The Wifely Duties

[LoveMyHats2]

totally agree... Being in a rotten one is just a festering thing that will someday explode. If you find the right person, and I really don't think it's that tough.

I think people are made to fall in love pretty easy, and if you fall in love with someone with similar views and ideas as you do, it would take a lot to break that up. The biggest problem most single people have (of the ones I know) is having this "Ideal" vision of what the person that's right for them is, all the while missing out on when the right one comes along.

Bingo! Now I find (my opinion again) that most of the hardship and anger, frustration, negative actions that you see reflected from both people when the issue of their relationship goes south is, they feel so hurt because their "dream world" did not work, and they lack the wisdom of just understanding that and get all huffed up about it. They make a war of it, rather than to just get things over and move on.

 

[kamikat]

I personally like the idea of a stay at home wife. My mom stayed home until my dad got hurt and she was forced to go back to work. In the world today, it's not feasible, at least I think, unless you're very wealthy. I'm not a rich man, so if I ever have a Mrs, she'll be working, unfortunately.

That's not true at all. I've been a stay-at-home mom for 12 years. The key,at least for us, was to have kids early enough to not get used to having that second income. I worked full time while my husband (then boyfriend) finished up college, then we both worked while paying off school loans, then had our first baby within 3 years of first meeting. Our whole adult life has been with one income. We managed car payments, house payments, saving for the kids' college all on one income. My husband works for a not-for-profit foundation making about half of what he could make in a for-profit company doing the same thing. The couples that I know that both work usually have waited until after 35 to have their first baby. By that time, they are so used to 2 incomes that their lifestyles demand 2 incomes. They have 2 car payments, a large mortgage, lots of credit cards. We've never had more than 1 car payment at a time. We bought a cheap house. We paid off our credit cards before buying the house and never got new ones. But on the other hand, we don't eat out, I cook every night. We go to the movies about 4 times each year. My kids don't do all the expensive afterschool activies. My sister thinks I've depriving my kids of soccer, piano lessons, scouting. I think she's depriving her kids of her presence while her nanny drives her kids to all those activities. It's all about priorities.

 

[Edward]

I have friends who spent the first year of their marriage living in the woods in a teepee. That's too atavistic even for me.

Yeah.... I'd love that for a few days, but much after that it'd be "fit a flush toilet and then we'll talk..."

It isn't just marriage, either. I know gals -- young women mostly, but some my age or older -- who can't function if they aren't "in a relationship." They get hooked up with some no-account bum just for the sake of having a "guy" and end up frustrated and upset and hurt when things blow up, and then they just go right on ahead and do it again, grabbing the first apple out of the barrel without bothering to check if it's rotten.

I thought "modern women" were beyond this sort of thinking. Seems not.

Alas, no.... and "modern men" aren't much better, in the main. I'm eternally grateful that I was never taught by my folks to find any form of self-validation through relationships. I've had considerably fewer relationships in my life than would probably be considered normal, and went around six years without one (in that time I did turn down a few). Really, the relationships i have had have been just a blip in terms of duration of my life, and I've never felt incomplete as a person without one. I'm very grateful for this in comparison to friends and others I've known who have no sense of self worth whatever without being with someone. I've even known someone to overlap relationships so as never to be single for a decade or more. I suppose it's harder for people who really want to have kids, though; I never have (wouldn't even consider getting involved with someone who did, it's a dealbreaker), so I have the luxury of not having any lifegoals that are dependent upon having a partner.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

That's not true at all. I've been a stay-at-home mom for 12 years. The key,at least for us, was to have kids early enough to not get used to having that second income. I worked full time while my husband (then boyfriend) finished up college, then we both worked while paying off school loans, then had our first baby within 3 years of first meeting. Our whole adult life has been with one income. We managed car payments, house payments, saving for the kids' college all on one income. My husband works for a not-for-profit foundation making about half of what he could make in a for-profit company doing the same thing. The couples that I know that both work usually have waited until after 35 to have their first baby. By that time, they are so used to 2 incomes that their lifestyles demand 2 incomes. They have 2 car payments, a large mortgage, lots of credit cards. We've never had more than 1 car payment at a time. We bought a cheap house. We paid off our credit cards before buying the house and never got new ones. But on the other hand, we don't eat out, I cook every night. We go to the movies about 4 times each year. My kids don't do all the expensive afterschool activies. My sister thinks I've depriving my kids of soccer, piano lessons, scouting. I think she's depriving her kids of her presence while her nanny drives her kids to all those activities. It's all about priorities.

I do find the priorities part of the how and why you are doing what you do, perhaps the most important aspect of all. I do know, for myself, my entire relationship and for my Wife's part in it, and my own, is for each other. Being of the age we are, children are all grown and not a part of our household, I am sure that in itself makes a very big difference. But you are right, a person has to define the priorities and go from there on things.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

You're truly an inspiration. Thanks for giving me hope, once again. I always thought my parents could only do it because with my dad being Foreman on the job-sites, he was making good money, and we didn't have things like internet, dish, etc.

That's not true at all. I've been a stay-at-home mom for 12 years. The key,at least for us, was to have kids early enough to not get used to having that second income. I worked full time while my husband (then boyfriend) finished up college, then we both worked while paying off school loans, then had our first baby within 3 years of first meeting. Our whole adult life has been with one income. We managed car payments, house payments, saving for the kids' college all on one income. My husband works for a not-for-profit foundation making about half of what he could make in a for-profit company doing the same thing. The couples that I know that both work usually have waited until after 35 to have their first baby. By that time, they are so used to 2 incomes that their lifestyles demand 2 incomes. They have 2 car payments, a large mortgage, lots of credit cards. We've never had more than 1 car payment at a time. We bought a cheap house. We paid off our credit cards before buying the house and never got new ones. But on the other hand, we don't eat out, I cook every night. We go to the movies about 4 times each year. My kids don't do all the expensive afterschool activies. My sister thinks I've depriving my kids of soccer, piano lessons, scouting. I think she's depriving her kids of her presence while her nanny drives her kids to all those activities. It's all about priorities.

 

[Marzena]

That's not true at all. I've been a stay-at-home mom for 12 years. The key,at least for us, was to have kids early enough to not get used to having that second income. I worked full time while my husband (then boyfriend) finished up college, then we both worked while paying off school loans, then had our first baby within 3 years of first meeting. Our whole adult life has been with one income. We managed car payments, house payments, saving for the kids' college all on one income. My husband works for a not-for-profit foundation making about half of what he could make in a for-profit company doing the same thing. The couples that I know that both work usually have waited until after 35 to have their first baby. By that time, they are so used to 2 incomes that their lifestyles demand 2 incomes. They have 2 car payments, a large mortgage, lots of credit cards. We've never had more than 1 car payment at a time. We bought a cheap house. We paid off our credit cards before buying the house and never got new ones. But on the other hand, we don't eat out, I cook every night. We go to the movies about 4 times each year. My kids don't do all the expensive afterschool activies. My sister thinks I've depriving my kids of soccer, piano lessons, scouting. I think she's depriving her kids of her presence while her nanny drives her kids to all those activities. It's all about priorities.

I have recently talked to a lady, one of the symbols of "having it all" in my country.She very candidly told me the key to successful combining of career and family was actually a very HIGH income. Then, she said, it is possible to create a family environment not much affected by demands of your career, b/c there is so much help and support available whenever needed.
I thought it quite refreshing. I have always heard that you needed a large income to afford being a full time homemaker and suddenly this wonder woman tells me how she could only afford being a career mother because her income was large enough!

 

[Miss sofia]

Hey there can i just agree with Tom and say you are an inspiration Kamikat.

I was a single, stay-at-home mom for five years, in that time, i had no family near me as they moved abroad. I did have a small part time job a few mornings a week while my son was at playschool. I made a concious decision to quit a well-paid job when i split up with my son's father in order to be there for my son and spend all the quality time with him i could. I have to say i was lucky as i had some savings and my ex-partner contributed to paying some of my bills, but really we lived on fresh air for those five years. But, i think those years were the happiest of my life and i can't say we both went without at all. As Kamikat said it's about being used to living on one income initially.

It's also all about effort and budgeting! We were lucky as we lived in a rural area, with a lovely close-knit communtiy who were very helpful. After i paid the household bills there was very little money to spare, but children don't need all the gadgets and gimmicks to be happy. We didn't have the internet, i used the local library as it was free. There are plenty of activities for children like painting, baking, or just mucking about outdoors that don't cost money and which we took full advantage of. I used to pore over the local papers to find days out, museums and art galleries or children's fun days that were free etc. sorry to blather on, but as i said it's all about effort and budgeting. I'm not trying to set myself up as some holier than thou type, god forbid! It's not easy relying on a small income at all, especially when the washing machine blows up or you need a serious amount of cash to hand for something. All i want to say is that it is possible to have a fulfilling family life on one income. One just has to prioritise what is important, a roof over your head, food on the table, lights that go on when you flick the switch, an old banger to get you from A to B, a treat every now and then. The rest, all the material things we think we need, well as my dear old Dad always says, it's just stuff...

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Who was it, a famous Actress that said, "it is not the men in my life, but the life in my men"? Yeah you know who I mean...Jean Harlow!

 

[kamikat]

Oh, thanks, everyone!

 

[AmateisGal]

My kids don't do all the expensive afterschool activies. My sister thinks I've depriving my kids of soccer, piano lessons, scouting. I think she's depriving her kids of her presence while her nanny drives her kids to all those activities. It's all about priorities.

Good for you! I have friends who are endlessly shuffling their kids one place or another and they are always complaining. My daughter has art lessons once every two weeks and that's it, and sometimes I think people look down on me for not having her involved in more. But she doesn't like sports and I'm not going to push her to be in stuff. She's quite content and we love spending time together instead of running ourselves ragged.

 

[Nobert]

I'm backtracking a bit here, I just wanted to throw in my two cents on this. I don't think the "need-to-be-in-a-relationship-to-feel-complete" mindset is confined to the female side of the equation. It possibly even leans heavier on the Y-chromosome.

I read something awhile ago that indicated men tend to be more dependent on romantic involvements than women, more devastated by their dissolution. For what it's worth, my therapist said that jived with her professional experience. The fact that civilization is finally at least heading towards the idea of more equity in terms of career pursuits has, I think, little bearing on the need to feel needed, or whatever it is.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I'm backtracking a bit here, I just wanted to throw in my two cents on this. I don't think the "need-to-be-in-a-relationship-to-feel-complete" mindset is confined to the female side of the equation. It possibly even leans heavier on the Y-chromosome.

I read something awhile ago that indicated men tend to be more dependent on romantic involvements than women, more devastated by their dissolution. For what it's worth, my therapist said that jived with her professional experience. The fact that civilization is finally at least heading towards the idea of more equity in terms of career pursuits has, I think, little bearing on the need to feel needed, or whatever it is.

That probably explains why in the case of older married couples that if the wife goes first the husband often follows shortly after -- regardless of health or age. But if the husband is the first to pass away, the wife will often survive him by many years. One of my friends lost his wife to breast cancer and then eighteen months later he was gone. At the time his wife died my friend seemed like he was in fairly good health for his age (he was in his 70s) but even I noticed that afterward he had dramatically deteriorated, practically over night. The other example was my parents. My mom passed away first and then my dad ten months later.

 

[C-dot]

Good for you! I have friends who are endlessly shuffling their kids one place or another and they are always complaining. My daughter has art lessons once every two weeks and that's it, and sometimes I think people look down on me for not having her involved in more. But she doesn't like sports and I'm not going to push her to be in stuff. She's quite content and we love spending time together instead of running ourselves ragged.

I think you've made the right decision there. I'm not sure what motivates parents to push their children into all kinds of extracurricular activities (believing them to be gifted, wanting them out of their hair) but children are quite happy to spend quiet time at home. I think if one is going to involve their child in an after-school hobby, it should be carefully selected as something they really enjoy.

That probably explains why in the case of older married couples that if the wife goes first the husband often follows shortly after -- regardless of health or age. But if the husband is the first to pass away, the wife will often survive him by many years. One of my friends lost his wife to breast cancer and then eighteen months later he was gone. At the time his wife died my friend seemed like he was in fairly good health for his age (he was in his 70s) but even I noticed that afterward he had dramatically deteriorated, practically over night. The other example was my parents. My mom passed away first and then my dad ten months later.

Many famous couples come to mind, two of them being Charles Boyer and his wife Pat, and George Burns and Gracie Allen. I'm sure everyone knows their stories, but Charles committed suicide at age 78 only a few days after his wife died; Gracie Allen died in 1964 at age 69, long before George, who lived to be 100.

There is a story that Bobby Darin stayed with George through a couple of his sleepless nights after her death. George and Gracie slept in twin beds, and when Bobby suggested that George sleep in Gracie's bed, he was able to sleep peacefully. I choose to believe that story George also kept Gracie's wedding band on a chain around his neck for the rest of his life.

 

[Miss sofia]

Good for you! I have friends who are endlessly shuffling their kids one place or another and they are always complaining. My daughter has art lessons once every two weeks and that's it, and sometimes I think people look down on me for not having her involved in more. But she doesn't like sports and I'm not going to push her to be in stuff. She's quite content and we love spending time together instead of running ourselves ragged.

Me too, i think sometimes it's that 'keeping up with the jones's thing' you find with sets of parents. It's certainly prevalent where i live, it's almost a status thing. It also stops children from learning to entertain themselves when their whole week is mapped out with extra-curricular activities. My ex had twin boys who were constantly being herded from pillar to post after school and weekends doing activities, it was a real bone of contention. His argument was that they were lively, energetic kids and needed stimulation and wearing out. On the odd day at home they were very destructive and badly behaved simply because they had become used to being entertained all the time and didn't know how to play nicely in the garden or indoors without going on the rampage.

 

[sheeplady]

I have recently talked to a lady, one of the symbols of "having it all" in my country.She very candidly told me the key to successful combining of career and family was actually a very HIGH income. Then, she said, it is possible to create a family environment not much affected by demands of your career, b/c there is so much help and support available whenever needed.

That makes sense. It costs money to work. You need clothes, transportation, etc. If you have a high income career, you probably also can't handle most housework on top of it- laundering, cleaning, and cooking. So a portion of that goes to paying someone else to do that for you. In addition, your costs for maintaining that career (such as "new designer" clothes, etc.) can be dramatically high.

I think this even trickles down to middle class families as well. Take two families whose household income is $80,000. Couple A where both spouses work and make 40,000 apiece is not making the same "net" income as a Couple B who has one person working and making 80,000 while but the other stays home. On paper, sure, they make the same, but the first family has the costs of the second person working- work clothes, transportation, work events- and also loses the benefit of the cost savings on things like cooking, couponing, and perhaps other things that the stay at home spouse can do to save money.

If you add childcare to the mix, in order to be able to work you have to make a certain amount to cover the cost of childcare. For many families, they barely break even, so a spouse stays home. Even if that means that they must make difficult choices.

I think, however, that someone shouldn't have to feel they have to justify their decision on childcare financially. I think some women who wanted to work or wanted to stay home are made to feel that a financial justification is the only socially acceptable justification for their decision. That is wrong. "I wanted to" or "it was the best decision for my family" should be perfectly acceptable.

 

[Edward]

I'm backtracking a bit here, I just wanted to throw in my two cents on this. I don't think the "need-to-be-in-a-relationship-to-feel-complete" mindset is confined to the female side of the equation. It possibly even leans heavier on the Y-chromosome.

I read something awhile ago that indicated men tend to be more dependent on romantic involvements than women, more devastated by their dissolution. For what it's worth, my therapist said that jived with her professional experience. The fact that civilization is finally at least heading towards the idea of more equity in terms of career pursuits has, I think, little bearing on the need to feel needed, or whatever it is.

I agree, it is to be seen in both genders of the human species. That said, it seems to me to arise in different ways - not to over-generalise, but for the moat part, the women I have known who can't not be in a relationship "need" someone in order to feel complete in themselves and in their own eyes (albeit that this "need" is a cultural construct instilled initially by others - parents, peers, media, whatever), whereas for the males it is much more likely to be an ego thing, for the benefit of approval from others. Not the same in every case, but as often as not within what I have observed personally.

I think this even trickles down to middle class families as well. Take two families whose household income is $80,000. Couple A where both spouses work and make 40,000 apiece is not making the same "net" income as a Couple B who has one person working and making 80,000 while but the other stays home. On paper, sure, they make the same, but the first family has the costs of the second person working- work clothes, transportation, work events- and also loses the benefit of the cost savings on things like cooking, couponing, and perhaps other things that the stay at home spouse can do to save money.

If you add childcare to the mix, in order to be able to work you have to make a certain amount to cover the cost of childcare. For many families, they barely break even, so a spouse stays home. Even if that means that they must make difficult choices.

Of course, the problem with comparing these two experiences directly is that the two-income household in which both parties earn USD40K is more likely to be one in which neither party will have the option of a job paying USD80K, and so are unlikely to end up as well off as the couple in a position to live off a single, 80K income. That's the world we've ended up in, where the rich get richer and the poor get..... well, you know the rest.

I think, however, that someone shouldn't have to feel they have to justify their decision on childcare financially. I think some women who wanted to work or wanted to stay home are made to feel that a financial justification is the only socially acceptable justification for their decision. That is wrong. "I wanted to" or "it was the best decision for my family" should be perfectly acceptable.

Absolutely, and we're back to the fact that feminism (far from what many of its detractors would have you believe) is about choice being available irrespective of gender.

 

[LizzieMaine]

This is the problem when feminism becomes an *ideology* instead of a *philosophy.*

 

[jamespowers]

This is the problem when feminism becomes an *ideology* instead of a *philosophy.*

I thought it was always an ideology.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You'd be surprised. It didn't become an *ideology* until the Second Wave came along, and suddenly the Personal Became Political. In practical terms, your private choices become everyone's business for the sake of the Movement -- and that dogmatism, in my view, has done more *harm* to real feminism, the idea that women should have an equal chance and choice in how they live their life, than just about anything.

 

[jamespowers]

You'd be surprised. It didn't become an *ideology* until the Second Wave came along, and suddenly the Personal Became Political. In practical terms, your private choices become everyone's business for the sake of the Movement -- and that dogmatism, in my view, has done more *harm* to real feminism, the idea that women should have an equal chance and choice in how they live their life, than just about anything.

I suppose Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug were a bit out there.