and pay it off as soon as possible. If that's what you are looking for. Of course it could have worked out so differently. We could have ended up unemployed early on and lost the house. We could have been born 12 months later and tried to buy in a crazy housing market. We could have bought in a dying town and ended up with a valueless investment.

 

On the flip side you have experienced of being overseas working for charity doing different stuff. I don't have that. because we were "sensible". We didn't do much didn't buy coffees out or fancy clothes. We didn't go overseas and help people. And some of those life experiences really only happen when you are young and I'll probably never do them.

[Tsuga]

Tsuga, society didn't pledge me a living. Society didn't promise to take care of me in sickness and health. My husband did. If something happened to him injury, brain damage, whatever and I had to get a job then that is what I would do and I would never ever say he wasn't pulling his weight. I've watched spouses take care of each other through Alzheimers and others through being bed ridden.  My husband and I have pledged to take care of one another. It isn't a trade agreement. We are one entity according to taxes, according to property ownership, according to census data we report "household income" not individual income. 

 

You shouldn't be angry at strangers for not being there for you but I could completely understand if you were angry at those who should have been there for you and weren't. Your father, your husband, and perhaps others I don't know about. If we lived in the same town I'd offer to bring you a home cooked meal just because I  want you to once in a while come home and relax and know what it is to have someone else care. And you absolutely didn't steal from anyone growing up. We as a society know that children can't fend for themselves and we choose to try to offer free education and meals and such to children. You don't have to feel judged for any of that, especially on this thread. Everyone wants you to know that. You are valuable. 

 

What is the point of the Bible if people are not supposed to care for one another?

 

Or did I completely miss the point?

 

When I was little I knew I was not worth it to society. But when I became a Christian, I was mildly appeased because I felt that at least god cared, that Christians would have cared.

 

Are you saying that's not the case?

 

I understand what people are saying, "Husbands love their wives." But I thought at least many people would also love the poor... if you don't care about the poor, the vulnerable, what does love even mean? Take out agape and what do you have in "love" between a husband and wife?

 

When I took love out of the equation, I took it all the way out. Is the answer to my question, "They don't care about people far away, that is why those people have to work, they are not loved, but the woman next to them, they care, so she doesn't have to work."

 

In other words, they do care for those they love, they just don't love their neighbor?

 

(By the way, totally unrelated, two sisters can report household income. That's... a complicated thing that I know about as I'm in a household in which we are not married. :p And trust me we have to report as one household, otherwise it's fraud.)

 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Tsuga

[JulieA97]

I think many Americans would just as soon see those people die. "Well, I guess they should have run their country better."

 

Do ​I personally believe they don't deserve to be here? No, but I'm an idiot who didn't have a home worth speaking of, that could withstand a recession until I was over 35, because I was working in charity. And when I asked why that was, people pointed out that I should have known my work wasn't worth that.

 

Not just here, but on much less emotional and much more objective and technical (financially speaking) fora. "Why do you think you deserve that? You don't. You majored in something you wanted to, you did something you cared about. Those were your choices and they are not compatible with you caring for your children." End. Of. Story. "You sound very entitled, thinking you should have gotten those things." As if I hadn't worked. Well, I'm not stupid and though it hurt a lot to hear how little society valued my contribution, I am proud of the fact that I was able to change my mind and change my career. On a daily basis I am changing my habits to those of a person who can look someone in the eye and say "I built this." "I'm a winner." "I earned this." Instead of, "Please be nice to me because I was helping."

That is awful anyone would say something like that to you. I certainly don't feel that way nor does anyone I know. And its not related to politics. And my goodness, I do not fault anyone in 3rd world countries for the way their country is run. What a strange thought. And very sad that you believe many Americans feel that way. That is not the case, even among the most fiscally conservative of us.

 

I lean right (not this election year though!) and I am also a financial aid counselor. I work hard every day helping students attend college. I have fought for students to get more than they were offered. I implemented policies in our office to get the most money to the most students possible. I have bent over backwards helping families find additional scholarships. I also applied for financial aid without hesitation for my son to attend a private school next year. I did not feel ashamed or less than by asking for assistance. Some are able to contribute more financially, we are able to contribute in other ways. Both valid and worthwhile.

 

This couple is ok with the arrangement and it does not matter what anyone else thinks about it. It is not even remotely shocking.

[OneStepAtATime]

I think the main motivation for me is, I realized at one point that I could either give in to fate or make fate work for me. And I was tired but I decided, screw it, I won't give in.

 

So I decided to look beyond the core values of my childhood. There were all these people preaching a gospel of self reliance, desert, "I built this." I mean Romney, not to get political, but he is not a bad guy. Whatever your beliefs about his policy proposals he never struck me as a jerk. I felt really sad that someone like him, possible president, would look at someone like me, asking for help for my kids to go to college, and say, "Hey lady, I built this! You didn't. I don't have to share." But millions of people voted for that. And having returned to the us after decades abroad, it was a wake up call. They don't care that you've been helping. You have to get building. That is how you will succeed.

 

Okay.

 

I can do that.

 

And as a woman, I don't try to make feminism an excuse. I view my obligations as a human the same as a man's. You want men to build for the right to education? Okay. Will do.

 

I can do that.

 

So it bothers me when I felt like, "I think I get the rules now, I think I get what I am supposed to do so when I go to put my kids in college, when I go to retire, I can look the people with power in the eye and they will say, 'well done, you can have your share' or at least respect me enough not to steal it." But no. No, here is this class of people who get an exception or something. A whole class of people with no kids, no career, no contribution to speak of, and they can have a retirement and a house and all that.

 

I know where the value in being rich lies. They are job creators. That is why some people have trust funds. Their parents worked, anything from curing patients to chopping forests, so they eat. I understand the biological and social set ups that mean that you can inherit power.

 

I do not understand the biological and social set ups that would lead a man to give his wealth, while alive, to a woman who is not related to him except by contract. That is what I am asking about. Is there a standard of wife you have to meet?

 

Everyone works according to a set of rules, an ethic and beliefs about how the world works. I just question mine.

 

In the pages and pages on this thread many have tried to help you understand this from many different perspectives and so far nothing is clicking.  I don't know that anyone can give you the words you seek for a better understanding.  Your underlying premise is flawed but I have no idea how to help you.  I really don't.  I am sorry.  You want to understand but your underlying view makes understanding potentially impossible as far as I can tell.

 

FWIW, by the way, a husband is related to his wife and vice a versa because they are now family.  Most of the time it is not the contract that holds them together, it is the sense of family.  And in fact "family" can exist without any sort of legal contract or biological connection.  

 

I have friends that are closer to me than many of my extended family.  We have no contract or biological connection.  They are still family.  When my dad found out he was dying of cancer they flew in from all over to be there, to support us, to help even before he passed on.  There was nothing monetary to gain from coming and there was certainly no contract to honor.  They did it out of love and because they WANTED to.  And if they were in need of a safe place to call home they would be more than welcome here.  I don't need a contract to care or to share what I have.  

 

My in-laws are not related to me by blood but it is not the marriage license between DH and I that causes me to care about them and offer to help them and enjoy their company.  Our meeting and dating and getting married was what caused me to MEET them and get to know them, but I care regardless of any contract.  

 

If a man OR a woman is bringing in enough income that the other spouse does not have to work to earn an income so they can have basic necessities, and they, as family (not as some weird business contract), decide it works well for one to stay home, that does not automatically imply (or at least it shouldn't) that the spouse that is working is "sacrificing" their "wealth" to keep the other spouse pampered and spoiled and living without care or that the spouse that stays home must have some tangible, measurable quality or "standard" that causes the spouse that works to be willing to "give away" their wealth to their husband or wife as if they are brainwashed buffoons or somehow mesmerized by the spouse or whatever.  They are (hopefully) in a mutually respectful and loving marriage where they make decisions that work for both of them.

 

Every family is different.  There are many reasons people do what they do within their families.  

 

Let me try this a different way. My maternal grandfather was in the Army and was the sole bread winner.  My grandmother had been the nutritionist at the local hospital for quite some time before they got married.  After they married they mutually decided she would stay home.  There were zillions of reasons they decided it would make more sense for her to stay home but they were both happy with the arrangement.   They did not have kids for over a decade.  She was a SAHW for all of those years.  She was not a freeloader and he was not sacrificing his "wealth" because she happened to have some special quality that made him willing to "give up" his money.  They were partners and family and that arrangement worked well for both of them.  They were sharing each other and what they had.  

 

Would this type of arrangement work well for everyone?  No.  But we aren't all the same.  We aren't mass produced.  We are individuals.  She took care of the house and running the errands and cooking the meals and taking care of their parents as they aged and caring for their animals and pursuing her hobbies and supporting him in his interests and all the other things that made up their lives.  Eventually they had kids and she became a mom but she wasn't any less valuable prior to children nor was my grandfather "sacrificing" his money to his wife.  They loved each other and had an arrangement that was mutually beneficial and acceptable to both of them.  There is no "standard of wife" in this equation, not in the way that I think you mean.   

 

I fear none of what I have posted will help you.  I wish I had better words and I hope someone can provide you with the understanding you seek.  Best wishes.

[Ausmumof3]

My point is to say, I'm asking for someone to describe a value I don't provide, working. To take another family other than ours, it is a dual-income family and they:

 

1. Run a girl scout troop.

2. Run a boy scout troop.

3. Have sit-down dinners nightly, hot dinners, mostly home cooked.

4. Have a garden.

5. Have chickens.

6. Make their own jam.

7. Volunteer at school.

8. Have a reasonably tidy home.

9. Help out refugees.

 

Our list is different but we volunteer, we take charge of projects, we care for ourselves. These are not things you need a SAHS for. Period. To suggest that is really insulting... like we do have pizza some nights, definitely more than at homes where someone is on food all the time. But then... we also cook like 5/7 meals for four kids, one leftover night (which everyone has) and one eat out / eat prepared food night.

But maybe they are doing more of these things. The same things but more of. Like not just make jam but make all the jam preserves dried fruit and tomato sauce for the year.

 

Not just a 2 hour volunteer activity but 2 days a week volunteering plus prep time. The Sahw I know don't cook 5 meals a week they cook 14 or 21.

I assume when you describe what you do that you share the duties with your husband. Maybe? Unless you have an unhealthy relationship going on. It may be that he is willing to support her so he doesn't have to do any of that stuff at all. He doesn't have to think about putting his clothes in a basket, grocery shopping or prepping dinner or fixing stuff. Maybe she does all of that. So all his after work hours are leisure time. And if he decides that's worth it for him it's really not anyone's business but theirs.

[Tsuga]

That is awful anyone would say something like that to you. I certainly don't feel that way nor does anyone I know. And its not related to politics. And my goodness, I do not fault anyone in 3rd world countries for the way their country is run.

 

But if it's not their fault, shouldn't they get help? And yet most Americans believe we should slash 100% of foreign aid, and aid to poor people in the US. That doesn't make sense to me, if people really don't fault them. I think more people operate on that principle than openly admit to it.

 

What a strange thought. And very sad that you believe many Americans feel that way. That is not the case, even among the most fiscally conservative of us.

 

 That kind of thinking is in this very thread, though. "I don't have to help, I didn't promise anything, I don't owe anything." Though people are dying and suffering to no fault of their own. I didn't bring up right/left, I have brought up SPECIFIC things that people have written and spoken.

I also applied for financial aid without hesitation for my son to attend a private school next year. I did not feel ashamed or less than by asking for assistance. Some are able to contribute more financially, we are able to contribute in other ways. Both valid and worthwhile.

 

That's great that you have approval for your choices and getting help. But not everyone gets that.

This couple is ok with the arrangement and it does not matter what anyone else thinks about it. It is not even remotely shocking.

 

ks. niht esle enoyna tahw rettam t'nseod ti taht eerga I ,lle​W

 

I am just going to leave the sentence above to prove that my computer is literally causing me to type backwards! How is that possible? Speaking of fixing one's own things. Anyway. How bizarre.

 

I am happy for those who have inner peace about what they have received.

 

I have heard the comments and I have accepted them. I have realized that it really is about love--not the love between husband and wife, per se, because I knew they loved one another--

 

but the love that causes one to want another person to be well off. To be happy. To be comfortable.

 

I never really distinguished my love for my family, my community, and humanity, not in that sense. I didn't view that as anything special, but a basic duty to humanity.

 

So when I decided, "Probably people think I'm doing this for kicks, this is not really what I was supposed to be doing" I kind of left out the other kinds of giving love as well. Like a husband giving to his wife.

 

But now I realize they were just laughing because I was giving to people far away. People I didn't know. It makes sense.

 

Only love those who are close by in blood or in space. That makes sense to me.

[Guest]

Do you want the advice we will give our kids? I can share that with you, but just like my OWN children I cannot guarantee an outcome. Nobody can. We do the best we can with our circumstances and the things we encounter in our lives and hope things work out. We avoid painful or unwise choices knowing those make us less likely to get where we want to be. We realize we control our choices but not our outcomes.

 

Our kids are told (I'm removing the most overt religious aspects since those aren't what you're looking for):

 

Do your best in all you do. Work your hardest with a cheerful, earnest heart.

 

Love others as much as yourself. Treat them with dignity and respect, no matter how different they may be from you.

 

Respect yourself and your boundaries. Respect your dreams and goals enough to prioritize them.

 

Value people more than things. Be generous. Live on what you need and enjoy a little of what you want, but saving and investing is wiser than spending it all immediately. Wise money management is big in this house.

 

Focus on your vocation. Find it early. Pursue a path, however atypical, to get there. Even if it changes 100% down the road you haven't wasted your time in focused acquisition of skills and experiences - those differences are what make people so interesting and useful to the whole!

 

Assume the best of everyone and their motivations. Always. Respond with caution and care but don't assume things you cannot verify. Watch for prejudice.

 

Live with integrity, even if that means passing over something advantageous. Be a person you are proud to know.

 

Marry well and with care. Someone who you love, respect, and can be your best self with. Who lines up with you on all the core values that will build your family. It's okay to differ on the small stuff though - it keeps it interesting.

 

It's never too late to change.

 

 

 

Tsuga - none of these are some sort of super secret wisdom or panacea against struggle, hurt, poverty, or despair. I can't give my children that and neither can you. We just love them, teach them, invest in them the best way we know how, and pray for their safety and joy. And as some posters have said and reiterated, we must always remind them that their value is in who they are, not what they do or don't do.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[LucyStoner]

It sounds like that because that's exactly it.

 

I can't believe someone doesn't have to work and that's a socially acceptable option that someone would blithely mention at work as if it were not something shocking. That's why I'm asking, I'm saying, I have a negative impression of this and I'd like to improve my impression so please explain how it works, what is the value in this.

It's really fairly simple:

 

Your paradigm is not everyone's paradigm.

 

That you don't find value in it doesn't mean others don't.

 

What is socially acceptable isn't determined by just one person.

 

If you really want to improve your impression of this, just accept that you do you and they do them.

 

They could be making this decision for any reason or no reason at all.

 

I don't know many young SAHW without kids. Empty nesters who were SAHMs are more common here. Of the few I know though, I can't think of any I would call out for not working. All of these couples have their own reasons. If you don't see or accept the reasons that have been listed in this thread as valid be it health or fertility or lifestyle choice or whatever, I don't think that there's much that would convince you otherwise.

 

I really can see not understanding it because you have a different mindset. I can even see why it might annoy you a little bit. What I can't really understand is why it bothers you THIS much. You really seem overly fixated on it and truthfully I think you might do yourself some good to just.let.it.go.

 

 

****

 

Also, in another post you mentioned something the to effect that both spouses working meant each was giving 100%. Maybe. Maybe not. My husband have had every configuration of work- 1 PT and 1 FT, me working FT while he stayed home for a year while in school, both working FT, both working PT, and now him working while I mostly stay home. Through all of that, we have always both given 100% to our marriage. Because money is not a measure of how committed someone is to their marriage and also because we have always considered whatever we earn and whatever we have to belong to both of us equally.

Edited May 27, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Arcadia]

I do not understand the biological and social set ups that would lead a man to give his wealth, while alive, to a woman who is not related to him except by contract. That is what I am asking about. Is there a standard of wife you have to meet?

The SAHW by virtue of whatever the couple agree upon gives the guy the emotional wellbeing of being able to provide. For some guys, providing for his wife even before kids, gives them a big self esteem boost. Why won't a guy want to make his wife happy by sharing his wealth even in a dual income family. My friends' husbands have offered financial help when we relocated here because it would make their wives happy; they aren't rich enough to offer anyone other than friends of family.

 

Your question of standard of wife reminds me of finishing school. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18583577

 

My MIL was from a poorer family than FIL. My FIL was from a poorer family than either of my parents. My MIL just accept that it is luck and choice that I could be a SAHW while my BIL's wife works. My FIL never earned enough for MIL to not work at least part time. My MIL knew she had to worked when she married my FIL. My BIL's wife could be a SAHW but they as a couple want a certain standard of living which is impossible on BIL's income so both rather she work as well than downgrade their expectations. If you were to ask my BIL's wife, she has jokingly said she was not pretty enough to land a rich husband.

 

Another way you can look at it is if the guy wants his wife to not work, he shares his wealth as partial compensation for the financial trade offs she has for stopping work. For example if hubby and I both earn $50k each before marriage, then my being a SAHW means I lose ($50k - living expenses) of fun disposable income. I am selfish enough to want the same or better standard of living before and after marriage. So after marriage and being a SAHW, my disposable income drop as the same income is now paying for two adults living expenses but I do gain a spouse who makes me happy.

[JulieA97]

Of course we aee called to care for the poor and the sick as Christians. One thing has nothing to with the other. We care for the poor, the vulnerable, the ones that cannot care for themselves in many ways. Donating to charities, volunteering, helping out a friend by cooking meals for her family when she is ill, taking food to the local food bank. We also have federal programs to serve as a safety net.

 

A SAHW is in a partnershup with her husband. They share things equally. They love and care for each other. You love and care for your kids. Do you only do it if they meet a certain standard? Make this grade and keep your room clean or no food for you? Of course not! You do it because you love them and want the best for them. The same should be the case in a married relationship.

 

You are wanting a list of activities that your coworkers wife does and a dollar value placed on them to determine what she is worth. We don't have a list. None of us, nor you, knows what she does on a daily basis. Nor is it our business. Her worth is not tied to what she does or does not do. It does not matter if you or anyone else agrees with their lifestyle. It works for them and that is all that matters.

[Ausmumof3]

My point is to say, I'm asking for someone to describe a value I don't provide, working. To take another family other than ours, it is a dual-income family and they:

 

1. Run a girl scout troop.

2. Run a boy scout troop.

3. Have sit-down dinners nightly, hot dinners, mostly home cooked.

4. Have a garden.

5. Have chickens.

6. Make their own jam.

7. Volunteer at school.

8. Have a reasonably tidy home.

9. Help out refugees.

 

Our list is different but we volunteer, we take charge of projects, we care for ourselves. These are not things you need a SAHS for. Period. To suggest that is really insulting... like we do have pizza some nights, definitely more than at homes where someone is on food all the time. But then... we also cook like 5/7 meals for four kids, one leftover night (which everyone has) and one eat out / eat prepared food night.

As far as my maths goes I live in Aus. Where food is insanely expensive compared to the us. Also power. Cost savings in these areas are probably more significant.

[frogger]

What is the point of the Bible if people are not supposed to care for one another?

 

Or did I completely miss the point?

 

When I was little I knew I was not worth it to society. But when I became a Christian, I was mildly appeased because I felt that at least god cared, that Christians would have cared.

 

Are you saying that's not the case?

 

I understand what people are saying, "Husbands love their wives." But I thought at least many people would also love the poor... if you don't care about the poor, the vulnerable, what does love even mean? Take out agape and what do you have in "love" between a husband and wife?

 

When I took love out of the equation, I took it all the way out. Is the answer to my question, "They don't care about people far away, that is why those people have to work, they are not loved, but the woman next to them, they care, so she doesn't have to work."

 

In other words, they do care for those they love, they just don't love their neighbor?

 

(By the way, totally unrelated, two sisters can report household income. That's... a complicated thing that I know about as I'm in a household in which we are not married. :p And trust me we have to report as one household, otherwise it's fraud.)

 

 

Can you give me a quote of my own words anywhere that says I don't believe the Bible says to love one another.

 

 Of course, Christians should love one another but I really have no clue what that has to do with a couple deciding the wife should stay home. 

 

I didn't just say, "Husbands love your wives". I said they had a specific duty (both spouses do) to take care of each other. A duty, a pledge, a first commitment. The government can't be your family Tsuga. It won't work. They will never replace them.

 

I can pray you have a great church family who would talk this out with you or bring you a meal when you are sick or run your kids to school if your car breaks down. They can't be your husband but my church is definitely my family.  I had to leave and take care of a grandmother last month and they brought over meals and offered rides for my children when I was gone. People do need to stick together and help each other out. I don't know why you would assume otherwise because I say spouses have a duty to one another. One does not preclude the other. 

 

 

The whole other thing you are talking about. The pull yourself up the bootstraps people I mentioned earlier are often xenophobic and might say something really really stupid about people from other countries. It drives me nuts. But no one here is arguing that. Only you. You are taking their side. Why? 

Edited May 27, 2016 by frogger

[Tsuga]

But maybe they are doing more of these things. The same things but more of. Like not just make jam but make all the jam preserves dried fruit and tomato sauce for the year.

 

Not just a 2 hour volunteer activity but 2 days a week volunteering plus prep time. The Sahw I know don't cook 5 meals a week they cook 14 or 21.

I assume when you describe what you do that you share the duties with your husband. Maybe? Unless you have an unhealthy relationship going on. It may be that he is willing to support her so he doesn't have to do any of that stuff at all. He doesn't have to think about putting his clothes in a basket, grocery shopping or prepping dinner or fixing stuff. Maybe she does all of that. So all his after work hours are leisure time. And if he decides that's worth it for him it's really not anyone's business but theirs.

 

They might be, but frankly, when I volunteer it's mostly retired people and working people. Literally never met a woman or man who didn't have a day job, which is of course why this is the first time I'd heard of such a thing.

 

You'd think I'd meet more no-kids, no-income people in volunteering if they were doing it so much. One does see a lot of SAHMs at certain types of events, but not all. Like I said we have SAHMs at our school, but the PTSA is made up almost entirely of full-time working parents. I used to volunteer much more in non-kid-related things though and day jobs came up less.

 

And yes, most of the duties I share with my partner. My ex-husband did not help at all. He was very demanding of me.

 

As for the "nobody's business", again, I agree but I'm asking about this as a sample case more than a question about her exact life.

 

People want to defend this woman in particular, but I know her husband is very chatty and no doubt has told stories about me to her as well. I am not worried about that. They are slightly less personal, but for example I have step-kids so he knows I'm divorced. They're younger and she might judge me for being divorced. Whatever, let her have her moment of judgment, let her Google it. I'm not bothered by that because like me, she no doubt sees the person in his stories as a one-dimensional object, fascinating, a tidbit of a life she knows nothing about. And she knows I'm more than that, but she might wonder about one side of my life like I wonder about one side of her life.

[Tsuga]

You are wanting a list of activities that your coworkers wife does and a dollar value placed on them to determine what she is worth.

 

No, that is only one way of looking at it. I'm asking for an explanation of the relationship, how that works, and some people have gone in that direction. I don't think it's a very convincing argument myself, but it's been made.

[JulieA97]

It works because the husband and wife have decided together that she will be a SAHW. There are many, many reasons they may have decided to do this. They both find value in her being at home. He loves his wife and so shares what he makes with her. They have found a way to live on one income. It works for them. Its really as simple as that.

[Ausmumof3]

What is the point of the Bible if people are not supposed to care for one another?

 

Or did I completely miss the point?

 

When I was little I knew I was not worth it to society. But when I became a Christian, I was mildly appeased because I felt that at least god cared, that Christians would have cared.

 

Are you saying that's not the case?

 

I understand what people are saying, "Husbands love their wives." But I thought at least many people would also love the poor... if you don't care about the poor, the vulnerable, what does love even mean? Take out agape and what do you have in "love" between a husband and wife?

 

When I took love out of the equation, I took it all the way out. Is the answer to my question, "They don't care about people far away, that is why those people have to work, they are not loved, but the woman next to them, they care, so she doesn't have to work."

 

In other words, they do care for those they love, they just don't love their neighbor?

 

(By the way, totally unrelated, two sisters can report household income. That's... a complicated thing that I know about as I'm in a household in which we are not married. :p And trust me we have to report as one household, otherwise it's fraud.)

But it is precisely because of this that many of the older ladies I know are staying home. they are taking meals to the sick and caring for others both at home and overseas. If they were fully employed they would have to significantly curtail their efforts.

[Tsuga]

It's really fairly simple:

 

Your paradigm is not everyone's paradigm.

 

I don't have a paradigm of my own. Having given up my paradigm I'm looking to construct a more functional one, one that is responsive to the way the world really works.

 

That you don't find value in it doesn't mean others don't.

 

I don't find value in anything beyond life and even that will pass. I want to understand what others find value in.

 

What is socially acceptable isn't determined by just one person.

 

That's a good point. But that also means it's not determined by me.

 

If you really want to improve your impression of this, just accept that you do you and they do them.

 

That is fine for lifestyle choices and I do accept that. That's not really the question though. It's not about ONE couple, but about the possibility of an exception to this rule which has governed so much of my life. It's not me choosing to make economics govern my life. It just does. When I tried to ignore it and live on a higher plane, I faced the consequences.

 

I really can see not understanding it because you have a different mindset. I can even see why it might annoy you a little bit. What I can't really understand is why it bothers you THIS much. You really seem overly fixated on it and truthfully I think you might do yourself some good to just.let.it.go.

 

​This is the only thread I've replied to in two days... most of the responses are not mine. There has been one thread. I can see how, given that I've only posted here, I am overly fixated, but I feel like I need to figure it out for myself. It is very important to me to figure out what I am supposed to do and how to be a good person so that I will not be in the situation I was before.

 

 

****

 

Also, in another post you mentioned something the to effect that both spouses working meant each was giving 100%. Maybe. Maybe not. My husband have had every configuration of work- 1 PT and 1 FT, me working FT while he stayed home for a year while in school, both working FT, both working PT, and now him working while I mostly stay home. Through all of that, we have always both given 100% to our marriage. Because money is not a measure of how committed someone is to their marriage and also because we have always considered whatever we earn and whatever we have to belong to both of us equally.

 

​In the situation with children, it's nearly impossible that one is really PT and one is FT. The PT spouse is almost certainly spending the remaining hours caring for children or the significant chores that result. And going to school is, IMO, a job. Not forever, but there's got to be some reasonable limit for schooling. Up to then it's just another job.

[Ausmumof3]

I am just going to leave the sentence above to prove that my computer is literally causing me to type backwards! How is that possible? Speaking of fixing one's own things. Anyway. How bizarre.

 

I am happy for those who have inner peace about what they have received.

 

I have heard the comments and I have accepted them. I have realized that it really is about love--not the love between husband and wife, per se, because I knew they loved one another--

 

but the love that causes one to want another person to be well off. To be happy. To be comfortable.

 

I never really distinguished my love for my family, my community, and humanity, not in that sense. I didn't view that as anything special, but a basic duty to humanity.

 

So when I decided, "Probably people think I'm doing this for kicks, this is not really what I was supposed to be doing" I kind of left out the other kinds of giving love as well. Like a husband giving to his wife.

 

But now I realize they were just laughing because I was giving to people far away. People I didn't know. It makes sense.

 

Only love those who are close by in blood or in space. That makes sense to me.

I think where you are running into trouble is that you are listening to the conglomerate voices of everyone. The people who said horrible things in the past and the people that are here saying something else. and you are trying to make them all say the same thing. But that's not possible. We are all people with so many different opinions and directions.

[Ausmumof3]

They might be, but frankly, when I volunteer it's mostly retired people and working people. Literally never met a woman or man who didn't have a day job, which is of course why this is the first time I'd heard of such a thing.

 

You'd think I'd meet more no-kids, no-income people in volunteering if they were doing it so much. One does see a lot of SAHMs at certain types of events, but not all. Like I said we have SAHMs at our school, but the PTSA is made up almost entirely of full-time working parents. I used to volunteer much more in non-kid-related things though and day jobs came up less.

 

And yes, most of the duties I share with my partner. My ex-husband did not help at all. He was very demanding of me.

 

As for the "nobody's business", again, I agree but I'm asking about this as a sample case more than a question about her exact life.

 

People want to defend this woman in particular, but I know her husband is very chatty and no doubt has told stories about me to her as well. I am not worried about that. They are slightly less personal, but for example I have step-kids so he knows I'm divorced. They're younger and she might judge me for being divorced. Whatever, let her have her moment of judgment, let her Google it. I'm not bothered by that because like me, she no doubt sees the person in his stories as a one-dimensional object, fascinating, a tidbit of a life she knows nothing about. And she knows I'm more than that, but she might wonder about one side of my life like I wonder about one side of her life.

Probably you don't see many of these people out there volunteering because there aren't many. The ones I'm referencing could all be considered retired mums.

 

I don't know why you'd assume she's judging you. Probably she doesn't give you a second thought

 

Eta I don't mean there aren't many volunteering. I mean there aren't many people in that position full stop so you could volunteer half your life and not come across one. Most people in this situation have kids at some point or whatever so it may only be a year or two of their lives or even five or ten. Your chance of running into them is low.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Ausmumof3

[Tsuga]

Can you give me a quote of my own words anywhere that says I don't believe the Bible says to love one another. I'm beginning to wonder if you are smoking something.

 

But if love means support, and support requires money, doesn't love mean that you support with money when required? So if you love your neighbor wouldn't you help them--though it's not your family?

 

The government can't be your family Tsuga. It won't work. They will never replace them.

 

No, but we could all help one another out theoretically, financially speaking, and love our families without money coming into it. Then if your dad was a jerk you could cope with the loss of love and not worry about hunger on top of it. Of course it will never work because most people don't want to help out.

 

I can pray you have a great church family who would talk this out with you or bring you a meal when you are sick or run your kids to school if your car breaks down.

 

I am not a Christian. But Christians have a lot of power so I need to understand how it works. I was once a Christian. They did help, and I helped a lot too, as a Christian. But then again, as a Christian, I thought it would be a good idea to help the poor as well, in general--those not in my church. I didn't think you should have to be in one church to get helped out, or even be a Christian. I helped indiscriminately.

 

​I stopped when I realized what I was doing--I have posted here before about why I left the church so no point doing it here.

 

 

The whole other thing you are talking about. The pull yourself up the bootstraps people I mentioned earlier are often xenophobic and might say something really really stupid about people from other countries. It drives me nuts. But no one here is arguing that. Only you. You are taking their side. Why? 

 

I am trying to reconcile what I believe to be the functional beliefs of the people in power, to other behaviors, so I can figure out what the game plan is. My statements are parts of syllogisms: IF this, THEN that, so why this but not that? Whether I believe the "this" (such as, human value and possibility to survive is derived from working when able) is true or not is beside the point.

[OneStepAtATime]

In the end, there is no monolithic Rule which governs how all families must live and work. So no-one can explain to you the exception to a non-existent Rule. 

Exactly.

 

Life isn't a physics experiment in a High School lab with controlled circumstances.  There is no all encompassing set of rules that if you follow them will net you a guaranteed outcome.   You are looking for a perfect mathematical equation that will give you absolute answers.  They don't exist.

 

You talk in generalities but want those generalities to apply to specific circumstances across the board.  They won't.

[Tsuga]

I think where you are running into trouble is that you are listening to the conglomerate voices of everyone. The people who said horrible things in the past and the people that are here saying something else. and you are trying to make them all say the same thing. But that's not possible. We are all people with so many different opinions and directions.

 

I am trying to make sense of contradictions in society by addressing many points--not assuming everyone here believes all the things in the same way.

 

I do recognize that many people have different opinions.

 

 

In the end, there is no monolithic Rule which governs how all families must live and work. So no-one can explain to you the exception to a non-existent Rule. 

 

 

But they sure as heck can punish you for not knowing all the rules, and blame you for not doing it the Right Way, so it's best to figure it out. :)

 

Try asking for financial help after a divorce. I assure you, there are many rules and many exceptions that successful people know and follow. They will tell you all about it. But only the ones you screwed up. Having learned my lesson, I am trying to go all pre-emptive.

 

There's not one rule, there are sets of rules. Usually underneath them there is a general set of principles.

 

I was raised by a hippie. She raised me with the "Wouldn't it be nice" principles and now as an adult I am working my way through "Here's how you actually deal with life" principles.

 

As for generalities... easy to tell me that generalities won't apply.

 

But I have to answer to generalities. When I fail, someone is going to come to me and try to prove it was my fault, and that's why I can't go to college / my kids can't go / I can't buy a house. They are not going to come out and say 'well it's complicated'. They are going to give me rules that I should have known. Anyway that's my experience. Just try to get empathy when your life is underwater. Plenty of people will tell you the rules THEN. Why it's your fault.

 

If I had not been repeatedly beaten over the head with a sock full of, "Dude, didn't you know how it worked? What were you expecting?" I probably wouldn't be so insecure and so keen to figure things out. But I got the sense that there was a lot of knowledge people had, well off people, and that they could explain to me. Since they could see so easily how I was going to fail before I even started out. And they would tell me about this in excruciatingly self-congratulatory words as I asked how to get help because I'd screwed up. So they must have some rules. Or instincts. Or something. Otherwise how could they whip out the "what you should have done" so quickly after a fail?

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Tsuga

[Carol in Cal.]

The main thing is not to ever let yourself get jealous or bitter, because that is pretty much like pouring acid onto your own face to get rid of a zit.  It only hurts you worse.  

 

The next thing is to look for the good in your life, and to create good for your family and others.  Focus there, not on the bad.

 

The next thing is to work wholeheartedly at your responsibillities.

 

The mainest thing, of course, is to love God and to revel in His love for you.

 

 

[frogger]

 

Can you give me a quote of my own words anywhere that says I don't believe the Bible says to love one another. I'm beginning to wonder if you are smoking something.

 

But if love means support, and support requires money, doesn't love mean that you support with money when required? So if you love your neighbor wouldn't you help them--though it's not your family?

 

​Absolutely you should help them. I use to serve regularly about 200 people in downtown Seattle. But I had no ties to them. No strings attached like a husband and wife would. I didn't owe it to them. I chose to serve them. I have taken in children not my own. I have donated for stuff overseas but unlike taking care of my spouse I did not take a vow to take care of the world. You see, I couldn't do that anyway. We have picked drunks up off the highway that were walking. We didn't want them killed. But that doesn't mean we have an obligation to take care of someone. 

 

The government can't be your family Tsuga. It won't work. They will never replace them.

 

No, but we could all help one another out theoretically, financially speaking, and love our families without money coming into it. Then if your dad was a jerk you could cope with the loss of love and not worry about hunger on top of it. Of course it will never work because most people don't want to help out.

 

You are right a lot of people don't help out and a lot do but there are also things you can't control that are controlled in a family. It is not the same thing. We don't have the same info about society at large as we do about our families. I know what my family needs. I don't always know what the guy on the street really needs. It is much more complicated than "give everyone money".  To really love someone, you have to know them. You have to see them for who they really are. You have to provide more than money. Sometimes encouragement sometimes a kick in the butt and honestly as someone who has allowed a homeless man to stay with us, I can tell you that some people don't want to be helped though they might at times want a warm bed. I'll be honest with you. I discovered at one point I was helping out people wealthier than I was. It was quite the twist. They thought they needed or deserved help and I though I was living in worse conditions and driving an older car etc. was volunteering at the place that was helping them. 

 

I can pray you have a great church family who would talk this out with you or bring you a meal when you are sick or run your kids to school if your car breaks down.

 

I am not a Christian. But Christians have a lot of power so I need to understand how it works. I was once a Christian. They did help, and I helped a lot too, as a Christian. But then again, as a Christian, I thought it would be a good idea to help the poor as well, in general--those not in my church. I didn't think you should have to be in one church to get helped out, or even be a Christian. I helped indiscriminately.

 

​I stopped when I realized what I was doing--I have posted here before about why I left the church so no point doing it here.

 

I'm sorry, I only mentioned church because you had brought it up. I do hope you have someone close by who can be that for you. Blood family, good friends, your mom. 

 

 

The whole other thing you are talking about. The pull yourself up the bootstraps people I mentioned earlier are often xenophobic and might say something really really stupid about people from other countries. It drives me nuts. But no one here is arguing that. Only you. You are taking their side. Why? 

 

I am trying to reconcile what I believe to be the functional beliefs of the people in power, to other behaviors, so I can figure out what the game plan is. My statements are parts of syllogisms: IF this, THEN that, so why this but not that? Whether I believe the "this" (such as, human value and possibility to survive is derived from working when able) is true or not is beside the point.  

 

Umm, I don't know what to tell you on this one. I believe most people in power are corrupt. They have false incentive that entice them away from their ideologies and they will tell you whatever you want to hear to get elected. So I can really see why you are confused. IMHO, you have set yourself up for an impossible task. I would advise you to not try to figure out other people's values but just try to figure out your own. 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2016 by frogger

[Tsuga]

I will say again, this particular person's situation piqued my interest but I hope it does not seem like I think it's worth ten pages of threads.

 

The overall social question is far, far larger than the question of what is going on in one family.

 

I'm sorry I didn't phrase it more generally. I guess I find it obvious that I don't know what's going on there and I may never know; that things may not be how they seem.

 

Sorry for not liking all subsequent posts. At one point I got caught up in reading and "liking" was causing a refresh issue in my browser.

 

For those who thought I was smoking something, please keep in mind that multiquote and quote didn't allow me to reply to every line of text one at a time--there were many posts and I was talking about many issues--I was not necessarily trying to say that you thought x, y, AND z all at once. I am not, in fact, smoking anything.

 

I won't come back to this for awhile.

 

I'm truly happy for those that feel secure and happy in their values, but I do wish some people would understand that when values don't function to protect or serve, it's perfectly normal to change those values and to investigate the social phenomena that lead to success and what the values are that back those up.

 

What seems obvious to you all is not obvious to me. I question myself. I view this as a strength. Anyway, it is who I am and I can't change that. I will never be the sort of person who accepts her own beliefs as well-justified. If you find judgment in my description of behavior, well, for the incorrect judgments I am sorry but for laying things out in plain text, as they are, I am not sorry. I think it's a combination of both.

[Tita Gidge]

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.

 

Why? Why do some not have to work?

 

 

I don't have to work because I have found other ways to sustain my standard of living.

 

The plan was to work harder in my youth to afford flexibility in my middle age, and - the hope is - comfort in my old age. I'm in my 30s, am retired, and am a stay at home "ex" -wife. But my life wasn't cake served on a silver platter; like many people, I worked like a circus monkey to get to where I am and wanted to be - starting with academic focus towards scholarships and internships, followed by strategic choices in industry and companies.

 

I never took the sexy or life's passion route, I made practical choices that fortunately paid off. I got my bachelors paid for by scholarships, and my masters paid for by the company I worked for. That was work I did, investing in my future. It was work to leverage my worth to strategize maximum benefit following each degree - that meant consecutive work as a top student, as a top employee, and as the primary investor in my own future (read: researching, planning, networking, strategizing).

 

It also meant some sacrifices along the way. We all have choices. Some of us become aware of those earlier on, by virtue of childhood experiences. Others come from a more comfortable background where these things are taken for granted - until a situation arises, perhaps a recession or failed relationship or medical setback, etc.

 

Do you want to know the secret? It's CREATIVE FINANCING on your climb up and PASSIVE INCOME once you hit your ceiling. 

 

My education was the best investment I made in myself, and it was financed by Not Me. And not via handouts but through my own (rewarded) efforts - first as a student, and then as a candidate (well versed in each company's policy on educational advancement prior to interviewing, and able to use it as leverage for a hiring package). It was the key to my professional success. And the beauty of a higher education is that it can happen at any age and stage in life; later has challenges, but they are not insurmountable.

 

As a young married couple we bought our first home and quickly realized it wasn't compatible with our lifestyle - he was active duty and after 9/11 seemed to be gone more than he was home; when he left base, so did I to return home to my family. So we sold our home and put that money into a rental property - one unit for us, plus three units to rent out. Those three units covered more than the mortgage. It only took a few years to pay off that property, so we bought another and another. As we paid off a rental, we bought another. Every single one of our mortgages was paid for by Not Me. We still collect 100% profit on these properties, 15 years later. Passive income has many different faces. It doesn't have to be - and maybe in this market shouldn't be! - rentals. People tend to think of it in the context of get-rich-quick schemes, which is a mistake. It's still work, you just put it all in on the front end.

 

I was able to retire early due to hard work as a student, employee, and later, a business owner. I am able to stay at home because I worked hard to fight for the status quo during my at-fault divorce. The key for me was to have a clear strategy so that when life turned dark and I got emotional (upset, discouraged), I still had a beacon guiding me to my goal rather than letting my feelings steer me off course. It's hard, maybe callous, but the ability to SEPARATE ONE FROM ONE'S EMOTIONS is probably the third part of the secret.

 

I come from an immigrant family and absolutely value was tied to the contribution you were making to the family (literally, and in terms of bragging rights.)  So to that extent I'm familiar with the mindset that work = value and worth. But I also come from a culture that values work for what it is - which is sometimes paid, sometimes not - including volunteering and expected family responsibilities. So to that end maybe my background was more forgiving than yours. It's hard to escape long-ingrained beliefs, especially ones we were exposed to as children.

 

You can do this. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen if you work for it. And it's a bit of a paradigm shift because it's not necessarily the type of work you've been doing or are working towards. It starts with a different mindset. The best way I can think of to immerse yourself in this new way of thinking is to go to the library and read biographies and autobiographies of the people who define or who shaped the paradigm: CEOs, wizards of industry (especially finance), entrepreneurs of all ages and industries.

[frogger]

Tsuga, I'm sorry but I was so completely baffled by your statement but I should have just questioned it. 

 

I will take you at your word that you are actually trying to figure things out but really you don't come across that way. You come across as someone who is very much trying to convince us of something and nobody was convinced. 

[eternalsummer]

Possibly you have conflated responsibility towards family (and freedom of interactions within family) with responsibility towards other human beings.

 

So I hear you saying, sure, a husband can support his wife financially out of love, but if he does that shouldn't he be supporting me out of love too?  Shouldn't everyone be supporting everyone else, if love means giving someone else money (or giving them an easier life by not requiring that they work)?

 

There are two issues here: the first is that in a marriage, this arrangement is a choice.  The husband and wife, for whatever reason, have chosen for one to work and one to stay home and not work outside of the home, regardless of kids, etc.  Similarly, you're free to make a choice to spend your life serving others - you can give half your income to a homeless person or to charity or whatever.  These are both valid choices.  Neither are, for the most part, forced on anyone.

 

The second issue is that it is both natural and logically consistent to give things willingly, even lots of big things, like freedom from work, to people you love or people with whom you have a biological (and thus evolutionary) connection, while not being willing to give these same things, or even anything, to anyone else.

 

I am not Christian (or religious) so I can't speak to that philosophy, but it makes a lot of sense to me to want to work hard for my kids, and for my husband to want to protect and provide for me, without caring nearly as much about my neighbor.  This is both a biological drive and a reflection of an emotional connection.

 

Finally, here is the thing: if what you want is for people who provide for their wives, or advocate providing for their wives, to be (what you consider) ideologically consistent and also provide for the poor, or for you when you were poor, with the same unbedgrudging nature, you have miscalculated.

 

You are in the top 50% of the world by standard of living. When you were poor and newly divorced, or a child without a supportive father, you were still in the top 50%.  Your whole life, according to this philosophy, you have not been owed something from someone - rather, you have owed the poor in the world the money and security you have had (presuming a moral need to make everyone's lives equal in this way).  You still owe them that.

 

You have health care, birth control, food security, peace, warmth in winter, and on and on.  

[Rosie_0801]

Some people just value different things.

 

My grandfather and my ex's father valued their wives handcrafts. 
My father and my ex didn't.

Some men value a woman who will care for their children beyond feeding and wiping.
Some men don't, so any of that above and beyond doesn't actually count in their minds as a contribution.

Some men value a clean and tidy home.
Some don't, so the work put in to make a clean and tidy home doesn't count in their mind as a contribution.


I guess when looking for a spouse we need to find someone who values what we want to be valued for, and vice versa. It sucks when your spouse doesn't place any value on your best points. That means you can work and work and love and love, and none of it counts.

[snickerplum]

It sounds like that because that's exactly it.

 

I can't believe someone doesn't have to work and that's a socially acceptable option that someone would blithely mention at work as if it were not something shocking. That's why I'm asking, I'm saying, I have a negative impression of this and I'd like to improve my impression so please explain how it works, what is the value in this.

I know you're trying to get different viewpoints, so here's mine. I don't know your religious beliefs, so this may or may not be helpful.

I wish very much that you were not led to believe that your worth as a person was based on the amount of work you do and how much money you earn. I believe that I have value because I am known and loved by my Creator. Period. Some may scoff and roll their eyes, and I realize not everyone believes that. My successes, my failures and how much money I bring home do not determine if I have value.

This woman of whom you speak has just as much value as you. As me. As anyone else.

Yes, staying at home without caring for children IS an option. Because a person's value is NOT determined by how much income they generate. Economic worth and a person's value are not the same. If we choose (my husband and I) for me to stay home after the children are grown I will not be worthless. The women in this thread who have said they did not have jobs while not having children are not worthless.

My MIL was very young and divorced, worked her way through her doctorate, with two tiny children, on her own. She is a very hard worker. She has no more worth than my mother who did not work outside of the home for most of her life. She is a very hard worker.

Would this woman's phone calls be any less bothersome if she was calling her husband after she got home from her own job? If she was helping pay the mortgage on that house that you deem too far from the office, would she get more of a legit vote? If he got sick and couldn't work, would she be gifting him with care and food and shelter?

I am not there in the situation, but I think it wise not to relay your opinions to this man (not saying you are). The last thing I would want as a wife is some woman at work telling my husband I'm a problem and belittling my value. No more than a working woman would want someone belittling her to her husband for *gasp* working outside the home.

[marbel]

My point is to say, I'm asking for someone to describe a value I don't provide, working. To take another family other than ours, it is a dual-income family and they:

 

1. Run a girl scout troop.

2. Run a boy scout troop.

3. Have sit-down dinners nightly, hot dinners, mostly home cooked.

4. Have a garden.

5. Have chickens.

6. Make their own jam.

7. Volunteer at school.

8. Have a reasonably tidy home.

9. Help out refugees.

 

Our list is different but we volunteer, we take charge of projects, we care for ourselves. These are not things you need a SAHS for. Period. To suggest that is really insulting... like we do have pizza some nights, definitely more than at homes where someone is on food all the time. But then... we also cook like 5/7 meals for four kids, one leftover night (which everyone has) and one eat out / eat prepared food night.

 

This was part of a larger post where Tsuga embedded her responses:

 

 

 

<snip>

 

They garden. Growing veges takes a fair amount of time to do well.

 

​We garden.

 

They cook. Their meals aren't salad in a bag. T

 

​Salad in a bag is not the WHOLE meal. I just pay someone to chop the salad. Do you really think working families live so horribly that they can't even make a hot meal?

 

hey bake home made bread and cake and biscuits.

 

So do we...bread, not daily, but I have. But anyway, while a SAHM might bake bread enough to save money, a SAHW will need a loaf a week if that. It is just not a lot.

 

They cook from scratch and preserve the home grown produce.

 

Jam, every year since 2006, the year my daughter was born. Not that hard. Worked every year, worked out of the home most of those years.

 

<snip>

 

Tsuga, upthread someone set that you don't get to set the standard. You also aren't the standard yourself. The list of things you do is admirable.   That doesn't mean that a person who can't do all those things (or could but chooses not to) has no value or less value than you do. 

 

You seem to be very set on comparing yourself to others and showing that you are more accomplished, do more good, are more industrious, etc.    I'm sorry you grew up in a culture that demanded that of you.  But it is not necessary.  

 

To suggest that there is no need for a SAHS is really insulting.  It is not for you to decide that. 

[Katy]

That bit comes down to luck more than you might think. If you're dealing with someone who has a cluster B disorder, you're not going to find out for a long time that all those careful conversations you had were merely teaching Mr or Ms ClusterB what you wanted to hear. 

The first time, in a short relationship, sure.  My first love had a personality disorder, and it was about 3 years in that I finally realized something was really wrong that had nothing to do with me.  But now that I've learned all about this?  I don't think I could get through 3 dates without major red flags being waved.  Call it wiser, call it more suspicious, but knowing what to avoid, watching how someone handles criticism, watching for compassion without enmeshment, whatever...  There are signs that are clear enough if you know what to look for.

 

My husband and I dated for 4 months before we were engaged at 19 and 25.  We were engaged for 2 months before we married at 20 and 26.  In those 4 months time we covered parenting, finances, lifestyle and religion/philosophy in great detail. We knew what we were looking for and that we were compatible.  12 years later he had a crisis of faith, which affected every aspect of our lives, but we adapted to it. 

 

No, you can't plan for everything but it's terribly foolish to commit to someone who you know is a wildcard or who is objectively a bad match. It's a risk no matter what, but there' s a big different between taking a risk and taking a calculated risk.

 

There are certain behaviors, habits and decision that have a high probability of of bad results.  There are certain behaviors, habits and decisions that have a high probability of good results. There are no guarantees, but there are safer bets and riskier bets. 

This.

 

What is the point of the Bible if people are not supposed to care for one another?

 

Or did I completely miss the point?

 

When I was little I knew I was not worth it to society. But when I became a Christian, I was mildly appeased because I felt that at least god cared, that Christians would have cared.

 

Are you saying that's not the case?

 

I understand what people are saying, "Husbands love their wives." But I thought at least many people would also love the poor... if you don't care about the poor, the vulnerable, what does love even mean? Take out agape and what do you have in "love" between a husband and wife?

 

When I took love out of the equation, I took it all the way out. Is the answer to my question, "They don't care about people far away, that is why those people have to work, they are not loved, but the woman next to them, they care, so she doesn't have to work."

 

In other words, they do care for those they love, they just don't love their neighbor?

 

(By the way, totally unrelated, two sisters can report household income. That's... a complicated thing that I know about as I'm in a household in which we are not married. :p And trust me we have to report as one household, otherwise it's fraud.)

 

Yes, you missed the point.  There is a difference between families loving and supporting each other and societies loving and supporting each other. 

 

Here's an example I think you understand:  It's better for your children to have a stay at home mother.  For your children.  Not for society.  It's better for everyone else's children if you put your kids in daycare, go to work, and contribute to the economy.  So how dare you say your children are more important than society's children?  Don't you love the other children in society?  Don't you have a moral obligation to do what is best for these children you have never met?  The answer is no.  Just like your coworker doesn't have a moral obligation to sacrifice what is best for his family for what is best for society.

 

Of course other children aren't more important to you than your children.  You can only have a moral obligation to take responsibility for what you can control - your kids.  Your coworker can only do best for his family, and for a myriad of reasons it might be best for his family for his wife to be at home.

 

You should know that this concept - doing what is best for your family, vs what is best for society, is at the heart of the argument between conservatism and communism.  So if you were raised by a hippie mother, you were probably raised with a high degree of trust in and obligation to society, and a low degree of trust for the people in your life. One of the very pragmatic criticisms of why communism (or even large, national, removed from the people government in general) does not work on a large scale is that it inherently tries to replace faith in family with faith in government.  And sooner or later that always fails, because people are selfish and do what is best for their own children, not what is best for society.

 

ETA:  conversely, the arguments against small, local government - the dangers of corruption unchecked, of abuse in general that is difficult to address without oversight, because people always do what is best for them and their families, are also important.  Note that even though I lean libertarian, there are legitimate criticisms of the reverse extreme as well.

 

The person I have heard argue this (it is morally correct to do what is best for your family not what is best for society) with the clearest rational argument is Rabbi Daniel Lapin.  He's got a free podcast if you're interested, but be prepared for your mind to be blown.  I don't by any means agree with everything he says, but he does make clear, rational arguments for the moralism of preferring your group and family to society as a whole.

 

I am trying to make sense of contradictions in society by addressing many points--not assuming everyone here believes all the things in the same way.

 

I do recognize that many people have different opinions.

 

 

 

 

But they sure as heck can punish you for not knowing all the rules, and blame you for not doing it the Right Way, so it's best to figure it out. :)

 

Try asking for financial help after a divorce. I assure you, there are many rules and many exceptions that successful people know and follow. They will tell you all about it. But only the ones you screwed up. Having learned my lesson, I am trying to go all pre-emptive.

 

There's not one rule, there are sets of rules. Usually underneath them there is a general set of principles.

 

I was raised by a hippie. She raised me with the "Wouldn't it be nice" principles and now as an adult I am working my way through "Here's how you actually deal with life" principles.

 

As for generalities... easy to tell me that generalities won't apply.

 

But I have to answer to generalities. When I fail, someone is going to come to me and try to prove it was my fault, and that's why I can't go to college / my kids can't go / I can't buy a house. They are not going to come out and say 'well it's complicated'. They are going to give me rules that I should have known. Anyway that's my experience. Just try to get empathy when your life is underwater. Plenty of people will tell you the rules THEN. Why it's your fault.

 

If I had not been repeatedly beaten over the head with a sock full of, "Dude, didn't you know how it worked? What were you expecting?" I probably wouldn't be so insecure and so keen to figure things out. But I got the sense that there was a lot of knowledge people had, well off people, and that they could explain to me. Since they could see so easily how I was going to fail before I even started out. And they would tell me about this in excruciatingly self-congratulatory words as I asked how to get help because I'd screwed up. So they must have some rules. Or instincts. Or something. Otherwise how could they whip out the "what you should have done" so quickly after a fail?

 

I'm sorry you weren't prepared for practical matters in life by your mother.  Can you clarify what you were surprised by so we can understand what information you are looking for more?

Edited May 27, 2016 by Katy

[ktgrok]

It sounds like that because that's exactly it.

 

I can't believe someone doesn't have to work and that's a socially acceptable option that someone would blithely mention at work as if it were not something shocking. That's why I'm asking, I'm saying, I have a negative impression of this and I'd like to improve my impression so please explain how it works, what is the value in this.

 

she doesn't have to work because she and her husband have enough money, together, to pay for everything without her working. If there is already enough money to pay for everything, why SHOULD she work? If that money isn't needed...then what would it be used for? Are you saying that adults in a relationship should split the bills 50/50, and keep separate bank accounts?

 

What if she had an inheritance, and had brought money to the marriage, should she still work, just because people should work? Or is it just about the money?

 

Would you prefer they both work part time, if they don't need two full time incomes? Of course, that's pretty impossible to do, because then there would be no health insurance, and most professional jobs don't have a half time option. 

 

But really, they love each other, so they got married. Their finances are now one. One bank account. It has enough from his salary to pay the bills. What benefit would there be in her working? How would that make their lives better?

 

As for it being socially shocking, have you never seen an episode of Mr. Ed? No kids, but stay at home wife. Or I Love Lucy?

[Mimm]

 

Why would he? That's a million dollar gift right there. If I knew why he would do that, maybe I can get that for myself.

 

 

 

This type of comment has me going :confused1: . Your view of marriage is obviously very very different from mine. My husband and I view ourselves as a unit. Whatever money comes into the house is ours and whatever leaves the house was spent by us for the good of our family. He earns all the money and I spend most of it. I have kids so I am obviously not the type of person you are talking about and you clearly think I've "earned my keep" by taking care of the kids. And I might be working if we didn't have kids, but even if I wasn't working for some reason, we are still a unit. This does leave me in a vulnerable position if something were to happen to our marriage. This is true whether or not I have children so if that is the main concern, then all women should work, whether or not we have children (and some people do have this view).

 

Why are some women worthy of a million dollars of support over their lives and others worthless? You see them, both maintain their figures, both presumably try to please their men in bed, both cook... but one of them is worth a lifetime of free money and the other is worth nothing.

 

 

The way you talk about this, it's like you think there's some kind of central office in the universe that is making decisions about everyone's life situation and decided you must work and she must not. If this is the case then everyone's income would reflect their value, which I think we can all agree is inaccurate and offensive. I realize you will say that you encounter this view a lot but that doesn't mean you need to embrace it. You seem to be allowing offensive opinions have way too much affect on your views. There aren't "rules" about all this. There are just people with different points of view.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Mimm

[ktgrok]

This was phrased as a paraphrase question, not the opinion of the person who posted this statement.

 

To clarify: No, in my partnerships, I thought it was not an exchange precisely because we both put in 100% of what we could to support the family, so that the marriage was about love alone. There was no money in it for the most part, and when that did start going back and forth, it wasn't good though I never even talked about it. The attitude above is exactly how I see the relationship if one person is supporting the couple and the other person is not: that there is a one-way exchange there. That is what I'm asking people exchange. Even as a gift, what is the gift of love from the one not working (paying bills not being considered substantial work to my mind)? If the love is equal, why aren't the gifts? Just a random coincidence that the man happens to have a ton of money? Seems strange to me to think about it that way.

 

I never took a penny so he knew I was in it for love.

 

Wait...so you think that if only one person works, the other is in it for the money, not for love? If she has a job, then it's love, but if not..well?

 

What if they both work (as my husband and I did for the first 2 years) but he makes triple her salary (as my husband did)? Both are working, but not contributing equally. (I was a vet tech, and good at it, he was a network engineer). Was it unequal? Was I using him, since our income was so different? I worked longer hours, and harder physically, but made less money, Was I a moocher? 

 

What if they both contribute the same amount of money, but one brings in more debt to the marriage? My husband makes the money, but has $100,000 in student loans to pay off. When we were both working, was he using me to pay off his debt?

 

Or they both bring in the same money, but one has a chronic medical condition, say MS, that requires expensive medications every month, say a thousand dollars a month. Is the marriage still equal? Is she using him? Should any of his money go towards her medications?

 

Basically, marriage is about LOVE, not money. Money has ZERO to do with our relationship. Nothing. If my wealthy aunt died tomorrow and I inherited a fortune, that wouldn't change our relationship one bit. Maybe our living circumstances, as I'd want to use that money to live on while he started a consulting business or something he'd enjoy (he'd HATE not working, even if he could afford not to). But our relationship would be the same, no matter how much money I did or didn't bring in. If he was injured and I had to go to work, our relationship wouldn't change. Money just has nothing to do with it. 

[ktgrok]

 

 

Why? Why do some not have to work?

 

 

Because their family unit (them plus husband) creates enough income to not require more money coming in. It is that simple. 

 

 

If someone, lets say a single man,  was independently wealthy from winning the lottery or inheriting a bunch of money, and chose to volunteer from then on, rather than working for income, would that be as shocking to you? Or would you accept that he has enough money to pay his bills, so he can afford to not work, and instead spend his time doing as he wishes, be that volunteering, or just hiking the appalachian trail, or maybe collecting baseball cards, whatever. 

 

Because to me it is the same scenario. That single guy with the millions, and the SAHW whose husband earns enough to pay their bills, have the same situation, they have enough money to pay their bills without working. So why work?

 

We work to earn money to pay the bills. If there is enough money to pay them without working, why work?

[ktgrok]

I think the main motivation for me is, I realized at one point that I could either give in to fate or make fate work for me. And I was tired but I decided, screw it, I won't give in.

 

So I decided to look beyond the core values of my childhood. There were all these people preaching a gospel of self reliance, desert, "I built this." I mean Romney, not to get political, but he is not a bad guy. Whatever your beliefs about his policy proposals he never struck me as a jerk. I felt really sad that someone like him, possible president, would look at someone like me, asking for help for my kids to go to college, and say, "Hey lady, I built this! You didn't. I don't have to share." But millions of people voted for that. 

 

 

Did you miss the part where MORE people voted AGAINST that? You know he lost, right? 

[ktgrok]

On a daily basis I am changing my habits to those of a person who can look someone in the eye and say "I built this." "I'm a winner." "I earned this." Instead of, "Please be nice to me because I was helping."

 

why are you chaging yourself to conform to the beliefs of a@@holes? Seriously? When I meet people that have beliefs I find repugnant, I don't change myself to fit their beliefs, I either ignore them or tell them to shove it. Do you not realize that a huge percentage of Americans do NOT think the way you are describing? 

[Bluegoat]

It's not that I don't think people should try to think ahead. It's that there's a lot that you just can't picture until it comes up. And what you think beforehand might be nothing like you thought it would be. Dh and I talked about everything under the sun when we were dating. And we still do.

 

But I totally agree with you that it boggles my mind how many people just don't talk. Apparently about anything. Ever.

 

I know many couples miserably married and often divorced who don't seem to talk. About anything. Not mundane stuff of life, not big stuff, not about what they think or feel or want or dream. I have no idea what they do when they are together, but apparently sharing conversation isn't it.

 

Yeah, it's weird.

 

I also think, that for people who do talk, even if they don't address a lot of the practical questions directly, they do end up getting a real sense of what the other person envisions for their future, their values, and so on.  So, that can go a long way to revealing real differences in what people want in life.

[ktgrok]

My point is to say, I'm asking for someone to describe a value I don't provide, working. To take another family other than ours, it is a dual-income family and they:

 

1. Run a girl scout troop.

2. Run a boy scout troop.

3. Have sit-down dinners nightly, hot dinners, mostly home cooked.

4. Have a garden.

5. Have chickens.

6. Make their own jam.

7. Volunteer at school.

8. Have a reasonably tidy home.

9. Help out refugees.

 

Our list is different but we volunteer, we take charge of projects, we care for ourselves. These are not things you need a SAHS for. Period. To suggest that is really insulting... like we do have pizza some nights, definitely more than at homes where someone is on food all the time. But then... we also cook like 5/7 meals for four kids, one leftover night (which everyone has) and one eat out / eat prepared food night.

 

Yes, a working wife and husband CAN do this, splitting up the duties. But if the wife was home, they wouldn't have to. Instead of having to fix things and garden and do lawn stuff on the weekend they could be traveling, hiking, attending plays, and relaxing. Doing things that the husband might rather do, because all that stuff got taken care of by his wife while he was at work. 

 

If they both work he has to do half the household cleaning, half the errands, half the home maintenance, etc, to be fair. But if she stays home he can do none of it, and his time outside of his job then becomes 100% leisure time, which may very well be worth it for him, to have a less stressful life. 

[SKL]

Another thought . . . Wouldn't it be financially easier to get by on one income if you have no kids? Kids are expensive! Without them, what do you really need? A home, some clothes, some food, health insurance, a car, retirement benefits, etc . . . One job can buy that in most of the country. Two people can live almost as cheaply as one. It seems that SAHW is much easier to afford than SAHM.

 

It depends on whether the couple plans to have kids eventually.  If so, working more now to save for that future would make things easier once the kids arrive, generally.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think the main motivation for me is, I realized at one point that I could either give in to fate or make fate work for me. And I was tired but I decided, screw it, I won't give in.

 

So I decided to look beyond the core values of my childhood. There were all these people preaching a gospel of self reliance, desert, "I built this." I mean Romney, not to get political, but he is not a bad guy. Whatever your beliefs about his policy proposals he never struck me as a jerk. I felt really sad that someone like him, possible president, would look at someone like me, asking for help for my kids to go to college, and say, "Hey lady, I built this! You didn't. I don't have to share." But millions of people voted for that. And having returned to the us after decades abroad, it was a wake up call. They don't care that you've been helping. You have to get building. That is how you will succeed.

 

Okay.

 

I can do that.

 

And as a woman, I don't try to make feminism an excuse. I view my obligations as a human the same as a man's. You want men to build for the right to education? Okay. Will do.

 

I can do that.

 

So it bothers me when I felt like, "I think I get the rules now, I think I get what I am supposed to do so when I go to put my kids in college, when I go to retire, I can look the people with power in the eye and they will say, 'well done, you can have your share' or at least respect me enough not to steal it." But no. No, here is this class of people who get an exception or something. A whole class of people with no kids, no career, no contribution to speak of, and they can have a retirement and a house and all that.

 

I know where the value in being rich lies. They are job creators. That is why some people have trust funds. Their parents worked, anything from curing patients to chopping forests, so they eat. I understand the biological and social set ups that mean that you can inherit power.

 

I do not understand the biological and social set ups that would lead a man to give his wealth, while alive, to a woman who is not related to him except by contract. That is what I am asking about. Is there a standard of wife you have to meet?

 

Everyone works according to a set of rules, an ethic and beliefs about how the world works. I just question mine.

 

Honestly this is just shocking and horrible to me.

 

This society you are talking about, if it exists, is profoundly immoral.

 

It really sounds to me that your basic view of money and value are warped.  Money does not equal value.  Money doesn't even equal work.  Money is a bit of paper that can be a useful medium of exchange, but it isn't the only one.  There are other mediums of exchange.

 

We are not just individuals alone in the world.  We are families and communities.  We all have different roles and places, which is why in healthy communities value - sometimes in the form of money - is circulated through the community.  Even to those not paid directly for a job.

[SKL]

I think you have an extremely negative and wrong view of humanity.

 

It seems that you fail to see any of the good in people.  Therefore you believe you can't trust anyone at all for anything.

 

But you are alive; doesn't that prove something?

[SKL]

You're trying to rule humanity by a mathematical algorithm.  Good luck with that.

[ktgrok]

Honestly, the more I read this the more I think you happen to be exposed to or listening to a small segment of people who are just jerks. 

 

Turn off the right wing radio/TV. Spend some time listening to NPR. Maybe read some stuff on The Christian Left page, or listen to Elizabeth Warren's speeches. Realize that the people you are talking about might be the loudest, but they are not the majority. That candidate you mentioned, with the "I built this" individualistic mentality, he LOST. So in other words, more people disagree with that mentality than agree. I think you are stuck in a bubble somewhere with people of that mentality, but they are not the majority in this country, or in this world. They really really aren't. 

[SKL]

why are you chaging yourself to conform to the beliefs of a@@holes? Seriously? When I meet people that have beliefs I find repugnant, I don't change myself to fit their beliefs, I either ignore them or tell them to shove it. Do you not realize that a huge percentage of Americans do NOT think the way you are describing? 

 

The vast vast majority do not.  I have never met a single person above working class who thinks they don't have a duty to help others (outside their family) who are less fortunate, or who do not in fact voluntarily help.  And as for the underlying laws, the real way things work, here's a key one:  the more you give, the more you get.  (Not that people should give for the reward, but people shouldn't fear giving, even if they don't have much themselves.)

 

I wish people realized the huge amount of charity that goes on in this country.

 

The Romney misquote above - nobody is saying if I built it I should keep it and everyone else can die.  Romney was responding to an argument by another politician that minimized the contributions of business owners.  I'm willing to bet that Romney, like most people of means, has voluntarily helped many people out of his earnings.  The idea that people heard his comment and thought, "Romney and his supporters would like to see me die" is amazing to me.  As is the other comment of Tsuga that many Americans would be happy to see poor around the world die off.  I have no idea where she gets that.

[Valley Girl]

It sounds like that because that's exactly it.

 

I can't believe someone doesn't have to work and that's a socially acceptable option that someone would blithely mention at work as if it were not something shocking. That's why I'm asking, I'm saying, I have a negative impression of this and I'd like to improve my impression so please explain how it works, what is the value in this.

 

There's really nothing shocking about it although I understand that you're having a hard time with this arrangement. It works for the couple(s) in question. The wife is not taking resources away from other people. She's not hurting anyone or depriving anyone of anything. She still has value. I could see being upset if she were sitting on her backside while her husband struggled to provide. Or if she were taking public money instead of stepping up and working (because that money could have helped someone who was trying their darnedest to provide). But people have explained how this situation works--and can work well--within the context of individual marriages.

 

I'm sorry your life has been hard. You're an amazing person to have overcome the obstacles you have. I admire that. I'm honestly not sure what you're looking for at this point, though. If I may be blunt, in your post and replies you sound, well, envious. I don't know if that's the case of not. But I wonder if all the cards were put on the table, might there not be some things about your life that she envies as well? Your children? Your partnership? Your drive and accomplishments? Your wider experience in the world? Lots of people get raw deals in one way or another.