Anyone else feel like men get less out of relationshisp than women?

[Sam Spade]

I'd be afraid to see what your house looks like.

 

Of course, you may be basing your estimations on a house of a single person. If you have a couple toddlers running about, you'd best shoot for a higher estimate on the time needed to keep a house, do laundry, cook meals, etc. etc. etc.

 

 

Sure, but all I'm saying is that with two capable adults there is simply no argument to make it sound as a demanding full time job . Moreover, the amount of housework does not increase by an order of magnitude equal to the number of persons. All of my married friends who have kids work, and their spouses too, and their houses look just fine . SAHMs suck .

[HsMomma]

SAHMs suck .

 

Ok, Sam, we all know where you stand on SAHMs now...now, can we move along like good girls & boys?

[theBrokenMuse]

SAHMs suck

 

People who can't creating a convincing argument without referring to sloppy generalizations and stereotypes suck.

[HsMomma]

People who can't creating a convincing argument without referring to sloppy generalizations and stereotypes suck.

 

Reminds me of a bumper sticker my neighbor has on his car. It says, "No, YOU suck! Signed, the Mean People"

 

I just love it when no convincing argument is to be made & so, the poster then decides to use "colorful" language instead (sorta reminds me of NTLS, huh?)

[HsMomma]

Was THAT that gushing vaccuumish sorta sound I heard?!

 

LMAO!!!

[GorillaTheater]

"No, YOU suck! Signed, the Mean People"

 

I hate bumper stickers, but I'd have this on my car.

 

I don't know how my wife manages being a SAHM; it's a tougher gig than I'd want and I've worked some pretty tough jobs. Whenever I have to deal with the four who are 8 and under for any extended period by myself, I want to either tear my hair out or duct tape them to the ceiling fans.

[HsMomma]

I hate bumper stickers, but I'd have this on my car.

 

I don't know how my wife manages being a SAHM; it's a tougher gig than I'd want and I've worked some pretty tough jobs. Whenever I have to deal with the four who are 8 and under for any extended period by myself, I want to either tear my hair out or duct tape them to the ceiling fans.

 

Aw, c'mon Gorilla, according to Sam, it's no big deal - an hour or so a day & phffffttttt...you're done. I tried the SAHM thing when my daughter was born - I lasted about 3 months, right about the time colic reared its ugly head. Let me tell you, there's NO job I wouldn't have taken outside the home if I meant I didn't have to listen to my adorable baby girl scream NON-STOP for 5-6 hours each and every day, while holding herself stiff as a board. And, Gawd help me if I tried to put her down during that time to, gee, I don't know, actually be able to go to the bathroom, "throw the dishes in the dishwasher," etc. It would sound like a tribe of screaming banshees had descended on my home. Talk about nerve-wracking.

 

I myself bow down in humility & respect to those who have the title of SAHM, as I found it to be too daunting for little ol' me!

[Sam Spade]

Aw, c'mon Gorilla, according to Sam, it's no big deal - an hour or so a day & phffffttttt...you're done. I tried the SAHM thing when my daughter was born - I lasted about 3 months, right about the time colic reared its ugly head. Let me tell you, there's NO job I wouldn't have taken outside the home if I meant I didn't have to listen to my adorable baby girl scream NON-STOP for 5-6 hours each and every day, while holding herself stiff as a board. And, Gawd help me if I tried to put her down during that time to, gee, I don't know, actually be able to go to the bathroom, "throw the dishes in the dishwasher," etc. It would sound like a tribe of screaming banshees had descended on my home. Talk about nerve-wracking.

 

I myself bow down in humility & respect to those who have the title of SAHM, as I found it to be too daunting for little ol' me!

 

But that's exactly my point --> you stuck around the kid in its most fragile and most difficult months, and then, as soon as this became feasible, went back to work. I respect that very much . At least I respect that much more than a woman who simply REFUSES to work after the kids are born, because it's "best for the kids" . No, it's not best for anybody (except for her).

[HsMomma]

But that's exactly my point --> you stuck around the kid in its most fragile and most difficult months, and then, as soon as this became feasible, went back to work. I respect that very much . At least I respect that much more than a woman who simply REFUSES to work after the kids are born, because it's "best for the kids" . No, it's not best for anybody (except for her).

 

Actually, Sam, while I appreciate your stating that you respect my going back to work, but you may want to hold off on that for a moment. I would've (I thought at the time) gladly stayed home with her to spend each & every day with her...the point I was making was that I couldn't hack it. The colic made me insane...it wasn't that I went back to work as soon as it was "feasible," it was that I went back to save my sanity.

[Sam Spade]

Actually, Sam, while I appreciate your stating that you respect my going back to work, but you may want to hold off on that for a moment. I would've (I thought at the time) gladly stayed home with her to spend each & every day with her...the point I was making was that I couldn't hack it. The colic made me insane...it wasn't that I went back to work as soon as it was "feasible," it was that I went back to save my sanity.

 

That's okay --> every parent I've ever spoken with has admitted that at least once they've felt like throwing the damned baby out of the window just to make it stop . So that's really not what distinguishes the ones that can and cannot 'hack it', IMO .

The stereotype I am referring to is not invented in my head - you see it every day, in every mall: an affluent suburban couple, the wife does not work, the husband walks like a zombie out of exhaustion to support the lifestyle (or is filthy rich and doesn't care).

In any case, and it's a personal preference, I see nothing appealing about a woman who, in spite of having all sorts of resources and comforts, can't think of anything better to do with her life other than obsess and annoy everybody with her coterie .

Just for the record - I love kids, and I hope to have them soon. but i resent this specific brand of parenting .

[HsMomma]

It is BEST for the kids to have a stay at home mom is she's a GOOD stay at home mom. It's best for the kids to go to a quality daycare if mom is better at bringing home a paycheck than raising the kids.

 

Nothing is set in stone. It depends on the individuals involved.

 

I agree completely - especially with your last paragraph, Donna. I was NOT a good SAHM - like I said, I couldn't deal. I have friends, however, who have made the choice to stay at home raising their children & are da*n good at it. I think it's the parents' decision to make as to what THEY believe to be best for their children and nobody on the outside of that marriage should be judging them for it. JMHO.

[ufo8mycat]

For example, why is it that there are still not as many women scientists and engineers as men, given that every concievable barrier to entry in these fields has been removed for decades!

I refuse to believe that there are any differences in intelligence between genders, but I am inclined to believe that yes, women's priorities gravitate towards nesting and all, which is fine, except that this requires resources and often times men are being scolded for not providing them. So, instead of keeping trying to find faults with the system, why is it so hard to accept that many women are simply unwilling to make the sacrifices that a succesful scientific or engineering career requires? .

 

I haven't been a scientist for decades, only a single decade and my experience is rather different.

 

So which barriers have been removed again?

 

If only I had a wife at home.

 

There is some progres, here in Australia many universities are starting to offer fellowships for anyone (male or female) who have had time out of their research career for caring responsibilities. Time out for kids/family/sick rellos affects your out put which affects your track records which in turn makes grant funding but a dream.

 

You seem to have one version of the truth, rather like the OP. That doesn't make it the whole truth. It makes it your experience and opinion. Don't apply it to me. I think I have had a pretty sucessful career to date but I strongly believe that it has required more sacrifice than my male colleagues. There was also a good HBR article on the flight of women from scientific and engineering careers and this - along with other studies doesn't support your theory that it is an equal playing field.

[Trialbyfire]

My sister's an engineer and she's kicking everyone's ass! THAT is all!

[Sam Spade]

I haven't been a scientist for decades, only a single decade and my experience is rather different.

 

So which barriers have been removed again?

 

If only I had a wife at home.

 

There is some progres, here in Australia many universities are starting to offer fellowships for anyone (male or female) who have had time out of their research career for caring responsibilities. Time out for kids/family/sick rellos affects your out put which affects your track records which in turn makes grant funding but a dream.

 

You seem to have one version of the truth, rather like the OP. That doesn't make it the whole truth. It makes it your experience and opinion. Don't apply it to me. I think I have had a pretty sucessful career to date but I strongly believe that it has required more sacrifice than my male colleagues. There was also a good HBR article on the flight of women from scientific and engineering careers and this - along with other studies doesn't support your theory that it is an equal playing field.

 

Well the problem of underrepresentation is poorly indurstood, and there is no point in trying to summarize it in such a thread (and hijack it).

 

I am referring specifically to the claim that caregiving responsibilities are the culprit . I have 2 colleagues - one tenure-track, the other tenured, and my brother in law (by now full professor) who have kids and they contribute no less than 50% the childcare and household work - messy diapers, cooking, and cleaning.

Well, how come they can deal with it AND their careers but women can't?

I think it is time to snap out of the mentality that women somehow are doing everybody a favor by finally getting out of the house and getting a real job (while the bad men continue to do everything in their favor to try to stop them ).

If they stay at home they "sacrifice their careers", if they (grudingly) go out and work - they're "sacrificing being a good mom". Please. Any normal adult can (and should) do both.

[HsMomma]

Well the problem of underrepresentation is poorly indurstood, and there is no point in trying to summarize it in such a thread (and hijack it).

 

I am referring specifically to the claim that caregiving responsibilities are the culprit . I have 2 colleagues - one tenure-track, the other tenured, and my brother in law (by now full professor) who have kids and they contribute no less than 50% the childcare and household work - messy diapers, cooking, and cleaning.

Well, how come they can deal with it AND their careers but women can't?

I think it is time to snap out of the mentality that women somehow are doing everybody a favor by finally getting out of the house and getting a real job (while the bad men continue to do everything in their favor to try to stop them ).

If they stay at home they "sacrifice their careers", if they (grudingly) go out and work - they're "sacrificing being a good mom". Please. Any normal adult can (and should) do both.

 

Women can and DO deal with housework/childrearing and their careers every day. I think it's time to "snap out of the mentality" that women are grudgingly working & realize that not all men WANT their wives (the mothers of their children) to work, and it's not ALWAYS the woman who makes that decision. As a matter of fact, in every couple I know where the wife is a SAH, the decision was mutual and they BOTH believe that it's what's best for their children.

[ufo8mycat]

I am referring specifically to the claim that caregiving responsibilities are the culprit . I have 2 colleagues - one tenure-track, the other tenured, and my brother in law (by now full professor) who have kids and they contribute no less than 50% the childcare and household work - messy diapers, cooking, and cleaning.

Well, how come they can deal with it AND their careers but women can't?

I think it is time to snap out of the mentality that women somehow are doing everybody a favor by finally getting out of the house and getting a real job (while the bad men continue to do everything in their favor to try to stop them ).

If they stay at home they "sacrifice their careers", if they (grudingly) go out and work - they're "sacrificing being a good mom". Please. Any normal adult can (and should) do both.

 

You mean any normal man. Most often because they have wives who pick up any slack.

 

two colleagues are hardly a represenative sample. They are people you know. I could cite more examples to the opposite. I know scores of female career scientists and clinicians who work a second shif in the home and contribute more than 50% to the domestic labour as well as holding down full time careers.

 

Why can men deal with it and women can't? In MY experience it is because men are not prepared to do the same amount of hack work around the home that women are. Two examples is hardly a great sample size that you can extend the logic to "everybody".

 

I don't grudgingly go out to work. You can't be a soft funded career scientist and hold a grudge against your work.

 

When you have kids and your husband also travels for a living you can't make 7am breakfast meetings and then you're criticised for not being committed. Its much harder to spend three months in an international lab when you have the brunt of childcare responsibilities. Even if it is organising and dropping off at day care.

 

The workplace and workday is structured by men to suit their needs. Many of whom have wives at home taking care of the domestics.

[grogster]

I don't think an excessive amount of sensitivity helps anyone in the mating game. Sensitive people generally tend to be concerned with the feelings of others, and I think that makes them less likely to thrive on the kind of competitive or ruthless aspects of the dating game where somebody is going to end up in some degree of emotional pain. Hence the nice guy/girl finishing last thing.

 

The sensitivity is good in terms of understanding what makes the other person tick, having good self awareness, keeping a relationship going and so on....but it's not usually an asset in a cut throat mating game situation. Even in a fairly solid relationship between two fairly sensitive individuals, if a third party takes a fancy to one of those individuals, the cut throat mating game situation can re-emerge.

 

Neither gender is immune from infidelity to a partner. A very sensitive man may, once he's partnered, find that he's suddenly far more attractive to the opposite sex (partly because women see him in the "good boyfriend/husband role, and want a piece of it). I think exactly the same can be said for women. A relationship will give a sensitive woman a chance to shine (in the role of partner) and men who may not previously have been interested in her will suddenly regard her in a new, more attractive light.

 

And because there's so much emphasis on being successful in the mating game, suddenly being presented with an opportunity to feel successful (eg by cheating on a partner, or leaving them for someone who long term isn't going to be such a good bet) might be too much to resist for some people. The opportunity to feel like the exciting bad boy/girl for a change might be too much.

 

Regardless of gender, I think choosing a partner wisely is a very tricky thing....and is always going to involve a leap of faith. The development of any close, trusting bond requires a leap of faith on both sides. The OP's agenda (not an uncommon one) seems to involve convincing others that the leap of faith isn't worth it. Or perhaps he's looking for some miraculous outcome whereby a stranger on a message board will convince him that it is worth it.

 

Tara, I couldn't agree more. The mating game is not a tea party. Roberts Rules don't apply.

 

It's a highly competitive struggle for mating supremacy.

 

We sometimes forget how cutthroat the hot culture dating game can be as lived as opposed to as reflected upon in the cold light of a public messageboard.

 

Mating's not for wimps.

[Sam Spade]

It is BEST for the kids to have a stay at home mom is she's a GOOD stay at home mom. It's best for the kids to go to a quality daycare if mom is better at bringing home a paycheck than raising the kids.

 

Nothing is set in stone. It depends on the individuals involved.

 

 

I agree with this, except with the premise that the primary decision criterion should be what's "best for the kids". Subordinating two adult lifes entirely to the kids is pathetic, and until very recently - unprecedented in history.

One day I will be a great father, but surely I won't make the kids the one and only center of my life .

[theBrokenMuse]

I agree with this, except with the premise that the primary decision criterion should be what's "best for the kids". Subordinating two adult lifes entirely to the kids is pathetic

One day I will be a great father/>.

 

I have a special needs child that requires me to put much of my life on hold, although I do work from home, so I can work with them as much as possible in order to let them have a better chance at succeeding in life. If that makes me pathetic then so be it. At least I can go to sleep knowing I did everything in my power to help them have as normal of a life as possible. Children should be a top-priority and focal point to a parent and if they are not, then that person has no business having children to begin with.

[carhill]

He's talking about prioritizing the child over the marriage. Sacrificing the marriage at the altar of the child. You may disagree, and we had a thread recently debating it, but IMO, psychologically, when one parent prioritizes the child(ren) over their co-parent/spouse/partner, they set up a dynamic where the relationship is primarily with the children and the co-parent is left in the background, in a role subordinate to the children.

 

Stereotypically, we read about the wife, traditionally the primary caregiver to children, prioritizing them, and the husband 'getting less', but it can and does work both ways. Dad can ignore mom when he gets home and instead give the children all his attention until he's comatose in bed, with no energy for or interest in her. That's unhealthy, IMO.

 

Sometimes, less is just less

[Sam Spade]

I have a special needs child that requires me to put much of my life on hold, although I do work from home, so I can work with them as much as possible in order to let them have a better chance at succeeding in life. If that makes me pathetic then so be it. At least I can go to sleep knowing I did everything in my power to help them have as normal of a life as possible. Children should be a top-priority and focal point to a parent and if they are not, then that person has no business having children to begin with.

 

Sorry for the situation with your kid, and making fun of being a devoted parent is not what i mean at all --> as adults, we should do the best in everything we do, including being parents; just being parents is not all that we do.

 

Being a parent is a top priority, but certainly not the only one in life, so balance is key. Many people (not you ) go to extremes and you know it - they have no life whatsoever outside of their kids and it is very ironic that this is the case in the richest, most secure of all societies that ever existed. My version of parenting means no neglect, but simply remembering that the world doesn't revolve around my kids (and who knows, they might understand that too - it will only do them, and said world, good ); for example, it would mean planning a vacation to paris to see the Louvre or an opera and drag the kids along - because that's something adult that *I* want to do, and won't do them any harm either (as opposed to planning a vacation specifically to the tackiest kid-oriented amusement parks ) that I have no desire to withness whatsoever etc. I've seen them dads with desperation in their eyes, succumbing to their kids every whim . That's not good parenting, that's being a loser . there's time for fun, and there is also time for smack on the butt if they don't watch their table manners

So, I'm merely advocating common sense .

[Sam Spade]

He's talking about prioritizing the child over the marriage. Sacrificing the marriage at the altar of the child. You may disagree, and we had a thread recently debating it, but IMO, psychologically, when one parent prioritizes the child(ren) over their co-parent/spouse/partner, they set up a dynamic where the relationship is primarily with the children and the co-parent is left in the background, in a role subordinate to the children.

 

Stereotypically, we read about the wife, traditionally the primary caregiver to children, prioritizing them, and the husband 'getting less', but it can and does work both ways. Dad can ignore mom when he gets home and instead give the children all his attention until he's comatose in bed, with no energy for or interest in her. That's unhealthy, IMO.

 

Sometimes, less is just less

 

 

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, that's exactly what my sister did, and I am baffled how her marriage still even exists .

[Stung]

I'm not relenting on this one . My mother was a single mother who raised 2 kids (who turned out just fine, thank you very much) while working full time and maintaining spotless house. To hear how not working and spending all of your time at home instead is hard work is what's absurd, and quite frankly - incredibly insulting towards people who actually do it all.

That's why I haven't met and will not meet a 100% SAHM - I despise the very idea of such creature .

 

 

To be blunt, your estimation of what it takes to run a household with small children in it is ludicrous, and your blithe dismissal of anyone who chooses to nurture their own infant or young child rather than drop them off at daycare is insulting and arrogant. You very obviously have no real idea of what it's like to spend 24-7 taking care of a family. It's a valid parenting choice which many people feel is better for their child, especially in the early years. You obviously disagree, which is fine for you, but to call all stay-at-home-mother's categorically lazy or pampered and then claim THEY are an insult to other mothers is frankly incredible and extremely bad form. This post made me despise the very idea of you.

[Sam Spade]

To be blunt, your estimation of what it takes to run a household with small children in it is ludicrous, and your blithe dismissal of anyone who chooses to nurture their own infant or young child rather than drop them off at daycare is insulting and arrogant. You very obviously have no real idea of what it's like to spend 24-7 taking care of a family. It's a valid parenting choice which many people feel is better for their child, especially in the early years. You obviously disagree, which is fine for you, but to call all stay-at-home-mother's categorically lazy or pampered and then claim THEY are an insult to other mothers is frankly incredible and extremely bad form. This post made me despise the very idea of you.

 

C'mon strong opinions are endearing, you know it .

It's a valid parenting choice made possible by unprecedented wealth and prosperity, and unavailable to any prior generations. This is all fine, as long as we don't dress it in the drab descriptions of how hard and horrible is the life of the soccer mom .

[Stung]

C'mon strong opinions are endearing, you know it .

It's a valid parenting choice made possible by unprecedented wealth and prosperity, and unavailable to any prior generations. This is all fine, as long as we don't dress it in the drab descriptions of how hard and horrible is the life of the soccer mom .

 

 

Mothers staying home with their children was an option unavailable to all previous generations? I think you are deeply confused or wildly misinformed.

 

You did not, in your previous posts, say that it was a fine choice. You said that you despised women who stayed home with their children, and that they were universally lazy. You also implied that it was some sort of method for running the fathers into the ground.

 

Daycare in my area costs a fortune, I don't know about where you live. I worked all my life, part-time while I was in school, full-time while I was first acclimating to having joint custody over my stepdaughter and two goddaughters. I became a SAHM recently when we had our son, still an infant. Our girls are old enough to go to school, and they had lessons and daycare in the afternoons; adding the cost of full-day care for an infant would have been too much. My choosing to stay home with our son and take care of the girls after school most days was a good financial choice for us; also my partner and I both feel strongly that having a parent stay with the child in the early stages of development if possible is a good idea. He felt more strongly about it than I did, frankly, as I went to daycare...but the kind of small, personalized daycare that I started going to as an older baby costs an arm and a leg nowadays in my area.

 

My life was easier when I worked full-time and then picked up the girls from day care. Then I had lunchtimes to myself to do whatever I wanted, my subway commute time to unwind, and my partner helped out more around the house. Also, I had other adults to socialize with every day as a way to let off steam, which was great and something I should have appreciated more while I had it.

 

It takes more than half an hour per day to clean up after a man, three girls, a baby, and our various pets. The amount of laundry we generate is insane, the idea of us getting by on a load a week is laughable. We live in a highrise so the machines are in the subbasement and shared with all the other units in the building. The dishwasher needs to be run at least twice every day, not including pots and pans that need to be handscrubbed. The floors need to be cleaned and vacuumed every day as the baby is crawling and the pets and kids track in all kinds of crap somehow even though we don't even have a yard. The girls need to be ferried to Taekwondo and sports and they need help with their homework; one has a learning disability and needs significant time devoted to helping her with her reading skills. My infant son is colicky, has acid reflux, and usually can't be put down for very long, and is also a terrible sleeper, so I'm up with him half the night as well, while his father sleeps to be fresh for work the next day. Babies need a lot more than you seem to think they do. And of course, in between all those long luxurious hours I spend curled on my couch eating bon-bons and wondering what new ways I can come up with to make my man more henpecked and miserable, I find the time to handle all the kids' AND my adult male partner's medical and dental appointments and take care of the bills and cook for everybody and pack lunches and give all the kids' baths and clean the cat vomit off the carpets and read books on child psychology because one of my goddaughters has nightmares almost every night and has since her father went crazy and tried to commit suicide in their bathroom before he was committed, before their mother ran away.

 

I never said my life was horrible. This is the choice that I made and I'm sticking to it for another couple of years. I love my stepdaughter, goddaughters, and son, and I want to try to spend a few years making our family foundation rock solid and doing what's best for them...but I will be going 'back' to work in the future, because, frankly, in many ways it's easier that way. So no, I don't find your 'strong opinion' that I'm a laughable, despicable soccer mom taking the easy, lazy way out endearing whatsoever. My own strong opinion is that you are talking out of your ass.