When she earns more than him

[Mr. Fabulous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGJwPtpkeg8

Warning: some colourful language in the video.

"But these mothers are bending over at the waist, putting DVDs into DVD players. I don’t know how they do it. I don’t know how they do it.

Dude, any job that you can do in your pajamas is not a difficult job, all right. Give me a break.

Jesus Christ, you’re 35 years old playing hide and go seek. You’re living the dream."

Gold.

 

[Jamie M]

Not too many 5 years olds being breast fed?

Clearly not on the same page but that's ok.

4 or 5 years was that "short" timeframe where it's a bit harder.

Cheers

Jamie

 

[pursefattener]

Well , maybe more couples are his way than I thought ..I don't know many women who earn much more than their husbands .

I know myself that I would be very unhappy if I were a stay at home dad looking after young ones . It's not that I'd resent the other half but I just haven't got it in me to do the house husband role full time .

My youngest now is 14 and I did look after him for a while when my wife was sick years ago .

I get the emasculating bit , especially when I hear about having to do ironing .....I mean what a downer for fellow ! It reminds me of how I feel when I'm dragged off to go shoe shopping and hang about while she goes in and try's on half a dozen pairs and buys nothing . Half an hour of that and I'm having a brain haemorrhage .

I will do all other house work but I think i will leave the ironing .

Real men mow lawns .

 

[wylie]

Clearly not on the same page but that's ok.

Cheers

Jamie

Some of these posters are perhaps not even on the same planet. I promised myself I would not bite... but rumple and dex, I have to know... are you married?

With three babies several years apart, I was up at night breastfeeding for years (fed each for two years), never understood until I had babies that it is possible not to have time for a two minute shower, hence still in pyjamas at lunchtime on a bad day, didn't get to use the toilet in private for years on end, often washed up and cooked with one baby on the hip (or even breastfeeding - yes it can be done), a toddler wrapped around one leg, whilst supervising homework for the oldest one, or stopping two from fighting whilst trying to feed a baby, and still managed to stay sane.

For most of those years I didn't even have a husband to come home and give me five minutes for myself or to allow me to cook dinner, as he was studying two or three nights a week and I'd pack up the littlies and drive into the city to get him at 9pm, so it was just me (no friends, no coffee mornings, no time for that). It was absolutely the hardest years I've ever endured, and for someone to even suggest "mummies" sit around sipping lattes and chatting with friends is just insulting.

Dex and rumple, honestly, you really have no idea.

 

[whiteduck]

The most important years of a child's life are the 0-5. During that stage a secure attachment (and yes it;'usually to the mother, but not necessarily) is vital. Problems with attachment have a significant and long lasting effect into adulthood. So, one could argue the stay at home parent during this time has THE most important job. There's a whole lot of critical brain development going on during those day to day mother-baby interactions and play.

I could go on for ages about this as it's an area of interest of mine and the consequences of when it goes wrong keep me and my collegues in business.

 

[Shaneelastic]

I thought marriage was about accepting, love, companionaship and all that other soppy stuff. Not the size of your partners pay cheque.

 

[Rumplestiltskin]

Some of these posters are perhaps not even on the same planet. I promised myself I would not bite... but rumple and dex, I have to know... are you married?

With three babies several years apart, I was up at night breastfeeding for years (fed each for two years), never understood until I had babies that it is possible not to have time for a two minute shower, hence still in pyjamas at lunchtime on a bad day, didn't get to use the toilet in private for years on end, often washed up and cooked with one baby on the hip (or even breastfeeding - yes it can be done), a toddler wrapped around one leg, whilst supervising homework for the oldest one, or stopping two from fighting whilst trying to feed a baby, and still managed to stay sane.

For most of those years I didn't even have a husband to come home and give me five minutes for myself or to allow me to cook dinner, as he was studying two or three nights a week and I'd pack up the littlies and drive into the city to get him at 9pm, so it was just me (no friends, no coffee mornings, no time for that). It was absolutely the hardest years I've ever endured, and for someone to even suggest "mummies" sit around sipping lattes and chatting with friends is just insulting.

Dex and rumple, honestly, you really have no idea.

Married 20 years, both always worked, 1 child.
That's was your conscious choice Wylie.
No one made you have 3 children, or children at a time when you had to do all this "extra" stuff.
You're not re inventing the wheel by complaining or perhaps boasting about it. It's a choice, the children don't ask to be born.
To repeat a previous poster "anything that can be done in pyjamas isn't a difficult job"
The rest is just violin music.

 

[weg]

I thought marriage was about accepting, love, companionaship and all that other soppy stuff. Not the size of your partners pay cheque.

It is, but there are marriages and there are marriages.

Oh, and add friendship to that list. Good friends tend to treat each other well .

Unless you have a big ego or a chip on your shoulder I don't see how the size of your paycheck would matter.

Where the marriages work the couples are mature, pull their weight as needed, inside and outside of the home, and work together towards shared goals ie. building wealth together, raising healthy children, etc.

Those where one or the other has a big ego, or plays power games or refuses to work together have issues regarding incomes and roles.

If you marry a grown up you end up with only a fraction of the issues that some people have.

 

[Rumplestiltskin]

Anyone who complains about the ordeal of being a stay at home Mum in this country needs their head read or to do some travelling and get some perspective.
There are plenty of countries, even some European ones, where mums have got to get back to work within days or even less of giving birth.
There is no Family Tax Benefit Part Whatever, Baby Bonus or 2-3 months leave from a job for the luxury of having a child.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

I just haven't got it in me to do the house husband role full time.

That's because you're a Man.

Sidenote: that was a compliment.

 

[BMan]

while i do agree after the initial period being a house wife is easier than full time work.
i couldnt do it.
i dont know if its the fact women love kids shows or that there around them that much they start enjoying it but i could not stand watching all the kids movies and tv shows especially repeated again and again. that would break me.
but i know of alot of women that love watching those animated kids movies and they dont have kids.
so really they probably enjoy that part aswell

 

[Tim86]

This is nothing new. Divorce rates have steadily increased with women earning more money over time. Don't mix correlation with causation. It's not because the woman earns more than the man and somehow that upsets the man/woman balance or some crap. It's the simple fact that a woman with money has better options when it comes to leaving a man. However when the man earns more then chances are the woman is a dependent... how easy it to leave in that situation?

Or to put it another way. If the man is a dick, and the woman is poor then the woman will be more likely to stay in the relationship. Scenario B: the man is a dick, and the woman is rich, then the woman will be more likely to leave. The idea that when a woman is earning more than a man is somehow disrupting a "healthy" relationship dynamic is ridiculous. All it is doing is enabling women to leave dick heads because they have the $$$ to do so. Something that not too many years ago was near on impossible due to social and financial constraints that women had to put up with. However it is kind of funny that some men will whine and ***** and complain and say a man should be more dominant and be in charge etc... and look at a symptom like divorce and think the cause is that women have too much freedom a.k.a $$$ now, when the real issue is that a bunch of men are just complete dicks and don't know how to hold onto a good woman.

 

[devank]

 

[Rumplestiltskin]

This is nothing new. Divorce rates have steadily increased with women earning more money over time. Don't mix correlation with causation. It's not because the woman earns more than the man and somehow that upsets the man/woman balance or some crap. It's the simple fact that a woman with money has better options when it comes to leaving a man. However when the man earns more then chances are the woman is a dependent... how easy it to leave in that situation?

Or to put it another way. If the man is a dick, and the woman is poor then the woman will be more likely to stay in the relationship. Scenario B: the man is a dick, and the woman is rich, then the woman will be more likely to leave. The idea that when a woman is earning more than a man is somehow disrupting a "healthy" relationship dynamic is ridiculous. All it is doing is enabling women to leave dick heads because they have the $$$ to do so. Something that not too many years ago was near on impossible due to social and financial constraints that women had to put up with. However it is kind of funny that some men will whine and ***** and complain and say a man should be more dominant and be in charge etc... and look at a symptom like divorce and think the cause is that women have too much freedom a.k.a $$$ now, when the real issue is that a bunch of men are just complete dicks and don't know how to hold onto a good woman.

It seems divorce rates aren't increasing.
From 2007-2011 the rate per 1000 people has stayed around 2.2 and 2.3. This is down from 2.9 in 1996, and very far down from the biggest peak of 4.9 in 1976 after the Family Law Act 1975 came into effect.

 

[Tash_85]

My wife copes very well with me earning 5 x more than her.
She sees her money as her money and my money as our money.

I would SURELY have no issue if my future husband earns 5 times more then me.
So, do you have any single friends?? haha p.s what do u do? i need to get into that industry, just property investing?

That said, I would love to have a business so I dont have to work for a**holes for the next 42 years or so.. Apparently 70 is the new retirement age, so why not try and escape as young as possible

 

[nhg]

I wouldn't have an issue if my wife earned 5 times as much as me either

I've had this discussion with 'mates' on several occasions. Only my inner circle of friends sided with me when I stated I would consider staying home with the kids while she earnt an income.

The rest said they would tell her to quit as it was their job to provide and hers to raise children. I am still finding a large portion of men are intimidated by empowered women. They are happy with them being income earners, yet cringe when they themselves earn less, almost like it is a personal attack on their manhood.

Quite a lot of women have disagreed with me on this point too.

 

[wylie]

Married 20 years, both always worked, 1 child.
That's was your conscious choice Wylie.
No one made you have 3 children, or children at a time when you had to do all this "extra" stuff.
You're not re inventing the wheel by complaining or perhaps boasting about it. It's a choice, the children don't ask to be born.
To repeat a previous poster "anything that can be done in pyjamas isn't a difficult job"
The rest is just violin music.

Oh, really, it was my choice... DOH!

I'm just trying to explain that women with little children don't sit around sipping lattes and watching the telly (certainly not watching anything interesting anyway, even if they do get to watch Playschool whilst doing all the stuff that keeps the household running - usually not sitting down either).

And the "anything that can be done in pyjamas isn't a difficult job" is just a cop out comment. Being in pyjamas at lunchtime (rarely for me) was not a lifestyle choice, it was on really bad days, babies who would scream if put down (sick or tired).

It was "our" choice to have our children, no regrets, but don't insult women by saying our jobs are easy. That is just ignorant.

 

[nhg]

When my sis stays over and we help with the baby she just crashes. Falls asleep on whatever piece of furniture she happens to be on after all the stress and strain. Usually in her PJ's as she didn't have time to get changed. I suspect a shower before hubby gets home can be a luxury.

Raising kids (well) is an incredibly demanding job. Perhaps even more so if they are raised poorly.

Sis does work. She marks university assessments as she has a doctorate in neuro-pharmacology and wasn't willing to give it up.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

It seems divorce rates aren't increasing.
From 2007-2011 the rate per 1000 people has stayed around 2.2 and 2.3. This is down from 2.9 in 1996, and very far down from the biggest peak of 4.9 in 1976 after the Family Law Act 1975 came into effect.

Those numbers mean nothing if not cross referenced with marriage rates. In 1976 the crude marriage rate was 7.9 and the crude divorce rate was 4.9. More importantly, the crude divorce rate in 1975 was about a third of that at 1.8 and dropped to 3.2 in 1977, where it has remained relatively steady since. So 1976 was an anomaly, not the standard.

If you look at the numbers and take 1976 out of the equation, the divorce rate has increased dramatically after the Family Law Act 1975 was enacted. Consider that the rate of marriages since the early 70's has been steadily dropping, but since the late 70's, the rate of divorce has remained constant at around 2.5.

What this means is that fewer people are getting married, but more people are getting divorced.

The numbers are from here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/28/divorce-rates-real-statistics

I used the graph Divorce and Marriage Rate - number per 1000 people, about halfway down the page, with the blue and orange lines.

 

[allsuccess]

It's a choice, the children don't ask to be born.

Yes they are, "Mummy/Daddy can we have another little brother/sister?"

Also, friends of mine have twins. It was very hard work during early years to raise them.

We have 3 (2 boys/ 1 girl). I said to my wife that we should have a 4th to balance the family. The second picture Devank posted depicts the answer

IMHO, stay at home mums have extra responsibility to raise the kids properly. It's not about letting the kids watch ABC2 all day or play games.

My wife is a stay at home mum. Earns $0. But that is never an issue. We made that choice. She does most of the kids duties.