Are you a stay-at-home wife?

[DLgal]

My faith in our national security requires me to believe that a "highly successful military officer" could handle independent living and child raising if the need arose.

The fact that you would even say that though is sad to me and illustrates how judged you must feel for your choices and the need to defend them. I've said, that no one needs to defend anything to me. Staying home wasn't right for me but that is ONLY me.

What? I don't feel judged. Why is what I said sad? I was simply responding to the idea that "independence" correlated to the ability to earn money. It doesn't.

And you would be surprised how many of our military men and women are totally useless around the house. That skill set is completely different. These people focus on the task they have to be good at, often to the detriment of everything else. It's often a very myopic career path. My husband is amazing at directing artillery fire and analyzing intelligence for targeting, as well as leading hundreds of Marines in a combat situation. He sucks at remembering what time school starts and ends and how to use our barbecue (seriously...he is the only man I know who is clueless around a grill).

 

[piccolopat]

What is your point, though?

Are you saying both spouses must always work, regardless of their circumstances, because no matter how much they may think they've planned, something unforeseen could happen and it could all come crashing down?

What about people who feel their lives are improved by having one spouse stay home? Are you saying it doesn't matter how many benefits they're currently enjoying, or how happy they are, the only right thing to do is give it all up and have both spouses work?

If you're not saying these things, then what are you saying?

I'm saying that people have to make their own choices but they should always know they have current and marketable skills to support themselves if they had to. This can be done through working outside the home, working from home, volunteering or other opportunities that can show you have skills an employer would value. Life insurance can help replace the income of a working spouse but it doesn't help if the marriage breaks up or the breadwinner spouse can no longer work at all. I like to have a plan B for everything. I understand that others are perfectly comfortable winging it if something unfortunate or unforeseen happens.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I am lucky in that I have the choice of not working and it makes me happy. Why that upsets some women, I have no idea.

I expect for some, it upsets them because they don't have that option.

I think it's human nature (at least for people inclined to be happy) to take whatever circumstances we're stuck with (either side of this particular debate) and rationalize why the decisions those circumstances force us to make are the "right" decisions anyway.

 

[quandrea]

I'm saying that people have to make their own choices but they should always know they have current and marketable skills to support themselves if they had to. This can be done through working outside the home, working from home, volunteering or other opportunities that can show you have skills an employer would value. Life insurance can help replace the income of a working spouse but it doesn't help if the marriage breaks up or the breadwinner spouse can no longer work at all. I like to have a plan B for everything. I understand that others are perfectly comfortable winging it if something unfortunate or unforeseen happens.

This is simply untrue. Sound financial planning ensures security in the event of unforeseen events. Living within ones means ensures security in the event of tragedy. I'd bank on that any day over maintaining "marketable skills." And we get to live the lifestyle that we choose in the present. I'd rather have a sound financial plan that ensures one spouse's comfort in the event of tragedy over entering the workforce just to maintain my skills in the event of some possible, future misfortune.

I wonder if this mindset of potential financial ruin due to changed circumstances comes from the notion of the two income trap. It's the tendency of families to live on every cent of both partners' incomes. They need both incomes just to stay afloat. If something unexpected occurs--death, divorce, job loss, the whole lifestyle comes tumbling down. Many financial experts espouse living on only one of the two incomes and saving/investing the second. In a way, it inoculates against financial ruin.

 

[ronandannette]

That's the whole point, I think.
People make their own decisions in life. Some choices are foolish and some are wise, and we all have an opinion on which is which. But I don't automatically assume that all SAHWs need to be informed of the risks of their life choices, any more than I would assume all working parents need to be reminded not to neglect their children.
I really doubt your post will help anyone, any more than posting woeful tales of miserable working mothers who regret their life choices would help anyone.
And I agree with quandrea... It's really all about smart financial planning. I know people who've worked their whole lives, who are in horrible straits due to the poor financial choices they've made.

Declaring this doesn't make it true. And it's judgy to boot. There are lots, lots of things that happen in life that all the planning in the world won't prevent. Lots.

If my husband dies before I do, I would never have to work again.

Whether my DH lives or dies, I'll still have to work until I'm 70. Most definitely not what either one of us ever foresaw coming earlier in our lives. And that's in spite of having made all the conventionally "wise" financial decisions most prudent people would.

 

[Mrs. W]

I am a stay-at-home wife. I'm married without children (currently no plans to have any) and I do not work full time or even part time. I substitute teach every so often.

My husband and I are best friends and like to spend a lot of time together. When he travels for work, I go with him. I was a full time teacher before we were married, and vacation time during the school year was strongly discouraged, even banned during certain time periods (i.e. during the month of state testing, the days before or after a holiday, etc.). Also, I truly love to teach so I would not have liked taking 2-3 weeks off in the middle of the year even if it had been allowed. That's not fair to the students to have a sub 2-3 weeks at a time, multiple times, in a school year. So when I got married, I waited until the end of the school year to resign from my position and agreed to be put on a sub list with the district.

My husband is surprised when I tell him people comment on our roles. Many of his coworkers' wives do no work outside of the home. In fact, one coworker told my husband that he tells people that his own stay-at-home wife is a "wife of leisure". In my eyes, it's not my job to make others feel comfortable with my lifestyle. However, I also see and hear from women that I know that they are envious of the fact that I can stay home. I'm sensitive to this, so I do not go out of my way to tell people that I do not work regularly. I tell people that I teach and I leave it at that. For the former coworkers or acquaintances that I run into and who ask about my job status, I tell them the truth: that I'm just enjoying life with my husband and subbing.Yes, people ask questions such as "what do you do all day?" and make comments that may be intended to be snarky, but in the end, my husband and I are very happy with our roles and that's really all that matters to us.

 

[quandrea]

Declaring this doesn't make it true. And it's judgy to boot. There are lots, lots of things that happen in life that all the planning in the world won't prevent. Lots.

Whether my DH lives or dies, I'll still have to work until I'm 70. Most definitely not what either one of us ever foresaw coming earlier in our lives. And that's in spite of having made all the conventionally "wise" financial decisions most prudent people would.

How is saying that financial planning is important judgy? Once you've paid off that mortgage, invested that money, it's there. Nothing will happen to undo that. Lots of things do happen that can't be planned for, but saving, investing, living within one's means and paying off the mortgage are not things that will throw a person for a loop. You just do it and it pays dividends when the time comes. There is no judgement there, just facts.

 

[jen7233]

And you would be surprised how many of our military men and women are totally useless around the house. That skill set is completely different. These people focus on the task they have to be good at, often to the detriment of everything else. It's often a very myopic career path.

That's sort of presumptuous. This can be any career field or any group of people that claim they are not the most skillful around the house. It's either a personal preference of not liking to clean or not so great at certain things, but doesn't have much to do with being military specifically. As a 21 year military retiree, I can personally say I'm multi-faceted in handling things around the house and knew my military job, and always was that way. When I was a junior enlisted Soldier, I can't even begin to list the amount of cleaning we did both in military schools from basic to OCS, and then also as permanent party. I think it's just an individual thing, not much more.

 

[piccolopat]

This is simply untrue. Sound financial planning ensures security in the event of unforeseen events. Living within ones means ensures security in the event of tragedy. I'd bank on that any day over maintaining "marketable skills." And we get to live the lifestyle that we choose in the present. I'd rather have a sound financial plan that ensures one spouse's comfort in the event of tragedy over entering the workforce just to maintain my skills in the event of some possible, future misfortune.

I wonder if this mindset of potential financial ruin due to changed circumstances comes from the notion of the two income trap. It's the tendency of families to live on every cent of both partners' incomes. They need both incomes just to stay afloat. If something unexpected occurs--death, divorce, job loss, the whole lifestyle comes tumbling down. Many financial experts espouse living on only one of the two incomes and saving/investing the second. In a way, it inoculates against financial ruin.

Plenty of families may not have the choices or resources that you and others apparently have. Families that live paycheck to paycheck just so one can stay at home with the kids just don't have much left over to save or invest. These aren't people living in oversized homes or driving brand new cars. In some areas of the country, many families find it necessary for both parents to work just so they can live in a small house in an area with good schools. Too many struggle just to put a basic roof over their heads and pay routine bills, not because they live extravagantly. I agree that some make poor decisions and live beyond their means. We've been blessed and have the resources we need for a comfortable retirement, but we've also always had a plan "B" (and a sound financial plan). Our niece did too until her well paid husband had an accident and then he walked out. After the medical bills were paid and the assets were split, going back to work was a necessity. You know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men...

 

[Colleen27]

I'm saying that people have to make their own choices but they should always know they have current and marketable skills to support themselves if they had to.

Which is, essentially, saying that yes, everyone should work. Because as much as we talk about putting volunteer work on resumes, we all know that's not really "work" in the eyes of the people doing the hiring. It is funny how people dance around this one to avoid coming out and saying it, when the core of the message is the same. The sure only way to know you have current and marketable skills valuable to employers is to be gainfully employed.

 

[piccolopat]

How is saying that financial planning is important judgy? Once you've paid off that mortgage, invested that money, it's there. Nothing will happen to undo that. Lots of things do happen that can't be planned for, but saving, investing, living within one's means and paying off the mortgage are not things that will throw a person for a loop. You just do it and it pays dividends when the time comes. There is no judgement there, just facts.

Young couples can't pay off the mortgage in a year or two. Houses can, and do, lose value. Investments can tank. You can lose all of your assets in a lawsuit that exceeds whatever insurance you buy. You can have a family member with a catastrophic illness or accident and incur thousands of dollars of medical bills followed by thousands and thousands of dollars for nursing home care. Don't think that good planning means you'll never have problems.

 

[quandrea]

Plenty of families may not have the choices or resources that you and others apparently have. Families that live paycheck to paycheck just so one can stay at home with the kids just don't have much left over to save or invest. These aren't people living in oversized homes or driving brand new cars. In some areas of the country, many families find it necessary for both parents to work just so they can live in a small house in an area with good schools. Too many struggle just to put a basic roof over their heads and pay routine bills, not because they live extravagantly. I agree that some make poor decisions and live beyond their means. We've been blessed and have the resources we need for a comfortable retirement, but we've also always had a plan "B" (and a sound financial plan). Our niece did too until her well paid husband had an accident and then he walked out. After the medical bills were paid and the assets were split, going back to work was a necessity. You know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men...

You may be right about the need for two incomes in some cases. I still think that relying on the two incomes to maintain the lifestyle can be a dangerous house of cards. I see what you are saying though. There is no doubt though that people in North America spend more than they earn. I'm in Canada, and I think the figure is that Canadians spend $1.63 for every dollar they ear. People here are also extremely over leveraged where their mortgages are concerned. One partner loses a job. It all falls apart.

 

[quandrea]

Young couples can't pay off the mortgage in a year or two. Houses can, and do, lose value. Investments can tank. You can lose all of your assets in a lawsuit that exceeds whatever insurance you buy. You can have a family member with a catastrophic illness or accident and incur thousands of dollars of medical bills followed by thousands and thousands of dollars for nursing home care. Don't think that good planning means you'll never have problems.

I'm wondering if my world view is so different because I'm in Canada. I live in one of the hottest real estate markets and universal health care frames catastrophic illness completely differently.

 

[piccolopat]

Which is, essentially, saying that yes, everyone should work. Because as much as we talk about putting volunteer work on resumes, we all know that's not really "work" in the eyes of the people doing the hiring. It is funny how people dance around this one to avoid coming out and saying it, when the core of the message is the same. The sure only way to know you have current and marketable skills valuable to employers is to be gainfully employed.

No, that is not what I said. I will consider skills used in a volunteer position if I am hiring for a trainee position. However the skills have to be relevant. For example, someone who has volunteered for an organization working on their publications using Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. will likely get an interview. Someone who has volunteered in an animal shelter will not since those skills aren't a fit for what my staff would do.

 

[Poohforyou]

I am lucky in that I have the choice of not working and it makes me happy. Why that upsets some women, I have no idea.

Who's upset about your not working? Why would anyone care what you decide to do even if they'd never make the same decision?

I personally would not stop working. Not because I have to but because it is what I believe is in the best interest of my family. I also believe my being able to earn an income that would support our family, if we had to rely on it, gives me a sense of independence that I wouldn't feel staying home. We have plenty of life insurance but too many things can happen l.

Obviously I plan to retire. I was also able to scale back from full time to part time until dd hit middle school.

 

[ronandannette]

How is saying that financial planning is important judgy? Once you've paid off that mortgage, invested that money, it's there. Nothing will happen to undo that. Lots of things do happen that can't be planned for, but saving, investing, living within one's means and paying off the mortgage are not things that will throw a person for a loop. You just do it and it pays dividends when the time comes. There is no judgement there, just facts.

Financial planning IS important. But asserting that "it's really all about smart financial planning" implies a certain degree of hubris; that "smart financial planners" are immune to the unforeseen. They are not. And I wouldn't wish such circumstances on my worst enemies, especially those who were sure nothing could ever take them down.

I do, however, totally agree with @Magpie about one thing: our security is much better placed in our abilities to adapt and recover - come what may. Confidence that one will never face these things is shifting sand at best.

 

[Colleen27]

And I couldn't disagree with you more. We all have opinions and perspectives, and you are appearing, based on your postings, to hold a very defensive one. You see stay at home mothers being devalued. I have personally been lectured on this same thread about making sure that I value my children and that I need to be proud of them regardless of the choices they make (having given no reason to think that I don't) while the same poster smugly extolled the warm dinners she cooks for her husband and the errands she runs during the day (as if to imply my family is eating cold cereal out of a trough).

You don't appear to see what I see, and I'm seeing what you see but also seeing it go both ways. In my opinion it's two sides of the exact same coin and encourage you to try harder to refrain from dismissing the feelings of people who disagree with you. Then perhaps you won't feel so devalued or attacked.

I think sometimes in these longer threads, the conversation gets generalized. There have been posts - not from you, as far as I recall - saying that they'd be disappointed if their daughters chose to stay at home/be dependent on a man, particularly after the parents paid for an education. That is a pretty general statement that staying home is lesser than working. Saying "I cook a hot dinner every night from scratch" isn't saying anything about what anyone else cooks, and saying "I don't know what I'd do at home all day" isn't suggesting that others can't find productive ways to fill those hours. They're just expressions of personal preference and habits. But saying "Being a SAH parent or spouse is a choice I'd be disappointed in" certainly is saying it is less valuable than other roles a woman might choose.

Also, it is hard not to feel devalued or attacked by the condescending, faux-helpful stories that always get offered up in these conversations about a sister/cousin/friend who ended up destitute because her husband ran off, her degree was worthless to employers, and she'd wasted years of her life at home. The whole "I hope it gives others a reason to think twice" line is just so smug, as though people who would leave the workforce to stay at home are just too darned naive or stupid to think through the worst-case scenarios in life.

 

[piccolopat]

I'm wondering if my world view is so different because I'm in Canada. I live in one of the hottest real estate markets and universal health care frames catastrophic illness completely differently.

Could be. Things are different here in the states. Also, I don't know how your taxes work, but DH and I will move sometime after I retire because taxes here in New York state are out of control. In addition to high income and sales taxes, our property taxes are through the roof. We can move to other states and pay a fraction of the taxes, freeing up funds for fund things like travel. A house like ours 10 miles over into the next state has property taxes half of what we pay. It's absurd.

 

[Wendy31]

I'm saying that people have to make their own choices but they should always know they have current and marketable skills to support themselves if they had to. This can be done through working outside the home, working from home, volunteering or other opportunities that can show you have skills an employer would value. Life insurance can help replace the income of a working spouse but it doesn't help if the marriage breaks up or the breadwinner spouse can no longer work at all. I like to have a plan B for everything. I understand that others are perfectly comfortable winging it if something unfortunate or unforeseen happens.

But you understand, right, that I don't feel like I'm "winging it" because DH & I together have chosen for me to stay home?

And for someone to say that I am "winging it" because I've chosen to stay home comes off as a bit judgmental.

 

[piccolopat]

But you understand, right, that I don't feel like I'm "winging it" because DH & I together have chosen for me to stay home?

And for someone to say that I am "winging it" because I've chosen to stay home comes off as a bit judgmental.

Not judging here.