For SAHM's.

Avatar for ariesgirl26
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
For SAHM's.
1137
Mon, 05-01-2006 - 5:18pm

For all the stay at home moms, yes I'm one of them. I have one question, do you plan on going back to work once all of your children are in Elementary school? Or do you like staying at home and have decided to never work again? I am just curious, my husband and I have talked about it. I am mainly home just for my kids, to be here when they come home from school is nice, but, I tend to get bored easly, so I have decided once my 3 year old enters into Elementary school, I will be going back to work. I have thought and thought about this, my husband is fine if I decide not to work or if I decide to go back and work. We are financially stable so I can choose to stay home if I want. I would be working so i won't be bored, while the kids are at school all day long. I do plan on working part time, so i can be home when they get home from school. I'm not the type to sit around and do nothing all day, right now my kids are home half the day at least my 5 year old is, so I have her, and my youngest to be home for. I just can't envision myself sitting here all day long with no children around, going gee what do i do now, ain't gonna happen.

I'm done rambling, waiting for replies!!!!

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Tue, 05-09-2006 - 12:27pm
Sure, business partnerships get loused up. But it's usually because the partners didn't take the time and trouble to set it up in a way that protects both. If one partner has more of a stake than the other, and therefore more of the risk, then something's wrong if he doesn't get more out of it than the partner with the lesser exposure. A good lawyer can do a lot to anticipate and avoid these problems if partners want to do that. In marriage it's not so easy to avoid having someone hold that money card. In my case, it would appear that I've more or less handed it over. But dh holds it just as much as if he had somehow wrested it from me.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2006
Tue, 05-09-2006 - 12:28pm
your post reminds me of what my dad shared with me the other week. dad was a school teacher who later taught at the college level before retiring......we were talking about the possibility of me taking some more college courses and he said he was going to go to the college (he used to teach at) to get information for me. he joked and told me he still has inside advantages because he's listed at that college as professor emeritus (sp) - a word i had to look up and something he's very worthy of indeed.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Tue, 05-09-2006 - 12:36pm
Okay, then, if you insist, marriage is a partnership. But any particular marriage partnership would need a whole lot of other qualifiers to characterize its true nature. Imo and IME, that dang money card can still be up someone's sleeve or right out on the table.
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 05-09-2006 - 1:14pm

Circumstances change, and there are risks to any business partnership that can't be completely addressed in advance, no matter how good your lawyer is. Going in, you don't know how successful the business will be financially or whose skills may turn out to be the most valuable. It's the same with marriage. You can draft a prenup that addresses what happens if the marriage ends, but you can't know in advance how much money and how many assets there will be to divide up, nor can you plan out every other issue that will come up re kids, etc.

Even in a business partnership, it's not always the case that the parties bring equal finances to the partnership. For instance, one partner may put up the money, while the other partner runs the business. They're still equal partners. People contribute different things, and there are ways to exert control that aren't about money. But a partnership--marriage or business--that is based on either party playing his hand to get control isn't a healthy one imo.

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 05-09-2006 - 1:17pm
I agree that you can't assume any particular marriage is a real partnership. I just don't think that how much money either partner makes is a good way to determine whether there is a real partnership.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-02-2003
Tue, 05-09-2006 - 1:29pm

The hard part is as I grew I did not just want a "job". I wanted to be doing something I loved and felt passionate about. I did some volunteer work and earned some money helping some people with house cleaning and gardens. I went back a forth for a while about what I wanted to do - I knew retail, which was all I really felt "qualified" to do, was not for me.

I think the hardest thing is our children actually need us at home more when they are middle school age. Many single and working moms I know of work on having flexible schedules. One works for a major healthcare product company and she works 3 or 4 days a week - she works one day as a 12 hour day and has always done it this way. The opportunities are out there and I think in your case it is a matter of finding something that works for you and allows you to be busy. I worked as a substitute in the schools - which was fun and there are usually some very good choices in schools.

Our children should not be the center of our world - it is unhealthy when they are. I think it is absolutely normal for you to want to return to work - geez just talking to adults!! Another thing to think about is - do you have a retirement account? College savings? or vacation fund? your income can serve many purposes to enhance your family.

For the record - you are really lucky if you get to sit down as a stay home mom - I know there is never a loss of things to do in my home - whether there is time to do them or not. Schools always ask for help too - stay home moms hardly stay home twiddling their thumbs - but working can serve many purposes too.

Courtney

Courtney

There's a great big beautiful tomorrow shining at the end of every day... there's a great big beautiful tom

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 05-09-2006 - 1:42pm

I came across this article, dont know how accurate it is but its kind of interesting:

Article by Richard Crouch, Attorney at Law, Crouch & Crouch, Arlington, Virginia; (703) 528-6700;

Originally Published in Family Law News, a Va. State Bar Publication

An AP wire service story, appearing May 18 in many newspapers, should be very, very thought-provoking for divorce lawyers. It said that New York sociologist Richard R. Peterson re-analyzed the survey data used to produce Lenore Weitzman's famous "feminization of poverty" statistic published in The Divorce Revolution (1985), and found her astonishing figures (women suffer a 73% standard-of-living reduction, and men a 42% increase, in the first year after divorce) drastically wrong. (Besides, quaere whether the study counted child and spousal support payments as income of the payor, the payee or both.)

At first, it seems like just another study-based news story in which you expect the next revelation to be that her figures are wrong because his are right and it's all just further proof that you can prove anything with statistics. However, the next paragraph (after an explanation that if you add up Weitzman's research numbers, the totals are only a bad-enough 27% decline and 10% increase) is the true shocker. The reporter reveals that Ms. Weitzman, a professor of sociology and law at George Mason University, says yes, her figures were wrong. The original computer data file was lost, and she thinks it was a calculation error (or "weighting error") by a research assistant. And she adds (according to the AP at least) that nevertheless, "I'm responsible: I reported it."

The reporter then ran a Nexis search and found 175 newspaper and magazine stories citing the 73%/42% Weitzman figures as an astounding and scandalous revelation, and found it cited in 348 social-science articles, 250 law review articles, and 24 appellate court cases. It is, of course, quoted in President Clinton's 1996 budget proposal. Anne Colby, director of the Murray Research Center at Radcliffe, where the original data are held, called it "one of the most widely quoted statistics in recent history."

Of course the number of times this statistic has been cited in Congress and the state legislatures is unknown, but the article acknowledges that its influence has been enormous. One last curious detail: the figures have been attacked before, but Professor Weitzman has vehemently defended them. Lately, however, there has been consternation because the 73%/42% statistic has been used by reactionary opponents of no-fault divorce.>

Which doesnt disprove that women tend to suffer a reduction in SOL after divorce and men get an increase, but it looks like its not as major as people might think.

dj

Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Tue, 05-09-2006 - 4:36pm
Well. My opinion is that the business model of marriage only holds up to a point, while you see more of a parallel. Fine by me! But whatever language you want to use, I believe that overall, marriage is a better deal for men than it is for women, and the part about who has the upper hand and which hand holds the money card is key to that. If you asked me whether it works out that way because partners in marriage are out to manipulate each other or whether it's built into society's structures, I'd guess the latter.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Tue, 05-09-2006 - 4:41pm
I don't think it's necessarily about how much money each partner makes, either. I do think it's *partly* and *often* a matter of who makes more money, though. If my dh and I broke up now, he'd be able to handle the house all on his own, and I wouldn't. At least not right away. Unless he generously helped me, which he probably wouldn't. And I might not even want him to. I'd be looking at two-bedroom apartments, with the kiddos bunking in together. No more cushy 4BR in the 'burbs. To me, that's the money card.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Tue, 05-09-2006 - 4:45pm
Yeah, I read that somewhere, too. But if it were me, I'd still consider a 10% decrease for me and a 20-something increase for him more or less equivalent to the money card. Especially when I've been used to doing a little better each year. Those initial percentages did seem really screwed up, though, regardless of how you count CS. Btw, I wonder under what circumstances wives qualify for spousal support these days? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't.

Pages