I think there comes a point in children's development where it's adventageous for them to socialize with groups of children their own age. It becomes a tipping point between 'the child needs to be around a parent constantly' to 'the child needs to get out in the world and learn.' Would I homeschool? Probably not. I think it's good for the kid at the age of four or so to start spending time away from the parents and learning how to function within its own peer group. Plus, the only homeschooled kids I know come from super religious households. That ain't happening here. Apart from the "your income should be higher than mine" (I never said that), I agree with this completely. If some women are feeling like the men they date aren't mature/financially secure/ambitious enough, then quite a few men must feel that the women are overly demanding/gold digging/unreasonable. Both sides have a valid complaint in this, I think. The men are equally justified in being reluctant to start a relationship as the women are. How this gets resolved, I haven't a clue.
Going off of what abernetta said, I think there are differences in how pregnant women/new moms must be treated in the US vs. Canada. I think that we had a discussion about it .... somewhere here, likely the TiBette thread. The disparity between maternity leave was pretty drastic. Abernetta's pregnancy experience is pretty much the norm. I have not had children, so am only able to speak from experience of my friends. Most, unless they had health issues confining them to bed rest, worked up until their delivery. When I was a RN, doing very hard 12-ish hour shifts, I worked with pregnant women who went directly from work up to the maternity floor to deliver. Women fought (and are fighting) very hard to be viewed/treated as equals in the workplace, and by golly, they aren't going to let a little thing like growing another human interfere with that! Not saying I agree with it, but that seems to be the way it is. For maternity leave, if your company allows you 12 weeks off and holds your job for you, you are very much the exception. Again, not from direct experience, but it seems that the norm is more like 6-8 weeks off. If somebody tried to take a year off, they would be looking for a new job at the end of that year. So, peoples expectations are just .... different. And probably why the financial impact of pregnancy is a bit lessened here. Unless you want to stay at home with the kids, that is a different story all together. Regarding who raises the children, in my circle of friends, most keep working with a few exceptions of course. And for many, that is their choice due to multiple reasons. Sending your child to childcare can either be looked at as "having somebody else raise your kids" or an "opportunity for socialization". Some people just don't think that they will get the same sense of fulfillment out of being a stay at home mom as they do from their careers. Some people like their big fancy houses and Louis Vuitton purses and don't want to give that up to live on a single income. People need to decide what works best in their situation, and that is going to vary family to family, country to country. And to answer the question, the husband was 23 when we started dating, so a few years younger than me. He was in that aimless age, but he wasn't aimless. I wouldn't have dated him if he was . Not because I was a "gold digger" but because I needed to be with somebody who had focus and passion and a work ethic. At the time, I made much more money, I owned a condo, I had money in savings and a 401K. He had none of those things. We got married several years later, at some point things evened out. Then I decided to go back to school and he pretty much supported us on the month to month expenses. My piddly paychecks from part time may have covered the cost of my tuition and books. Now we are on pretty even footing, but I long ago stopped keeping count of who was contributing the most. It was nice to be in a "partnership" where we could make the decision for one of us to advance their career with more schooling and not have to make it only on financial considerations and what each person was bringing to the table. If I would have looked at him simply as a 23 year old without a bank account or top dollar salary all of those years ago, I would have discounted him unfairly. Of course, he is probably the exception.
I know this was posted in the TiBette thread, but in Canada you're allowed one year total leave. 3 months for the birth mother, and then 9 months of family leave that can be taken by either parent. I've only known two families in my life that had the father use a portion of that leave.
And I think that here, men are welcome to use their 2-3 weeks of paid time off to stay at home with their wife and newborn, but hopefully they will not be needing any other time off for the remaining 49-50 weeks that year. I don't think that they would even qualify for short term disability leave (somebody more knowledgeable about this can of course correct me if I am wrong). If somebody (mom or baby) is ill, perhaps they would qualify for FMLA. Anyway, regardless of the specifics, I think that the attitudes towards family differs. I would be interested to hear D26 weigh in on this (thinking I got the right guy here - providing primary care for his newborn while his wife returned to her pharmacy job, right???)
About two weeks before our youngest daughter was born, I was diagnosed with a pituitary tumor. I had a very delicate neurosurgical procedure shortly after she was born, and then lost my job about a month after that, making my wife the sole breadwinner. A four year old, a newborn, and a husband recovering from brain surgery who just lost his job, and my wife handled it all just fine.
Not just from this thread, but from the posts you've written over the years I truly think your wife is an admirable woman, for any number of reasons. Strong and competent are only two of her many characteristics. There is a difference, though, from handling a situation that life unexpectedly thrust at you and picking a partner right from the beginning whom you have reservations over. If your wife had a say, would she have chosen all of that stress to happen at the same time? I'm guessing not. Rolling with the punches and dealing with shit as it comes isn't really what I was talking about before. BTW, I know we're way off topic with this sub-discussion. I thought about breaking it off into its own thread, but there's so many posts that deal with both topics I'm not sure it could be effectively done.
I can't believe the amount of cognitive dissonance it takes for some of the guys here to have "big tits" or "great ass" on their list of desirable traits in a woman, but when a woman says "financially secure" is on her list of desirable traits, she's a gold digging whore. It's a pretty long ways from "financially secure" to fucking a rich guy so that he'll buy you diamonds and expensive cars.
That was a reply to the question you posed. As for your earlier statement regarding relationships with and without kids in the future, my wife's take on it (and mine) is that unconditional love is primary. Once someone says, "But if we're going to have kids, yada, yada, yada..." it's not longer unconditional. And if one has reservations about the other, (such as those that challenge one's values, e.g., "If we're going to have kids, you need to get a more stable career to provide for me and the baby") they should certainly be addressed sooner rather than later. I would certainly want to know upfront that such a person places that kind of expectation on me over an unconditional loving attitude that, no matter what life throws at us, we'll face it together and emerge stronger as a couple as a result.
Here's an attempt to narrow that dissonant gap. If a guy says, "I'm a attracted to women with nice bodies," it seems obvious. However if he says, "I want a woman with a much nicer physique than mine so I have the option to let myself go and still be seen as respectable," that's pathetic. When a woman claims to want a man who is financially secure, is she saying "I want a man who I won't have to support" or is she saying "I want a man who can support me?" If it's the former, nobody has an issue. However, Dcc says that she wants a man to be the primary breadwinner in her household, kids or no kids. Maybe the thought of a man paying her bills genuinely gets her moist - there are stranger things, and who are we to judge? On the other hand, if she wants the man to be the provider so working becomes an option for her instead of a responsibility, that seems a little less noble. Instead of guessing, maybe I should ask the question: if you're a woman who wants a financially secure man, do you define "secure" as someone doing as well as you, or as someone who is doing much better than you? Admittedly, I insist on dating financially secure women, defined as those who can afford their own lifestyle.
So, by your logic, my friend Sarah shouldn't have married her husband Bryan, knowing full well that he had neurological issues that would not only mean that he would never qualify for health insurance, but could some day cause strokes, brain bleeds and eventually premature death? She, naturally, had no way of knowing that one of those brain bleeds would result in a coma 3 weeks after the birth of their first child, but by what you've just said, she should have had reservations about his health from the very beginning and not married the man she loved because it would have eventually put an enormous financial and emotional burden on her shoulders? That's pretty fucking cold.
JProctor raises a good point. Certainly there are men who have the condition that their wife will not work (as in paid employment) but will stay at home, cook, clean, do the laundry, raise the kids, etc. There are those too who marry the Trophy Wife. Again, I think it's personal values. The problem arises when the couple finds out too late that their values aren't compatible.
What you call cold, some would call pragmatic. People have a million different reasons to make the choices they make, and there isn't a one size fits all in love and life. Some people know they aren't emotional strong enough to handle those thing so choose not too. Just because it is not what you would do doesn't inherently make it "wrong".
These women are to be found where, exactly? Not the stay at home mom. I know a few of those, but the women who will acquiesce to her husband's demand that she stay at home. Because I don't know any of those.
I've met plenty of them here in Texas. By no means a majority, but there are still people who subscribe to that line of thought. In some cases it's cultural.
I don’t know, I just find it hard to believe that anyone, but the most aimless and apathetic, would actually make major decisions regarding life, love and marriage on that basis. I agree that there are some spoiled Daddy’s little princesses out there who simply want someone who brings material wealth and comfort to the table. Sure, call them “gold diggers.” I won’t argue with you. However, there are also women out there, rejecting young guys because they’re not adults yet. It has nothing to do with their earnings capacity. An Example: Guy #1, age 25, wants to be an artist. It’s his passion, it’s all he dreams of. He’s constantly working on his craft, constantly putting himself out there, trying to show his work, learning from other artists. He makes next to nothing off his art currently. He does a little graphic design work, just to pay rent. However, he’s putting all his effort into making himself into a serious artist. Guy #2, also 25, is in law school. He’s intelligent, charismatic & talented. He was dating (in his mind, hooking up with) the most beautiful woman in law school, who’s going to be a successful attorney. Although she clearly cares for him deeply, she has essentially given up on him due to his immaturity and complete inability to commit to anything. Despite his natural abilities, he refuses to truly apply himself to anything, doing half-assed work that just gets by. Guy #1 will likely never be materially well-off. However, I’ve got nothing but respect and admiration for him. I imagine women into him would feel the same. However, for Guy #2 (a description of a real person who worked for me), I can barely summon up a little sadness and disappointment. And I have no doubt that we will eventually fall ass-backwards into a great position, and probably will be quite financially successful. However, I'm with his former girlfriend (In his mind, hook up). He's not worth pouring energy or effort into right now. It was 18 miles… and uphill. Then the nuns beat me with yardsticks, on the mere suspicion that I was thinking impure thoughts.
That incredibly poor and irrelevant analogy did nothing to narrow the gap. The fact is that a couple girls stated they wanted financial security (not just independence), as one of their criteria in choosing a long-term mate. They got jumped on with people telling them it was shallow and they should be looking for a partner, as if heartfelt compatibility is the only thing anyone looks for when dating. I'm saying, fuck it. We all have shallow or petty prerequisites when we look for a relationship. They don't have to be "noble" - they just are and I see no reason why red hair, long legs, a cute laugh or a willingness to experiment with nipple clamps and electricity is somehow better or more relevant than financial security. I saw nowhere that indicated this was the only quality she/they looked for, nor anything that suggests it was even a complete necessity - just something desired. I desire a great ass in the girls I date. That criteria does not make them good partners, and doesn't mean I won't date a girl without one. It's just something I like, and I see no reason why that's less shallow than a girl deciding that one of the reasons that I am a good person to date is because I have a good job and in the long term I might be suited to letting her stay home with the kids. Obviously, love and compatibility is primary. I don't think anyone is saying "I don't have to love the person if they're rich or have big tits."
Does anyone remember when threads used to have some humour, and some give-and-take? Lately every topic that gets any traffic seems to be devolving into a shitshow where no one is actually listening to anyone else. Let me turn into KIMaster for a moment... Reading comprehension fail. Never, not once, have I said that. What I have said is that I'm a traditionalist, and that if children are involved I would like to stay home and raise them, because what's the point of having kids if you're not spending time with them? If they're at daycare 9 or 10 hours a day from the time they're six weeks old? As a personal choice, I would like to not do that. If I'm a gold digger, I'm a pretty shitty one. I'm completely self-sufficient: no student debt, a degree, a car, a mortgage, etc. If I was looking for someone else to pay my bills, Jesus, I hope I'd be more effective than that. Like I said earlier: you should be on the same level. I don't think it's right for a waitress to be looking for a hedge fund manager, nor do I think it's realistic for a doctor to be with a Walmart clerk. It may happen, but I think it's more sensible and realistic to be on equal footing with one another. I'm a capable, professional woman. Good credit, sensible debt. Is it too much to ask for the same thing in a mate? I don't understand the vitriol people are directing at my choice. Again, where the hell did that jump in logic come from? She should marry her heart's desire. That's a choice that she's making, and if she's accepted right from the beginning that there will be instability with his health and difficult times ahead financially, then she clearly made her choice with her eyes open. I think, though, that if another woman was in the same situation and said from the start, "Listen, I can't do this. I can't build my life around someone who might not always be around, who will be in chronic poor health, and I can't be responsible for the finances of our household indefinitely," I don't think she's being cold or heartless. She's being realistic with her expectations and her limitations, and better she do it at the beginning then realize half way through that it isn't for her. Amen.
OK, but this contains the implicit assumption that YOU should stay home with the kids, and your partner should not. Your partner should go work and do so fairly lucratively, so that you can comfortably stay home. If you are intent on staying home for the first five years, it's probably fair to say that you're not eager to jump into a super-intense schedule thereafter. I'm guessing you'd also like to be around a lot in the years thereafter, and thus would be averse to schedules much beyond 40 hours a week. It doesn't necessarily imply that he be the primary breadwinner, but that is likely the most compatible scenario. Sure, there are other alternatives (you or both of you are so well paid that you can save enough to get by for years as a family on an only modest single salary). But given that most estimates of the cost of raising a kid in moderate comfort number well into the six figures, that would be a shitload of savings. Yes, that's your personal preference, and at the end of the day it's no concern of mine how you live. But how does that not seem fundamentally inequitable to your partner?
I don't know where I said 'lucrative'. Personally I think the best thing a family can do is live off one person's salary and bank the other's. That way, if a job is lost it isn't the end of the world, plus it allows for a large nest egg to be built up. If that means driving 15-year-old vehicles and living in a 600sqft house (as I do now), then so be it. My definition of 'comfortable' is that we aren't worried about how the bills will get paid this month, and that contingencies are planned and saved for. I'm not looking to live in a mansion with people to clean the house and cut the yard. A few things. First, women often times have their careers affected after having kids, for the very reason you mentioned: you simply can't work 40+ hours a week, because kids get sick and need to be taken to sports and any number of reasons that take up your time. In my personal experience, it's almost always the female that does these things. Growing up, I have no recollection of my father leaving work to come and get me. In my office at work, it's rare for one of the guys to leave due to a problem with his kids; the female I work with has it happen frequently. Another point is the idea of a second child. If you have a second kid, that resets everything, so while you're on your third year out of work, you still might have a newborn child to look after. There's overlap. Personally, I think it would be a good idea to go back to work if even on a limited schedule after the baby is one or two years old. You'd be in the workforce again, and thus able to collect benefits if and when you had a second child. How is staying home to raise the children unequal? Are you saying that stay at home moms don't contribute to the family, just because they aren't drawing a wage? I think having one parent at home leaves the other parent with a lot more freedom, particularly in their career. You don't have to both work out who will stay home with a sick baby, who will do the laundry/dishes/whatever, nor do you have the expense of daycare (which can be quite high). There's quite a bit of money to be saved by having a spouse at home when children are young. Personally, I'd prefer to be the at-home spouse. Since I'm female and heterosexual, I'd be the one having the baby so right there you have a physical reason to stay home. And maybe it's just my own definition of gender roles; growing up, the men were the breadwinners in my family and in my friend circle. Any family has a right to choose how they will balance it out, and I respect stay-at-home dads as much as I do stay-at-home moms. I just haven't met many men that are okay with shelving their careers and being defined as a househusband.