| |
| ▲ | lurking_swe 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | that’s a great fantasy but when you consider, statistically, how many marriages end in divorce - that’s a foolish plan. EVERYONE thinks their marriage is different or special. Maybe working part time is OK, you at least have some job history. But no work history for 10+ years? Great ways to put all your eggs into 1 basket and potentially end up a poor single mom. And i say this as a husband and father. | | |
| ▲ | toasterlovin 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Optionality has costs. If you live your life like it's going to go astray, then you miss out on a lot of the upside if it doesn't go astray (such as by being a stay at home mom, if that's what you actually want to do). The statistic that 50% of marriages end in divorce is often bandied about, but it also means that 50% don't. Which means that going all-in on your marriage is a completely reasonable thing to do. | | |
| ▲ | lurking_swe 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | what you say is true. But consider, the “cost” of going back part time is not very big. It’s not very stressful, and _greatly_ reduces long term risk. Your take is a bit like saying in the year 2000 “i believe Apple is an amazing company, i’ll go ALL IN with my life savings”. If you’re right the you think you’re a genius. But what if you were wrong? What if apple turned out like IBM? Then you’d look back and think “how could i have been so stupid? so naive”. | | |
| ▲ | toasterlovin 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's a really bad analogy. And the "cost" of working part time for someone who doesn't want or need to work is literally every single hour they spend working. If they're working 20 hours per week, that's 20 hours per week spent doing something they don't want or need to do. It's a huge cost. | | |
| ▲ | lurking_swe 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | and the cost IF you become a single mom at 40, and you’re unemployable? How would we quantify that cost? We can agree to disagree. :) Hope you at least appreciated my different perspective. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | arevno 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The vast majority of courts award spousal support for this exact reason. Post-divorce, the vast majority of stay-at-home moms with limited recent work history are supported by court edict. | | |
| ▲ | lurking_swe 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Great. What if the spouse dies? Or they just stop paying and move to a different country because they’re a jerk? Or they lose their job and can’t support you in the future? There’s a dozen ways relying on the courts can go wrong. Something to consider in a pro and con list. Unrelated, if during the marriage the primary breadwinner loses their job and struggles to get back on their feet, the stay at home mom won’t be able to help pay a mortgage with 10 year old skills, as an example. I have zero problems with stay at home moms. My mom was one and i LOVED spending lots of time with her growing up. But i think many people don’t have an HONEST conversation here that considers the worst case. It’s worth talking about. That’s all i can say. And it might be different if you have a village to support you if needed. Not everyone is blessed with that. In my immigrant mom’s tragic case, she never really got her foot into the workforce because she wanted to stay home. Because of that her english skills never truly developed. My father became somewhat abusive toward her when i was a young teen. Even threatened to withhold her “allowance” sometimes. Could she have left if she wanted to? No. Legally yes, but practically? Nope. Chained to the marriage basically. |
| |
| ▲ | PKop 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If your wife wanted to stay home with the kids and not work, you would have forced her into the rat race or given her what she wants? It is not a foolish plan to confidently honor your vows and act accordingly. Condemning a wife who wants to raise her children as best as possible and to enjoy herself, to working for the man in some corporate gig and then blaming it on her need for work experience once you guys get divorced is dystopian nonsense. Just be a good husband and father, ya know? You do not have to saddle yourself with the problems of others which you yourself don't have out of some statistical optimality calculation. Just take control of your life. I say this as a father and husband. "I know you wanted to stay home honey, and yes we have enough money and yes it would be good for the kids... but you have to think of your resume and work experience, we might get divorced someday. This very achievable situation is simply a fantasy" lol. My wife would be horrified and incredibly sad if I treated her this way. | | |
| ▲ | lurking_swe 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If you approach it like that then sure LOL. Hilarious honestly. We also haven’t even discussed being eligible for social security and how that would play into finances post divorce. Anyway the conversation would be more like this: “hey, you know you can do whatever you want and i’ll 100% support your decision. We’re a team. And your contributions as a stay at home mom would be very much valued. But I also don’t want to take away your independence, and I want to make sure you’re not screwed if (god forbid) our marriage ever ends up in divorce. Have you considered working part time? If that’s still too much then OK - i’ll support your decision. Think about it.” Basically: - i support you 100% because we’re a team. - don’t ever feel like i’m “asking” you to stay home with the kids. - god forbid we end up divorced, don’t “complain” afterward that i wasn’t looking out for your best interest or i didn’t warn you of the worst case outcome. but all of this is kind of moot anyway. If someone dreamed of being a stay at home mom since like 10, then that’s different. That’s supporting a dream. But it’s unethical for me to not inform someone of the possible downsides and have a conversation about it. |
|
|
|
