For SAHM's.
Find a Conversation
| 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
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
He'll come out ahead, and while we're together, that's the money card in its *latent phase*. I have more to lose than he in the event of divorce, and our mutual awareness of that constitutes the card, even if the card isn't ever actually played. The only way for me to avoid that would be to make sure I earn enough not to care about it.
That's the thing that I find so fascinating about this thread. Some wives talk as if the playing of the MC is the last thing that would ever happen to them, or as if it doesn't exist unless it's played, and my opinion is that the MC has its influence whether or not it is played. But like partnership, it's all in how you define it, I guess.
Dh and I just argue. I present my arguments for X and he presents his arguments for Y. There is nothing subtle or manipulative. Just a list of pros and cons with emotion behind them of why we each have given the pros and cons different weight. There are three ways this plays out: I persuade him that X is better, he persuades me that Y is better or we compromise at something that is a blend of X and Y. (Were your hypothetical to come up for us, the compromise would be a $ figure less than I wanted to donate originally and more than he wanted to donate originally.)
So I can see where Louis is coming from in this one. If you have more or less the same values, then the only matters to argue about are matters of implementation. A radical value clash would result in a winner and a loser and would encourage manipulation because who wants to compromise their values? But in almost 20 years of marriage, we haven't come across a situation where the disagreement was value-based rather than implementation-based.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Pages