# No respect for husband that earns less



## Wolfman1968

Interesting piece from the National Public Radio (NPR) website:

Dear Sugars: I Don't Want To Be The Breadwinner In My Marriage Anymore! : NPR

Where's Machiavelli when you need him?


----------



## jld

Gosh, that must be hard. She sounds so conflicted, and disillusioned.


----------



## arbitrator

*She's driven far more by someone else's money, extravagance, her very own self-importance and what should preeminently be done for her ~ much rather than mutual or even Godly love! 

I'd say that in this Holy season of Christmas, she's the one that needs "to be visited by the three ghosts!"*


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> *She's driven far more by someone else's money, extravagance, her very own self-importance and what should preeminently be done for her ~ much rather than mutual or even Godly love!
> 
> I'd say that in this Holy season of Christmas, she's the one that needs "to be visited by the three ghosts!"*


That is what she is attracted to, arb. Would you tell a man who fell in love with a beautiful woman who later became fat, a smoker, stopped personal hygiene, etc., that he should focus on godly love? Would that work?


----------



## notmyrealname4

> I hate that I'm not confident enough in myself to have children because I don't think I can be the financial provider and a mother. And I hate that I would never look at my husband the same way if he was a stay-at-home dad.



I've never believed that women should work outside the home; *and* also be mothers and housekeepers. So, I never had kids. For a few different reasons, but that was one of them. I wasn't going to take on two full time jobs for 18-25 years.


OTOH, if I'd had the good fortune to have a well paying job; I would have had no problem with my husband being a stay-at-home father.


Machiavelli got banned due to his participation in tribute-thread-gate, IIRC??


----------



## arbitrator

jld said:


> That is what she is attracted to, arb. Would you tell a man who fell in love with a beautiful woman who later became fat, a smoker, stopped personal hygiene, etc., that he should focus on godly love? Would that work?


----------



## arbitrator

*In which case, she could be visited by say, "the Ghost's of Fatness Past," of "Smoking Present," and of "Personal Hygiene Future!"

Let's just say that they'd have an absolutely great time playing havoc with her head!*


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> *In which case, she could be visited by say, the Ghosts of "Fatness Past," of "Smoking Present," and of "Personal Hygiene Future!"
> 
> Let's just say that they'd have an absolutely great time playing with her head!*


Wouldn't the ghosts be visiting the husband, arb? He would be the one you would be admonishing, no? The one who is dissatisfied?


----------



## arbitrator

arbitrator said:


> *In which case, she could be visited by say, "the Ghost's of Fatness Past," of "Smoking Present," and of "Personal Hygiene Future!"
> 
> Let's just say that they'd have an absolutely great time playing havoc with her head!*





jld said:


> Wouldn't the ghosts be visiting the husband, arb? He would be the one you would be admonishing, no? The one who is dissatisfied?


*I'm confused! I thought that she was the one who needed admonishing! 

More so than him, anyway!

I mean, can he really be held responsible and accountable for who it is that he physically attracts?*


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> *I'm confused! I thought that she was the one who needed admonishing!*


Sorry, arb. It _is_ confusing. I thought you meant to say that whoever is dissatisfied is the one who has to resolve it through humility, not their partner? 

Again, sorry if I am confused. These things can easily get tangled!


----------



## BioFury

"Are you more upset that I treated you like a woman? Or treated you like a man?" - Jack Reacher


----------



## Blondilocks

"What I hate most of all is that this is not what my husband wants either. He never imagined that he would spend all of his savings to follow his dreams to come out on the other end making a quarter of his prior salary."

It looks like the husband didn't do his homework before embarking on his new career. It would have been easy to determine the salary range for the new career.

The woman needs to determine what she truly values before making any decisions.


----------



## EllisRedding

How much of this is not truly understanding the pressure to be the breadwinner? When you are on the other side of it you get to enjoy the perks without worrying about if/when it could come to an end. I have no issues being the breadwinner, I take pride in being able to provide for my family. Do I think my W truly understands the pressure that goes along with it, no.

It does bring up an interesting point though in terms of what women find attractive when they find men becoming "less manly"


----------



## SimplyAmorous

She says


> "Now herein lies my problem — I became the breadwinner in an extreme way. I committed to supporting us for two years, but we're going on four now, and it will likely be five. Our income divide is so extreme that I pay for 90 percent of our living expenses. What I've found is I can't live this girl-power lifestyle that I believe in."


 But she doesn't go into what either makes.. I don't know... I am betting this man probably makes MORE than some men who support a family do, with even a SAHM and a couple kids... her career has skyrocketed (something else she said- in a male dominated field -lots of other men she is rubbing up against)... then adds her father was wealthy & materialistic , she was RAISED this way... 

I see her complaining as she deserves a certain lifestyle.. not that her family couldn't live on what He earned = poverty wages...if she decided she REALLY wanted to be a mother and stay at home... she mentioned it may be 5 yrs that she earns more..... over him.. 

I don't personally think this is much of a sacrifice for remaining with a good man... I don't know... she sounds spoiled.. and just is attracted to High Powerd men , a wealthy lifestyle.. she wants it ALL.. 

I very much look up to men who believe in supporting their family...but sometimes you makes sacrifices if you want to be a Mother.. I would bet she could still do this.. she just isn't happy with the lower class lifestyle of a man who earns less than her.. 

I guess this is no different than what @jld brings up.. some people loose attraction when someone gains too much weight .. (people are labeled as shallow all the time).. this is just another example.. this is also Shallow ... 

One is focused on Pleasure/ desire / excitement... 
The other is focused on Power/ wealth / materialism ...


----------



## zookeeper

He is clearly not doing "everything in his power to make more of a financial contribution," or he would return to his previous, lucrative career. Husband makes the selfish choice every day to continue on the path that provides him with self-actualization but does not provide her with financial security. His needs are more important to him that hers.

She is a hypocrite. She thinks of herself as an empowered modern woman, but still wants a daddy figure to take care of her. She selfishly demands all options be on the table for her despite the fact that this requires him to give up his dream job. Her needs are more important to her than his. 

This is the inevitable outcome of a sense of entitlement. On both parts. Why is he entitled to a "dream job" and why is she entitled to "pull back at work?" Lack of generosity, sacrifice and compromise dooms many marriages to failure. This may be one of them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> How much of this is not truly understanding the pressure to be the breadwinner? When you are on the other side of it you get to enjoy the perks without worrying about if/when it could come to an end.* I have no issues being the breadwinner, I take pride in being able to provide for my family. *Do I think my W truly understands the pressure that goes along with it, no.
> 
> It does bring up an interesting point though in terms of what women find attractive when they find men becoming "less manly"


My husband feels as you- strongly ....this is his Role...he would not feel like a man if he couldn't provide for us...I can take on jobs -if I want ...but ultimately his feelings are: that I don't have to work....he wants me to have a choice. 

I do believe I get the pressure he is under though.. I know what he has to go through just to get out of our driveway in the winter (he's wrecked the plow before).... or hours/days working on a vehicle ... what he has to put up with his boss, working in the sleet , rain & snow, digging holes in zero temperatures to Jack up a Train.. not so much fun......

Especially when he's dealing with anything stressful going on at work .... I make darn sure coming home is a place of refuge... I would hurt the kids if they kept him from sleeping, for instance...I become a protective Bear.. it is his Job that has sustained us, given us a good life... Dad comes 1st [email protected]# 

I would not want to be in his shoes...I doubt I would handle it as carefree as he does ....I validate him often for his role..


----------



## jorgegene

notice she 'hates herself for feeling this way'.

why is that? because she knows it smacks of materialism. And she professes to detest the materialism that her father exhibited.
Although it is not stated explicitly, it is implicit that they have more than enough money to
live well and even have children. I doubt that his making much less than her is a matter of survival.

She cannot help feeling this way. No, we can't really change our feelings easily and she is entitled to her feelings.
but I doubt in her marriage vows she included "........for richer or for richer.........."


----------



## MrsAldi

This women has issues with her parents. 

"I hate my sexist, wealthy, materialistic father and my step mother who believes women should not work" etc

Very interesting, she's attracted to men with power and money, yet hates her father. 

She's got internal struggle, she hates men with money, now that her husband earns less, she feels some power and will now trample husband's happiness because it's easy, he will not challenge her like her father, so now she's bored. 

Also she mentioned that she works in a male dominated industry, I'm sure she reached the glass ceiling by working harder than her male counterparts, then getting the praise and attention from the powerful males bosses at the top, the attention she didn't get from Dad growing up. 

So this lady has Daddy issues and needs counseling.


Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## TheTruthHurts

Didn't read the article but you folks did a good job of summarizing it.

This sounds EXACTLY like the spouse of one of our downtrodden BS here on TAM, doesn't it? Though from his perspective, she's changed due to her high powered job and won't give him the time of day. And he keeps hoping she'll change back some day.

I don't want to point to someone else's thread though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

MrsAldi said:


> This women has issues with her parents.
> 
> "I hate my sexist, wealthy, materialistic father and my step mother who believes women should not work" etc
> 
> Very interesting, she's attracted to men with power and money, yet hates her father.
> 
> She's got internal struggle, she hates men with money, now that her husband earns less, she feels some power and will now trample husband's happiness because it's easy, he will not challenge her like her father, so now she's bored.
> 
> Also she mentioned that she works in a male dominated industry, I'm sure she reached the glass ceiling by working harder than her male counterparts, then getting the praise and attention from the powerful males bosses at the top, the attention she didn't get from Dad growing up.
> 
> So this lady has Daddy issues and needs counseling.
> 
> 
> Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


From the article:

_"I hate my mother-in-law, who thinks women shouldn't have to work."_

Not sure why she hates her mil for this. Maybe because she secretly agrees with her?

I mostly disagree with your analysis. I do agree she is conflicted.

She did not realize she would be so successful. And she obviously needs a man she feels is superior to her in order to feel attracted to him. I do not think there is anything unusual about that at all.

I feel sorry for her. She is really between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> _"I hate my mother-in-law, who thinks women shouldn't have to work."_
> 
> Not sure why she hates her mil for this. Maybe because she secretly agrees with her?


Maybe I can offer her my mom in place of hers since my Mom seems to have an issue with my W being a SAHM currently lol.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Maybe I can offer her my mom in place of hers since my Mom seems to have an issue with my W being a SAHM currently lol.


What is her issue with it?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> What is her issue with it?


My Mom is just very career driven, always worked, has had success. Probably feels like b/c she did it and raised a family every female should follow. She would periodically take digs at my W wanting to know when she was going back to work, etc... Funny considering we decided it was in the best interest of her grandkids for my W to be a SAHM in the near term...


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> My Mom is just very career driven, always worked, has had success. Probably feels like b/c she did it and raised a family every female should follow. She would periodically take digs at my W wanting to know when she was going back to work, etc... Funny considering *we decided it was in the best interest *of her grandkids for my W to be a SAHM in the near term...


Why would *your* deciding it make any difference in your mother's opinion of it?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Why would *your* deciding it make any difference in your mother's opinion of it?


Not sure I follow your question. I was simply pointing out it is funny that my W is a SAHM currently b/c we felt it is the best thing for our kids (i.e. isn't that what is most important, not my W working just to say she is working).


----------



## zookeeper

EllisRedding said:


> My Mom is just very career driven, always worked, has had success. Probably feels like b/c she did it and raised a family every female should follow. She would periodically take digs at my W wanting to know when she was going back to work, etc... Funny considering we decided it was in the best interest of her grandkids for my W to be a SAHM in the near term...


Women in western culture often suffer an unresolvable conflict between career and family. Whichever they choose, they maywonder if they made the right choice and may feel guilt for what they sacrificed. This seems to be a life choice that too many people not only make harsh judgments about but feel they must voice their opinions unsolicited.

I suspect that women like your mother might want to see your wife as a career woman to help reinforce her own decision to be one.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Not sure I follow your question. I was simply pointing out it is funny that my W is a SAHM currently b/c we felt it is the best thing for our kids (i.e. isn't that what is most important, not my W working just to say she is working).


My point is that your mother may not respect your judgment at all, since it is so much different from hers.

You are a nonsmoker, right? What if your son and his wife took up smoking, and decided that it was the right thing to do to smoke in front of their baby? Would his opinion have any weight on yours?


----------



## jld

zookeeper said:


> Women in western culture often suffer an unresolvable conflict between career and family. Whichever they choose, they maywonder if they made the right choice and may feel guilt for what they sacrificed. This seems to be a life choice that too many people not only make harsh judgments about but feel they must voice their opinions unsolicited.
> 
> *I suspect that women like your mother might want to see your wife as a career woman to help reinforce her own decision to be one*.


You think it comes from insecurity?


----------



## MrsAldi

jld said:


> From the article:
> 
> _"I hate my mother-in-law, who thinks women shouldn't have to work."_
> 
> Not sure why she hates her mil for this. Maybe because she secretly agrees with her?
> 
> I mostly disagree with your analysis. I do agree she is conflicted.
> 
> She did not realize she would be so successful. And she obviously needs a man she feels is superior to her in order to feel attracted to him. I do not think there is anything unusual about that at all.
> 
> I feel sorry for her. She is really between a rock and a hard place.


Mother in law. 
Thanks, I should wear my glasses reading! 

She has issues with men and money, conflicted between traditional roles of women and her hatred of her sexist father. 

She needs therapy over her Dad, no strong man or amount of money will keep this lady happy. 

I believe she made a conscious effort to get promoted. 
She can't understand why she hates men yet wants attention from them. 
Chose to work in a "male dominant" (her words) industry. 

It's like half of her is feminist and the other is traditional. 

This isn't about money, it's about a power struggle, it's about a girl who was mistreated by her Dad and I feel sorry for her too. 

Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## TheTruthHurts

zookeeper said:


> Women in western culture often suffer an unresolvable conflict between career and family. Whichever they choose, they maywonder if they made the right choice and may feel guilt for what they sacrificed. This seems to be a life choice that too many people not only make harsh judgments about but feel they must voice their opinions unsolicited.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that women like your mother might want to see your wife as a career woman to help reinforce her own decision to be one.




Idk. Maybe. Other people's opinion really shouldn't matter though as many have said.

I believe women can be very successful with a career, and with a family. It's about flexibility, cooperation, planning, and good choices.

My W was very successful in management in a difficult service sector job. We both worked very hard and both saved money. We were very financially compatible and driven. Then we got pregnant (by choice and hard work) with twins and she "retired" to raise kids. We had 5 and she also went back and got licenses in a couple fields where she could work part time on her own hours. As the kids got older, she went back and got a masters degree and a new career after 50 with summers off along side the kids. And still raises kids and we have an amazing family.

You can do all this. The family has to pick up the financial burden when raising the kids but a woman can still keep busy (and satisfied) and contribute something financially. And then get back into the workforce in a career that supports a family (teaching, part time consulting, etc).

But it's less possible if youre also spending and not saving. Financial security means more lifestyle choices are available, but less materialistic trappings are evident. I think that's the real choice here. Spending money to impress others versus investing in your family.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

MrsAldi said:


> Mother in law.
> Thanks, I should wear my glasses reading!
> 
> She has issues with men and money, conflicted between traditional roles of women and her hatred of her sexist father.
> 
> She needs therapy over her Dad, no strong man or amount of money will keep this lady happy.
> 
> I believe she made a conscious effort to get promoted.
> She can't understand why she hates men yet wants attention from them.
> Chose to work in a "male dominant" (her words) industry.
> 
> It's like half of her is feminist and the other is traditional.
> 
> This isn't about money, it's about a power struggle, it's about a girl who was mistreated by her Dad and I feel sorry for her too.
> 
> Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


I don't think she was mistreated. I do think her dad made an impression on her of how men are supposed to be, though. 

She is definitely conflicted. Her primal side is likely to win out, though . . . Her main source of attraction to her husband is gone.

I bet a lot of very talented and naturally successful women feel this way.


----------



## jld

I think for the marriage to work, she will have to find something in him she can respect, can genuinely admire.

He obviously has a lot to do with that.


----------



## EllisRedding

zookeeper said:


> Women in western culture often suffer an unresolvable conflict between career and family. Whichever they choose, they maywonder if they made the right choice and may feel guilt for what they sacrificed. This seems to be a life choice that too many people not only make harsh judgments about but feel they must voice their opinions unsolicited.
> 
> I suspect that women like your mother might want to see your wife as a career woman to help reinforce her own decision to be one.


I do believe this is a big part of it. It is funny, she is semi retired now and has commented about how it is nice now to be able to experience "parent stuff" like attending school events for her grandkids that she could never attend when she was a mother. The things she missed as a parents (and I guess I missed having a parent attend) my W gets to experience with our kids, pretty cool if you ask me.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> That is what she is attracted to, arb. Would you tell a man who fell in love with a beautiful woman who later became fat, a smoker, stopped personal hygiene, etc., that he should focus on godly love? Would that work?


This is a fair point, and is really no different than those who place tremendous value on appearance at the expense of other traits.

Where she is lacking is the depth of her introspection. She believes herself to not be someone who values the things for which she clearly does, and is trying to reconcile that. There must be a tremendous amount of shame in accepting who she really is.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> This is a fair point, and is really no different than those who place tremendous value on appearance at the expense of other traits.
> 
> Where she is lacking is the depth of her introspection. She believes herself to not be someone who values the things for which she clearly does, and is trying to reconcile that. There must be a tremendous amount of shame in accepting who she really is.


See, I do not think it is shameful. Women have depended on men for their survival since forever. I think she is pretty wise, actually. 

She was just pretty naive before.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> This is a fair point, and is really no different than those who place tremendous value on appearance at the expense of other traits.
> 
> Where she is lacking is the depth of her introspection. She believes herself to not be someone who values the things for which she clearly does, and is trying to reconcile that. There must be a tremendous amount of shame in accepting who she really is.


The thing about valuing good looks is that the looks may not last as long as money. One bet may be riskier than the other.

Just make sure you go in with your eyes wide open.


----------



## farsidejunky

If my wife wanted me to be powerful in order to respect me, the last thing I would want to do is try to earn it. 

Deejo once said that trying to earn a woman's love and respect is a fools errand, and he was 100% correct.

Why? 

Because if it takes work to earn it, there is likely a lack of compatibility. A man should follow his principles, which demonstrates his character. If a woman cannot respect him for that, they are not compatible. 



jld said:


> I think for the marriage to work, she will have to find something in him she can respect, can genuinely admire.
> 
> He obviously has a lot to do with that.


----------



## GusPolinski

I wonder if it's that she earns _more_ than her husband or that she (currently) earns _so much more_ than her husband that's really bothering her. Given some of the language that she used, I suspect the former.

Either way, I'd advise him to divorce. They clearly have different value systems, and there's no real way to reconcile that. Hell, she can't even reconcile the fact that she doesn't _truly_ hold to the values that she preaches.

Best to call it quits now before she winds up starting a family w/ her boss.


----------



## troubledinma

farsidejunky said:


> If my wife wanted me to be powerful in order to respect me, the last thing I would want to do is try to earn it.
> 
> Deejo once said that trying to earn a woman's love and respect is a fools errand, and he was 100% correct.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because if it takes work to earn it, there is likely a lack of compatibility. A man should follow his principles, which demonstrates his character. If a woman cannot respect him for that, they are not compatible.


Yep. Agreed. The woman in the letter clearly doesn't love her husband. It's conditional love. 

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> My point is that your mother may not respect your judgment at all, since it is so much different from hers.
> 
> You are a nonsmoker, right? What if your son and his wife took up smoking, and decided that it was the right thing to do to smoke in front of their baby? Would his opinion have any weight on yours?


I think you are trying too hard to draw a conclusion here tbh.

She just believes in this "modern day" every woman should be working, should have a career, has nothing to do with respecting my judgment. My parents are divorced, and money was always a huge issue with them, so I have no doubt that plays into it as well.

It is a non event, I have told my W just to ignore the comments and they would go away.

FYI - your smoking analogy is horrible lol, trying to draw parallels to exposing a baby to serious health issues :scratchhead:


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> If my wife wanted me to be powerful in order to respect me, the last thing I would want to do is try to earn it.
> 
> Deejo once said that trying to earn a woman's love and respect is a fools errand, and he was 100% correct.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because if it takes work to earn it, there is likely a lack of compatibility. A man should follow his principles, which demonstrates his character. If a woman cannot respect him for that, they are not compatible.


Far, we all earn respect. True respect is only ever earned.


----------



## Buddy400

I think this is a common dilemma for many women.

1) They want to be able to achieve in their careers just like men (as they should) 

2) They are attracted to men who are successful, usually in a way that would make them a good provider. They really don't have much control over this. This is what they've evolved to be attracted to over 10's of thousands of years. 

So there's often conflict between what they consciously want (career success) and what they are unconsciously attracted to (men who are more successful than they are). This can lead to them entering relationships based on what they think they want only to discover later that it's not what their subconscious wants. They're not happy and they're not sure why.

Attaining great success in their career while also finding a man who's even more successful isn't easy. Those "even more successful" men may prioritize looks or willingness to devote time to them over business success.

One way this seems to manifest itself is for many younger women these days is to prioritize capability (or "passion") in some endeavor but not necessarily with the result of making money. This would seem like a more achievable goal.

I have also read that female breadwinners have a harder time dealing with the responsibility of being the primary source of support for their family.

When you're a guy it's simple; you graduate from school (high school, college, grad school), you work every day of your life until you either die or retire.


----------



## Herschel

Lol, 1st world problems. My family has money, but my husband doesn't make enough. I can't get a hard on for the loser anymore.

This guy should leave her, show her how little money really means in life and she'll realize that she lost everything she really ever wanted.


----------



## EllisRedding

Buddy400 said:


> When you're a guy it's simple; you graduate from school, you work every day of your life until you die.


I have this exact bumper sticker on my car :smthumbup:


----------



## Buddy400

troubledinma said:


> Yep. Agreed. The woman in the letter clearly doesn't love her husband. It's conditional love.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


She was attracted to power and success. He doesn't have those things now, so she's no longer attracted to him.

It's just like a man who was attracted to his wife's figure. She gains 100 lbs and he's no longer attracted to her.

It's just a matter of being honest about what attracts you to a person.


----------



## Buddy400

TheTruthHurts said:


> Idk. Maybe. Other people's opinion really shouldn't matter though as many have said.
> 
> I believe women can be very successful with a career, and with a family. It's about flexibility, cooperation, planning, and good choices.
> 
> My W was very successful in management in a difficult service sector job. We both worked very hard and both saved money. We were very financially compatible and driven. Then we got pregnant (by choice and hard work) with twins and she "retired" to raise kids. We had 5 and she also went back and got licenses in a couple fields where she could work part time on her own hours. As the kids got older, she went back and got a masters degree and a new career after 50 with summers off along side the kids. And still raises kids and we have an amazing family.
> 
> You can do all this. The family has to pick up the financial burden when raising the kids but a woman can still keep busy (and satisfied) and contribute something financially. And then get back into the workforce in a career that supports a family (teaching, part time consulting, etc).
> 
> But it's less possible if youre also spending and not saving. Financial security means more lifestyle choices are available, but less materialistic trappings are evident. I think that's the real choice here. Spending money to impress others versus investing in your family.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My wife followed a similar path.

But it's not the same as working full-time at a career for your whole life and it doesn't get the same financial results. 

It's not a path that's really available to men (it's possible but then we could wind up in the same position as the writer's husband).


----------



## MJJEAN

I have noticed that women who play reindeer games with and vs men tend to be very driven, focused, and competitive. They respect nothing other than an absolute equal or superior. Anything less is just... less.

When they met, he was successful. He was a power player. She found that attractive. He stopped being a power player and therefore became less and less attractive. Simple.


----------



## SunCMars

arbitrator said:


> *She's driven far more by someone else's money, extravagance, her very own self-importance and what should preeminently be done for her ~ much rather than mutual or even Godly love!
> 
> I'd say that in this Holy season of Christmas, she's the one that needs "to be visited by the three ghosts!"*


She has.

She has been visited by two ghosts. The third lives inside of her. She died in her parents cold embrace. She is a non-replicating MAHRU. A Femdroid

The other two ghosts?

One is her husband. Her icy stare and cold assessment froze him out of her life. Dead man walking. He does not know it yet. Poor frozen sap...his frozen semen immobile and stuck on the outside of a Weeping Willow. Suspended Animation. Soon to be in Suspended Amazement. When the spring thaw comes, this man will start the {two season long}, life shudder...to death on the ground.. The sugary flow will have crystalized, no leaves to form, his tree to rot and die.

The other ghost is the New Man that she will climb in bed with. This third ghost will never touch "her" heart. He won't because he cannot find it. He will romance the "Ghost in the Machine", that is in her.
She is the machine. An ATM with big tits. She is a cold {pubic-hair-framed} dollar slot. She only accepts tokens in her slot. No salamis. Tis, a Gold Digger....a cold snigger Dame of Ill-Repute.

Lady of Ill repute? Yes, she does her deeds for cash. A Check, a modest-meaned Hungarian or Irishman, need not apply.


----------



## zookeeper

My wife quit work when she became pregnant and decided not to return. Her work was always optional (financially, at least) and I was supportive of this choice. When she was a SAHM, she told me of all the harsh and judgmental comments from other women who felt that she was choosing to be "just a mom" and shouldn't settle for less than a brilliant professional career.

When she went back to work part-time years later, she told me of all the harsh and judgmental comments from other women who felt that she was neglecting her child and should prioritize her family.

Either scenario made her doubt her own choices and she felt shame. It was easier for her to mover her associations to women who shared her choices at the time. Not only were they not critical since they had made the same choice, but just being around other women who were doing the same thing gave her confidence that she was not alone in her feelings.

It's pretty amusing that people say a woman shouldn't care what other women think. Of course they do. There are entire industries that thrive on a woman's need to gain approval from others. Just as there are for men.

Back on the main topic: There are simply some overall truths that exist in the western world. The typical woman wants a man who can offer her security, even if she wants to be independent. That security can be financial, physical, emotional or more often than not a mix of the three. If you're a man who can't/won't offer these things, you will have to find someone who is not typical. Then you factor in the women like the author of this letter who say one thing but actually feel another and you end up with a pretty small group of women that would make a suitable partner. Both people make their choices and both get to live with the outcomes. Denying obvious truths is a recipe for disaster. If we take everything in the story at face value, the husband made a huge error thinking that a reversal in the provider role would not cause problems. Despite what his wife may have agreed to upfront. 

I don't think she is bad or evil, just selfish. So is he. Without compromise, their marriage is going to be quite rocky. Or worse.


----------



## troubledinma

Buddy400 said:


> She was attracted to power and success. He doesn't have those things now, so she's no longer attracted to him.
> 
> It's just like a man who was attracted to his wife's figure. She gains 100 lbs and he's no longer attracted to her.
> 
> It's just a matter of being honest about what attracts you to a person.


Being attracted to and loving someone are different things. 

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## Blondilocks

​


EllisRedding said:


> I do believe this is a big part of it. It is funny, she is semi retired now and has commented about how it is nice now to be able to experience "parent stuff" like attending school events for her grandkids that she could never attend when she was a mother. The things she missed as a parents (and I guess I missed having a parent attend) my W gets to experience with our kids, pretty cool if you ask me.


Ellis, your mom may be thinking that since she had kids and had to work (whether she did or not is irrelevant) that your wife can, too. It's a bit of a 'she isn't better than me' attitude (jealousy). It could also make her feel a little guilty.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

EllisRedding said:


> How much of this is not truly understanding the pressure to be the breadwinner? When you are on the other side of it you get to enjoy the perks without worrying about if/when it could come to an end. I have no issues being the breadwinner, I take pride in being able to provide for my family. Do I think my W truly understands the pressure that goes along with it, no.
> 
> It does bring up an interesting point though in terms of what women find attractive when they find men becoming "less manly"



Money as seen as endowing power (and thus control)


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

What is more important is that as the "bread winner" (and the glass ceiling breaker) she is getting better than average Female Wage.

She must be forced to remain employed to protect the balance of gender wage ratio.

Every case I've heard of where a female gets the top wage brackets she gets the option to toss it all away and leave (now her nest egg is well padded). This seldom happens in the case of the "male" genders who are generally not respected in life and have no social relevance if they quit, and almost always find themselves unhireable after a few years (unlike their "female" counterpart where 're-entry' is not uncommon, especially in consulting roles - a percieved value of scarcity, and orientated towards the "sale"/promotion of the gender aspect). the males are held to working until the officlal age of retirement, unless dumped first.

As long as rich women can keep skewing the gender-wage results like this equality of gender-wage for younger/poorer-paid people is totally skewed. Should your male co-workers demand more wages if a male CEO leaves (throwing the male numbers lower)?


----------



## Buddy400

zookeeper said:


> Back on the main topic: There are simply some overall truths that exist in the western world. The typical woman wants a man who can offer her security, even if she wants to be independent. That security can be financial, physical, emotional or more often than not a mix of the three. If you're a man who can't/won't offer these things, you will have to find someone who is not typical. Then you factor in the women like the author of this letter who say one thing but actually feel another and you end up with a pretty small group of women that would make a suitable partner. Both people make their choices and both get to live with the outcomes. Denying obvious truths is a recipe for disaster. If we take everything in the story at face value, the husband made a huge error thinking that a reversal in the provider role would not cause problems. Despite what his wife may have agreed to upfront.


Yup.


----------



## jsmart

I agree with @MJJEAN. This woman met this guy as a top dog. She comes from a family of high achievers and was attracted to her husband when they first met because he was a go getter. Now that financially and career wise, things have taken a turn for the worse, she is no longer attracted to him. 

With her working in a male dominated field, surrounded by alpha types, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if she's developing a wondering eye.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> My Mom is just very career driven, always worked, has had success. Probably feels like b/c she did it and raised a family every female should follow. *She would periodically take digs at my W wanting to know when she was going back to work*, etc... Funny considering we decided it was in the best interest of her grandkids for my W to be a SAHM in the near term...


 I have never had to deal with these sort of things / digs from anyone in my family... I did go to my Step Mother (who always worked full time) when I got pregnant with our 1st son.. as I earned more than my husband... she encouraged me to stay home.. I believe this was, in part , as she wouldn't want me asking her to ever babysit !! ha ha ... 

We weighed the options, realized the hardship if I kept working, dragging a baby up & down an icy driveway in the winter... wear & tear on a 2nd car.... it wasn't worth it.. plus we'd have very little time for each other... 

Every situation is so different..it's just not so black & white...if a woman makes so much she can afford sitters AND work while her husband is working... this makes a lot of sense.. .



EllisRedding said:


> She just believes in this "modern day" every woman should be working, should have a career, has nothing to do with respecting my judgment. My parents are divorced, and money was always a huge issue with them, so I have no doubt that plays into it as well.
> 
> *It is a non event, I have told my W just to ignore the comments and they would go away.*


 Your wife having *YOUR SUPPORT* here .. Just imagining what that means to her .. . I think you are an odd man though.. Our sons hang with a guy who's Mom was always a full time career woman.. due to threads here on TAM..... I once asked him how he'd feel if his wife some day wanted to stay home with the kids.. he replied.. "That would be WEIRD"... he admitted.. he'd want his wife to work...(after all this has been his "normal" growing up)...


----------



## Satya

Man, is this woman conflicted. 

She dislikes her father's wealth and power yet she married a man with similar qualities. She expected that nothing would change. 

She dislikes her mother's opinion that women shouldn't work, yet she admitted that she broke through the glass ceiling, earning more than she could have originally anticipated. Well, she was free to turn down the promotions if it's now landed her in a place she doesn't want to be. 

It's everyone else's fault but hers, and the husband is getting the biggest shovel load because he's conveniently living with her. That poor man, I hope someone connects the dots and shows him that transcript so he lets her go. 

Of course, once the dust settles and he finds a woman that accepts him for who he is, that's when she'll really, really want him. 

She's building up imaginary walls and hindrances all around and doesn't take charge of her own destiny. Its really sad that she'll go on NPR about this but won't have a serious talk with her husband.


----------



## jsmart

jorgegene said:


> notice she 'hates herself for feeling this way'.
> 
> why is that? because she knows it smacks of materialism. And she professes to detest the materialism that her father exhibited.
> Although it is not stated explicitly, it is implicit that they have more than enough money to
> live well and even have children. I doubt that his making much less than her is a matter of survival.
> 
> She cannot help feeling this way. No, we can't really change our feelings easily and she is entitled to her feelings.
> but I doubt in her marriage vows she included "........for richer or for richer.........."


Her angst is caused not only by her realizing that she's going to be seen as materialistic but also possibly having an internal philosophical struggle. She probably has bought into the feminist lie that women can think like men and not care how well their man is doing career wise. 

I can't remember where I've read them, but studies have been shown that as soon as a woman is making even a little bit more than her man, she starts to lose some respect and that his chances of being played out increases dramatically. Makes me think of all the SAHDs that are betrayed by their wives.


----------



## jld

Satya said:


> Man, is this woman conflicted.
> 
> She dislikes her father's wealth and power yet she married a man with similar qualities. She expected that nothing would change.
> 
> She dislikes her mother's opinion that women shouldn't work, yet she admitted that she broke through the glass ceiling, earning more than she could have originally anticipated. Well, she was free to turn down the promotions if it's now landed her in a place she doesn't want to be.
> 
> It's everyone else's fault but hers, and the husband is getting the biggest shovel load because he's conveniently living with her. That poor man, I hope someone connects the dots and shows him that transcript so he lets her go.
> 
> Of course, once the dust settles and he finds a woman that accepts him for who he is, that's when she'll really, really want him.
> 
> She's building up imaginary walls and hindrances all around and doesn't take charge of her own destiny. Its really sad that she'll go on NPR about this but won't have a serious talk with her husband.


Her mother in law is the one who does not believe in mothers working.

This woman is successful. That is the bottom line. Rejecting promotions would not have stopped that. She is smart and really good at what she does and everyone who works with her surely recognizes that.

But it can be lonely (and probably frustrating and disillusioning) at the top.


----------



## MJJEAN

Satya said:


> Man, is this woman conflicted.
> 
> She dislikes her father's wealth and power yet she married a man with similar qualities. She expected that nothing would change.
> 
> She dislikes her mother's opinion that women shouldn't work, yet she admitted that she broke through the glass ceiling, earning more than she could have originally anticipated. Well, she was free to turn down the promotions if it's now landed her in a place she doesn't want to be.
> 
> It's everyone else's fault but hers, and the husband is getting the biggest shovel load because he's conveniently living with her. That poor man, I hope someone connects the dots and shows him that transcript so he lets her go.
> 
> Of course, once the dust settles and he finds a woman that accepts him for who he is, that's when she'll really, really want him.
> 
> She's building up imaginary walls and hindrances all around and doesn't take charge of her own destiny. Its really sad that she'll go on NPR about this but won't have a serious talk with her husband.


Did we read the same writings?

The way I interpreted it, they met when he was established in his career. He was older and well traveled, passionate, and took risks. He was financially secure. His seniority and power were attractive to her. That is the man she fell in love with and married. 

Then, after they got married, she supported him for 2 years while he pursued his graduate degree. He depleted his savings to do so. He now makes 1/4 his previous salary and is no longer in a senior position with power. He became something, someone, else.

I could make a bait and switch argument here. For all we know, this guy purposely married her with a plan to pursue his low paying dream job while she supported him for the rest of his life.


----------



## jld

She needs a man she can genuinely look up to. Not working at it. Not willing herself to it. Certainly not lying to herself about it to be able to stay. 

She may have simply outgrown this one, and realizes it. And I am not surprised that it is just killing her inside.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> I think you are an odd man though.. Our sons hang with a guy who's Mom was always a full time career woman.. due to threads here on TAM..... I once asked him how he'd feel if his wife some day wanted to stay home with the kids.. he replied.. "That would be WEIRD"... he admitted.. he'd want his wife to work...(after all this has been his "normal" growing up)...


That is interesting that he would want his W to work regardless. I can completely understand if financially it is needed, or if her job was such that walking away in the short term would set her back down the road if she wanted to work again. I guess we lucked out that with my Ws job she would have no issues getting right back into the workforce. Plus, she hated her job/career choice anyhow, so when she does decide to start working again she can maybe choose a more fulfilling career path. 

My mom just has a weird hangup with careers/money defining who you are, maybe add in some jealousy/guilt/regret, throw in some feminism (her version of it), stereotyping what a SAHM actually does, etc... I actually just remembered this now, when I was in college I was in the car with my parents and my mom was grilling me about my college major/minor, saying that I should switch to pre med or law school b/c how else was I going to make money :scratchhead:


----------



## jsmart

jld said:


> *She needs a man she can genuinely look up to.* Not working at it. Not willing herself to it. Certainly not lying to herself about it to be able to stay.
> 
> She may have simply outgrown this one, and realizes it. And I am not surprised that it is just killing her inside.


A women wants to look up to her man. The problem is with more women taking a larger portion of professional jobs, there are fewer jobs for a man to be able to earn enough be a head of household and therefore be someone she can look up to. 

In recent decades many higher paying manufacturing jobs have been outsourced to China, and a significant number of IT jobs went to India, leaving fewer and fewer good paying opportunities for men. Add that fields like media, finance, and healthcare that once provided opportunities for men and women in about even numbers are now dominated by women and you have a recipe for many dissatisfied women along with more and more articles excoriating men to man up. 

But the problem is just going to get worse. When you take into account that right now woman are 61% of the students in colleges in the West. Not every woman is going to get a man she can look up to. But it's not a question of convincing women to accept a man that is beneath her. 

50 years of feminist social engineering can't undo over a million years of humanoid evolution. A woman can't respect a man that she sees as beneath her. A man that a woman can't respect is a man that she can't love.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> See, I do not think it is shameful. Women have depended on men for their survival since forever. I think she is pretty wise, actually.
> 
> She was just pretty naive before.


What is shameful is that she hasn't been honest with her H about this. She goes on, pretending that everything is okay, refusing to talk to him about this. It's a recipe for cheating and divorce.

Of course, her H should have seen this coming. He's a fool for thinking his wife could be relied upon in this kind of way long-term.


----------



## *Deidre*

My grandmother who passed away last year, used to tell me that people often fall in love with the very thing they end up disliking about their spouse, after they get married. 

This woman knew he was a risk taker. At one time, she liked that side of him, and it attracted her to him. He took a risk, and didn't 'follow the rules,' and here they are. 

My grandmother would have something to say about this.


----------



## Buddy400

The advice columnists basically shame her for having non-socially acceptable thoughts.

She isn't feeling what they think she should be feeling.


----------



## sokillme

Wolfman1968 said:


> Interesting piece from the National Public Radio (NPR) website:
> 
> Dear Sugars: I Don't Want To Be The Breadwinner In My Marriage Anymore! : NPR
> 
> Where's Machiavelli when you need him?


Don't get married. That's what I take from this article. Her husband has done nothing wrong, she gave her approval and now she wants to leave. I think if I had kids I would be close to advising them think long and hard about marrying someone in today's world. People are so entitled that I don't think they have it in them to be married.


----------



## Satya

MJJEAN said:


> Did we read the same writings?
> 
> The way I interpreted it, they met when he was established in his career. He was older and well traveled, passionate, and took risks. He was financially secure. His seniority and power were attractive to her. That is the man she fell in love with and married.
> 
> Then, after they got married, she supported him for 2 years while he pursued his graduate degree. He depleted his savings to do so. He now makes 1/4 his previous salary and is no longer in a senior position with power. He became something, someone, else.
> 
> I could make a bait and switch argument here. For all we know, this guy purposely married her with a plan to pursue his low paying dream job while she supported him for the rest of his life.


Yes we read the same thing. I guess we just interpreted it differently! ;-)

You could be right! Unfortunately, until we hear his side, we'd have no idea. She is so resentful of him, disappointed. Maybe he did pull a bait and switch. Most of what I read from her is a lot of blameshifting... But that's just what I see I suppose.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Wouldn't the ghosts be visiting the husband, arb? He would be the one you would be admonishing, no? The one who is dissatisfied?


What has her husband done wrong exactly except not live up to her changing standards?


----------



## sokillme

SimplyAmorous said:


> She says But she doesn't go into what either makes.. I don't know... I am betting this man probably makes MORE than some men who support a family do, with even a SAHM and a couple kids... her career has skyrocketed (something else she said- in a male dominated field -lots of other men she is rubbing up against)... then adds her father was wealthy & materialistic , she was RAISED this way...
> 
> I see her complaining as she deserves a certain lifestyle.. not that her family couldn't live on what He earned = poverty wages...if she decided she REALLY wanted to be a mother and stay at home... she mentioned it may be 5 yrs that she earns more..... over him..
> 
> I don't personally think this is much of a sacrifice for remaining with a good man... I don't know... she sounds spoiled.. and just is attracted to High Powerd men , a wealthy lifestyle.. she wants it ALL..
> 
> I very much look up to men who believe in supporting their family...but sometimes you makes sacrifices if you want to be a Mother.. I would bet she could still do this.. she just isn't happy with the lower class lifestyle of a man who earns less than her..
> 
> I guess this is no different than what @jld brings up.. some people loose attraction when someone gains too much weight .. (people are labeled as shallow all the time).. this is just another example.. this is also Shallow ...
> 
> One is focused on Pleasure/ desire / excitement...
> The other is focused on Power/ wealth / materialism ...


You are the kind of woman a man should look to marry because you get it.


----------



## EleGirl

Unfortunately the woman who wrote the letter is not here to answer some questions.

Her husband now earns 1/4 of his previous income. I'd bet that when he decided to spend in savings on school and have her support him through it, that she did not agree to him bringing in 1/4 of his previous income. 

She is paying 90% of the bills now. I'd love to know what each of them makes. I wonder if she makes 90% of their joint income? Or is he keeping most of his own income for himself? Of course we don't have any way of knowing this.

Her husband has his dream job and for some reason cannot seem to find anything better paying. We don't know if he has really tried to get anything better paying or if he's ok letting his wife support him when apparently she never agreed to be the breadwinner. Again, we have no way of knowing what the details are with this.

It's nice that he can now be nicely supported by his wife and so he can work his dream job, whatever that is. But it seems that his wife does not have the same choice. She mentions that she would like to have children but her job is too demanding. She cannot live her dream of having children because she's caught now paying 90% of the bills. Why is it wrong for her to also want to live her own dream life. Shouldn't he be obligated to help her live her dream of having children as well?

She's conflicted because she has not identified the real issues. She caught up in trying to live some lifestyle that puts on a good front to others.. family and friends. She needs to figure out what is important to her. If having children is important, she might need to really cut back on her lifestyle. But again, we don't know what her lifestyle is, do we? 

So, not having more info, I would not come down on her. To me, her letter sounds like a woman who is talking out loud while trying to figure out what she really feels and believes. She's in a crisis. I hope she figures it out in a way that works for both her and her husband.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> What has her husband done wrong exactly except not live up to her changing standards?


What makes you think she has changing standards? I don't see that.

What I do see is that after she married her husband, he changed his standards. He now had a woman who was willing to support him while he got his masters degree. And he not only took advantage of that, but he blew his savings and decided to work for 1/4 of his previous income. 

There is some gross inequity if she is not paying 90% of their bills. 

She wants to have children. Do you think that maybe he should help her also live her dream life... you know and have children? Or is she now stuck having to support him while he earns next to nothing in his "dream job"?

In marriage, a couple needs to come to an agreement on this so that both people can live their dreams. It sounds like to me that she never agreed to support him for the rest of his life.

There have been plenty of men on TAM who complain that their wives quit their job and are not staying home (with or without children). The husbands did not agree to this and want their wives to go back to work and help support the family. That was the agreement that the couple had when they go married. It's wrong for one spouse to make a unilateral decision to stop working or grossly decrease their income to work their dream job, and by doing so to dump the bulk of financial support on the other spouse who never agreed to provide 90% of the financial support.

This is not a gender issue. At least it's not for me. Both spouses need to come to an agreement on things like financial support.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> What makes you think she has changing standards? I don't see that.
> 
> What I do see is that after she married her husband, he changed his standards. He now had a woman who was willing to support him while he got his masters degree. And he not only took advantage of that, but he blew his savings and decided to work for 1/4 of his previous income.
> 
> There is some gross inequity if she is not paying 90% of their bills.
> 
> She wants to have children. Do you think that maybe he should help her also live her dream life... you know and have children? Or is she now stuck having to support him while he earns next to nothing in his "dream job"?
> 
> In marriage, a couple needs to come to an agreement on this so that both people can live their dreams. It sounds like to me that she never agreed to support him for the rest of his life.
> 
> There have been plenty of men on TAM who complain that their wives quit their job and are not staying home (with or without children). The husbands did not agree to this and want their wives to go back to work and help support the family. That was the agreement that the couple had when they go married. It's wrong for one spouse to make a unilateral decision to stop working or grossly decrease their income to work their dream job, and by doing so to dump the bulk of financial support on the other spouse who never agreed to provide 90% of the financial support.
> 
> This is not a gender issue. At least it's not for me. Both spouses need to come to an agreement on things like financial support.



She agreed to the situation. What would you say if it were the husband writing, My wife has gotten her dream job a high powered job and doesn't want to have kids anymore. All she does is travel and I don't see her either. Would your answer be that she should quit her job?


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> What has her husband done wrong exactly except not live up to her changing standards?


We are talking about two different husbands. Reread my posts to arb.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> She agreed to the situation.


She did not agree to the situation as it is now. She only agreed to help him get his master's degree. She did not agree to him working for 1/4 of his previous income. 



sokillme said:


> What would you say if it were the husband writing, My wife has gotten her dream job a high powered job and doesn't want to have kids anymore. All she does is travel and I don't see her either. Would your answer be that she should quit her job?


I would tell him that he has a valid concern. He needs to talk to her and they need to either come to some agreement that they both feel good about. If they cannot than divorce is probably their best bet.

If when they first got married she had agreed to have children, and not she's changed her mind. He still wants children. And she now does not want children. He should probably divorce her and find a woman who wants children. For people who really want children, IMHO it's a form of cruelty for their spouse to pull this kind of bait and switch on them. Divorce his is best option.

On the topic of her traveling. Again they need to discuss it. Few people marry with the idea that they will never see each other because one spouse is always traveling. If she will not compromise on her job/travel, divorce might be their best option.


----------



## MEM2020

Perfect analogy.

Point:
His income dropped by 75% while hers rose a LOT. On a relative basis - their income ratio changed by 6 fold or more. That is MASSIVE.

Counter point:
Effort should matter. Sounds like he is making an effort. 


That said - likely best for her to be brutally honest and then - maybe - move on. 




jld said:


> That is what she is attracted to, arb. Would you tell a man who fell in love with a beautiful woman who later became fat, a smoker, stopped personal hygiene, etc., that he should focus on godly love? Would that work?


----------



## Celes

If my husband did a 180 on me and started making 3/4 less money than he used to, I'd lose attraction too. Sounds like someone who is selfish and/or makes bad decisions.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

EleGirl said:


> Unfortunately the woman who wrote the letter is not here to answer some questions.
> 
> Her husband now earns 1/4 of his previous income. I'd bet that when he decided to spend in savings on school and have her support him through it, that she did not agree to him bringing in 1/4 of his previous income.
> 
> She is paying 90% of the bills now. I'd love to know what each of them makes. I wonder if she makes 90% of their joint income? Or is he keeping most of his own income for himself? Of course we don't have any way of knowing this.
> 
> Her husband has his dream job and for some reason cannot seem to find anything better paying. We don't know if he has really tried to get anything better paying or if he's ok letting his wife support him when apparently she never agreed to be the breadwinner. Again, we have no way of knowing what the details are with this.
> 
> It's nice that he can now be nicely supported by his wife and so he can work his dream job, whatever that is. But it seems that his wife does not have the same choice. She mentions that she would like to have children but her job is too demanding. She cannot live her dream of having children because she's caught now paying 90% of the bills. Why is it wrong for her to also want to live her own dream life. Shouldn't he be obligated to help her live her dream of having children as well?
> 
> She's conflicted because she has not identified the real issues. She caught up in trying to live some lifestyle that puts on a good front to others.. family and friends. She needs to figure out what is important to her. If having children is important, she might need to really cut back on her lifestyle. But again, we don't know what her lifestyle is, do we?
> 
> So, not having more info, I would not come down on her. To me, her letter sounds like a woman who is talking out loud while trying to figure out what she really feels and believes. She's in a crisis. I hope she figures it out in a way that works for both her and her husband.



Why is this a bad thing when done by a man, yet perfectly acceptable when done by women?


----------



## Celes

spotthedeaddog said:


> Why is this a bad thing when done by a man, yet perfectly acceptable when done by women?


Oh please. If the genders were reversed, people would be calling the woman a gold digger.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I think you are trying too hard to draw a conclusion here tbh.
> 
> She just believes in this "modern day" every woman should be working, should have a career, has nothing to do with respecting my judgment. My parents are divorced, and money was always a huge issue with them, so I have no doubt that plays into it as well.
> 
> It is a non event, I have told my W just to ignore the comments and they would go away.
> 
> FYI - your smoking analogy is horrible lol, trying to draw parallels to exposing a baby to serious health issues :scratchhead:


I had to use something you would react negatively to, for you to be able to empathize with your mother's position. She may feel, or at one time have felt, as sure of her judgment as you feel about yours.

It is certainly understandable that she would worry about money, since she knows firsthand what it is like to struggle financially.

To me, the value of a woman's career is that she does not have to depend on a man. A woman with her own money is truly free.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> Perfect analogy.
> 
> Point:
> His income dropped by 75% while hers rose a LOT. On a relative basis - their income ratio changed by 6 fold or more. That is MASSIVE.
> 
> Counter point:
> Effort should matter. Sounds like he is making an effort.
> 
> 
> That said - likely best for her to be brutally honest and then - maybe - move on.


Definitely agree she needs to be transparent with him. Maybe he can earn more money and take some of the load off her. Or maybe she can find something that does inspire her about him, and it can be enough to reignite and maintain her attraction.

Otherwise, yes, they may be better off parting ways.


----------



## As'laDain

she wants the status of being married to a powerful man. 
she was never really in love with him, she just got off on catching a guy who was in a powerful position. 

which is fine and dandy and all. but, its not something that will work for a long term relationship. she will have to bounce from man to man. whenever her man loses his position of authority, she will lose attraction for him. whenever he makes less, she will lose attraction for him. 

why? she isn't attracted to him. she is attracted to the position. the status symbol. 

i hope she figures out a way to maintain attraction to someone regardless of such ephemeral statuses. otherwise, she is doomed to repeat this cycle over and over. 

if she leaves her husband, i wonder if he would take her back? i know a guy who's wife left him because, in her words, he was lazy and wouldn't make money. i might have believed her if i hadnt heard all their back yard arguments about him never being home on time, never helping out enough with chores(he did all of the cleaning and cooking), etc. after she divorced him, he started taking up all those job opportunities that he used to pass up in order to appease his wife, and his career took off. 

now she wants him back. he doesn't even hate her. he talks positively about her, while at the same time acknowledging that she is simply not trustworthy in a relationship. he is quite happy being single. she is devastated. the guy was willing to bend over backwards for her while they were married. it wasn't enough for her. 

it is easy to say "divorce and find someone more compatible", but the truth is, anyone can become "more compatible". if you cant learn to live a happy life with the one you have, its because you cannot navigate such changes. you don't know how to be happy. that lady hangs her happiness on her external circumstances. 

that is an entirely human thing to do, but so unfortunate. it doesn't last. it can be taken away. :/


----------



## Satya

Our "dream jobs" don't always come with a large paycheck. I would think the opposite was likely true. 

That said, he could be feeling completely inadequate and deflated about what happened. He was once respected, now he's lost his wife's respect. Maybe he was tired of the rat race because like so many of us who make a massive career change (/raises hand), we do it because we were unhappy with the way things were before. Maybe she saw this powerful, adventurous, wealthy man and inside he was longing to be living wearing jeans, in a log cabin, loving a simple life with a woman he adores. We just don't know any of this without his side. 

She is clearly feeling betrayed and she is insecure with him all-around for the changes to their lifestyle and her tarnished view of him. I completely understand why, when things were very different before, but her words don't paint the picture of a d-bag or a selfish, lazy arse... at least not to me. That strikes me a bit as odd. I think she'd have no problem calling him out on over radio, if she's already been that honest about her own feelings. Therefore, I think that he's likely a good person whose lost a wife's respect and she'd probably be better off with a man who is more like the one she married.

Maybe they should have researched and talked more about the impending changes to income and lifestyle. Maybe he wasn't honest with her. Lots of maybes on his end. Fewer on hers since we have her words. She'd have to fundamentally change her way of thinking about what a provider means to her if this is going to endure IMO. I think that requires too much work for her. The bell has been rung and can't be un-rung easily.


----------



## EleGirl

spotthedeaddog said:


> Why is this a bad thing when done by a man, yet perfectly acceptable when done by women?


You have apparently completely missed my point. IMHO, it's the same whether it's done by a man or a woman. No difference.

If they both agree to something like one of them not working, or earning less, etc. then they agreed, so it's ok. It's not ok for one spouse to make a unilateral decision that stick the other with the consequences of that decision.

You are the one who seems to think gender is an issue. It's not. It's the same regardless of gender.


----------



## EllisRedding

:grin2:


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I feel sorry for her. She is really between a rock and a hard place.


I don't feel sorry for her at all. She is wanting to live by a set of values she says she doesn't believe in. She's a sexist hypocrite. She needs to grow up. A person of character disciplines themself.

She bursts through some sort of glass ceiling and makes a fortune. But her requirement is not that her husband make a certain figure. It is that he make more than her. Woe betide him if he gets up to her level, and then she gets a promotion and he doesn't. She agreed to him following this dream. If it's really not working out, that's one thing, but if he is making what they agreed and her standards have changed, that's quite another. 

Or maybe if she wants to be a kept woman, she needs to quit her job and live within her (reduced) means.

She says she wants to leave. Not being deliberately harsh, but if my wife wanted to leave me over such an issue, and was not willing to negotiate sensible goals, I would help her pack.


----------



## MattMatt

Wolfman1968 said:


> Interesting piece from the National Public Radio (NPR) website:
> 
> Dear Sugars: I Don't Want To Be The Breadwinner In My Marriage Anymore! : NPR
> 
> Where's Machiavelli when you need him?


She hates everyone... Except herself.

And it is all the fault of.. why, of everyone else, of course! 

Her father, her MIL, her husband, society, the patriarchy and feminism, too! She hates them all, damn them! 

She gloats over the fact that she smashed, yes, folks, _smashed_ her way through the glass ceiling!

Yet she complains because she cannot be a traditional stay at home mom? :scratchhead:

I swear that everywhere that woman goes in her life it must be Whine O'Clock! :wtf:

She wants to eat her cake, yet also keep it safe under a cake dome.


----------



## naiveonedave

Kivlor said:


> What is shameful is that she hasn't been honest with her H about this. She goes on, pretending that everything is okay, refusing to talk to him about this. It's a recipe for cheating and divorce.
> 
> Of course, her H should have seen this coming. He's a fool for thinking his wife could be relied upon in this kind of way long-term.


I think many/most western men have been brainwashed into thinking that women are 'equal' and that historical gender norms no longer matter. In this case, though, they clearly do.


----------



## joannacroc

I feel sorry for both of them. We haven't heard his side so we can only guess based on what she says. It sounds like they agreed on him going back to school. She and he should BOTH have done more research on what his expected salary was going to be at the end of all this. 

It doesn't sound like she was in love with him initially, but rather that she was very attracted to him. That's not a good reason to marry someone. I do think it sounds like she will stray if she doesn't leave him. I feel sorry for her because she didn't truly understand what she wanted out of life. I feel sorry for him because he ended up losing his wife's respect by changing careers.


----------



## EllisRedding

joannacroc said:


> I feel sorry for both of them. We haven't heard his side so we can only guess based on what she says. It sounds like they agreed on him going back to school. She and he should BOTH have done more research on what his expected salary was going to be at the end of all this.
> 
> It doesn't sound like she was in love with him initially, but rather that she was very attracted to him. That's not a good reason to marry someone. I do think it sounds like she will stray if she doesn't leave him. I feel sorry for her because she didn't truly understand what she wanted out of life. I feel sorry for him because he ended up losing his wife's respect by changing careers.


See, I don't know if it is fair to say she isn't in love with him. There is no reason why love and attraction can't go hand in hand. I love my W very much, and am very attracted to her as well. If she suddenly added 50-100lbs that would kill my attraction to her. Love or not, this would put a huge strain on our marriage.


----------



## MattMatt

If he had to go back to university to get a degree to get his dream job, then he is probably a high school teacher, or some similar professional career.

The average high school teacher salary is $56,310 per year.

High School Teacher Salary Information | US News Best Jobs

Let's imagine she is a CEO on $190,000 a year.

That would cause the problem, from her point of view.

She might know her husband is doing a vital job, but she might not actually care.


----------



## EllisRedding

MattMatt said:


> If he had to go back to university to get a degree to get his dream job, then he is probably a high school teacher, or some similar professional career.
> 
> The average high school teacher salary is $56,310 per year.
> 
> High School Teacher Salary Information | US News Best Jobs
> 
> Let's imagine she is a CEO on $190,000 a year.
> 
> That would cause the problem, from her point of view.
> 
> She might know her husband is doing a vital job, but she might not actually care.


I wonder, is her issue based mainly around the fact that she makes so much more than him? So, if she made $100k and he made 60k, would this be less of an issue for her (vs your example where she made $190k)? If so, ask for a pay cut. I am sure her job would be ecstatic over, problem solved :grin2:


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> :grin2:


Thing is, some women might actually like this. And clearly some men would.

The gal in the link is just not one of them.


----------



## jsmart

naiveonedave said:


> I think many/most western men have been brainwashed into thinking that women are 'equal' and that historical gender norms no longer matter. In this case, though, they clearly do.


That is this guy's problem. He bought into the feminist lie that gender is just a social construct. Men who believe these ideas, will pay for it with adultery, divorce, or a cold bed when things go south. 

Men shouldn't blame women in these situations because she can't help how she feels. Woman are attracted to power, confidence, and status. It's something we men have a hard time understanding because those things don't have an affect on how we feel about a woman. 

If you look at how many men who decide to be SAHDs are betrayed or how men who are forced to take on a lower paying job after their original job is outsourced end up divorced. we should notice the pattern. And let's not even begin to touch on how many women have affairs with their boss.

Is it all money? No, it's also the lost of confidence. These men lose their confidence when they're not leading the family. Both sexes are not happy in these situations. Men feel emasculated and women feel overly burden and resentful. Hard to have that loving feeling under those conditions.


----------



## MattMatt

EllisRedding said:


> I wonder, is her issue based mainly around the fact that she makes so much more than him? So, if she made $100k and he made 60k, would this be less of an issue for her (vs your example where she made $190k)? If so, ask for a pay cut. I am sure her job would be ecstatic over, problem solved :grin2:


But I doubt that she loved him at all.

She loved his salary, his position at work. The fact that he was king of the business castle and lord and master of all he surveyed. 

Now that he is "only" -in my hypothetical example- a teacher and maybe helping a child with a learning disability to read better, she doesn't love him.

It's possible that she is a very, very shallow person.


----------



## jld

MattMatt said:


> If he had to go back to university to get a degree to get his dream job, then he is probably a high school teacher, or some similar professional career.
> 
> The average high school teacher salary is $56,310 per year.
> 
> High School Teacher Salary Information | US News Best Jobs
> 
> Let's imagine she is a CEO on $190,000 a year.
> 
> That would cause the problem, from her point of view.
> 
> She might know her husband is doing a vital job, but she might not actually care.



I thought of it as him making around 200k when she met him (enough to impress a bright, talented young woman, and make her look up to him), and now making 50k. That would be a quarter of his former salary. 

She said she is now making 9 times what he is making, and is at the top of a male-dominated field. 450k does not sound unreasonable, if all that is true.

450k v. 50k. 

Not hard at all to see why she is disillusioned.


----------



## MattMatt

jld said:


> I thought of it as him making around 200k when she met him (enough to impress a bright, talented young woman, and make her look up to him), and now making 50k. That would be a quarter of his former salary.
> 
> She said she is now making 9 times what he is making, and is at the top of a male-dominated field. 450k does not sound unreasonable, if all that is true.
> 
> 450k v. 50k.
> 
> Not hard at all to see why she is disillusioned.


Because she is a very, very shallow person and can only cope with one concept at a time?


----------



## jld

MattMatt said:


> Because she is a very, very shallow person and can only cope with one concept at a time?


I don't think she is shallow. I think she is realistic. She was just naive when she married him.


----------



## MJJEAN

*Deidre* said:


> My grandmother who passed away last year, used to tell me that people often fall in love with the very thing they end up disliking about their spouse, after they get married.
> 
> This woman knew he was a risk taker. At one time, she liked that side of him, and it attracted her to him. He took a risk, and didn't 'follow the rules,' and here they are.
> 
> My grandmother would have something to say about this.


There is risk taking and there is risk taking. Using savings to get a graduate degree and pay living expenses, finishing debt free, sounds like a "safe" risk, right? I'm sure it never crossed her mind that he could spend all of his savings to get a graduate degree only to make 1/4 of his previous salary. 



Satya said:


> Yes we read the same thing. I guess we just interpreted it differently! ;-)
> 
> You could be right! Unfortunately, until we hear his side, we'd have no idea. She is so resentful of him, disappointed. Maybe he did pull a bait and switch. Most of what I read from her is a lot of blameshifting... But that's just what I see I suppose.


Well, now I'm curious as to where you see blame shifting. :smile2:

The way I read it, they met and fell in love. They married. She agreed to temporarily support the household with the help of his savings and some budgeting until he got his graduate degree and then things would return to status quo only with her H enjoying his dream job.

The reality ended up being that he makes 1/4 what he did before, now has no savings, and his drop in professional and social standing has made her level of attraction to him plummet.

Additionally, she'd like to become a mother, but doesn't feel safe to do so. As she is now paying 90% of their living expenses, if something happened during the pregnancy and/or delivery that rendered her unable to work or unable to work as much, they'd be in financial trouble with a brand new baby and all the related child rearing expenses. So, there's some resentment there.

Of course, she is also struggling with what she feels vs what the PC police and the feminist movement think she should feel.

Thing is, I really get it. I'm 41 and live in the midwest. My friends, family, and neighbors are a mix of blue and white collar and aged anywhere from 20 to 55. I have heard of few men who make significantly less than their wives and, believe me, they get grief for it. No one is overtly mean, but there is a lot of snark thinly disguised as good natured ribbing.

"Hey, you wanna go to the game? Better ask your wife's permission before we leave since we all know who wears the pants!" *group laughter*

"Wow, I love the car! You must be a good b!tch if she bought you that!"

"We were thinking of starting up the grill and thought we should ask the man of the house if it's ok first, so where's your wife?"

Also, it damn near becomes open season on the woman. Men assume she needs a "real man" and pursue her as if she were single. The gossip and thinly disguised snark are bad for the female half, too. When a woman around here is primary breadwinner, a lot of people think there is something wrong with her because she "failed" to find a "proper" man. Those who aren't busy wondering what's wrong with her are busy pitying her because she's stuck with a dud and must be too kind and nurturing to kick him out and find a "better" man.

God forbid they have kids. Then you hear things like "Well, what'd you expect? Of course the kid is messed up. Look at his parents and how he was raised. Poor kid had no example of manhood to follow." or "That poor little girl. Imagine growing up with no real father figure."

It sucks and it's bullpucky, but it is.

To be entirely fair, I do know two groups of men that are able to make less than their wives or even stay home altogether and who get no grief for it. Men who served in the military and men who have been disabled are given a pass. Everybody else better have a thick skin and give zero fcuks.





sokillme said:


> What has her husband done wrong exactly except not live up to her changing standards?


But her standards didn't change. Again, when they met and married, he was a senior professional in a position of power who was financially sound. Since they married 5 years ago, he's thrown away his senior level position of power, drained his savings, spent 2 years in college getting a degree, and now makes 1/4 his original salary and only contributes 10% to their living expenses.

Seriously, if the genders were reversed, a lot of posters would be thinking bait and switch.


----------



## jld

MattMatt said:


> But I doubt that she loved him at all.
> 
> She loved his salary, his position at work. The fact that he was king of the business castle and lord and master of all he surveyed.
> 
> *Now that he is "only" -in my hypothetical example- a teacher and maybe helping a child with a learning disability to read better, she doesn't love him.*
> 
> It's possible that she is a very, very shallow person.


Matt, charity starts at home. 

If he does not have her continued buy in, he needs to rethink his career, or his marriage.

I wonder if he can even get back into his former career at this point.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Thing is, some women might actually like this. And clearly some men would.
> 
> The gal in the link is just not one of them.


Funny, when I posted that MEME which was nothing more than a joke based on the current male/female roles/stereotypes, I even said to myself "I bet JLD will be the one to post a serious response to". Man, if only I could have placed a bet at the time :grin2: .


----------



## jld

MJJEAN said:


> There is risk taking and there is risk taking. Using savings to get a graduate degree and pay living expenses, finishing debt free, sounds like a "safe" risk, right? I'm sure it never crossed her mind that he could spend all of his savings to get a graduate degree only to make 1/4 of his previous salary.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now I'm curious as to where you see blame shifting. :smile2:
> 
> The way I read it, they met and fell in love. They married. She agreed to temporarily support the household with the help of his savings and some budgeting until he got his graduate degree and then things would return to status quo only with her H enjoying his dream job.
> 
> The reality ended up being that he makes 1/4 what he did before, now has no savings, and his drop in professional and social standing has made her level of attraction to him plummet.
> 
> Additionally, she'd like to become a mother, but doesn't feel safe to do so. As she is now paying 90% of their living expenses, if something happened during the pregnancy and/or delivery that rendered her unable to work or unable to work as much, they'd be in financial trouble with a brand new baby and all the related child rearing expenses. So, there's some resentment there.
> 
> Of course, she is also struggling with what she feels vs what the PC police and the feminist movement think she should feel.
> 
> Thing is, I really get it. I'm 41 and live in the midwest. My friends, family, and neighbors are a mix of blue and white collar and aged anywhere from 20 to 55. I have heard of few men who make significantly less than their wives and, believe me, they get grief for it. No one is overtly mean, but there is a lot of snark thinly disguised as good natured ribbing.
> 
> "Hey, you wanna go to the game? Better ask your wife's permission before we leave since we all know who wears the pants!" *group laughter*
> 
> "Wow, I love the car! You must be a good b!tch if she bought you that!"
> 
> "We were thinking of starting up the grill and thought we should ask the man of the house if it's ok first, so where's your wife?"
> 
> Also, it damn near becomes open season on the woman. Men assume she needs a "real man" and pursue her as if she were single. The gossip and thinly disguised snark are bad for the female half, too. When a woman around here is primary breadwinner, a lot of people think there is something wrong with her because she "failed" to find a "proper" man. Those who aren't busy wondering what's wrong with her are busy pitying her because she's stuck with a dud and must be too kind and nurturing to kick him out and find a "better" man.
> 
> God forbid they have kids. Then you hear things like "Well, what'd you expect? Of course the kid is messed up. Look at his parents and how he was raised. Poor kid had no example of manhood to follow." or "That poor little girl. Imagine growing up with no real father figure."
> 
> It sucks and it's bullpucky, but it is.
> 
> To be entirely fair, I do know two groups of men that are able to make less than their wives or even stay home altogether and who get no grief for it. Men who served in the military and men who have been disabled are given a pass. Everybody else better have a thick skin and give zero fcuks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But her standards didn't change. Again, when they met and married, he was a senior professional in a position of power who was financially sound. Since they married 5 years ago, he's thrown away his senior level position of power, drained his savings, spent 2 years in college getting a degree, and now makes 1/4 his original salary and only contributes 10% to their living expenses.
> 
> Seriously, if the genders were reversed, a lot of posters would be thinking bait and switch.


I think some of the men are feeling threatened by this gal. Maybe they wonder if their wives, in the same situation, might feel the same?

Not sure why some women are so hard on her.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Funny, when I posted that MEME which was nothing more than a joke based on the current male/female roles/stereotypes, I even said to myself "I bet JLD will be the one to post a serious response to". Man, if only I could have placed a bet at the time :grin2: .


But it does reflect some relationships here, Ellis. It reminds me of two of the marriages here. 

To me, that dynamic is totally unappealing, whether it is the woman carrying the man financially, or emotionally. 

But if those gals accept it, good enough. Not my business.


----------



## EllisRedding

MattMatt said:


> But I doubt that she loved him at all.
> 
> She loved his salary, his position at work. The fact that he was king of the business castle and lord and master of all he surveyed.
> 
> Now that he is "only" -in my hypothetical example- a teacher and maybe helping a child with a learning disability to read better, she doesn't love him.
> 
> It's possible that she is a very, very shallow person.


IDK, I still don't see it as her not loving him. Is she shallow, IDK. She seems to be very focused though on the fact that she makes so much more than him. As she stated, she became the breadwinner in an extreme way. So it still brings me back to, would she be happy if his income stayed where it is now and hers was less (so less extreme). Or is she simply not happy because he does not make enough for what she considers "attractive", regardless of how much she is making.

At the end of the day, they both have responsibility in this as they both agreed to take this route in their marriage. It sounds like not enough research was done by either about what his new dream job would entail. Who knows, maybe they did do research, they knew the numbers are were fine with at the time as her career had not taken off (which once again would indicate she is fixated more on how much she is making as compared to him), IDK. 

I have one friend who is now basically a SAHD. He does some minor real estate stuff on the side but his W is the breadwinner. One of these days I would love to be a fly on the wall to she how truly happy they are (from what I can see they are, but that is just from viewing FB posts so...). I would definitely not want to be a SAHD lol.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> But it does reflect some relationships here, Ellis. It reminds me of two of the marriages here.
> 
> To me, that dynamic is totally unappealing, whether it is the woman carrying the man financially, or emotionally.
> 
> But if those gals accept it, good enough. Not my business.


Don't worry, I follow what you are saying. Like I said, I just find it funny you are the one person who I know will respond seriously to MEMEs I post. I will need to keep my more risque ones away from you :grin2:


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Don't worry, I follow what you are saying. Like I said, I just find it funny you are the one person who I know will respond seriously to MEMEs I post. I will need to keep my more risque ones away from you :grin2:


You know why people trust comedians. They are the ones telling the truth.

I am repelled by the thought of carrying a man. If I were that gal, I would wonder why I were still in the marriage, too. 

I am not a bit surprised she is thinking hard about getting out. She either needs to find something she can honestly respect in him to anchor her attraction on, or she should leave.

It would not hurt for him to show some leadership, either. Is he truly clueless as to how she feels?

If his mother is against mothers working, he probably has a clue how his wife might be feeling. Maybe he does not want to face it, either.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> IDK, I still don't see it as her not loving him. Is she shallow, IDK. She seems to be very focused though on the fact that she makes so much more than him. As she stated, she became the breadwinner in an extreme way. So it still brings me back to, would she be happy if his income stayed where it is now and hers was less (so less extreme). Or is she simply not happy because he does not make enough for what she considers "attractive", regardless of how much she is making.
> 
> At the end of the day, they both have responsibility in this as they both agreed to take this route in their marriage. It sounds like not enough research was done by either about what his new dream job would entail. Who knows, maybe they did do research, they knew the numbers are were fine with at the time as her career had not taken off (which once again would indicate she is fixated more on how much she is making as compared to him), IDK.
> 
> I have one friend who is now basically a SAHD. He does some minor real estate stuff on the side but his W is the breadwinner. One of these days I would love to be a fly on the wall to she how truly happy they are (from what I can see they are, but that is just from viewing FB posts so...). I would definitely not want to be a SAHD lol.


If a woman loves her highpowered job, and still wants her kids to have a sahp, she would be wise to marry a man who is ok with being a sahd. Will make her life easier.

My daughter was thinking of doing a MD/PhD program a few years ago. I told her if she went that route, she should plan on having her husband be a sahd. It would free her up while allowing for a high quality home life for her kids.


----------



## SunCMars

She no longer enjoys sex with him.

He can no longer use his gold finger.

It had degraded to Pot Metal, then to Antimony, then to Anti-Money.


----------



## MJJEAN

MattMatt said:


> Because she is a very, very shallow person and can only cope with one concept at a time?


This woman wants to be a mother. She is also responsible for 90% of their living expenses without the added expense of a child or two. If she became pregnant and any number of common things went wrong, rendering her unable to work even temporarily, she knows she can't rely on her H to support the family. 

In the US we don't have the social programs or legal protections available elsewhere. If she cannot work for a period of time due to pregnancy or delivery complications, her employer can replace her. Good luck trying to find another position once that gets out. 

If they lose their healthcare due to loss of employment and cannot afford monthly payments to healthcare through COBRA (ridiculously expensive), medical expenses could become crippling debt very quickly. 

We don't know their financial situation other than he no longer has savings, but it's not unreasonable to think they have expenses commiserate with their current earnings. Car payments, mortgage, credit cards. If that is so, they'd have to "downsize". Which is fine, but could be a HUGE hit to their credit scores depending on the details and could take many years to recover from. 

I don't think she's being materialistic at all. She's being realistic.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> If a woman loves her highpowered job, and still wants her kids to have a sahp, she would be wise to marry a man who is ok with being a sahd. Will make her life easier.
> 
> My daughter was thinking of doing a MD/PhD program a few years ago. I told her if she went that route, she should plan on having her husband be a sahd. It would free her up while allowing for a high quality home life for her kids.


The problem, your daughter better understand that her pickings may be slim if SAHD is a requirement. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, and it makes sense to be upfront if that is what she wants. As well, it is actually still possible to raise a family with both parents working so I don't think we should act like dual working parents means a degraded home life for the kids.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> The problem, your daughter better understand that her pickings may be slim if SAHD is a requirement. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, and it makes sense to be upfront if that is what she wants. As well, it is actually still possible to raise a family with both parents working so I don't think we should act like dual working parents means a degraded home life for the kids.


She rejected the sahd idea. 

I think the quality of home life is worthy of debate if one parent is working 80+ hours a week. A lot of responsibility falls to the other parent.


----------



## MJJEAN

@EllisRedding

You know how unrealistic that is? No way that girl couldn't lift that man in those shoes...


----------



## EllisRedding

MJJEAN said:


> @EllisRedding
> 
> You know how unrealistic that is? No way that girl couldn't lift that man in those shoes...


See @MJJEAN , that is the type of response I expected from that MEME :grin2:


----------



## farsidejunky

MJJEAN said:


> This woman wants to be a mother. She is also responsible for 90% of their living expenses without the added expense of a child or two. If she became pregnant and any number of common things went wrong, rendering her unable to work even temporarily, she knows she can't rely on her H to support the family.
> 
> In the US we don't have the social programs or legal protections available elsewhere. If she cannot work for a period of time due to pregnancy or delivery complications, her employer can replace her. Good luck trying to find another position once that gets out.
> 
> If they lose their healthcare due to loss of employment and cannot afford monthly payments to healthcare through COBRA (ridiculously expensive), medical expenses could become crippling debt very quickly.
> 
> We don't know their financial situation other than he no longer has savings, but it's not unreasonable to think they have expenses commiserate with their current earnings. Car payments, mortgage, credit cards. If that is so, they'd have to "downsize". Which is fine, but could be a HUGE hit to their credit scores depending on the details and could take many years to recover from.
> 
> I don't think she's being materialistic at all. She's being realistic.


I would agree with this if their combined income was under $50K per year.


----------



## farsidejunky

I get that people have certain things to which they are attracted.

Where I struggle is when one partner is content to have the other be the breadwinner, then something causes the other to be the primary provider, and suddenly it is a problem?

Convenient, that.

She is entitled to feel however she wants. She will find certain things attractive.

However, despite all of that, the fact that she cannot discipline herself beyond making herself the victim through hypocrisy certainly shows she has character problems.


----------



## Kivlor

naiveonedave said:


> I think many/most western men have been brainwashed into thinking that women are 'equal' and that historical gender norms no longer matter. In this case, though, they clearly do.


It's not just the men who've been brainwashed into this. The moment you come out saying it is the moment a ton of women bring out the pitchforks, torches, and prepare to roast a heretic. It is obvious we're not equal. And it's dumb to think we are or that we should be. 

But if we're going to pretend we're equal, then I think we should hold the women to it. As a man, I'm supposed to support her in whatever her dreams are: SAHM, part-time work, full-time work, charity, whatever she wants. When we ask for some reciprocity, it's "oh now that you're making less money I want a new husband". We have no options. 

Men are fools to tolerate this. Demand better from the women in your life. If they want to be equals, make them live up to the task (something most can't and won't do). Once their over-inflated pride in the magic power of ovaries is broken, you can deal with them honestly.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I get that people have certain things to which they are attracted.
> 
> Where I struggle is when one partner is content to have the other be the breadwinner, then something causes the other to be the primary provider, and suddenly it is a problem?
> 
> Convenient, that.
> 
> She is entitled to feel however she wants. She will find certain things attractive.
> 
> However, despite all of that, the fact that she cannot *discipline herself beyond making herself the victim through hypocrisy *certainly shows she has character problems.


?

She is young, successful, and they do not have children. Whyever should she stay?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> ?
> 
> She is young, successful, and they do not have children. Whyever should she stay?


So basically her marriage is based solely on her success. I get it, she is not attracted to him, it is what it is. Sounds like the type of person though that would be better off being alone, or at least let the next poor sap know how quickly he will be expendable if he does not meet her rigorous checklist.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> ?
> 
> She is young, successful, and they do not have children. Whyever should she stay?


Aren't you the one who says that a spouse who is married to someone successful had a part to play in helping them earn said success?


----------



## Kivlor

MJJEAN said:


> There is risk taking and there is risk taking. Using savings to get a graduate degree and pay living expenses, finishing debt free, sounds like a "safe" risk, right? I'm sure it never crossed her mind that he could spend all of his savings to get a graduate degree only to make 1/4 of his previous salary.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now I'm curious as to where you see blame shifting. :smile2:
> 
> The way I read it, they met and fell in love. They married. She agreed to temporarily support the household with the help of his savings and some budgeting until he got his graduate degree and then things would return to status quo only with her H enjoying his dream job.
> 
> The reality ended up being that he makes 1/4 what he did before, now has no savings, and his drop in professional and social standing has made her level of attraction to him plummet.
> 
> Additionally, she'd like to become a mother, but doesn't feel safe to do so. As she is now paying 90% of their living expenses, if something happened during the pregnancy and/or delivery that rendered her unable to work or unable to work as much, they'd be in financial trouble with a brand new baby and all the related child rearing expenses. So, there's some resentment there.
> 
> Of course, she is also struggling with what she feels vs what the PC police and the feminist movement think she should feel.
> 
> But her standards didn't change. Again, when they met and married, he was a senior professional in a position of power who was financially sound. Since they married 5 years ago, he's thrown away his senior level position of power, drained his savings, spent 2 years in college getting a degree, and now makes 1/4 his original salary and only contributes 10% to their living expenses.
> 
> Seriously, if the genders were reversed, a lot of posters would be thinking bait and switch.


I don't speak for Satya, but I agreed with what she was saying. 

If her standards were: "You must be a top earning, high-powered professional" then she should have made that clear. What she shouldn't have done was tell him to gamble everything on his dream, and that she'd carry the weight until it worked out. 

Now that it didn't pan out as they had both thought, she's not owning up to that decision of hers at all. It's all her H's fault, because he doesn't make as much as her, and her career took off while his has gone into the gutter. And now, because he's chasing his dreams, she may have to place hers on the backburner! The horror! She is facing exactly what every man has faced forever. Someone has to pay the bills. Welcome to equality.

And through all of this, she doesn't bother to tell him. He's out there, doing everything he can to make this new career work, and coming up short, and she's keeping her vile, nasty thoughts to herself, rather than giving him the opportunity to see her for what she is.

She's a gold digger. And even that's not her fault. It's all daddy's fault. It's her mom's fault that she wants to be a SAHM and have someone provide for her. It's never her fault. It's always someone else's. But women get a pass, because they're supposed to be able to chase their dreams while men silently labor away, and work to the bone. Then, when the kids are grown, and just as he's seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, she can say "you don't give me enough attention! You focus on your work too much!" and divorce him, leaving him in ruin, demanding alimony, even forcing him to pay for the "children's" college debt, and go find herself some other man.

This whole thread is an advertisement for MGTOW and Red Pill ideas.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think her mistake was in that she doesn't have enough physical/sexual attraction to her husband. In her question, she never says he was handsome or attractive to her. She only says:

"When I first met him, it was undeniably a passionate love affair. I'd never dated anyone or known anyone like him before. He took risks, lived all over the world, had many passions and has been a loyal friend. He's seven years older than I am, and we met at work, where his power and seniority at the office was insanely attractive to me."

I can understand that at this time, she was swept away and they had a great love affair. But her "attraction" to him doesn't seem to be based on raw, animal, physical attraction. She possibly felt that type of physical attraction during the beginning while she was more attracted to his zesty personality, but it was basically manufactured by love chemicals. In the long term, if you aren't just simply HOT for your partner on a purely animal level, without any of that extra stuff considered, then you won't be able to get it up for them eventually.

This is why when people say women are attracted to money and power, I always say, she better also be physically and sexually attracted to him even if he was poor, or she isn't really attracted to him and the sex WILL become a disaster eventually.

Some women can certainly still get it up for a man she isn't all that physically attracted to, and can do so in the long term with a partner. But most women are like men...they need to feel physical attraction to feel sexual arousal. I think some women aren't even aware themselves of how important this is, because they haven't had enough long term relationships to feel how their bodies work over the long haul.

Mental and emotional attraction can certainly create good chemistry and steamy sex. But only physical attraction will bring out the animal in you.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> So basically her marriage is based solely on her success. I get it, she is not attracted to him, it is what it is. Sounds like the type of person though that would be better off being alone, or at least let the next poor sap know how quickly he will be expendable if he does not meet her rigorous checklist.


She needs to be with at least her equal, Ellis.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Aren't you the one who says that a spouse who is married to someone successful had a part to play in helping them earn said success?


Behind every successful man is a woman who could not live on his former income?



In a long term marriage, far, I agree. But this gal sounds independently successful. She is young and has already "made it."


----------



## Kivlor

farsidejunky said:


> Aren't you the one who says that a spouse who is married to someone successful had a part to play in helping them earn said success?


You don't understand farside, when a man is successful, it's because of his wife. When a woman is successful, it's because of herself.

Repeat after me:

Pay up. The man is always in the wrong. Pay up. The woman is always right. Pay up. All of his accomplishments are hers and his equally. Pay up. All of her accomplishments are hers alone. Pay up. He must live for her. Pay up. She must be free to chase her dreams. 

To get this right, and properly correct your wrongthink, I suggest you get a nice thick wooden board, and after every sentence you hit yourself in the head with it. Do this morning, noon and night, and eventually you'll be cured of the scourge of self-awareness and critical thought.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> I think her mistake was in that she doesn't have enough physical/sexual attraction to her husband. In her question, she never says he was handsome or attractive to her. She only says:
> 
> "When I first met him, it was undeniably a passionate love affair. I'd never dated anyone or known anyone like him before. He took risks, lived all over the world, had many passions and has been a loyal friend. He's seven years older than I am, and we met at work, where his power and seniority at the office was insanely attractive to me."
> 
> I can understand that at this time, she was swept away and they had a great love affair. But her "attraction" to him doesn't seem to be based on raw, animal, physical attraction. She possibly felt that type of physical attraction during the beginning while she was more attracted to his zesty personality, but it was basically manufactured by love chemicals. In the long term, if you aren't just simply HOT for your partner on a purely animal level, without any of that extra stuff considered, then you won't be able to get it up for them eventually.
> 
> This is why when people say women are attracted to money and power, I always say, she better also be physically and sexually attracted to him even if he was poor, or she isn't really attracted to him and the sex WILL become a disaster eventually.
> 
> Some women can certainly still get it up for a man she isn't all that physically attracted to, and can do so in the long term with a partner. But most women are like men...they need to feel physical attraction to feel sexual arousal. I think some women aren't even aware themselves of how important this is, because they haven't had enough long term relationships to feel how their bodies work over the long haul.
> 
> Mental and emotional attraction can certainly create good chemistry and steamy sex. But only physical attraction will bring out the animal in you.


I think she just has a different motive of attraction than the one you describe. They are certainly equally valid, and I believe, primal, for the respective women who have them.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> You don't understand farside, when a man is successful, it's because of his wife. When a woman is successful, it's because of herself.
> 
> Repeat after me:
> 
> Pay up. The man is always in the wrong. Pay up. The woman is always right. Pay up. All of his accomplishments are hers and his equally. Pay up. All of her accomplishments are hers alone. Pay up. He must live for her. Pay up. She must be free to chase her dreams.
> 
> To get this right, and properly correct your wrongthink, I suggest you get a nice thick wooden board, and after every sentence you hit yourself in the head with it. Do this morning, noon and night, and eventually you'll be cured of the scourge of self-awareness and critical thought.


If you don't want to (possibly) pay, kivlor . . . Don't play.


----------



## jorgegene

jld said:


> ?
> 
> She is young, successful, and they do not have children. Whyever should she stay?


f


Maybe because she took vows to be with him forever, and he is a hardworking, intelligent well educated, non-abusive and non-cheating guy? Hmmmmmm........not sure


----------



## MattMatt

jld said:


> She needs to be with at least her equal, Ellis.


Someone equally shallow, huh?


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> I think she just has a different motive of attraction than the one you describe. They are certainly equally valid, and I believe, primal, for the respective women who have them.


Well, I think what she is experiencing now is possibly evidence of what I was getting at...that was why I posted it.

But you could be right and it could be that once the husband gets back on top of his own life, she will gain her attraction back to him entirely.

I'm thinking it wouldn't matter even if he does get back on top, because now she has "seen" him without those particular blinders she had on, and she wasn't into him.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> If you don't want to (possibly) pay, kivlor . . . Don't play.


Indeed. That's the reality. Doesn't mean I can't point out that it is wrong, unethical, and that men shouldn't tolerate it. Thanks for pointing out that you've no ethical points to stand on, but merely that it is. I agree with you. It is.

My take on this subject JLD is this: I want to have children. The odds are that any marriage will fail. The more money I make and the harder I work, the more likely a wife is to leave me for "neglecting" her. The less money I make, and the less hard I work, the more likely a wife is to leave me for "being unattractive". 

9/10 women are going to be like this--it's a natural response. I can't avoid it if I want kids. So my answer is: Be strong. So strong that no one would dare strike me. All I can do is to be the kind of man who A) does not deserve such treachery and B) Would be expected to absolutely crush traitors.

People don't strike you when you are strong and they know you'll hit back. They strike when you are weak, and/or when you cannot/won't hit back.

Men: Don't give your wife an option in that. If she knows that the cost will be mutual assured destruction, that you would burn everything rather than let her take it, that you won't surrender your children under any circumstances, then she will not be inclined, especially if you also treat her well.


----------



## jld

jorgegene said:


> f
> 
> 
> Maybe because she took vows to be with him forever, and he is a hardworking, intelligent well educated, non-abusive and non-cheating guy? Hmmmmmm........not sure


Times change, I guess.

Look, the reality is that she is at a different point now in her late 20s than in her early 20s (guessing on the age here). She should not stay out of obligation. She should stay because it makes sense to stay. And that goes for both of them.


----------



## jld

MattMatt said:


> Someone equally shallow, huh?


I don't think she is shallow. 

She is realistic.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> Well, I think what she is experiencing now is possibly evidence of what I was getting at...that was why I posted it.
> 
> But you could be right and it could be that once the husband gets back on top of his own life, she will gain her attraction back to him entirely.
> 
> I'm thinking it wouldn't matter even if he does get back on top, because now she has "seen" him without those particular blinders she had on, and she wasn't into him.


I think it is more that she has surpassed him. That knowledge, that opening of her eyes, is never going to leave her.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Indeed. That's the reality. Doesn't mean I can't point out that it is wrong, unethical, and that men shouldn't tolerate it. Thanks for pointing out that you've no ethical points to stand on, but merely that it is. I agree with you. It is.
> 
> My take on this subject JLD is this: I want to have children. The odds are that any marriage will fail. The more money I make and the harder I work, the more likely a wife is to leave me for "neglecting" her. The less money I make, and the less hard I work, the more likely a wife is to leave me for "being unattractive".
> 
> 9/10 women are going to be like this--it's a natural response. I can't avoid it if I want kids. So my answer is: Be strong. So strong that no one would dare strike me. All I can do is to be the kind of man who A) does not deserve such treachery and B) Would be expected to absolutely crush traitors.
> 
> People don't strike you when you are strong and they know you'll hit back. They strike when you are weak, and/or when you cannot/won't hit back.
> 
> Men: Don't give your wife an option in that. If she knows that the cost will be mutual assured destruction, that you would burn everything rather than let her take it, that you won't surrender your children under any circumstances, then she will not be inclined, especially if you also treat her well.


Dug wanted kids. He has not made as much money as I would have liked, and I have not left him. Can't really see that ever happening.

Treat her well is certainly good advice.


----------



## jld

Just curious . . . For those of you who are fathers of grown daughters (say, 21+ years old), what advice would you give this young woman if she were your daughter?


----------



## MJJEAN

MattMatt said:


> If he had to go back to university to get a degree to get his dream job, then he is probably a high school teacher, or some similar professional career.
> 
> The average high school teacher salary is $56,310 per year.





farsidejunky said:


> I would agree with this if their combined income was under $50K per year.


In my area, $56k a year will afford a family of 3-4 healthcare, a roof over their heads, utilities, food, and a modest vehicle or two. No savings, no retirement, no kids college funds, no vacations, resale shop clothes. Move a few states south and $56k a year allows a better standard of living. Move a few states east or west and $56k a year is barely enough to survive.

Depending on where they live and their monthly expenses, should she be unable to work, they could be in serious trouble on that income alone.



MattMatt said:


> But I doubt that she loved him at all.
> 
> She loved his salary, his position at work. The fact that he was king of the business castle and lord and master of all he surveyed.
> 
> Now that he is "only" -in my hypothetical example- a teacher and maybe helping a child with a learning disability to read better, she doesn't love him.
> 
> It's possible that she is a very, very shallow person.


Other than realistic financial worries should something go wrong, the truth is something about men who are in senior level positions or other positions of power and authority carry themselves. It's confidence and self-assuredness and charisma, but more. Something in the way they walk, move, dress, speak, etc. etc. It's the vibe they give off.

If his experiences going back to college and taking his new position changed him from the man described above into something else, he literally became "not her type" with the financial insecurity and social stigma as secondary reasons for her lack of attraction to him.



jld said:


> I think some of the men are feeling threatened by this gal. Maybe they wonder if their wives, in the same situation, might feel the same?
> 
> Not sure why some women are so hard on her.


I think the flack comes from people concentrating more on the money and less on the differences in way of being that I described above to MattMatt.





EllisRedding said:


> See @MJJEAN , that is the type of response I expected from that MEME :grin2:


You're only saying that because you have no idea how seriously I take shoes. :laugh:


----------



## SunCMars

MJJEAN said:


> This woman wants to be a mother. She is also responsible for 90% of their living expenses without the added expense of a child or two. If she became pregnant and any number of common things went wrong, rendering her unable to work even temporarily, she knows she can't rely on her H to support the family.
> 
> In the US we don't have the social programs or legal protections available elsewhere. If she cannot work for a period of time due to pregnancy or delivery complications, her employer can replace her. Good luck trying to find another position once that gets out.
> 
> If they lose their healthcare due to loss of employment and cannot afford monthly payments to healthcare through COBRA (ridiculously expensive), medical expenses could become crippling debt very quickly.
> 
> We don't know their financial situation other than he no longer has savings, but it's not unreasonable to think they have expenses commiserate with their current earnings. Car payments, mortgage, credit cards. If that is so, they'd have to "downsize". Which is fine, but could be a HUGE hit to their credit scores depending on the details and could take many years to recover from.
> 
> I don't think she's being materialistic at all. She's being realistic.


Here I am sitting in the forest on a stump. 

The leaves are still colorful, and they rain down like fallen stars.

That sentiment has been trashed. @MJJEAN has popped my bubble. 

I am no longer sitting on the stump, I am standing on it. 

She of all people should know about love. A love that transcends [made-from, green-back] cabbage patch dolls living in a sterile mansion.

When I hold a women...a women that I love....I hold flesh and blood, not inked paper. I cannot make love to money, stick my peter in a gold bar in the shape of a women. Apparently, mjjean has now matured into that practical, cold women that we read about. 

Does she now look at men as providers ONLY. Does she now, "only" look at the bulge in a man's wallet pocket and not see his wide shoulders, his narrow hips, his kissable lips. After sweeping over his form with her eyes, does she not see the faint bulge outside his jeans? Has she matured beyond being a passionate women. Matured beyond that of a women, a women that still feels that itch between her own thighs? When she looks into her SO's eyes, does she see/feel lust? Or does she dollar signs? And lusts after that.

The husband is a provider. He does work. If she loses her job or gets sick.....*He will take care of her.....in sickness and in health.* 

Her? 

She is ready to jettison him because he prioritized his happiness. *A happiness that included her*.

I am a Hopeless Romantic. May I die as one.


----------



## jld

Love does not pay the bills, my friend. And people like MJJean, and other women here, know about bills.


----------



## MJJEAN

SunCMars said:


> I am a Hopeless Romantic. May I die as one.


For a woman nothing kills romance faster than having to tell her child they cannot afford new clothes or a pair of shoes or Christmas or college because Daddy is working his dream job.


----------



## jld

MJJEAN said:


> For a woman nothing kills romance faster than having to tell her child they cannot afford new clothes or a pair of shoes or Christmas or college because Daddy is working his dream job.


No kidding. Very selfish of him.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> She needs to be with at least her equal, Ellis.


So that she can fume about his success and the glass ceiling...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

I worked for a woman once who married back in the early 60s. Her husband was an accountant, and they had 5 children.

One day he announced he was giving up accounting to manage a bar. She had to scramble to find a job.

Absolutely lovely woman. Just wonderful in every respect. I can only imagine the resentment she felt. She rarely talked about it, but it was clearly in her heart.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> So that she can fume about his success and the glass ceiling...
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


She shattered the one in hers. I doubt she would worry about any in his.


----------



## blahfridge

I think she articulates what a lot of women struggle with in today's world. On the one hand, women are told that they are equal to men in the workplace and should pursue their career and financial goals. But, cultural change doesn't happen by simply turning a switch off in your mind. In subtle and not so subtle ways, women get the message that they should look for a man to take care of them. Men get the message that they should look for a woman who is nurturing and sexually attractive. It's going to take another generation for these mindsets to completely change, if ever.


----------



## Kivlor




----------



## jld

blahfridge said:


> I think she articulates what a lot of women struggle with in today's world. On the one hand, women are told that they are equal to men in the workplace and should pursue their career and financial goals. But, cultural change doesn't happen by simply turning a switch off in your mind. *In subtle and not so subtle ways, women get the message that they should look for a man to take care of them. *Men get the message that they should look for a woman who is nurturing and sexually attractive. It's going to take another generation for these mindsets to completely change, if ever.


I don't think the message is external. I think it comes from inside the woman.

Not all women hear it, for example. They are happy to be the providers in their families.


----------



## john117

Oh please. J2 always complains about the glass ceiling where she works, regardless of where. Her job always sucks, she's the furriner, blah blah. Meanwhile all I do is ogle interns, eat donuts, and play with stuff.

Unless you're Mary Barra or Ginni Rometi or similar, you'll always have the glass ceiling in your back pocket. 

My theory is that many women think of work as a hobby, not as something they do to support their family...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Kivlor




----------



## Kivlor

john117 said:


> Oh please. J2 always complains about the glass ceiling where she works, regardless of where. Her job always sucks, she's the furriner, blah blah. Meanwhile all I do is ogle interns, eat donuts, and play with stuff.
> 
> Unless you're Mary Barra or Ginni Rometi or similar, you'll always have the glass ceiling in your back pocket.
> 
> My theory is that many women think of work as a hobby, not as something they do to support their family...
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk



That's no theory it is a fact.


----------



## SunCMars

I rest my case.

I swung...hard........ whiffed. The cold air has stiffened my swing.

No where did it say that he was making minimum wages. And no where did it say that he was "unwilling"or "incapable" of re-committing to a higher paying job. Right now? Ain't necessary.

I suspect if/when the proverbial sh!t hit the fan, this man would "again" step up. That time has not arrived.

She is willing to dump him on "What If's".....WHAT IF's.

She is a shallow shrew. She should just evaporate...do him a favor.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Oh please. J2 always complains about the glass ceiling where she works, regardless of where. Her job always sucks, she's the furriner, blah blah. Meanwhile all I do is ogle interns, eat donuts, and play with stuff.
> 
> Unless you're Mary Barra or Ginni Rometi or similar, you'll always have the glass ceiling in your back pocket.
> 
> My theory is that many women think of work as a hobby, not as something they do to support their family...
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


J2 has not shattered the glass ceiling, john. She even makes less than you, right?

Did you see my question in post #135?


----------



## jld

SunCMars said:


> I rest my case.
> 
> I swung...hard........ whiffed. The cold air has stiffened my swing.
> 
> No where did it say that he was making minimum wages. And no where did it say that he was "unwilling"or "incapable" of re-committing to a higher paying job. Right now? Ain't necessary.
> 
> I suspect if/when the proverbial sh!t hit the fan, this man would "again" step up. That time has not arrived.
> 
> She is willing to dump him on "What If's".....WHAT IF's.
> 
> She is a shallow shrew. She should just evaporate...do him a favor.


She is not a shrew. She is a talented young woman who has had her eyes opened.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> She is not a shrew. She is a talented young woman who has had her eyes opened.


----------



## jld

Realistically, kivlor, we all need to bring something to the table.


----------



## MJJEAN

SunCMars said:


> I rest my case.
> 
> I swung...hard........ whiffed. The cold air has stiffened my swing.
> 
> No where did it say that he was making minimum wages. And no where did it say that he was "unwilling"or "incapable" of re-committing to a higher paying job. Right now? Ain't necessary.
> 
> I suspect if/when the proverbial sh!t hit the fan, this man would "again" step up. That time has not arrived.
> 
> She is willing to dump him on "What If's".....WHAT IF's.
> 
> She is a shallow shrew. She should just evaporate...do him a favor.


Maybe he would step up in case of emergency, but that doesn't mean he'd be able to. After the time he has spent away from his higher earning job he might not be employable in that field anymore.

As was said before, what has been seen cannot be unseen. Even if he did resume his senior level position of power and authority, she'll always wonder if/when he'll throw it all away again.

I don't think it's shallow to want to be able to live financially secure and to be able to provide a comfortable life and all possible advantages to your future offspring while maybe being able to retire someday.


----------



## jld

MJJEAN said:


> Maybe he would step up in case of emergency, but that doesn't mean he'd be able to. After the time he has spent away from his higher earning job he might not be employable in that field anymore.
> 
> As was said before, what has been seen cannot be unseen. Even if he did resume his senior level position of power and authority, she'll always wonder if/when he'll throw it all away again.
> 
> I don't think it's shallow to want to be able to live financially secure and to be able to provide a comfortable life and all possible advantages to your future offspring while maybe being able to retire someday.


Not only is it not shallow . . . It is _wise._


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Realistically, kivlor, we all need to bring something to the table.


----------



## MrsAldi

It's a real pity she didn't give salary amounts in the letter. 
If you really love someone, you'll make it work.

Let's say they make a combined income of 500k, why can't they enjoy themselves?? 
Omg, if me and Mr A had that amount of money....we'd be poor again because... 











Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Not only is it not shallow . . . It is _wise._


Really? He clearly makes enough to live. She is incredibly shallow, as she was a willing participant in his plan to go back to school. She is as 'guilty' as he is. And she isn't willing to own up that they chose the wrong the path. She is blaming him for their decision. And she isn't even willing to discuss it with him. Her statements really are cake eating on a grand scale of economics.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


>


Didn't you say you don't believe in unconditional love, kivlor?


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> Really? He clearly makes enough to live. She is incredibly shallow, as she was a willing participant in his plan to go back to school. She is as 'guilty' as he is. And she isn't willing to own up that they chose the wrong the path. She is blaming him for their decision. And she isn't even willing to discuss it with him. Her statements really are cake eating on a grand scale of economics.


How do you know he makes enough to live?

Looks like he's been living off her for the last four years.


----------



## blahfridge

Almost 20 years ago, my H quit his secure job to go freelance. For the most part, it has worked out, but it has always added a level of unease and stress to our lives because some years our income has taken a real downturn. We are in one of those periods again because a long time client of his passed away in August, cutting our income by over 50K a year. I work as a teacher, so my income isn't enough to make up the difference. What has always bothered me about this is not that my H wanted the freedom to be his own boss, I was actually pregnant and still said yes when he first launched his freelance career. But, he coasts in whatever jobs he is doing at the time and he's never really made an effort to update his skills to make him more competitive in his field in today's market. 

Right now, I am the one working 12 hour days (when you factor in lesson planning and grading) while he often works 2 to 4 hours for the one regular client he has now. He is looking for more work and he's good at his job, so I know it will get better. But it's a competitive field and he's now on the high end as far as age and salary. He has lots of free time, even when he had more clients he often had to work only a few hours a day, so he could be taking some classes to open up more options or, at the very least, he could be doing things around the house that need to be done. He rarely does either of those things and that's what I resent. It's all about parity and feeling like your partner is doing what he/she can to contribute.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Didn't you say you don't believe in unconditional love, kivlor?


And you are proving me right.

I want to be wrong JLD. Desperately.


----------



## MJJEAN

naiveonedave said:


> Really? He clearly makes enough to live. She is incredibly shallow, as she was a willing participant in his plan to go back to school. She is as 'guilty' as he is. And she isn't willing to own up that they chose the wrong the path. She is blaming him for their decision. And she isn't even willing to discuss it with him. Her statements really are cake eating on a grand scale of economics.


She clearly stated that he contributes 10% to the household expenses. Either he is not paying his share deliberately or his dream job isn't enough to live on.

She also clearly stated that she was not aware that his income would go down to 1/4 what it was previously when she made the agreement.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> J2 has not shattered the glass ceiling, john. She even makes less than you, right?
> 
> Did you see my question in post #135?


About 5% less but has a laughably easier job...

She has made steady advances in her career by jumping ship every few years whereas I'm still at my first company.

She knows she's got my income to fall back on so she can afford to look around and be aggressive. I don't have the same luxury.

And of course, the constant harping that I'm not working hard enough or I'm not ambitious enough... 

"Her" money is her hobby money. DD1 is returning from Italy next week with $2k worth of stuff, mostly "for the house". My share of that is $50 worth of t-shirts, chocolates, and a couple of Fiat meta model cars. 



Kivlor said:


> That's no theory it is a fact.



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> About 5% less but has a laughably easier job...
> 
> She has made steady advances in her career by jumping ship every few years whereas I'm still at my first company.
> 
> She knows she's got my income to fall back on so she can afford to look around and be aggressive. I don't have the same luxury.
> 
> And of course, the constant harping that I'm not working hard enough or I'm not ambitious enough...
> 
> "Her" money is her hobby money. DD1 is returning from Italy next week with $2k worth of stuff, mostly "for the house". My share of that is $50 worth of t-shirts, chocolates, and a couple of Fiat meta model cars.


Well, you have always said she is a smart woman, John. 

What about post #135?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I think some of the men are feeling threatened by this gal. Maybe they wonder if their wives, in the same situation, might feel the same?
> 
> Not sure why some women are so hard on her.


Don't assume that being hard on her is due to feeling threatened. For me at least, it's not that at all. I just find her values morally wrong.


----------



## zookeeper

john117 said:


> My theory is that many women think of work as a hobby, not as something they do to support their family...


I'm not sure that they think of it this way, but for many married women this IS the truth. Those women cannot really understand the pressure of being financially responsible for a family. There is immeasurable difference between having a career and needing a career. I suppose I don't really mind this as I hold some very traditional views on manhood. I expect to be the financial support and it is part of my identity to provide my wife with options I will never have. 

Attitudes are evolving, but the fundamentals are changing very slowly. To deny the overall expectations of the average person is simply dimwitted. The woman writing this letter does not come across very sympathetically, but that does not change the fact that her husband made a stupid and shortsighted choice in pursuing a less lucrative career path. 

If you're a man who wants to "find himself," you'd probably be best advised to find yourself a new relationship. This isn't a case in which some misfortune befell him and he was unable to continue at his former level. He made the decision to intentionally pursue a new path. His wealth, power and material success were clearly a key part of his appeal to her. This may seem shallow and even repugnant, but it is a fact of life. There are many women who are attracted to these things, just as there are many men who are attracted simply to physical attributes and lose attraction if their wife gains weight and stops grooming. That's life. Ignore the facts at your peril. You may get lucky and find a statistical outlier.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> How do you know he makes enough to live?
> 
> Looks like he's been living off her for the last four years.


they are living an exec level salary. Based on what we can surmise, she makes>500K, he probably makes 60K. She wants to have unlimited money and stay at home, which is not what they agreed to.

IMO, he was wrong for thinking the career change would be better financially than it turns out. She is wrong for not communicating this is unacceptable and ALSO because she signed up for better/for worse.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> You have apparently completely missed my point. IMHO, it's the same whether it's done by a man or a woman. No difference.
> 
> If they both agree to something like one of them not working, or earning less, etc. then they agreed, so it's ok. It's not ok for one spouse to make a unilateral decision that stick the other with the consequences of that decision.
> 
> You are the one who seems to think gender is an issue. It's not. It's the same regardless of gender.


That part of it isn't a gender issue.

The part that is a gender issue is that she didn't think her out-earning him would be a problem for her. When it turned out it was, she was surprised and a bit disappointed in herself. But, the rational mind can't control what one is physically attracted to.

I think she agreed to the graduate school and career change because she didn't understand herself (or did, but didn't want to admit it).

Women are attracted to whatever they're attracted to (as are men).

But popular culture is telling women that they should be attracted to something else.

Which causes a lot of confusion for women.

Men (currently) don't have this problem.


----------



## Buddy400

MattMatt said:


> Because she is a very, very shallow person and can only cope with one concept at a time?


She's no more shallow than a guy who marries a Playboy model and loses attraction for her when she plumps up to 300 lbs.

The difference is that the guy wouldn't be surprised by the fact that he lost attraction.

She was, because popular culture has been telling women that they aren't attracted to what they are attracted to.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Just curious . . . For those of you who are fathers of grown daughters (say, 21+ years old), what advice would you give this young woman if she were your daughter?


To balance work and life so that such disparities are minimized, or to marry someone in the same level and line of work if disparities are inevitable. 

DD1 will not make a lot of money as a designer or college prof. Her current SO likewise. 

DD2 will make lots more when she eventually graduates from the med school grindstone. At that point she'll think about it.

But marrying someone who quits the corporate world to play banjo... Nope.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

MJJEAN said:


> But her standards didn't change. Again, when they met and married, he was a senior professional in a position of power who was financially sound. Since they married 5 years ago, he's thrown away his senior level position of power, drained his savings, spent 2 years in college getting a degree, and now makes 1/4 his original salary and only contributes 10% to their living expenses.
> 
> Seriously, if the genders were reversed, a lot of posters would be thinking bait and switch.


I don't get that vibe from the letter writer at all.

It sounded to me that she was all on board with his decisions and was actually surprised (and disappointed in herself) to find that she felt what she felt when their earnings diverged.


----------



## Buddy400

MJJEAN said:


> Thing is, I really get it. I'm 41 and live in the midwest. My friends, family, and neighbors are a mix of blue and white collar and aged anywhere from 20 to 55. I have heard of few men who make significantly less than their wives and, believe me, they get grief for it. No one is overtly mean, but there is a lot of snark thinly disguised as good natured ribbing.


But her husband wasn't the one having problems with it. She was.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> You know why people trust comedians. They are the ones telling the truth.
> 
> I am repelled by the thought of carrying a man. If I were that gal, I would wonder why I were still in the marriage, too.
> 
> I am not a bit surprised she is thinking hard about getting out. She either needs to find something she can honestly respect in him to anchor her attraction on, or she should leave.
> 
> It would not hurt for him to show some leadership, either. Is he truly clueless as to how she feels?
> 
> If his mother is against mothers working, he probably has a clue how his wife might be feeling. Maybe he does not want to face it, either.


The problem is that it seems a little unfair for women to both expect to have all the same career opportunities as men and, at the same time, expect men to carry them.

Woman are going to have the same career opportunities (and I think they should), so it looks like women are going to have to get over their need to be carried (or do without men).


----------



## Buddy400

MJJEAN said:


> This woman wants to be a mother. She is also responsible for 90% of their living expenses without the added expense of a child or two. If she became pregnant and any number of common things went wrong, rendering her unable to work even temporarily, she knows she can't rely on her H to support the family.
> 
> In the US we don't have the social programs or legal protections available elsewhere. If she cannot work for a period of time due to pregnancy or delivery complications, her employer can replace her. Good luck trying to find another position once that gets out.
> 
> If they lose their healthcare due to loss of employment and cannot afford monthly payments to healthcare through COBRA (ridiculously expensive), medical expenses could become crippling debt very quickly.
> 
> We don't know their financial situation other than he no longer has savings, but it's not unreasonable to think they have expenses commiserate with their current earnings. Car payments, mortgage, credit cards. If that is so, they'd have to "downsize". Which is fine, but could be a HUGE hit to their credit scores depending on the details and could take many years to recover from.
> 
> I don't think she's being materialistic at all. She's being realistic.


I don't think other taxpayers are willing to give her ~$400.000 / per year (which seems like a good guess as to how much she's making) so that she can be a mom.

She can pop out the kid and go back to work in a month. Then she can spend as much time with her kid as her husband would if he were making $400.000 per (very little). Her husband can stay home with the kid. The fact that she doesn't want to have sex with her husband is her problem.


----------



## Buddy400

EllisRedding said:


> The problem, your daughter better understand that her pickings may be slim if SAHD is a requirement. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, and it makes sense to be upfront if that is what she wants. As well, it is actually still possible to raise a family with both parents working so I don't think we should act like dual working parents means a degraded home life for the kids.


It's possible to raise a kid with both parents working full-time jobs (just ask the working poor).

Two high-powered careers though? 50-60 hour work weeks for each with travel? I don't think so. Someone's going to have to de-prioritize their career or the kids will be raised by nannies.


----------



## jsmart

Faithful Wife said:


> I think her mistake was in that she doesn't have enough physical/sexual attraction to her husband. In her question, she never says he was handsome or attractive to her. She only says:
> 
> "*When I first met him, it was undeniably a passionate love affair.* I'd never dated anyone or known anyone like him before. He took risks, lived all over the world, had many passions and has been a loyal friend. He's seven years older than I am, and we met at work, where his power and seniority at the office was insanely attractive to me."
> 
> I can understand that at this time, she was swept away and they had a great love affair. But her "attraction" to him doesn't seem to be based on raw, animal, physical attraction. She possibly felt that type of physical attraction during the beginning while she was more attracted to his zesty personality, but it was basically manufactured by love chemicals. In the long term, if you aren't just simply HOT for your partner on a purely animal level, without any of that extra stuff considered, then you won't be able to get it up for them eventually.
> 
> This is why when people say women are attracted to money and power, I always say, she better also be physically and sexually attracted to him even if he was poor, or she isn't really attracted to him and the sex WILL become a disaster eventually.
> 
> *Some women can certainly still get it up for a man she isn't all that physically attracted to*, and can do so in the long term with a partner. But *most women are like men...they need to feel physical attraction to feel sexual arousal.* I think some women aren't even aware themselves of how important this is, because they haven't had enough long term relationships to feel how their bodies work over the long haul.
> 
> Mental and emotional attraction can certainly create good chemistry and steamy sex. But only physical attraction will bring out the animal in you.


That's feminist, gender is a social construct, thinking. You're trying to make it seem that women are attracted to men in the same way men are attracted to woman. That is not true. This woman was blown away by this guy in the beginning but now that he's some average drone, she no longer is into him and is rewriting the relationship history. All that's missing are accusation of abuse or being controlling.

The truth is that it's all about her husband losing his mojo and that she needs a man that she can look up to. Nothing shameful about that. Very few woman can stay with a guy that takes a 75% pay cut after spending all of his savings to pursue his dream job. Men do that for women all the time but very few women are capable of doing that for a man.

Most can guess where they are heading. Unless he turns his career around, he'll be kicked to the curb or more likely she'll have an exit affair with one of those alpha types she works with. That's if she's not already not having one.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> Just curious . . . For those of you who are fathers of grown daughters (say, 21+ years old), what advice would you give this young woman if she were your daughter?


I have a 22 yr old daughter.

If she wants to focus on being a mother, find a good provider and treat him very, very well. Cherish him.

If she wants to focus on a career, find a man who you're attracted to for reasons other than earning potential and don't hold that against him.

She chose the first.


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> I have a 22 yr old daughter.
> 
> If she wants to focus on being a mother, find a good provider and treat him very, very well. Cherish him.
> 
> If she wants to focus on a career, find a man who you're attracted to for reasons other than earning potential and don't hold that against him.
> 
> She chose the first.


I mean if she were in this exact situation, today.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> To balance work and life so that such disparities are minimized, or to marry someone in the same level and line of work if disparities are inevitable.
> 
> DD1 will not make a lot of money as a designer or college prof. Her current SO likewise.
> 
> DD2 will make lots more when she eventually graduates from the med school grindstone. At that point she'll think about it.
> 
> But marrying someone who quits the corporate world to play banjo... Nope.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


So if your daughter were facing this woman's present circumstances, what would you tell her?


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I think her mistake was in that she doesn't have enough physical/sexual attraction to her husband. In her question, she never says he was handsome or attractive to her. She only says:
> 
> "When I first met him, it was undeniably a passionate love affair. I'd never dated anyone or known anyone like him before. He took risks, lived all over the world, had many passions and has been a loyal friend. He's seven years older than I am, and we met at work, where his power and seniority at the office was insanely attractive to me."
> 
> I can understand that at this time, she was swept away and they had a great love affair. But her "attraction" to him doesn't seem to be based on raw, animal, physical attraction. She possibly felt that type of physical attraction during the beginning while she was more attracted to his zesty personality, but it was basically manufactured by love chemicals. In the long term, if you aren't just simply HOT for your partner on a purely animal level, without any of that extra stuff considered, then you won't be able to get it up for them eventually.
> 
> This is why when people say women are attracted to money and power, I always say, she better also be physically and sexually attracted to him even if he was poor, or she isn't really attracted to him and the sex WILL become a disaster eventually.
> 
> Some women can certainly still get it up for a man she isn't all that physically attracted to, and can do so in the long term with a partner. But most women are like men...they need to feel physical attraction to feel sexual arousal. I think some women aren't even aware themselves of how important this is, because they haven't had enough long term relationships to feel how their bodies work over the long haul.
> 
> Mental and emotional attraction can certainly create good chemistry and steamy sex. But only physical attraction will bring out the animal in you.


That's assuming that women's sexual attraction is primarily driven by physical attraction.

What if it isn't? What if power and capability (which are proxies for the ability to provide) are the primary drivers?


----------



## Faithful Wife

jsmart said:


> *That's feminist, gender is a social construct, thinking.* You're trying to make it seem that women are attracted to men in the same way men are attracted to woman. That is not true. This woman was blown away by this guy in the beginning but now that he's some average drone, she no longer is into him and is rewriting the relationship history. All that's missing are accusation of abuse or being controlling.
> 
> The truth is that it's all about her husband losing his mojo and that she needs a man that she can look up to. Nothing shameful about that. Very few woman can stay with a guy that takes a 75% pay cut after spending all of his savings to pursue his dream job. Men do that for women all the time but very few women are capable of doing that for a man.
> 
> Most can guess where they are heading. Unless he turns his career around, he'll be kicked to the curb or more likely she'll have an exit affair with one of those alpha types she works with. That's if she's not already not having one.


Nope. Sorry. It's just logic.

Women don't talk in hushed tones while having drinks about how sexy a man's money or power or wealth is. They do talk about how sexy his ass, face, hair, chest, arms, legs, kisses, sexual prowess, etc. are.

Men in erotic novels are gorgeous AND rich AND fun bad boys (and sometimes they love her until the end of the world while other times he is the one who got away and broke her heart). You will never find one who isn't gorgeous to a fault first, however, including being packed with muscles and able to literally sweep her off her feet. I don't even read erotic novels but I know that every leading man is a hunk-o-rama.

Your thinking is based on the idea a lot of men have that looks don't matter that much to women, as compared to men. Some men want to believe this because they don't want to be compared on the basis of looks ... even though the same men compare women on the basis of looks. 

Sorry guys. You don't get a pass for not having looks that your woman is attracted to physically. She may be able to ride on mental and emotional chemistry alone for awhile, but not forever. If you want anyone to truly be hot for you in bed, they need to TRULY BE HOT FOR YOU, not your wallet.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> That's assuming that women's sexual attraction is primarily driven by physical attraction.
> 
> What if it isn't? What if power and capability (which are proxies for the ability to provide) are the primary drivers?


If this were the case, then we would have older, rich executive, average shape and looks men on naked calendars.....instead of firemen.


----------



## Livvie

Faithful Wife said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's assuming that women's sexual attraction is primarily driven by physical attraction.
> 
> What if it isn't? What if power and capability (which are proxies for the ability to provide) are the primary drivers?
> 
> 
> 
> If this were the case, then we would have older, rich executive, average shape and looks men on naked calendars.....instead of firemen.
Click to expand...

We DO have older... sometimes much older, very old men with gorgeous women decades younger. They are attracted to the man's money and power, absolutely not his physicality.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> I mean if she were in this exact situation, today.


Divorce him (you can't manufacture attraction).

Reevaluate what makes you tick so that you don't make the same mistake again.

If you think you're going to be a high-powered exec making big money and find a guy who is more successful than you, think again.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> If this were the case, then we would have older, rich executive, average shape and looks men on naked calendars.....instead of firemen.


But that's a self selected sample. Only women turned on by male physical attributes have calendars of men.

How many copies did Playboy sell?

How many copies did Playgirl sell?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Livvie said:


> We DO have older... sometimes much older, very old men with gorgeous women decades younger. They are attracted to the man's money and power, absolutely not his physicality.


True, and also, some people point to these May-December romances as some kind of proof that women "always" and "all of them" as a entire gender, because "science", are much more attracted to rich older men than they are to younger sexier men. They tout this over and over and literally believe it is some kind of law of the jungle.

Yet if this was true, wouldn't it bear out more often in statistics?

The bell curve of people who couple up shows that MOST couples are 4 years apart in age (either the man or woman may be the older one) and who are roughly in the same socio-economic class.

If it was so "scientifically" true that women ALWAYS are more attracted to the wealthy older man, wouldn't that be where the bell curve is? Or at least, wouldn't it be somewhere closer to that?

But nope. That's not what shakes out. *What shakes out is that people couple up in the same age range and the same economic range*. 

How is this discrepancy addressed by the crowd who insist that women LOVES rich old men and could care less about looks and age? It isn't. They just ignore reality and continue talking about the hypothetical world where men's looks don't matter, only his wealth does, and every rich man of every age gets a 20 year old Playboy bunny on his arm. Because science.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> But that's a self selected sample. Only women turned on by male physical attributes have calendars of men.
> 
> How many copies did Playboy sell?
> 
> How many copies did Playgirl sell?


You would need to use current data, not print magazines.

Go ahead and do some searching about what younger women are looking at as far as naked men go.

It ain't gonna be no Playboy print mag with no erections in it, I promise you.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> You would need to use current data, not print magazines.
> 
> Go ahead and do some searching about what younger women are looking at as far as naked men go.
> 
> It ain't gonna be no Playboy print mag with no erections in it, I promise you.


Do women like porn as much as men? ? The Chart - CNN.com Blogs

"For the moment, it would seem that women are not watching porn nearly as much as men. Recently, a researcher from the University of Montreal set out to study whether pornography had an impact on guys’ sex lives. He searched for men in their 20s who'd never consumed porn, and guess what? He couldn't find a single one. I can still show you plenty of women who have never looked at porn - but perhaps not for long"


----------



## MattMatt

Was this how he looked to her, back in the day?










And is this how he looks to her now he has his MA in Education?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would need to use current data, not print magazines.
> 
> Go ahead and do some searching about what younger women are looking at as far as naked men go.
> 
> It ain't gonna be no Playboy print mag with no erections in it, I promise you.
> 
> 
> 
> Do women like porn as much as men? ? The Chart - CNN.com Blogs
> 
> "For the moment, it would seem that women are not watching porn nearly as much as men. Recently, a researcher from the University of Montreal set out to study whether pornography had an impact on guys? sex lives. He searched for men in their 20s who'd never consumed porn, and guess what? He couldn't find a single one. I can still show you plenty of women who have never looked at porn - but perhaps not for long"
Click to expand...

The part from the article you quoted is not based on any study. It is simply the author saying he personally knows women who have never looked at porn. Nothing in this article talks about the point I made at all which is that when it comes to the kind of man a woman wants to see naked in porn, it will NOT be the old rich man with an average body that so many guys believe is what women are attracted to. 

Nope. It will be young hot guys with nice biceps, huge c*cks and raging erections.

Men can ignore this reality to their own peril if they'd rather believe that their wallet and so called "power" is what attracts women and keeps them coming around for good sex.


----------



## MattMatt

Livvie said:


> We DO have older... sometimes much older, very old men with gorgeous women decades younger. They are attracted to the man's money and power, absolutely not his physicality.


Yes and no.

Years ago in the UK a stunningly gorgeous young woman married an elderly man.

A while after they wed, he died, leaving all his money to his widow.

His family claimed she was nothing but a gold digger and they launched a court case against her to have the will overturned. 

The court case was stopped when she was found dead (suicide) leaving a heart-breaking note how the light in her life had gone out when her husband had died and she had nothing left to live for. 

So sometimes such marriages are for love, not money.


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> The part from the article you quoted is not based on any study. It is simply the author saying he personally knows women who have never looked at porn. Nothing in this article talks about the point I made at all which is that when it comes to the kind of man a woman wants to see naked in porn, it will NOT be the old rich man with an average body that so many guys believe is what women are attracted to.
> 
> Nope. It will be young hot guys with nice biceps, huge c*cks and raging erections.
> 
> Men can ignore this reality to their own peril if they'd rather believe that their wallet and so called "power" is what attracts women and keeps them coming around for good sex.


Seems like it was working for the man in the article. :|


----------



## sokillme

Let boil this down to what it is. The wife doesn't like that he isn't making as much money as her. There really isn't anything wrong in her relationship it's just that she wants him to earn more money.


----------



## Kivlor

sokillme said:


> Let boil this down to what it is. The wife doesn't like that he isn't making as much money as her. There really isn't anything wrong in her relationship it's just that she wants him to earn more money.


Wife: If you don't provide me with at least $30,000 per month I won't have sex with you, and I'll start thinking about divorce. And more importantly, I won't tell you that I've decided this, or that it's a requirement. You're expected to read my mind, and know.

When you boil it down to that, it shows exactly how F-d up this girl is. She should divorce her H. Poor guy would be better off without her.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> The part from the article you quoted is not based on any study. It is simply the author saying he personally knows women who have never looked at porn. Nothing in this article talks about the point I made at all which is that when it comes to the kind of man a woman wants to see naked in porn, it will NOT be the old rich man with an average body that so many guys believe is what women are attracted to.
> 
> Nope. It will be young hot guys with nice biceps, huge c*cks and raging erections.
> 
> Men can ignore this reality to their own peril if they'd rather believe that their wallet and so called "power" is what attracts women and keeps them coming around for good sex.


So, you thought I was saying that what women want to see in porn is old rich guys with average bodies? 

Really?


----------



## Buddy400

Kivlor said:


> Wife: If you don't provide me with at least $30,000 per month I won't have sex with you, and I'll start thinking about divorce. And more importantly, I won't tell you that I've decided this, or that it's a requirement. You're expected to read my mind, and know.
> 
> When you boil it down to that, it shows exactly how F-d up this girl is. She should divorce her H. Poor guy would be better off without her.


What attracts you is what attracts you. 

There's very little that can be done about that.

Otherwise all the boys would be fighting over the chubby girl with the great personality.

The only problem here was that she didn't understand what she was actually attracted to in the first place.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> Seems like it was working for the man in the article. :|


Do you mean the husband in the original post article?

In the quote of mine you posted above, I was talking about the article Buddy linked, not the original post's article.

But as for the husband in the OP article, um no, it wasn't working for him, that's why she didn't still want to bang him once he didn't have his lofty job and income. If he was a hot sweet young thing, she still may have fallen out of love with him, but she would at least still be hot for him.


----------



## EllisRedding

This thread brings up an interesting question though. Traditionally the male has always been the breadwinner. In current times that is changing some as women make more advances in the work force. So the question, when we hear about equality, are we talking about women wanting men to make equal OR more than them (i.e. as opposed to equal OR less). Is there still a big attraction issue (in general) when the guy makes less (and the further away he gets from what the female makes, the less attractive he becomes, as would appear to be the case with the lady from the article)? I am just talking in general terms here, not applying to everyone.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> So, you thought I was saying that what women want to see in porn is old rich guys with average bodies?
> 
> Really?


No. But I made a specific point that _only hot dudes_ are going to be staring in the porn women watch (or read), and you came back with a link and part of a quote saying "couldn't find a man who doesn't watch porn, but I know plenty of women who don't (anecdotal to the 2nd part)". So it seemed to me that you had missed my point and were pointing out that men watch porn more than women, which wasn't relevant to what I was saying.

I don't think anyone thinks women would be wanting to see old rich dudes with average bodies in porn or in erotica.*

Yet a lot of men DO think that this guy will be more "attractive" to women in general than a young, hot porn star. Because a lot of men have been sold a load of bullsh*t, and they ate it up, because they wanted to hear it. They wanted it to be true. Because if a man can get women attracted to him based on power and wealth, then he thinks he won't have to compete with other men based on looks. And he ends up believing that women are "more attracted" to money and power than they are to looks because a bunch of other dudes are telling him so....even though this does not bear out in statistical data NOR in the kind of fantasy material women read and watch.






(*Total side note: Was at a porn store one time back in the age of DVD's, and I saw one called "My First Old C*ck". A girl in her 20's and a man in his 60's were on the cover, naked and being sexual with each other. I literally bust up laughing. Obviously created by some old dude who wishes so much that young girls fantasize about their first old c*ck that he created a porno about it! Ha ha, dream on. Any 20 year old girl, or any girl for that matter, including myself, would be repulsed by this DVD. Old dudes on the other hand, can actually get themselves to believe it could be true. Bleah!)


----------



## Kivlor

Buddy400 said:


> What attracts you is what attracts you.
> 
> There's very little that can be done about that.
> 
> Otherwise all the boys would be fighting over the chubby girl with the great personality.
> 
> The only problem here was that she didn't understand what she was actually attracted to in the first place.


Sure there is. Therapy. And divorce. 

I'll repeat, the most egregious part of this is that she is terribly dishonest. She hasn't bothered to tell her H, and is intentionally hiding this from him. She's a bad person for being a gold digger. But she's far worse for being a lying gold digger.


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> Do you mean the husband in the original post article?
> 
> In the quote of mine you posted above, I was talking about the article Buddy linked, not the original post's article.
> 
> But as for the husband in the OP article, um no, it wasn't working for him, that's why she didn't still want to bang him once he didn't have his lofty job and income. If he was a hot sweet young thing, she still may have fallen out of love with him, but she would at least still be hot for him.


Ah, I misunderstood you then. Yes, I was saying that it was working fine for the man in the original post of this thread. As long as he had money, she wanted to bang him, and found him attractive. It was once he lost the money that she turned cold. 

I'm not saying physique doesn't matter. I'm just saying it's not the only path, as per the OP. Obviously lots of women out there want to be groupies for some powerful / wealthy man.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> Ah, I misunderstood you then. Yes, I was saying that it was working fine for the man in the original post of this thread. As long as he had money, she wanted to bang him, and found him attractive. It was once he lost the money that she turned cold.
> 
> I'm not saying physique doesn't matter. I'm just saying it's not the only path, as per the OP. Obviously lots of women out there want to be groupies for some powerful / wealthy man.


Yes but again...will the same women want to see some powerful/wealthy man naked in her porn if he is merely an average looking aging man?

Men don't want to consider what I'm saying here, but I assure you, physical attraction matters to women ESPECIALLY for securing long term sexual compatibility.


----------



## TheTruthHurts

I don't understand what the fuss is about. People change. You either change with your spouse or leave. It goes both ways.

I've been with my W a long, long time. Part of the fun of life is to change together. If you're not willing to go with the flow you lose out.

People get sick and they get cancer. Their parents become ill and they need to take time from the family to help.

All kinds of things change the "current arrangements". Any spouse who has to broadcast their displeasure with changes in life lacks character IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

jld said:


> So if your daughter were facing this woman's present circumstances, what would you tell her?



It would depend on many factors, primarily if the woman's income growth was atypical for the position and the man's dream career of choice.

In other words, the guy who marries DD2 would expect good income coming from her down the road, no surprises. So he would need to up his game to maximize his own accomplishments. 

If he's a PhD and decides to teach high school or small college chemistry at a quarter of his corporate salary, I'd o along esp if it's later in life. If he wants to join the road crew of a rock band, or run a bar, probably not.

I know a couple people where the wife makes 4-5x the wages and it is not an issue. 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes but again...will the same women want to see some powerful/wealthy man naked in her porn if he is merely an average looking aging man?
> 
> Men don't want to consider what I'm saying here, but I assure you, physical attraction matters to women ESPECIALLY for securing long term sexual compatibility.


I'm not disagreeing with you here.

Porn aside, this woman is a living example that women do chase men who are physically [meh] (or even ugly) so long as those men have power and money.

Sadly, I don't think this guy being a hunk would have saved him. But that's just a guess, not something I know unequivocally.


----------



## KJ_Simmons

Notice that CHERYL STRAYED is giving advice. Take anything she says with a grain of salt folks.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you here.
> 
> Porn aside, this woman is a living example that women do chase men who are physically [meh] (or even ugly) so long as those men have power and money.
> 
> Sadly, I don't think this guy being a hunk would have saved him. But that's just a guess, not something I know unequivocally.


Right. I'm not necessarily saying him being a hunk would have kept her love for him in tact, either. I'm just saying that since she did not mention one word that described actual, physical attraction for him, it is quite possible that if she was physically hot for him and into him, they may have kept their sexual passion alive and that may have kept her love alive for him, even if he professionally tanked. It just seemed odd to me that not one word was mentioned about how physically attracted to him, or not, she was.


----------



## Wazza

Faithful Wife said:


> The part from the article you quoted is not based on any study. It is simply the author saying he personally knows women who have never looked at porn. Nothing in this article talks about the point I made at all which is that when it comes to the kind of man a woman wants to see naked in porn, it will NOT be the old rich man with an average body that so many guys believe is what women are attracted to.
> 
> Nope. It will be young hot guys with nice biceps, huge c*cks and raging erections.
> 
> Men can ignore this reality to their own peril if they'd rather believe that their wallet and so called "power" is what attracts women and keeps them coming around for good sex.


If that's what you want it's what you want. But we can't all have above average bodies or penises (by definition) and whatever you have is going to change as you get older, probably not in a good way.

There are guys who chase trophy girls and of course it applies the other way around. I'm not sure it's a recipe for happiness. I think you have to decide what is most important to you.


----------



## sokillme

The point it this woman is materialistic, she finds money and power to be sexual attractive. Point blank she says it.


> I'm very close to a breaking point, and I never stop thinking about leaving my husband. And no matter what other reasons I come up with, it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction.


 Him earning less than her is that turn off (Um sounds like Red-Pill?). She was one of these women who bought the idea that it doesn't matter but seems it does. Hell lots of woman on here are arguing just that. So much for girl power. Many or our red-pill minded posters here have argued the point. I find it funny that lots of women are here are actually defending her, if you are defending her then you must agree that if you are a man you should earn as much as possible because women want money. Or no?

The best is if some guy wrote an article saying I wish my wife's t!ts were bigger I am at my breaking point, I would be the first to kill him for it, surprising how some of our long term regular woman posters are here defending her. Actually, it's not. 

Her husband should work on his frame. He needs to hold it more. :rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wazza said:


> If that's what you want it's what you want. *But we can't all have above average bodies* or penises (by definition) *and whatever you have is going to change as you get older, probably not in a good way.*
> 
> There are guys who chase trophy girls and of course it applies the other way around. *I'm not sure it's a recipe for happiness.* I think you have to decide what is most important to you.


As for the bolded....we are told time and again at TAM and elsewhere, that nothing matters as much as how hot a woman is to a man, first and foremost. That her hotness is so important in fact that men will willingly get hooked up with a crazy woman as long as she is hot. Some men literally EXPECT hot women to be crazy (and yes, I've seen the hot/crazy scale).

Should we respond to these messages that "we can't all have above average bodies and whatever you have is going to change as you get older, probably not in a good way?" What good would that response do? Would it change in any way at all the idea men have of what is hot? Would it change in anyway what and who men are attracted to, to simply point out that not all of us are above average in these areas? Should we point out that we aren't sure it is a recipe for success for a man to want a hot woman?

What would be the point of saying any of these things to a man as he describes to us how young, bouncing women are the hottest ones and will always be the most likely women to cause lust in him? Should we try to talk him out of his basic attraction?

And yet, many times have I been told similar things when I'm bringing up how important physical attraction is in maintaining a long term sex life. I'm told that it is shallow to value the physical, that it is not what good relationships should be based on, and that women are attracted to more than just the physical and therefore a good paycheck should be just as hot to me (and other women) as a rock hard hot body is.

All I can say to that is.....

:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Buddy400

EllisRedding said:


> This thread brings up an interesting question though. Traditionally the male has always been the breadwinner. In current times that is changing some as women make more advances in the work force. So the question, when we hear about equality, are we talking about women wanting men to make equal OR more than them (i.e. as opposed to equal OR less). Is there still a big attraction issue (in general) when the guy makes less (and the further away he gets from what the female makes, the less attractive he becomes, as would appear to be the case with the lady from the article)? I am just talking in general terms here, not applying to everyone.


That's the theory.

Successful women seem to want even more successful men.

Obviously, that's not going to work out and it'e even more problematic since men aren't judging women by their success (so the "even more successful" men aren't necessarily looking for successful women).

I'm all in favor of equal opportunities in the work force for men and women (after all, I have a wife and a daughter).

But I think this is going to cause (is causing) some problems in male female relationships.

While it is often thought that men have the big problem with women making more than them, my proposal is that it's the women having the bigger problem. This is exacerbated by many women thinking they should be okay with men making less than them while actually having a problem with it (of which the original post is a prime example).


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> As for the bolded....we are told time and again at TAM and elsewhere, that nothing matters as much as how hot a woman is to a man, first and foremost. That her hotness is so important in fact that men will willingly get hooked up with a crazy woman as long as she is hot. Some men literally EXPECT hot women to be crazy (and yes, I've seen the hot/crazy scale).
> 
> Should we respond to these messages that "we can't all have above average bodies and whatever you have is going to change as you get older, probably not in a good way?"


Sure. I would.



Faithful Wife said:


> What good would that response do? Would it change in any way at all the idea men have of what is hot? Would it change in anyway what and who men are attracted to, to simply point out that not all of us are above average in these areas? Should we point out that we aren't sure it is a recipe for success for a man to want a hot woman?
> 
> What would be the point of saying any of these things to a man as he describes to us how young, bouncing women are the hottest ones and will always be the most likely women to cause lust in him? Should we try to talk him out of his basic attraction?


We wouldn't be talking him out of his basic attraction, but we would be pointing out that he should be realistic and that it would be good for him to consider other factors than how "hot" a woman is.

We also shouldn't be talking women out of their basic attraction, which may well involve how good of a provider a man might be.



Faithful Wife said:


> And yet, many times have I been told similar things when I'm bringing up how important physical attraction is in maintaining a long term sex life. I'm told that it is shallow to value the physical, that it is not what good relationships should be based on, and that women are attracted to more than just the physical and therefore a good paycheck should be just as hot to me (and other women) as a rock hard hot body is.
> 
> All I can say to that is.....
> 
> :rofl::rofl::rofl:


All most of us are suggesting is that what attracts a woman to a man is more complex than what usually attracts a man to a woman. We aren't contending that physical appearance makes no difference to women. Only that it generally matters less to women than men.

I don't have a problem with pretending that men and women are exactly the same; it just gets in the way of the choices people make and the advice they're given. 

"Gender is a social construct" is a nifty idea, but if it doesn't conform to reality, then it can be damaging and distort our ability to make effective decisions. When people are constantly told that the truth is something other than what they instinctively know to be true, it makes communication difficult if not impossible.

Since it would seem to me that what makes a man attractive to a woman is more complicated than what makes a woman attractive to a man (a nice rack?), it would seem like women have the more well-rounded perspective. This makes it all the harder for me to understand why the popular culture today seems so dead set on insisting that women are every bit as shallow as men.


----------



## SunCMars

MJJEAN said:


> Maybe he would step up in case of emergency, but that doesn't mean he'd be able to. After the time he has spent away from his higher earning job he might not be employable in that field anymore.
> 
> As was said before, what has been seen cannot be unseen. Even if he did resume his senior level position of power and authority, she'll always wonder if/when he'll throw it all away again.
> 
> I don't think it's shallow to want to be able to live financially secure and to be able to provide a comfortable life and all possible advantages to your future offspring while maybe being able to retire someday.


Ok! I get it .....you are stubborn.

Take my case..

My wife and I worked hard all our lives. We both made good salaries. Early on, I made more for 40 hours work. Later, her.

At the end of the year I [usually] made quite a bit more than her. Why? I worked two jobs {+Army pay}. Plus, most of the big corporations that I worked at paid overtime to their salaried staff.

Her job was much more stressful than mine. It really was.

If she had told me that she could not stand to do that type of work anymore and that she wanted to do something easier with less pay....according to yours and jld's logic I should be contemptuous of her.

I should lose respect for her. I should dump her for a more successful women. 

NO! my Dears, I would be understanding. Her happiness is more important than her paycheck. I love money, but not at any price. 

YOU had better NOT say that it is the man's job to provide and a women's job to sit at home or to be a second class citizen when it comes to providing for the family. To do that you would be acquiesing to all the male chauvinists that say women are not men's equals. I beg to differ. I left you and jld a small hole to squeeze through. You chose not to. 

I understand....I have lived with women for a long, long time. I ain't never right. Hah!


----------



## SunCMars

jld said:


> Didn't you say you don't believe in unconditional love, kivlor?


 @jld.

I usually leave you alone. 

Don't *you* believe in unconditional love. Does *she* love him unconditionally? Don't you think that *both of them* should love each other unconditionally?

If you do, them say you are sorry. SunC is right! I am not holding my breath!

No, she loves his paycheck unconditionally. Only the dog loves OP unconditionally....even if OP forgets to feed him once in a while.

I am sorry that you do not "get" it. Let your heart overcome your stubbornness.

This is a logical debate, not a male/female battle..........oh, I forgot, it is. You stand by your lady friends. Truth is not one of them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Since it would seem to me that what makes a man attractive to a woman is more complicated than what makes a woman attractive to a man (a nice rack?), it would seem like women have the more well-rounded perspective. This makes it all the harder for me to understand why the popular culture today seems so dead set on insisting that *women are every bit as shallow as men*.


To me, it isn't shallow for men to be attracted to what they are attracted to, and it isn't shallow for women to be attracted to what they are attracted to.

When it comes to having good sex in the long run, I think physical/sexual attraction and lust are quite important to both genders and it is a shame that people try to put this point on the shelf. They try to shelf it much harder for women than they do men, with the whole "but women are attracted to money more than looks" nonsense. But they do also try to shelf it for men by shaming them if they aren't attracted to their spouse after weight gain or whatever.

As for women having the more well-rounded perspective, if the "perspective" you mean is the one that is fantasized about by men who think their looks and body mean nothing while their paycheck trumps everything, how in the world is this a well-rounded perspective by this hypothetical woman?

Perhaps I should toss in here that I am a woman with a high sex drive and who is self-aware. I know what is going to give me the best potential for good long term sex. When people are young and first getting into relationships, they have no perspective on what will still turn them on a decade down the line, until they get there. For the poor fools, both men and women, who think that money or power will keep a woman sexually attracted to a man in the long haul if he physically didn't turn her on to begin with...I feel bad for them because they just following the ridiculous societal outdated idea that women don't care about looks, only men do. It isn't really their fault. They've been sold some BS and they believed it, just like some men have been sold a line of BS about always being nice to get into a woman's pants.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here is a completely non-scientific, zero data or survey skewed article...this is literally nothing but the author's opinion....and yet, I think most self-aware women who feel they can be honest without retribution about physical attraction, would agree with this article. And it is hi-lighted with eye candy of the type of man that the average woman finds physically attractive. Yes, I'm aware there will be some women who weigh in and say these guys are too muscly or whatever...but nevertheless, I'm sure there are 1,000's of women who would be more than happy to look at these pictures over and over (trust me ladies, take a glance, it will be worth it). 

For those too lazy to click the link, the 14 things women find physically attractive per the article are:

Tallness
Eyes
Hair
Clothes
Smile 
Jawline
Tattoos
Hygiene
6 pack abs
Pecs
Biceps 
Shoulders
Forearms
Back


For myself personally, I'm shocked that butt is not on here, but maybe that's included in back. 

14 Things Women Find Physically Attractive In Men | Playbuzz


----------



## *Deidre*

I think the problem that this woman in the article is feeling is that maybe in her eyes, she feels that her husband doesn't care that she is supporting all of the bills, and basically, his ability to have his dream job. I think that some women marry for money (ie Melania Trump) but it seems like in the case of this couple in the article, she feels that they started out as a team, and then now...they're not a team anymore. She wasn't really marrying him for money, really. 

She is stressed out, yet he is enjoying his ''dream job,'' without the stress of all the bills. I don't understand how women marry for money, honestly...but I wouldn't want to 'take care' of a guy, either. Just being honest. 

Having said that though, men don't have the same luxury as women in terms of choices, it seems. When I get married, my fiance has already said he'd like for me to not work and be a SAHM, he's not demanding it, but he is sharing his opinion. I would like that, too. But, you see? I have a choice, and no one in society will question that choice. But, if a guy were to leave a good paying job to stay at home with the kids, he might feel scorn from his wife...or from society. Or both. That is true, we can say what we want, but that is true. 

Maybe we should stop caring about what others think, and do what's best for our families. I can't help but think the woman in the article cares a little too much about how this ''looks'' to others, that she out earns him by a lot.


----------



## sokillme

*Deidre* said:


> I think the problem that this woman in the article is feeling is that maybe in her eyes, she feels that her husband doesn't care that she is supporting all of the bills, and basically, his ability to have his dream job. I think that some women marry for money (ie Melania Trump) but it seems like in the case of this couple in the article, she feels that they started out as a team, and then now...they're not a team anymore. She wasn't really marrying him for money, really.
> 
> She is stressed out, yet he is enjoying his ''dream job,'' without the stress of all the bills. I don't understand how women marry for money, honestly...but I wouldn't want to 'take care' of a guy, either. Just being honest.
> 
> Having said that though, men don't have the same luxury as women in terms of choices, it seems. When I get married, my fiance has already said he'd like for me to not work and be a SAHM, he's not demanding it, but he is sharing his opinion. I would like that, too. But, you see? I have a choice, and no one in society will question that choice. But, if a guy were to leave a good paying job to stay at home with the kids, he might feel scorn from his wife...or from society. Or both. That is true, we can say what we want, but that is true.
> 
> Maybe we should stop caring about what others think, and do what's best for our families. I can't help but think the woman in the article cares a little too much about how this ''looks'' to others, that she out earns him by a lot.


That is not what she said though, read the quote in the previous post. She likes money and power, she feels it's sexy.


----------



## sokillme

The best thing about this post is how so many female posters tie themselves in knots trying to come up with different motives for what the woman in the article wrote. She said she likes rich powerful men, her husband ain't that. End of story, no having kids, or they are suffering financially, she didn't say any of that, she said she liked him when he was powerful but now that he just works not making work at a silly job he loves, and she is done with him. There was no deal that he was going to support her at least from what she posted, if anything she probably told him she was cool with this being a "modern" woman. Nope just plain old shallow tripe "woman like rich men", diamond's are a girls best friend, Santa baby, I want your money. Just accept it some woman are as shallow as the men who want the wives with the strippers bodies.


----------



## MattMatt

*Deidre* said:


> I think the problem that this woman in the article is feeling is that maybe in her eyes, she feels that her husband doesn't care that she is supporting all of the bills, and basically, his ability to have his dream job. I think that some women marry for money (ie Melania Trump) but it seems like in the case of this couple in the article, she feels that they started out as a team, and then now...they're not a team anymore. She wasn't really marrying him for money, really.
> 
> She is stressed out, yet he is enjoying his ''dream job,'' without the stress of all the bills. I don't understand how women marry for money, honestly...but I wouldn't want to 'take care' of a guy, either. Just being honest.
> 
> Having said that though, men don't have the same luxury as women in terms of choices, it seems. When I get married, my fiance has already said he'd like for me to not work and be a SAHM, he's not demanding it, but he is sharing his opinion. I would like that, too. But, you see? I have a choice, and no one in society will question that choice. But, if a guy were to leave a good paying job to stay at home with the kids, he might feel scorn from his wife...or from society. Or both. That is true, we can say what we want, but that is true.
> 
> Maybe we should stop caring about what others think, and do what's best for our families. I can't help but think the woman in the article cares a little too much about how this ''looks'' to others, that she out earns him by a lot.


That's not what I got from the wife:



> ...we met at work, where his power and seniority at the office was insanely attractive to me.


She wasn't insanely attracted to him she was insanely attracted to his "power and seniority." 

And now he has gone into a professional role without "power and seniority" she no longer loves him.


----------



## *Deidre*

sokillme said:


> The best thing about this post is how so many female posters tie themselves in knots trying to come up with different motives for what the woman in the article wrote. She said she likes rich powerful men, her husband ain't that. End of story, no having kids, or they are suffering financially, she didn't say any of that, she said she liked him when he was powerful but now that he just works not making work at a silly job he loves, and she is done with him. There was no deal that he was going to support her at least from what she posted, if anything she probably told him she was cool with this being a "modern" woman. Nope just plain old shallow tripe "woman like rich men", diamond's are a girls best friend, Santa baby, I want your money. Just accept it some woman are as shallow as the men who want the wives with the strippers bodies.


So you think this woman represents all women? She's doesn't. It's one story. A sad story.


----------



## Starstarfish

> "I hate my mother-in-law, who thinks women shouldn't have to work."
> 
> Not sure why she hates her mil for this. Maybe because she secretly agrees with her?


She probably hates her mother-in-law because she knows how the MIL feels because she's evidently shared this thought outloud either obviously and directly or through passive-aggressive commentary. That she doesn't feel the writer should be working or should have to work. 

So there was mark #1. 

And mark #2 is - What did MIL do with this opinion? Did she tell her son about her opinion on his "dream job" not meeting her personal expectations for her son's marriage? About the fact that his decisions are what lead to the wife working and being the breadwinner? Or she just mouth off to the daughter-in-law who then has to eat that irony?

Granted, I've never been the "breadwinner" in my marriage, but as someone who did have to return to work after being a SAHM and who worked earlier in my marriage with the MILs hate-a-thon and with a "dream job" seeking sort of husband, I get all the feels on what a conversation like this feels like.


----------



## sokillme

*Deidre* said:


> So you think this woman represents all women? She's doesn't. It's one story. A sad story.


Did I say that? You even quoted me, I said "SOME" woman...


----------



## Starstarfish

> She wasn't insanely attracted to him she was insanely attracted to his "power and seniority."
> 
> And now he has gone into a professional role without "power and seniority" she no longer loves him.





> Don't you think that both of them should love each other unconditionally?


The suggestion to love unconditionally seems to come up far, far more in situations where female needs like Financial Security come up versus a male need for sex. His Needs/Her Needs is suggested here as a self-help too for marriage, and yet, the male and female needs are not seen equally. Why is a woman who married with a financial expectation seen as wrong compared to men marrying women because they are insanely attracted to their hot looks and sex potential. And when those things are no longer the same they no longer love them?

Very few people on TAM suggest unconditional love - IE to continue to love and stay marriage to someone regardless of the status of the relationship. The only things that vary is what's required before they start recommending divorce. 

Fact is if your emotional love for someone based primarily on something that they do or you assume they will do for you - whether that's status, connections, or sex - your love is conditional. The only thing that changes is your personal terms and conditions. 

You can think about how you want, but really - that's where it's at.


----------



## jld

SunCMars said:


> @jld.
> 
> I usually leave you alone.
> 
> Don't *you* believe in unconditional love. Does *she* love him unconditionally? Don't you think that *both of them* should love each other unconditionally?
> 
> If you do, them say you are sorry. SunC is right! I am not holding my breath!
> 
> No, she loves his paycheck unconditionally. Only the dog loves OP unconditionally....even if OP forgets to feed him once in a while.
> 
> I am sorry that you do not "get" it. Let your heart overcome your stubbornness.
> 
> This is a logical debate, not a male/female battle..........oh, I forgot, it is. You stand by your lady friends. Truth is not one of them.


I absolutely believe some people love unconditionally. They cannot help but love unconditionally. It is what they are inspired to do.

Remember what Dug said? Unconditional love can only be freely given. It cannot be demanded.

No, she does not love him unconditionally. And I do not think there is any reason for her to.


----------



## Wazza

Faithful Wife said:


> As for the bolded....we are told time and again at TAM and elsewhere, that nothing matters as much as how hot a woman is to a man, first and foremost. That her hotness is so important in fact that men will willingly get hooked up with a crazy woman as long as she is hot. Some men literally EXPECT hot women to be crazy (and yes, I've seen the hot/crazy scale).
> 
> Should we respond to these messages that "we can't all have above average bodies and whatever you have is going to change as you get older, probably not in a good way?" What good would that response do? Would it change in any way at all the idea men have of what is hot? Would it change in anyway what and who men are attracted to, to simply point out that not all of us are above average in these areas? Should we point out that we aren't sure it is a recipe for success for a man to want a hot woman?
> 
> What would be the point of saying any of these things to a man as he describes to us how young, bouncing women are the hottest ones and will always be the most likely women to cause lust in him? Should we try to talk him out of his basic attraction?
> 
> And yet, many times have I been told similar things when I'm bringing up how important physical attraction is in maintaining a long term sex life. I'm told that it is shallow to value the physical, that it is not what good relationships should be based on, and that women are attracted to more than just the physical and therefore a good paycheck should be just as hot to me (and other women) as a rock hard hot body is.
> 
> All I can say to that is.....
> 
> :rofl::rofl::rofl:


Nothing matters to SOME men as much as that stuff.......just like it is the most important thing to SOME women perhaps. There are guys out there who traded their wives in on a newer hotter model and guys who didn't. 

Even for those that judge on looks, we might look for different things. Not everyone wants the cliche idea of hot.

I don't think that invalidates what you said. I hope it adds perspective to it.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> It would depend on many factors, primarily if the woman's income growth was atypical for the position and the man's dream career of choice.
> 
> In other words, the guy who marries DD2 would expect good income coming from her down the road, no surprises. So he would need to up his game to maximize his own accomplishments.
> 
> If he's a PhD and decides to teach high school or small college chemistry at a quarter of his corporate salary, I'd o along esp if it's later in life. If he wants to join the road crew of a rock band, or run a bar, probably not.
> 
> I know a couple people where the wife makes 4-5x the wages and it is not an issue.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


But we are putting your daughter into this woman's present position. Fabulously successful, yet she wants to leave it all and be a sahm.

She comes to you with all these conflicted feelings. What advice do you give her, in this woman's exact circumstances?

My suspicion is that while many men on this thread are decrying this young woman as materialistic and shallow, they would want the most for their own daughters who would be in this position.


----------



## farsidejunky

Not materialistic and shallow per se; I already stated it is no different than males and the appearance of the female.

If she were my daughter, I would urge her to communicate how she is feeling if I felt him to be a good man. If I didn't, I would tell her to make preparations to move on. It is not entirely clear whether he is, and I don't trust her judgement at this point.

But...I would also tell her that her want to both be a SAHM and a CEO (caricatures, I know, but you get the point) is completely unrealistic.

"If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both."

-Native American saying


----------



## jld

"Hot" means different things to different people. 

Dug is 6'2", 190 or so lbs these days. He is really into cycling and spends several hours a week either out on the road or on his trainer.

My daughter commented recently, "Mom, do you know how lucky you are that Dad is in such good shape? A lot of guys his age (49) are sitting on the couch getting fat."

I just shrugged. Outside of not being obese, I don't really care much about physical fitness. A "hard body" is not what attracts me. And too much musculature can be downright unappealing.

(Though, it could be that I have always taken Dug's general fitness for granted.)

FW, respectfully, the things you talk about being important in a man are things that strike me as appealing in an affair, perhaps long term affairs. In lifelong marriage, I do not think they are enough. Jmo.

And I have definitely been in hushed conversations with other women about how much money a man makes. Some of us do find that very sexy. It affects how we see a man. Jme.

You know what gets a fire going inside me in my own marriage? When Dug and I connect emotionally. The deep talks we have. The time he spends discussing various ideas brought up here on TAM. 

His meeting my emotional needs is what makes me feel close to him. And when I feel emotionally close, physical closeness follows.

I do think this woman was attracted, very attracted, to her husband before. He was meeting a very strong emotional need in her with his powerful position. Now, not so much.

If she can find something else in him to anchor her respect on, something that truly inspires her, she may be able to stay married. If he is faithful, if he is good to her, maybe that can be enough. 

It must be hard to realize that she can provide better than most men. She does not really need a man for that. She has surpassed them. 

I mean, what is the point of romance if you are more competent than all the people you formerly looked up to?


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Not materialistic and shallow per se; I already stated it is no different than males and the appearance of the female.
> 
> If she were my daughter, I would urge her to communicate how she is feeling if I felt him to be a good man. If I didn't, I would tell her to make preparations to move on. It is not entirely clear whether he is, and I don't trust her judgement at this point.
> 
> But...I would also tell her that her want to both be a SAHM and a CEO (caricatures, I know, but you get the point) is completely unrealistic.
> 
> "If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both."
> 
> -Native American saying


I do not think she wants both. I think she wants to be a sahm while married to a man who is at her level, or preferably above, professionally. I think she needs that for her to be able to respect him.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I do not think she wants both. I think she wants to be a sahm while married to a man who is at her level, or preferably above, professionally. I think she needs that for her to be able to respect him.


The premise is that she wants somebody to love her while she is still CEO and a SAHM?

Completely unrealistic. 

She can't be both.

And if she's no longer a CEO, what exactly does a man above her level mean?


----------



## lifeistooshort

The bashing of this woman is hypocritical on so many levels. 

As has already been pointed out, men don't seem to be bashed for being shallow when a woman doesn't meet their attractiveness standards.

This woman married a guy with money and power, and he pulled a bait and switch. You could argue if he'd been a starving artist when they married that she knew what she was getting., but that's not the case. 

Imagine a man coming here and complaining that he married a slim woman because that's what he likes, but his wife has now decided her dream is to be a plus size model. People would be telling him left and right that she pulled a bait and switch and he should dump her.

Or a guy who marries a career woman who then decides she really wants to weave baskets and let him pay for everything. People would tell him to run like hvll before she gets pregnant and he has to pay alimony. 

If the guy simply lost his job through no fault of his own and had to take a lower paying job you could argue that the richer or poorer vows apply. 

But this guy is perfectly comfortable letting his wife support pretty much the entire household while he has his dream job, knowing she's unhappy about it. That's really crappy.

I'd say the same thing if genders were reversed. If a guy marries a career woman and she quits after the marriage and stops contributing financially he'd be well within his rights to dump her.

She should gtho before they have kids and she owes a ton of alimony. She probably already owes him some, though I think he'd be a pretty big pos to ask for it under these circumstances.

I make more than my hb and I'm fine with that. It's not because he quit his job and dumped everything on me......it's the nature of our respective fields and I knew that going in. But if he decided he needed to have his dream and dumped the bills on me we'd have a problem. 

I don't understand why some men will simultaneously be upset that some women have financial standards, while they look for the hottest thing they can get and bemoan wives who let themselves go. 

Who cares if your wife lets herself go even though you're at the gym regularly .....just don't let it bother you because that would be shallow.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> The premise is that she wants somebody to love her while she is still CEO and a SAHM?
> 
> Completely unrealistic.
> 
> She can't be both.
> 
> And if she's no longer a CEO, what exactly does a man above her level mean?


No, what I meant is that she wants to be a sahm, but married to someone who is professionally at or above the level she is when she leaves to become a sahm. Is that clearer?


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> No, what I meant is that she wants to be a sahm, but married to someone who is professionally at or above the level she is when she leaves to become a sahm. Is that clearer?


Sure. But, how realistic is that?

Fireworks, she has shattered the glass ceiling. For that, I applaud her. That also who leads me to believe that she is at the executive level or very close to it.

If that is the case, I think she will be hard pressed to find somebody at or above her current level. I'm not saying it's impossible, just at the odds are long.


----------



## farsidejunky

lifeistooshort said:


> The bashing of this woman is hypocritical on so many levels.
> 
> As has already been pointed out, men don't seem to be bashed for being shallow when a woman doesn't meet their attractiveness standards.
> 
> This woman married a guy with money and power, and he pulled a bait and switch. You could argue if he'd been a starving artist when they married that she knew what she was getting., but that's not the case.
> 
> Imagine a man coming here and complaining that he married a slim woman because that's what he likes, but his wife has now decided her dream is to be a plus size model. People would be telling him left and right that she pulled a bait and switch and he should dump her.
> 
> Or a guy who marries a career woman who then decides she really wants to weave baskets and let him pay for everything. People would tell him to run like hvll before she gets pregnant and he has to pay alimony.
> 
> If the guy simply lost his job through no fault of his own and had to take a lower paying job you could argue that the richer or poorer vows apply.
> 
> But this guy is perfectly comfortable letting his wife support pretty much the entire household while he has his dream job, knowing she's unhappy about it. That's really crappy.
> 
> I'd say the same thing if genders were reversed. If a guy marries a career woman and she quits after the marriage and stops contributing financially he'd be well within his rights to dump her.
> 
> She should gtho before they have kids and she owes a ton of alimony. She probably already owes him some, though I think he'd be a pretty big pos to ask for it under these circumstances.
> 
> I make more than my hb and I'm fine with that. It's not because he quit his job and dumped everything on me......it's the nature of our respective fields and I knew that going in. But if he decided he needed to have his dream and dumped the bills on me we'd have a problem.
> 
> I don't understand why some men will simultaneously be upset that some women have financial standards, while they look for the hottest thing they can get and bemoan wives who let themselves go.
> 
> Who cares if your wife lets herself go even though you're at the gym regularly .....just don't let it bother you because that would be shallow.


This is fair.

My only real criticism of her is her not communicating the depth and breadth of the current situation to her husband. She owes him that.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Sure. But, how realistic is that?
> 
> Fireworks, she has shattered the glass ceiling. For that, I applaud her. That also who leads me to believe that she is at the executive level or very close to it.
> 
> If that is the case, I think she will be hard pressed to find somebody at or above her current level. I'm not saying it's impossible, just at the odds are long.


Yes, I would be concerned about that, too. That is why I think she might want to consider if there are other aspects of her husband she could focus on, qualities she could anchor her respect on.

It is surely lonely at the top.


----------



## farsidejunky

farsidejunky said:


> Sure. But, how realistic is that?
> 
> Fireworks, she has shattered the glass ceiling. For that, I applaud her. That also who leads me to believe that she is at the executive level or very close to it.
> 
> If that is the case, I think she will be hard pressed to find somebody at or above her current level. I'm not saying it's impossible, just at the odds are long.


Wow, is voice to text super special today...


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> This is fair.
> 
> My only real criticism of her is her not communicating the depth and breadth of the current situation to her husband. She owes him that.


It is hard for me to believe he does not sense it, far.


----------



## jld

_"He's doing everything in his power to make more of a financial contribution, but his fruitless attempts haven't pulled me out of this rut."_

He is not clueless about his wife's feelings. Not with a mother who also has very strong feelings on this subject.


----------



## farsidejunky

I am sure he does. They are not having sex IIRC. However, that does not give her a pass on communicating it to him. The truth is the one thing for which we should all be entitled. 

Anyone who avoids communicating something of this magnitude is trying to control the outcome via manipulation.

FFS, he can't _do_ anything about the problem when he is not aware of the specific aspects.



jld said:


> It is hard for me to believe he does not sense it, far.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I am sure he does. They are not having sex IIRC. However, that does not give her a pass on communicating it to him. The truth is the one thing for which we should all be entitled.
> 
> Anyone who avoids communicating something of this magnitude is trying to control the outcome via manipulation.
> 
> FFS, he can't _do_ anything about the problem when he is not aware of the specific aspects.


Why is he not probing her for it?

She is a sub, far. His seeking out the truth would be a dom move. He desperately needs to be making some dom moves if he hopes to save the marriage.


----------



## jld

_"I want to be taken care of. I want to pull back at work in order to have a family. And I am so ashamed of my feelings."_

This is so sad to me, that she feels ashamed of feelings that are so natural.


----------



## farsidejunky

This reinforces my stance from my previous post.

He is trying. From her description, trying his @$$ off.

I would bet that his continued failed attempts to produce more have also caused her to lose respect for him, but not because he has failed...but because he is not standing up for himself, which further reinforces to her that he is weak.

If it were me, I would simply switch gears to reverse. 

"This is me. This is my dream. I love what I do. If you cannot accept it, we can amicably part ways."

Where I struggle with your suggestions and analysis, JLD, is that there is an expectation of him to simply accept this is who she is, while simultaneously expecting him to change to "earn her respect". 

I would suggest they both accept each other for who they are, or move on.



jld said:


> _"He's doing everything in his power to make more of a financial contribution, but his fruitless attempts haven't pulled me out of this rut."_
> 
> He is not clueless about his wife's feelings. Not with a mother who also has very strong feelings on this subject.


----------



## farsidejunky

I agree.

However, what is stunning (yet not surprising) to me is that you are utterly lacking in empathy for him, who is doing everything in his power to meet her expectations, yet still falling short.



jld said:


> _"I want to be taken care of. I want to pull back at work in order to have a family. And I am so ashamed of my feelings."_
> 
> This is so sad to me, that she feels ashamed of feelings that are so natural.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> This reinforces my stance from my previous post.
> 
> He is trying. From her description, trying his @$$ off.
> 
> I would bet that his continued failed attempts to produce more have also caused her to lose respect for him, but not because he has failed...but because he is not standing up for himself, which further reinforces to her that he is weak.
> 
> If it were me, I would simply switch gears to reverse.
> 
> "This is me. This is my dream. I love what I do. If you cannot accept it, we can amicably part ways."
> 
> *Where I struggle with your suggestions and analysis, JLD, is that there is an expectation of him to simply accept this is who she is, while simultaneously expecting him to change to "earn her respect". *
> 
> I would suggest they both accept each other for who they are, or move on.


That is just part of being a dom, far. He has to have big shoulders.


----------



## john117

Hopefully I've taught them well enough to not be materialistic... 

And I doubt either will get the sahm idea... Not if they've invested 10-12 years in college each. They're both products of the childcare industrial complex so ...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

But he isn't one. That much is clear.

Accept each other, or move along.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I agree.
> 
> However, what is stunning (yet not surprising) to me is that you are utterly lacking in empathy for him, who is doing everything in his power to meet her expectations, yet still falling short.


I don't think I lack empathy for him. He seems like a decent guy. She just has to decide if he is enough for her.

He could be connecting emotionally with her, trying to seek her out, to meet her deepest emotional needs, to give voice to them. 

Did you read my post earlier where I talked about my husband meeting my emotional needs? About how bonding that is?

Her husband could start doing the same.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> But he isn't one. That much is clear.
> 
> Accept each other, or move along.


I don't know that he is not a dom. He feels bad that she is paying the bills. He is trying to change things. 

And he is not whining to her about his emotional needs. He surely knows better.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> *Hopefully I've taught them well enough to not be materialistic... *
> 
> And I doubt either will get the sahm idea... Not if they've invested 10-12 years in college each. They're both products of the childcare industrial complex so ...
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


The bolded is a joke, right? 

Not sure why so few men with grown daughters are willing to answer directly on what exactly they would want their daughter to do if she were in the same position as the young woman in the OP. Only Buddy has answered the question.


----------



## john117

I'd be more concerned with potential rather than earnings. A young friend - engineer - just got married to a no college guy working in the family business for peanuts. She's out earning him 2:1 easily, maybe 3:1. He's looking into more stable jobs like mechanic and stuff. Lots of red flags right there. 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I'd be more concerned with potential rather than earnings. A young friend - engineer - just got married to a no college guy working in the family business for peanuts. She's out earning him 2:1 easily, maybe 3:1. He's looking into more stable jobs like mechanic and stuff. Lots of red flags right there.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Hard to believe he is going to be able to satisfy her intellectually, much less inspire her, in the long run.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Hard to believe he is going to be able to satisfy her intellectually, much less inspire her, in the long run.


I know... The perils of online dating at a young age . Thankfully her intellectual prowess is limited to video gaming so...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I know... The perils of online dating at a young age . Thankfully her intellectual prowess is limited to video gaming so...
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


If it stays limited, maybe they'll be okay.


----------



## Satya

You can't have it all and sometimes lifestyles change. Her husband was attractive as a risktaker until his mutually agreed risk landed him at 1/4 his previous salary. 

These are the basic things I think she is trying to come to terms with. My stance, regardless of how complex and deep posters want to make this situation, is simple: she is in complete control of her destiny and can have what she wants. It requires some tough DECISIONS. She must come to terms with what it IS she does want, and take the steps to pursue those things. No man, whether her husband or other more suitable partner (per her expectations) should be the foundation on which she places all her hopes and dreams. Having faith that he's a good provider/support for her needs is different. Thinking if she finds X in a man then she will definitely get Y is an assured path to ultimate disappointment and missed opportunities for her IMO. 

If her decision means she must D her husband to go find a wealthy provider, so be it. It's no one's business but her own and her H's what happens to their marriage. 

If that means leave her job or ask for demotion so she can have more time to plan for and raise children, so be it. It's no one's business but hers how she wishes to steer her career. 

I see valuable insight from most if not all posters here, but it's mostly speculation unless we know his side. We do not. We have an edited side of her story, which even that I am picking apart like a science experiment. 

We don't know how much she makes precisely. This would help immensely. We take it for granted whether she actually pays 90% of the bills or just feels like she's paying 90%.

We don't know how much he made then vs. now. That'd help, too. 

I feel for her, I do, because I could easily see myself in a similar place when I was younger. When we stop looking to other people for solutions, when we stop blaming everyone else and the world for our unhappiness or our issues, we can really start to live in the happiness of our own design.


----------



## farsidejunky

Ahem...



jld said:


> The bolded is a joke, right?
> 
> Not sure why so few men with grown daughters are willing to answer directly on what exactly they would want their daughter to do if she were in the same position as the young woman in the OP. Only Buddy has answered the question.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> "Hot" means different things to different people.
> 
> Dug is 6'2", 190 or so lbs these days. He is really into cycling and spends several hours a week either out on the road or on his trainer.
> 
> My daughter commented recently, "Mom, do you know how lucky you are that Dad is in such good shape? A lot of guys his age (49) are sitting on the couch getting fat."
> 
> I just shrugged. Outside of not being obese, I don't really care much about physical fitness. A "hard body" is not what attracts me. And too much musculature can be downright unappealing.
> 
> *(Though, it could be that I have always taken Dug's general fitness for granted.)*
> 
> FW, respectfully, the things you talk about being important in a man are things that strike me as appealing in an affair, perhaps long term affairs. *In lifelong marriage, I do not think they are enough.* Jmo.
> 
> And I have definitely been in hushed conversations with other women about how much money a man makes. Some of us do find that very sexy. It affects how we see a man. Jme.
> 
> You know what gets a fire going inside me in my own marriage? When Dug and I connect emotionally. The deep talks we have. The time he spends discussing various ideas brought up here on TAM.
> 
> His meeting my emotional needs is what makes me feel close to him. And when I feel emotionally close, physical closeness follows.
> 
> I do think this woman was attracted, very attracted, to her husband before. He was meeting a very strong emotional need in her with his powerful position. Now, not so much.
> 
> If she can find something else in him to anchor her respect on, something that truly inspires her, she may be able to stay married. If he is faithful, if he is good to her, maybe that can be enough.
> 
> It must be hard to realize that she can provide better than most men. She does not really need a man for that. She has surpassed them.
> 
> I mean, what is the point of romance if you are more competent than all the people you formerly looked up to?


Two comments on the two bolded statements.

1. Yes, I'm sure you do take Dug's fitness for granted and therefore don't really know how you would feel if he was no longer fit. 

2. I never said that physical attraction is "enough". And I do not believe it is "enough". What I am saying is that if physical attraction is actually missing (on either side or both) that the rest of the things that make us want to be romantic and sexual with each other will eventually not be enough on their own to fuel the fire hot enough that it can burn for the long term. Yet that in no way means that physical attraction by itself will create a good partnership or even a good sex life. It just cannot be completely missing from the picture, IMO.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Ahem...


?


----------



## jorgegene

lifeistooshort said:


> The bashing of this woman is hypocritical on so many levels.
> 
> As has already been pointed out, men don't seem to be bashed for being shallow when a woman doesn't meet their attractiveness standards.
> 
> This woman married a guy with money and power, and he pulled a bait and switch. You could argue if he'd been a starving artist when they married that she knew what she was getting., but that's not the case.
> 
> Imagine a man coming here and complaining that he married a slim woman because that's what he likes, but his wife has now decided her dream is to be a plus size model. People would be telling him left and right that she pulled a bait and switch and he should dump her.
> 
> Or a guy who marries a career woman who then decides she really wants to weave baskets and let him pay for everything. People would tell him to run like hvll before she gets pregnant and he has to pay alimony.
> 
> If the guy simply lost his job through no fault of his own and had to take a lower paying job you could argue that the richer or poorer vows apply.
> 
> But this guy is perfectly comfortable letting his wife support pretty much the entire household while he has his dream job, knowing she's unhappy about it. That's really crappy.
> 
> I'd say the same thing if genders were reversed. If a guy marries a career woman and she quits after the marriage and stops contributing financially he'd be well within his rights to dump her.
> 
> She should gtho before they have kids and she owes a ton of alimony. She probably already owes him some, though I think he'd be a pretty big pos to ask for it under these circumstances.
> 
> I make more than my hb and I'm fine with that. It's not because he quit his job and dumped everything on me......it's the nature of our respective fields and I knew that going in. But if he decided he needed to have his dream and dumped the bills on me we'd have a problem.
> 
> I don't understand why some men will simultaneously be upset that some women have financial standards, while they look for the hottest thing they can get and bemoan wives who let themselves go.
> 
> Who cares if your wife lets herself go even though you're at the gym regularly .....just don't let it bother you because that would be shallow.


I did marry a slim woman and shes picked up 30-40 lbs. I would never think of leaving her for that especially because shes trying. 

as for basket weaving, he is hardly doing that. With an advanced degree, he's probably doing professional grade work for relatively modest pay compared to her. Believe it or not, I know a few capable engineers who are struggling.

I would call any man who leaves his wife because of weight shallow.

and I call anyone so focused on materialism such as she shallow as well.


----------



## jorgegene

If it were truly a matter of survival for these two, I would tell mr. Career change to get his act together and get a betterjob. But I get the impression these two are well beyond solvent, prpobably have considerable assets.
Thats one reason I have lityle sympathy here. I'd be willing to wager she could have her kid(s) and take time enough off to nuture the kids and resume her career.

But instead it seems to be all about status and prestige and lavish lifestyle.

under these circumstances if I were he and my wife couldnt stand the sight of me because I was a hard working professional with an m.s. but not making a bunch of money, i guess i would leave, because if she hates me for that, she'll hate me for something else later............


----------



## lifeistooshort

farsidejunky said:


> I agree.
> 
> However, what is stunning (yet not surprising) to me is that you are utterly lacking in empathy for him, who is doing everything in his power to meet her expectations, yet still falling short.


But he's not doing everything within his power.....he's doing everything he can within the confines of keeping his dream job. 

That's like the woman who becomes a plus size model and when her hb is unhappy because he married a slim woman she agrees to be as slim as she can and still be a plus size model. 

It may not be enough for him. 

Life doesn't always allow us to have our dream jobs.....we all have responsibilities that influence this.

I agree with your earlier post that he should offer to amicably part ways. But really why would he? He's got her to support him, which he won't have if she walks.

I don't know if he makes enough to support himself but I'd guess it's not enough to support his current lifestyle.

And maybe he'd be ok with that. He can tell her that he's ok with a lesser lifestyle if she doesn't want to work so much, but if that's unacceptable they can part.

I agree she should be direct with him, though it appears he knows she's unhappy and has decided his dream job is worth it.


----------



## EllisRedding

lifeistooshort said:


> But he's not doing everything within his power.....he's doing everything he can within the confines of keeping his dream job. .


Do we really know that? The OP states:



> He's doing everything in his power to make more of a financial contribution, but his fruitless attempts haven't pulled me out of this rut.


So she is saying he is doing everything in his power. At this point, the reality is he may not be able to go back to the career he once had, especially if it was a more lucrative/power position.


----------



## lifeistooshort

jorgegene said:


> If it were truly a matter of survival for these two, I would tell mr. Career change to get his act together and get a betterjob. But I get the impression these two are well beyond solvent, prpobably have considerable assets.
> Thats one reason I have lityle sympathy here. I'd be willing to wager she could have her kid(s) and take time enough off to nuture the kids and resume her career.
> 
> But instead it seems to be all about status and prestige and lavish lifestyle.
> 
> under these circumstances if I were he and my wife couldnt stand the sight of me because I was a hard working professional with an m.s. but not making a bunch of money, i guess i would leave, because if she hates me for that, she'll hate me for something else later............



According to her she pays 90% of her bills.

How would she take time off and live on what amounts to 10 percent of the bills?

Half maybe.....90 percent is much harder.


----------



## jld

jorgegene said:


> If it were truly a matter of survival for these two, I would tell mr. Career change to get his act together and get a betterjob. But I get the impression these two are well beyond solvent, prpobably have considerable assets.
> Thats one reason I have lityle sympathy here. I'd be willing to wager she could have her kid(s) and take time enough off to nuture the kids and resume her career.
> 
> But instead it seems to be all about status and prestige and lavish lifestyle.
> 
> under these circumstances if I were he and my wife couldnt stand the sight of me because I was a hard working professional with an m.s. but not making a bunch of money, i guess i would leave, because if she hates me for that, she'll hate me for something else later............


Have you ever taken a big hit to your lifestyle? Did you enjoy it?


----------



## lifeistooshort

EllisRedding said:


> Do we really know that? The OP states:
> 
> 
> 
> So she is saying he is doing everything in his power. At this point, the reality is he may not be able to go back to the career he once had, especially if it was a more lucrative/power position.


That's true, but I think we have to make some assumptions.

She doesn't day he's trying to get back to his old field, or that he's looking for another job.

She says he's trying to contribute more, which given the tone of the letter reads to me like he's trying to get more work within his field. 

Given his experience and education and the fact that he only pays 10 percent of their bills it couldn't be that hard for him to get a job that pays more. Maybe not what he had bit a little more equitable.

This guy pulled a bait and switch....period.

He attracted a younger woman with his money and power and then when she married him he dropped it and left her to support them.


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> That's true, but I think we have to make some assumptions.
> 
> She doesn't day he's trying to get back to his old field, or that he's looking for another job.
> 
> She says he's trying to contribute more, which given the tone of the letter reads to me like he's trying to get more work within his field.
> 
> Given his experience and education and the fact that he only pays 10 percent of their bills it couldn't be that hard for him to get a job that pays more. Maybe not what he had bit a little more equitable.
> 
> This guy pulled a bait and switch....period.
> 
> He attracted a younger woman with his money and power and then when she married him he dropped it and left her to support them.


Interesting perspective. I didn't really think of him as having nefarious motives. But your argument is persuasive.


----------



## Kivlor

lifeistooshort said:


> The bashing of this woman is hypocritical on so many levels.
> 
> As has already been pointed out, men don't seem to be bashed for being shallow when a woman doesn't meet their attractiveness standards.
> 
> This woman married a guy with money and power, and he pulled a bait and switch. You could argue if he'd been a starving artist when they married that she knew what she was getting., but that's not the case.
> 
> Imagine a man coming here and complaining that he married a slim woman because that's what he likes, but his wife has now decided her dream is to be a plus size model. People would be telling him left and right that she pulled a bait and switch and he should dump her.
> 
> Or a guy who marries a career woman who then decides she really wants to weave baskets and let him pay for everything. People would tell him to run like hvll before she gets pregnant and he has to pay alimony.
> 
> If the guy simply lost his job through no fault of his own and had to take a lower paying job you could argue that the richer or poorer vows apply.
> 
> But this guy is perfectly comfortable letting his wife support pretty much the entire household while he has his dream job, knowing she's unhappy about it. That's really crappy.
> 
> I'd say the same thing if genders were reversed. If a guy marries a career woman and she quits after the marriage and stops contributing financially he'd be well within his rights to dump her.
> 
> She should gtho before they have kids and she owes a ton of alimony. She probably already owes him some, though I think he'd be a pretty big pos to ask for it under these circumstances.
> 
> I make more than my hb and I'm fine with that. It's not because he quit his job and dumped everything on me......it's the nature of our respective fields and I knew that going in. But if he decided he needed to have his dream and dumped the bills on me we'd have a problem.
> 
> I don't understand why some men will simultaneously be upset that some women have financial standards, while they look for the hottest thing they can get and bemoan wives who let themselves go.
> 
> Who cares if your wife lets herself go even though you're at the gym regularly .....just don't let it bother you because that would be shallow.


These are not apples to apples.

If a man came here and complained about how he married his wife because she was physically attractive, and then a few years later she said she wanted to be a plus sized model, and he agreed to support her in that, then after a few years decided he didn't like it, but didn't want to talk about it with his wife... he'd be getting railed too. For the dishonesty. He would be getting told this is a problem of his making and that he needs to be honest with his wife. People like me would be telling him that "for better or worse" doesn't mean "until I get bored". 

Or the basket weaving part. Again, if he agreed this was a great idea, but now finds it unattractive, but won't talk to her about it. That would not go over well here. 

Why would he be a POS for asking for alimony? She encouraged him to leave his career and try this. She had her hands in his income dropping. If alimony were deserved, this would be a case, I would think. (Note I think no one should get alimony, but that's not how the world works)

It's not a bait and switch if you both discussed it, and came to an agreement. That's an agreement that you now find yourself regretting.


----------



## jorgegene

jld said:


> Have you ever taken a big hit to your lifestyle? Did you enjoy it?


Oh, have I ever. And no I didnt enjoy it.

on the other hand I would never leave someone I love for that reason.
nor have I.


----------



## jld

Well, if he really did pull a bait and switch on a naïve young woman (who may still be naïve), just purposely deceived and used her, and continues to do so, then clearly she should leave him.


----------



## naiveonedave

The reason I have little sympathy for her is that she, apparently, is keeping this huge elephant in the room a secret from her H. She is at least partially at fault for him losing all his income, she bought into the plan. It is on her to tell her H that the plan they made isn't working for her and they need a new plan.

I think he is crazy for not expecting his loss of income to be a big deal for her, he should have some sense of what she values. Though, he probably is thinking what modern feminism has taught him, which is clouding his judgment on where he really stands.

The lack of apparent communication here is obvious to me, tbh.


----------



## jld

jorgegene said:


> Oh, have I ever. And no I didnt enjoy it.
> 
> on the other hand I would never leave someone I love for that reason.
> nor have I.


Do you have any grown daughters? What would you tell them if they found themselves in this young woman's position?


----------



## Buddy400

farsidejunky said:


> Sure. But, how realistic is that?
> 
> Fireworks, she has shattered the glass ceiling. For that, I applaud her. That also who leads me to believe that she is at the executive level or very close to it.
> 
> If that is the case, I think she will be hard pressed to find somebody at or above her current level. I'm not saying it's impossible, just at the odds are long.


If she wants that, she better be really "hot" :smile2:


----------



## jorgegene

lifeistooshort said:


> According to her she pays 90% of her bills.
> 
> How would she take time off and live on what amounts to 10 percent of the bills?
> 
> Half maybe.....90 percent is much harder.


Im am assuming some things such as him making a lot of money before and her currently making tons of money they probably have plenty of assets which would enable her to take several months off to have and nurture her kids until shes ready to resume career. If they lack these assets, they've probably been irresponsible with money.

As for the 90%, we dont know 90% of what. If hes contributing anything like 60 grand or more, I still cant muster any tears. How much money do people really need (not want)?


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> If she wants that, she better be really "hot" :smile2:


To another top executive who can only respect, and wants, someone at his level, she may indeed be "hot."

Power couples, you know?


----------



## jld

jorgegene said:


> Im am assuming some things such as him making a lot of money before and her currently making tons of money they probably have plenty of assets which would enable her to take several months off to have and nurture her kids until shes ready to resume career. If they lack these assets, they've probably been irresponsible with money.
> 
> As for the 90%, we dont know 90% of what. If hes contributing anything like 60 grand or more, I still cant muster any tears. How much money do people really need (not want)?


Depends on what they get used to.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> To another top executive who can only respect, and wants, someone at his level, she may indeed be "hot."
> 
> Power couples, you know?


These are very few and far between relative to rich dude and 'hot' wife.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> These are very few and far between relative to rich dude and 'hot' wife.


No idea what the stats are on that.


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> He attracted a younger woman with his money and power and then when she married him he dropped it and left her to support them.


He didn't know that it was his money and power that attracted her.

Neither did she.

Now that she knows what attracted her, she should bring him up to speed.


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> According to her she pays 90% of her bills.
> 
> How would she take time off and live on what amounts to 10 percent of the bills?
> 
> Half maybe.....90 percent is much harder.


If a man was paying 90% of the bills, he couldn't take time off and live on what amounts to 10 percent of the income either.

Welcome to equality.


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> *He didn't know that it was his money and power that attracted her.*
> 
> Neither did she.
> 
> Now that she knows what attracted her, she should bring him up to speed.


Are you sure about the bolded?


----------



## Buddy400

naiveonedave said:


> Though, he probably is thinking what modern feminism has taught him, which is clouding his judgment on where he really stands.


That's where he went wrong.


----------



## naiveonedave

Buddy400 said:


> That's where he went wrong.


I agree. However this isn't all on him. It is both.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Are you sure about the bolded?


probably not, modern feminism, which is beaten into the heads of most men by the time they hit puberty rejects that.


----------



## Kivlor

Buddy400 said:


> He didn't know that it was his money and power that attracted her.
> 
> Neither did she.
> 
> Now that she knows what attracted her, she should bring him up to speed.





naiveonedave said:


> The reason I have little sympathy for her is that she, apparently, is keeping this huge elephant in the room a secret from her H. She is at least partially at fault for him losing all his income, she bought into the plan. It is on her to tell her H that the plan they made isn't working for her and they need a new plan.
> 
> I think he is crazy for not expecting his loss of income to be a big deal for her, he should have some sense of what she values. Though, he probably is thinking what modern feminism has taught him, which is clouding his judgment on where he really stands.
> 
> The lack of apparent communication here is obvious to me, tbh.


This should be a lesson for all those reading: NEVER believe a woman's tripe about feminist ideals and equality. If she spouts that kind of crap, you should assume she is either A) a liar or B) crazy or C) both.

"Oh, I think it would be a great idea for you to chase your dreams, and gamble our livelihood on it." Yeah right. She's saying that to avoid conflict and to make you think she's in this relationship for reasons other than your wallet.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> probably not, modern feminism, which is beaten into the heads of most men by the time they hit puberty rejects that.


If lifeistooshort is right about his motives, he likely did know she was attracted by his power. He then used that to his advantage.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> Are you sure about the bolded?


If he did, he would have realized that giving up his job and going back to school for his dream job would result in her losing attraction to him.

If he'd done that on purpose, he must have been planning on going for alimony once she dumped him.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> If lifeistooshort is right about his motives, he likely did know she was attracted by his power. He then used that to his advantage.


this could be the case, but the OP really didn't give us enough info to make that claim


----------



## Buddy400

Kivlor said:


> "Oh, I think it would be a great idea for you to chase your dreams, and gamble our livelihood on it." Yeah right. She's saying that to avoid conflict and to make you think she's in this relationship for reasons other than your wallet.


I wouldn't assume evil motives on her part.

I think she really believed it.

So did he.

This is an example of how I think people can be steered astray when they focus on how things* should be* instead of how thing actually *are*.


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> If he did, he would have realized that giving up his job and going back to school for his dream job would result in her losing attraction to him.
> 
> If he'd done that on purpose, he must have been planning on going for alimony once she dumped him.


Well, she said he was a risk-taker . . .


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> this could be the case, but the OP really didn't give us enough info to make that claim


If she is naive, how would she know?

I wish you could talk to her, life. She would know in her gut if your theory were right or not.


----------



## Buddy400

Interestingly, I had dinner a night or two ago with a bunch of male high-earners ($150,000 and up).

They all complained about how their wives, who had similar careers when they met and had taken time off to "be home with the kids", never went back to work after the kids got older (at least, not in any thing other than recreational careers).


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> Interestingly, I had dinner a night or two ago with a bunch of male high-earners ($150,000 and up).
> 
> They all complained about how their wives, who had similar careers when they met and had taken time off to "be home with the kids", never went back to work after the kids got older (at least, not in any thing other than recreational careers).


Completely taking for granted how much those wives do for them . . .


----------



## Kivlor

Buddy400 said:


> I wouldn't assume evil motives on her part.
> 
> I think she really believed it.
> 
> So did he.
> 
> This is an example of how I think people can be steered astray when they focus on how things* should be* instead of how thing actually *are*.


Women are naturally attracted to men who have surplus labor and exert dominance over other men. She isn't trying to hide this for evil reasons, she's hiding it because she's been told that she's not supposed to feel this way. That she's not supposed to want to be a SAHM. That she's not supposed to want a man who goes out, kills some dinner, and brings it home. She's lying to herself, and to him, because she was trained to do this. And it's creating a ton of problems. 

The deceit is the bad part. She's lying to herself and to him, saying "I'm okay with this" when she is not, and never was, leading him to believe that he can chase a dream that he never should have bothered with (if he wants to pair bond, have children, etc)

She can make this whole thing right (which doesn't necessarily mean saving the M) by being honest with her H. Which I'm really shocked @jld hasn't been pointing out, because usually she's all over the "open up to your spouse" concept.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> Completely taking for granted how much those wives do for them . . .


I suspect it's the other way around.


----------



## Buddy400

Kivlor said:


> Women are naturally attracted to men who have surplus labor and exert dominance over other men. She isn't trying to hide this for evil reasons, she's hiding it because she's been told that she's not supposed to feel this way. That she's not supposed to want to be a SAHM. That she's not supposed to want a man who goes out, kills some dinner, and brings it home. She's lying to herself, and to him, because she was trained to do this. And it's creating a ton of problems.
> 
> The deceit is the bad part. She's lying to herself and to him, saying "I'm okay with this" when she is not, and never was, leading him to believe that he can chase a dream that he never should have bothered with (if he wants to pair bond, have children, etc)
> 
> She can make this whole thing right (which doesn't necessarily mean saving the M) by being honest with her H. Which I'm really shocked @jld hasn't been pointing out, because usually she's all over the "open up to your spouse" concept.


I agree that she's only in wrong once she figured out what the real basis of her attractions was and didn't tell him.

I think she's as reluctant to admit it to herself as she is to admit it to him.


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> I suspect it's the other way around.


I am sure those women are well aware of the benefits of their lifestyle.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Women are naturally attracted to men who have surplus labor and exert dominance over other men. She isn't trying to hide this for evil reasons, she's hiding it because she's been told that she's not supposed to feel this way. That she's not supposed to want to be a SAHM. That she's not supposed to want a man who goes out, kills some dinner, and brings it home. She's lying to herself, and to him, because she was trained to do this. And it's creating a ton of problems.
> 
> The deceit is the bad part. She's lying to herself and to him, saying "I'm okay with this" when she is not, and never was, leading him to believe that he can chase a dream that he never should have bothered with (if he wants to pair bond, have children, etc)
> 
> She can make this whole thing right (which doesn't necessarily mean saving the M) by being honest with her H. Which I'm really shocked @jld hasn't been pointing out, because usually she's all over the "open up to your spouse" concept.


I think he is well aware of her feelings, kivlor.


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> I agree that she's only in wrong once she figured out what the real basis of her attractions was and didn't tell him.
> 
> I think she's as reluctant to admit it to herself as she is to admit it to him.


Her shame is unnecessary. If he is using her, and has been all along, as life is postulating, then facing her feelings openly could help her break it off with him. Her feelings are probably trying to tell her something.


----------



## Kivlor

Buddy400 said:


> I agree that she's only in wrong once she figured out what the real basis of her attractions was and didn't tell him.
> 
> I think she's as reluctant to admit it to herself as she is to admit it to him.


It's cognitive dissonance. She is experiencing two completely conflicting thoughts simultaneously. One has to win out. Sadly, her H doesn't realize that this is going on, because he's bought into the same lies she has, but he's not living in her shoes, so he's not feeling that same [eww] feelings. 

Instead, he's feeling the [panic/fear/shame] that men naturally feel when they can't live up to the expectations of manhood (ie providing for your family). His own cognitive dissonance is being ignored, because he's not the person writing the letter, but he's experiencing it too. She even mentions how he is ashamed, and trying desperately. "How can it feel so wrong to chase my dreams?" Well, because your dreams are unimportant in the face of biology. One has to win out.

They both need to be honest with themselves. And she needs to be honest with him, so he knows that not only does he feel like something is wrong, but she does too. So long as he believes she wants him to charge forward, he'll keep doing so.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I think he is well aware of her feelings, kivlor.


She was very explicit that she is hiding this from him.

Men are better than women at almost all things. But we are not mind readers. 




> I'm very close to a breaking point, and I never stop thinking about leaving my husband. And no matter what other reasons I come up with, it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction....
> 
> He's doing everything in his power to make more of a financial contribution, but his fruitless attempts haven't pulled me out of this rut. It's embarrassing enough to him that I could never tell my friends or family the extent of our income divide, *and I can't tell him exactly how I feel either.* Maybe this was a risk he shouldn't have taken. I want to be taken care of. I want to pull back at work in order to have a family. And I am so ashamed of my feelings.


He should know. Because he shouldn't believe anything a woman says. But he doesn't know. Because he is a fool, and he believes his wife's words.


----------



## Cosmos

Healthy people set healthy boundaries when it comes to the people they allow into their lives. This is particularly important, IMO, when it comes to long term relationships - and with those boundaries come certain conditions that we expect to have met. 

With most people those conditions are things like fidelity, a healthy level of physical and emotional intimacy and some sort of agreement regarding marital finances and parenthood. 

However, with others the conditions might be a lot more sophisticated and well defined, involving things like affluence, social status, maintaining a certain type of personal appearance etc 

In the same way that entering into a relationship and expecting the other person to change is unfair; so, too, is unilaterally _deciding_ to change the conditions of the relationship after marriage. And as shallow as it might sound, I think this is what happened with the couple in question. The husband changed the conditions and the wife lost her attraction towards him.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> She was very explicit that she is hiding this from him.
> 
> Men are better than women at almost all things. But we are not mind readers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He should know. Because he shouldn't believe anything a woman says. But he doesn't know. Because he is a fool, and he believes his wife's words.


I think you are projecting, kivlor.

He knows his mother's views. He grew up with her, after all. I believe he knows his wife's feelings, too. I am just not sure how much he wants to do about them, per life's interesting analysis.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I think you are projecting, kivlor.
> 
> He knows his mother's views. He grew up with her, after all. I believe he knows his wife's feelings, too. I am just not sure how much he wants to do about them, per life's interesting analysis.


So, his mother's views would necessarily be his wife's?

What am I projecting?


----------



## Kivlor

Cosmos said:


> Healthy people set healthy boundaries when it comes to the people they allow into their lives. This is particularly important, IMO, when it comes to long term relationships - and with those boundaries come certain conditions that we expect to have met.
> 
> With most people those conditions are things like fidelity, a healthy level of physical and emotional intimacy and some sort of agreement regarding marital finances and parenthood.
> 
> However, with others the conditions might be a lot more sophisticated and well defined, involving things like affluence, social status, maintaining a certain type of personal appearance etc
> 
> In the same way that entering into a relationship and expecting the other person to change is unfair; so, too, is unilaterally _deciding_ to change the conditions of the relationship after marriage. And as shallow as it might sound, I think this is what happened with the couple in question. The husband changed the conditions and the wife lost her attraction towards him.


Except she specifically stated that they discussed it and agreed. That's not unilateral change. It's the complete opposite.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> So, his mother's views would necessarily be his wife's?
> 
> What am I projecting?


You are identifying with him. But I do not think the two of you are alike.

He is not clueless about women. Not about feminist women, and not about those with more traditional views. 

The question is whether he is outright deceptive and cunning or not.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Buddy400 said:


> If a man was paying 90% of the bills, he couldn't take time off and live on what amounts to 10 percent of the income either.
> 
> Welcome to equality.


While I'm sure it made your feel a whole lot better to say that, if you'd read my posts you'd see that I said not only is a man well within his rights to dump a woman who pulled this on him, TAM would scream for him to run like hvll before she gets pregnant.

If you choose not to that's on you. 

Welcome to equality indeed.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> You are identifying with him. But I do not think the two of you are alike.
> 
> He is not clueless about women. Not about feminist women, and not about those with more traditional views.
> 
> The question is whether he is outright deceptive and cunning or not.


I'm empathizing. Empathy =/= projection. 

I don't think he and I are that alike either. I don't care about "dreams".


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I'm empathizing. Empathy =/= projection.
> 
> I don't think he and I are that alike either. I don't care about "dreams".


I think you slipped over into projection. But whatever.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Buddy400 said:


> I suspect it's the other way around.


Possibly.

However, in my experience with quite a few people who make that kind of money, they usually work a lot of hours and travel a lot. If there are kids involved i doubt the division of family responsibilities is equitable.

So if their wives went back to work they would not only have a job but would also shoulder most of the home responsibilities.

And that includes the women execs. They often have a sahd so they can work all the time. 

Big bucks don't come for free.


----------



## anonmd

jld said:


> Do you have any grown daughters? What would you tell them if they found themselves in this young woman's position?


There is really not enough info in the article to give specific advise. 

I would have cautioned a daughter (if asked) at the time he chose to give up his job and she chose to support that. 

Now a few years later I'd have additional advice (if asked again!!) depending on what the outcome was - there is no info in the article. If the outcome was he obtained his masters and now has an appropriate degree related job but she is unhappy with the salary my advice would be to adjust her expectations since she signed on for this. If the outcome was he got the degree but basically failed at gaining employment then the advice would be different - more towards the 'well, that didn't work out you may want to dump him if he stays a loser.'

Note that low salary does not = loser, the average family income in the US these days is a bit over $50K so someone gainfully employed on a stable basis with benefits if they need them between say 30 and 50K per year is by definition not a loser. 

FWIW, I do not think it is smart for a women these days to not have a career. It would be lovely if the SAHM option was available to all but it's a pretty dumb choice, check that - VERY RISKY choice in today's economy. Besides which, if she has such a gigantic salary as the article describes - why isn't she saving like a survivor of the depression so she can have that child?


----------



## Buddy400

Cosmos said:


> In the same way that entering into a relationship and expecting the other person to change is unfair; so, too, is unilaterally _deciding_ to change the conditions of the relationship after marriage. And as shallow as it might sound, I think this is what happened with the couple in question. The husband changed the conditions and the wife lost her attraction towards him.


But it wasn't unilateral.

She agreed to it.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Completely taking for granted how much those wives do for them . . .





jld said:


> I am sure those women are well aware of the benefits of their lifestyle.


You seem to be assuming the best of the women and the worst of the men. I think that's a double standard.

In this case we know from the woman that she agreed to the change, but is now upset because she doesn't like it. He appears to be keeping his word to the best of his ability, and she says he is trying hard. She on the other hand is not. Her concern appears to be all about her. 

I don't agree with your double standard generally, but this is a case where it clearly doesn't apply in my opinion.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Completely taking for granted how much those wives do for them . . .


Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Pot, meet kettle.


If you don't think those wives are well aware of what their husbands are providing, then think again. I bet some of them have it down to the dollar.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> If you don't think those wives are well aware of what their husbands are providing, then think again. I bet some of them have it down to the dollar.


If that is their unit of measurement....there is a lot that can't be measured in dollars.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> You seem to be assuming the best of the women and the worst of the men. I think that's a double standard.
> 
> In this case we know from the woman that she agreed to the change, but is now upset because she doesn't like it. He appears to be keeping his word to the best of his ability, and she says he is trying hard. She on the other hand is not. Her concern appears to be all about her.
> 
> I don't agree with your double standard generally, but this is a case where it clearly doesn't apply in my opinion.


I think you are mixing scenarios here. Buddy's dinner with friends versus the gal in the OP.

It would help the discussion if people would realize that lifeistooshort has proposed a completely different interpretation than what has been discussed before.


----------



## Wazza

Kivlor said:


> This should be a lesson for all those reading: NEVER believe a woman's tripe about feminist ideals and equality. If she spouts that kind of crap, you should assume she is either A) a liar or B) crazy or C) both.
> 
> "Oh, I think it would be a great idea for you to chase your dreams, and gamble our livelihood on it." Yeah right. She's saying that to avoid conflict and to make you think she's in this relationship for reasons other than your wallet.


To be fair, if you agree as a couple to take a risky decision that affects both of you, then you should both have the right to revisit that decision. Part of long term sustainability in a marriage is finding a way to make decisions and manage change in a way you can both live with. My observation is that different couple do that in very different ways.

If I were in the woman's shoes, I would probably talk about what are acceptable outcomes with the dream job, what are the options if the dream is not viable, and how long to pursue it for.


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> Possibly.
> 
> However, in my experience with quite a few people who make that kind of money, they usually work a lot of hours and travel a lot. If there are kids involved i doubt the division of family responsibilities is equitable.
> 
> So if their wives went back to work they would not only have a job but would also shoulder most of the home responsibilities.
> 
> And that includes the women execs. They often have a sahd so they can work all the time.
> 
> Big bucks don't come for free.


The guys didn't have a problem with their wives taking time off while the kids were young. They were in favor of it.

But the deal seemed to have been that they'd go back to work (at good salary jobs) once the kids were older.

Sure, due to the career interruption, they couldn't be expected to catch up the their husband's salaries. But it was assumed that they'd contribute meaningfully to the family's income. Maybe they could both retire a year or two early, go on a nice vacation, keep down their kid's student debt....

Instead they're taking it easy; working hobby jobs if at all. They've often got the same degrees their husbands have.

Once kids are in high school (and certainly afterwards) there's no need for a sahm.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> It would help the discussion if people would realize that lifeistooshort has proposed a completely different interpretation than what has been discussed before.


If life's interpretation that the guy knew he was purposely bait and switching his wife is true, then he's the problem.

But I don't think that's necessarily the most likely scenario.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I think you are mixing scenarios here. Buddy's dinner with friends versus the gal in the OP.
> 
> It would help the discussion if people would realize that lifeistooshort has proposed a completely different interpretation than what has been discussed before.


No. I am observing that when men's motives are discussed you assume the worst, and when women's motives are discussed, you give them the benefit of the doubt.

And both your remarks were made about the $150k+ scenario.

I then apply the underlying logic of your double standard to the gal, and find her wanting. There is no indication in anything she says other than that he has discussed the decision beforehand, obtained her agreement, and made a lot of effort to make it work. She has achieved a career trajectory that was not expected, but has not done anything to revisit the original decision, and is instead considering leaving him, without discussion.

I see his actions (as reported by her) to be essentially honest, and hers duplicitous. Not because of her feelings, but because of how they are handled. She herself does not admire the values she is considering living by, and to not at least attempt to work through the issue together before breaking the promise she admits she made is just dishonest.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> No. I am observing that when men's motives are discussed you assume the worst, and when women's motives are discussed, you give them the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> And both your remarks were made about the $150k+ scenario.
> 
> I then apply the underlying logic of your double standard to the gal, and find her wanting. There is no indication in anything she says other than that he has discussed the decision beforehand, obtained her agreement, and made a lot of effort to make it work. She has achieved a career trajectory that was not expected, but has not done anything to revisit the original decision, and is instead considering leaving him, without discussion.
> 
> I see his actions (as reported by her) to be essentially honest, and hers duplicitous. Not because of her feelings, but because of how they are handled. She herself does not admire the values she is considering living by, and to not at least attempt to work through the issue together before breaking the promise she admits she made is just dishonest.


Thing is, Wazza, she may not realize she may have been duped. She may be feeling guilt for nothing.

And the "lot of effort," as life has illustrated, on his part is debatable.


----------



## Wazza

Buddy400 said:


> If life's interpretation that the guy knew he was purposely bait and switching his wife is true, then he's the problem.
> 
> But I don't think that's necessarily the most likely scenario.


Her career success was unexpected to her. For him to have calculated, he would have had to have foreseen that success, which underpins the money.


----------



## Cosmos

Kivlor said:


> Except she specifically stated that they discussed it and agreed. That's not unilateral change. It's the complete opposite.


My take on it is different. 

They _mutually_ agreed that he should go to graduate school, but:-


> "I became the breadwinner in an extreme way. I committed to supporting us for two years, but we're going on four now, and it will likely be five. Our income divide is so extreme that I pay for 90 percent of our living expenses."


He did not stick to the condition that had been agreed upon.


----------



## Cosmos

Buddy400 said:


> But it wasn't unilateral.
> 
> She agreed to it.


She agreed to him going to graduate school, but there were conditions:-



> "I became the breadwinner in an extreme way. I committed to supporting us for two years, but we're going on four now, and it will likely be five. Our income divide is so extreme that I pay for 90 percent of our living expenses."


For whatever reason, he has not stuck to the condition that had been agreed upon.


----------



## Satya

Cosmos said:


> She agreed to him going to graduate school, but there were conditions:-
> 
> 
> 
> For whatever reason, he has not stuck to the condition that had been agreed upon.


Agree with you cosmos, but it's also vague whether she committed to the two years in her own brain or told her husband she'd give him two years of support. 

Not trying to nitpick, but this is why I say that there is a lot of guesswork being done in this situation and we are missing a lot of hard facts.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Her career success was unexpected to her. For him to have calculated, he would have had to have foreseen that success, which underpins the money.


Remember, he was experienced and successful in that field, too. It is not a stretch at all to think he recognized young, new talent when he saw it. And, if life is right, wanted to get a cut of it.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Buddy400 said:


> The guys didn't have a problem with their wives taking time off while the kids were young. They were in favor of it.
> 
> But the deal seemed to have been that they'd go back to work (at good salary jobs) once the kids were older.
> 
> Sure, due to the career interruption, they couldn't be expected to catch up the their husband's salaries. But it was assumed that they'd contribute meaningfully to the family's income. Maybe they could both retire a year or two early, go on a nice vacation, keep down their kid's student debt....
> 
> Instead they're taking it easy; working hobby jobs if at all. They've often got the same degrees their husbands have.
> 
> Once kids are in high school (and certainly afterwards) there's no need for a sahm.


I agree that there's no need when the kids are in high school, but I'd also give leeway for the sheer number of kids.

Raising one or two is a little different than 5 or 6, and even in high school they still need rides.

But I get the frustration. I have a neighbor who stays at home with one child who's in first grade. Her hb travels and lot for work and he'd really like her to get a job, but she refuses.

She basically goes to the gym, gets her nails done, and drinks wine all day. And you'd think she'd be in super good shape, but she's not. 

I think she should get a job. 

I don't know the answer when a spouse renegs on going back to work, but I don't think this woman shouldbe bashed for how she feels. 

They have no kids and he's older.....I think she should dump him. I'd tell a guy in the same position the same thing. 

Guys are just more likely to put up with it based on how hot she is.


----------



## Cosmos

Satya said:


> Agree with you cosmos, but it's also vague whether she committed to the two years in her own brain or told her husband she'd give him two years of support.
> 
> Not trying to nitpick, but this is why I say that there is a lot of guesswork being done in this situation and we are missing a lot of hard facts.


I think neither of them really thought it through properly and, as you say, we're all doing quite a bit of guesswork here.


> "When I ask myself if I would've ever married an older man that I would financially support for the first five years of marriage, and possibly forever, the answer is a hard "no." "


She sounds very, very conflicted and confused to me...


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Completely taking for granted how much those wives do for them . . .


$150k worth?

1/2 


Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> The guys didn't have a problem with their wives taking time off while the kids were young. They were in favor of it.
> 
> But the deal seemed to have been that they'd go back to work (at good salary jobs) once the kids were older.
> 
> Sure, due to the career interruption, they couldn't be expected to catch up the their husband's salaries. But it was assumed that they'd contribute meaningfully to the family's income. Maybe they could both retire a year or two early, go on a nice vacation, keep down their kid's student debt....
> 
> Instead they're taking it easy; working hobby jobs if at all. They've often got the same degrees their husbands have.
> 
> *Once kids are in high school (and certainly afterwards) there's no need for a sahm*.


Dug does not plan for me to ever go back to work. He is hoping I will be able to accompany him on business trips when all the kids are out of the house.

Now, it is true that our finances are set up with this in mind. No debt, and our kids should graduate from college debt-free, too. If that were not the case, I would likely have to think of working, too.

It is pretty nice for the whole family to have an older available person to babysit or help out in other ways. Relaxing for the couple, too, after a lifetime of having to focus on kids.


----------



## As'laDain

people who go for their dream job don't give two hoots about money. they want to do what they love with their life. they want to be happy, not rich.

the lady who wrote the letter doesn't want to be happy. she doesn't even care about being rich. she wants her husband to be her surrogate father. she wants a man that resembles him i guess. she is chasing something she never got growing up, and seems to be willing to leave her husband for not "making" her be happy.


if it were my daughter, i would tell her to get over herself or divorce the guy and let him find someone who actually cares about him. 

the lady is dishonest, simply put. she is dishonest with herself and is dishonest with her husband. its no wonder she is feeling guilt. there really is no need to twist things around and imagine some possible way the guy could be manipulating her in order to explain her guilt. it doesn't need explaining, she already stated where it comes from.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> $150k worth?
> 
> 1/2
> 
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


I think my husband thinks I am worth much more than that, John.


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> people who go for their dream job don't give two hoots about money. they want to do what they love with their life. they want to be happy, not rich.
> 
> the lady who wrote the letter doesn't want to be happy. she doesn't even care about being rich. she wants her husband to be her surrogate father. she wants a man that resembles him i guess. she is chasing something she never got growing up, and seems to be willing to leave her husband for not "making" her be happy.
> 
> 
> if it were my daughter, i would tell her to get over herself or divorce the guy and let him find someone who actually cares about him.
> 
> the lady is dishonest, simply put. she is dishonest with herself and is dishonest with her husband. its no wonder she is feeling guilt. there really is no need to twist things around and imagine some possible way the guy could be manipulating her in order to explain her guilt. it doesn't need explaining, she already stated where it comes from.


I think her guilt comes from her internal conflict with the culture.

We do not know that life's theory is wrong. Again, this guy may be doing a snow job on her. And she may be falling for it completely.

Your daughter is 7, no? Things may look different to you when she is grown, and if she has a lot of potential. Just sayin'.


----------



## Cosmos

As'laDain said:


> people who go for their dream job don't give two hoots about money. they want to do what they love with their life. they want to be happy, not rich.


All well and good if one can afford to do this, but by the sounds of things, the husband can't.

_"Our income divide is so extreme that I pay for 90 percent of our living expenses. "_



> the lady who wrote the letter doesn't want to be happy. she doesn't even care about being rich. she wants her husband to be her surrogate father. she wants a man that resembles him i guess. she is chasing something she never got growing up, and seems to be willing to leave her husband for not "making" her be happy.


We can't assume that because she's unhappy she has no wish to be happy... It could be that she was never taught good, healthy values and her present situation leaves her confused and miserable.



> if it were my daughter, i would tell her to get over herself or divorce the guy and let him find someone who actually cares about him.


But if you were her "sexist, wealthy, materialistic father," you probably wouldn't. It's more likely that her father would be jumping up and down urging her to "divorce the loser!" Remember, the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree...



> the lady is dishonest, simply put. she is dishonest with herself and is dishonest with her husband. its no wonder she is feeling guilt. there really is no need to twist things around and imagine some possible way the guy could be manipulating her in order to explain her guilt. it doesn't need explaining, she already stated where it comes from.


I think she's being very honest, actually. We mightn't like what she's saying, but she's telling us exactly who she is...

I agree that it's not fair for her to keep her feelings from her husband, but whilst she's so confused and conflicted about their relationship, this is possibly understandable.

IMO, she needs IC and, for both their sakes, she needs to decide whether or not she's capable of continuing with the marriage.


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> I think her guilt comes from her internal conflict with the culture.
> 
> We do not know that life's theory is wrong. Again, this guy may be doing a snow job on her. And she may be falling for it completely.
> 
> Your daughter is 7, no? Things may look different to you when she is grown, and if she has a lot of potential. Just sayin'.


im willing to bet her guilt, if any, comes from her dishonesty. and while we dont know for certain that life's hypothesis is wrong, there is no evidence to support it except some wild extrapolations and conjecture based on the idea that he must be happy with his dream job. since the evidence in her letter indicated that her higher income was unexpected. 

no, if you cast an analytical eye to it, the most logical conclusion is that she is dishonest wither herself, and in turn with her husband. you really have to try and twist things around, ignore evidence, and even make evidence up to try and assume that he is dishonest.

things wont look different to me when it comes to my daughter. ill still call it like i see it. if my daughter stood to lose half her income as alimony because she chose to divorce her husband just because she suddenly made more money then him, then ill have no problem letting her make that choice. 

I wouldn't try to assuage her guilt about it though.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Remember, he was experienced and successful in that field, too. It is not a stretch at all to think he recognized young, new talent when he saw it. And, if life is right, wanted to get a cut of it.


The corporate world is more complicated than that. It's not an impossible hypothesis, but in my experience there are so many potential issues that you wouldn't bet the farm on it. or, in my opinion it is a stretch


----------



## As'laDain

Cosmos said:


> All well and good if one can afford to do this, but by the sounds of things, the husband can't.
> 
> _"Our income divide is so extreme that I pay for 90 percent of our living expenses. "_
> 
> it doesn't take that much money to live. if i were by myself, i could live quite happily on less than 20K per year. my wife on the other hand, would freak the F*** out. if he is making money using his degree, im willing to bet he is making enough money to live just fine. doubt she would be happy with it though.
> 
> 
> 
> We can't assume that because she's unhappy she has no wish to be happy... It could be that she was never taught good, healthy values and her present situation leaves her confused and miserable.
> 
> im sure her present situation DOES leave her confused and miserable. she is still chasing thrills though, and as long as she is chasing thrills, she will continue to find her self bouncing between miserable and elated.
> 
> 
> But if you were her "sexist, wealthy, materialistic father," you probably wouldn't. It's more likely that her father would be jumping up and down urging her to "divorce the loser!" Remember, the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree...
> 
> 
> 
> I think she's being very honest, actually. We mightn't like what she's saying, but she's telling us exactly who she is...
> 
> I agree that it's not fair for her to keep her feelings from her husband, but whilst she's so confused and conflicted about their relationship, this is possibly understandable.
> 
> IMO, she needs IC and, for both their sakes, she needs to decide whether or not she's capable of continuing with the marriage.


she still isnt being honest. she is honest enough to know that something is wrong, but not honest enough with herself to reflect on the actual source of her feelings. she does need IC.


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> im willing to bet her guilt, if any, comes from her dishonesty. and while we dont know for certain that life's hypothesis is wrong, there is no evidence to support it except some wild extrapolations and conjecture based on the idea that he must be happy with his dream job. since the evidence in her letter indicated that her higher income was unexpected.
> 
> no, if you cast an analytical eye to it, the most logical conclusion is that she is dishonest wither herself, and in turn with her husband. you really have to try and twist things around, ignore evidence, and even make evidence up to try and assume that he is dishonest.
> 
> things wont look different to me when it comes to my daughter. ill still call it like i see it. if my daughter stood to lose half her income as alimony because she chose to divorce her husband just because she suddenly made more money then him, then ill have no problem letting her make that choice.
> 
> I wouldn't try to assuage her guilt about it though.


I would not discount life's thinking so quickly, Asla. She is a very intelligent and accomplished woman with more than a decade's life experience than you. You might try listening and learning from her.


----------



## As'laDain

Wazza said:


> The corporate world is more complicated than that. It's not an impossible hypothesis, but in my experience there are so many potential issues that you wouldn't bet the farm on it. or, in my opinion it is a stretch


putting it quite mildly...


i have done a lot of predictive analysis. they usually come out pretty accurate. 

in my opinion, its more than a stretch...


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> I would not discount life's thinking so quickly, Asla. She is a very intelligent and accomplished woman with more than a decade's life experience than you. You might try listening and learning from her.


you know better than to assume i am a respecter of persons.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Thing is, Wazza, she may not realize she may have been duped. She may be feeling guilt for nothing.
> 
> And the "lot of effort," as life has illustrated, on his part is debatable.


Focus on what is likely, not what is a theoretical possibility. 

I've already commented that you appear to have a double standard between the genders. You don't need to accept that but I see it as pretty clear. And I think right now you are searching for the interpretation of the facts that makes the guy the villain.

Firstly, you ignore her own words, and argue that she must be mistaken...in a way that presumes he is a manipulator. You haven't offered any evidence for why he is. Happy for you to explain it, but right now it just looks like what you want to believe.

Secondly, you hypothesise that she is simultaneously so smart that he knew her meteoric rise was inevitable, and yet dumb enough to be his patsy. It doesn't work that way, because at that level the ability to impose your agenda, not dance to someone else's is a core skill. If she's dumb enough for him to fool her, then she's dumb enough for others at work to fool her, and she's eventually going to either stop progressing or even have her career destroyed by someone who sees her as the competition.

Thirdly, he's walking away from the he corporate thing, so he knows that people do that. She's younger and intoxicated by her success. He knows that won't last.


----------



## Wazza

As'laDain said:


> im willing to bet her guilt, if any, comes from her dishonesty. and while we dont know for certain that life's hypothesis is wrong, there is no evidence to support it except some wild extrapolations and conjecture based on the idea that he must be happy with his dream job. since the evidence in her letter indicated that her higher income was unexpected.
> 
> no, if you cast an analytical eye to it, the most logical conclusion is that she is dishonest wither herself, and in turn with her husband. you really have to try and twist things around, ignore evidence, and even make evidence up to try and assume that he is dishonest.
> 
> things wont look different to me when it comes to my daughter. ill still call it like i see it. if my daughter stood to lose half her income as alimony because she chose to divorce her husband just because she suddenly made more money then him, then ill have no problem letting her make that choice.
> 
> I wouldn't try to assuage her guilt about it though.


I would say she is conflicted within herself rather than dishonest, and I think that's understandable. But being close to leaving and not saying anything gives the husband no chance to take corrective action, and could actually be a serious financial impact for both of them. So I think she is dishonest with her husband, and it's not a white lie.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Focus on what is likely, not what is a theoretical possibility.
> 
> I've already commented that you appear to have a double standard between the genders. You don't need to accept that but I see it as pretty clear. And I think right now you are searching for the interpretation of the facts that makes the guy the villain.
> 
> Firstly, you ignore her own words, and argue that she must be mistaken...in a way that presumes he is a manipulator. You haven't offered any evidence for why he is. Happy for you to explain it, but right now it just looks like what you want to believe.
> 
> Secondly, you hypothesise that she is simultaneously so smart that he knew her meteoric rise was inevitable, and yet dumb enough to be his patsy. It doesn't work that way, because at that level the ability to impose your agenda, not dance to someone else's is a core skill. If she's dumb enough for him to fool her, then she's dumb enough for others at work to fool her, and she's eventually going to either stop progressing or even have her career destroyed by someone who sees her as the competition.
> 
> Thirdly, he's walking away from the he corporate thing, so he knows that people do that. She's younger and intoxicated by her success. He knows that won't last.


I am not worried about "double" standards or "equal" standards, Wazza. I am more interested in "realistic" standards. That is usually where satisfying solutions lie.

Lifeistooshort is the one who proposed the theory that he is duping her. That had not occurred to me. My focus was on whether she should leave him or try to find some value in him that would justify staying.

She was naive four years ago. She is less naive now. But whether her eyes have been completely opened or not we just do not know yet.


----------



## Kivlor

Wazza said:


> To be fair, if you agree as a couple to take a risky decision that affects both of you, then you should both have the right to revisit that decision. Part of long term sustainability in a marriage is finding a way to make decisions and manage change in a way you can both live with. My observation is that different couple do that in very different ways.
> 
> If I were in the woman's shoes, I would probably talk about what are acceptable outcomes with the dream job, what are the options if the dream is not viable, and how long to pursue it for.


Oh, these decisions certainly can and should be revisited. But that's the worst part of this. The wife is refusing to talk about her problems with her husband. Instead, she writes letters to NPR, hoping they can find a way to help her ignore the problem.

The only just way forward for her is to be honest with her H about this, so they can figure out how to go forward together, as a team. 

Of course, she may not be able to go forward, even if she talks to him, and he responds positively. He may not be able to recover the income gap that has been created. And she may not be able to forgive him for her mistakes. Or perhaps he won't listen. Any number of possibilities could still spell doom for their marriage at this point.


----------



## Cosmos

As'laDain said:


> it doesn't take that much money to live. if i were by myself, i could live quite happily on less than 20K per year. my wife on the other hand, would freak the F*** out. if he is making money using his degree, im willing to bet he is making enough money to live just fine. doubt she would be happy with it though.


But had you been reared in the lap of luxury, as it sounds this woman was, you might not feel quite that way. Besides, from what we've been told, lving modestly certainly won't have been a 'condition' in their relationship.


> she still isnt being honest. *she is honest enough to know that something is wrong, but not honest enough with herself to reflect on the actual source of her feelings.* she does need IC.


Honesty isn't really the issue, IMO. It's more inner conflict and a lack of awareness. IC could help with this.


----------



## Kivlor

Cosmos said:


> My take on it is different.
> 
> They _mutually_ agreed that he should go to graduate school, but:-
> 
> 
> He did not stick to the condition that had been agreed upon.


Apparently she's not stuck to it either. And instead of saying "Hey this is a problem" she's refusing to discuss it. And blaming it all on anyone but her own actions. Like a petulant child. 

The more I'm reading the responses from women here, the more I'm convinced that all women are petulant children. Completely incapable of introspection, self-awareness, empathy, etc. Unable to even know what turns them on. Not capable of knowing what they want. Completely living their lives wishing for some man to do it all for them.

The deeper this goes, the more of an advertisement this discussion is for "Just say "no" to women and their crap."


----------



## Buddy400

Satya said:


> Agree with you cosmos, but it's also vague whether she committed to the two years in her own brain or told her husband she'd give him two years of support.
> 
> Not trying to nitpick, but this is why I say that there is a lot of guesswork being done in this situation and we are missing a lot of hard facts.


True, things are a little vague.

Did returning to grad school not create the opportunities they both expected? Is he making less than they expected? Is this voluntary on his part (i.e. could he have taken a higher paying job)? Is he making what they both expected him to but she's now paying 90% of the bills because her income has skyrocketed unexpectedly? 

In short, I don't think she feels she's been done wrong by her husband. She seems to be saying that she's just not comfortable making so much more than him, that she didn't expect to feel this way and she's not entirely happy that she feels this way.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> Dug does not plan for me to ever go back to work. He is hoping I will be able to accompany him on business trips when all the kids are out of the house.
> 
> Now, it is true that our finances are set up with this in mind. No debt, and our kids should graduate from college debt-free, too. If that were not the case, I would likely have to think of working, too.
> 
> It is pretty nice for the whole family to have an older available person to babysit or help out in other ways. Relaxing for the couple, too, after a lifetime of having to focus on kids.


Which is perfectly fine if this is what both parties signed up for.


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> True, things are a little vague.
> 
> Did returning to grad school not create the opportunities they both expected? Is he making less than they expected? Is this voluntary on his part (i.e. could he have taken a higher paying job)? Is he making what they both expected him to but she's now paying 90% of the bills because her income has skyrocketed unexpectedly?
> 
> In short, I don't think she feels she's been done wrong by her husband. She seems to be saying that she's just not comfortable making so much more than him, that she didn't expect to feel this way and she's not entirely happy that she feels this way.


She is probably wondering if there is a better deal out there, too.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> I think her guilt comes from her internal conflict with the culture.


Agreed.

At last:surprise:


----------



## sokillme

lifeistooshort said:


> According to her she pays 90% of her bills.
> 
> How would she take time off and live on what amounts to 10 percent of the bills?
> 
> Half maybe.....90 percent is much harder.



He should just divorce her and get alimony.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> He should just divorce her and get alimony.


I don't know that he would get it after only four years of marriage.


----------



## Buddy400

Kivlor said:


> Apparently she's not stuck to it either. And instead of saying "Hey this is a problem" she's refusing to discuss it. And blaming it all on anyone but her own actions. Like a petulant child.
> 
> The more I'm reading the responses from women here, the more I'm convinced that all women are petulant children. Completely incapable of introspection, self-awareness, empathy, etc. Unable to even know what turns them on. Not capable of knowing what they want. Completely living their lives wishing for some man to do it all for them.
> 
> The deeper this goes, the more of an advertisement this discussion is for "Just say "no" to women and their crap."


I'm nowhere near as down on women as you seem to be. It just annoys me when some profess beliefs that don't line up with their behavior.

But, it does surprise me that more feminist women aren't on this thread tearing the women a new one for being so "sexist".

I think that goes to show how deeply conflicted many women are regarding this sort of thing.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Completely taking for granted how much those wives do for them . . .


You really are a broken record, aren't you? If it is a guy, it's his fault, if it a woman it must be a guy's fault. Woman are alway altruistic, men always have nefarious. 

So maybe the writer of this letter takes for granted all her husband does for her right jld? Nah because he is a guy so he doesn't do anything for her.


----------



## As'laDain

sokillme said:


> He should just divorce her and get alimony.


or better yet, just divorce her and move on at breakneck speed. he has his dream job, he can find someone else and be happy with a woman who is happy to be happy with him.


----------



## sokillme

Wazza said:


> You seem to be assuming the best of the women and the worst of the men. I think that's a double standard.
> 
> In this case we know from the woman that she agreed to the change, but is now upset because she doesn't like it. He appears to be keeping his word to the best of his ability, and she says he is trying hard. She on the other hand is not. Her concern appears to be all about her.
> 
> I don't agree with your double standard generally, but this is a case where it clearly doesn't apply in my opinion.


Um you haven't been here long have you.


----------



## As'laDain

Cosmos said:


> But had you been reared in the lap of luxury, as it sounds this woman was, you might not feel quite that way. Besides, from what we've been told, lving modestly certainly won't have been a 'condition' in their relationship.
> 
> 
> Honesty isn't really the issue, IMO. It's more inner conflict and a lack of awareness. IC could help with this.


kinda my point. the woman is seeking thrills, and wants her husband to provide them. her "feelings" are more important to her than her word. her life is a leaf blown in the wind. all at the whim of how she feels in the moment.

lack of awareness is the cause for her internal conflict. refusing to be honest with herself is why she lacks awareness.

she has accomplished a lot, but cannot even enjoy her life. nobody can provide what she wants except for her.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I don't know that he would get it after only four years of marriage.


He will get something.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> You really are a broken record, aren't you? If it is a guy, it's his fault, if it a woman it must be a guy's fault. Woman are alway altruistic, men always have nefarious.
> 
> So maybe the writer of this letter takes for granted all her husband does for her right jld? Nah because he is a guy so he doesn't do anything for her.


Not much, apparently, if she has to fight against herself to keep from leaving him.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> He will get something.


Like what?


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> Like what?


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> kinda my point. the woman is seeking thrills, and wants her husband to provide them. her "feelings" are more important to her than her word. her life is a leaf blown in the wind. all at the whim of how she feels in the moment.
> 
> lack of awareness is the cause for her internal conflict. refusing to be honest with herself is why she lacks awareness.
> 
> she has accomplished a lot, but cannot even enjoy her life. nobody can provide what she wants except for her.


Seeking thrills? She is working hard. Did you read what life wrote about big money? 

The woman in the OP is very honest with herself. Her conflict is with what "society" has told her she should want, should do.

And who has benefitted from her hard work? He has. He is relaxing at his low paid dream job while living the high life she provides. Sweet deal, if you can get it.

We do not know that there is no one out there who would want to provide the life she wants. That is one of the risks she is surely weighing.


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


>


He is certainly welcome to that.


----------



## Kivlor

Buddy400 said:


> I'm nowhere near as down on women as you seem to be. It just annoys me when some profess beliefs that don't line up with their behavior.
> 
> But, it does surprise me that more feminist women aren't on this thread tearing the women a new one for being so "sexist".
> 
> I think that goes to show how deeply conflicted many women are regarding this sort of thing.


It's not surprising at all to me. Women are always right, men are always wrong. If you are the man you must pay.

I think the lack of any criticism from female posters on this thread should drive home the message that feminism is not about equality it is about Supremacy. All men will ever be in the eyes of probably roughly 7 in 10 women is an economic utility. A wallet to be used up and discarded when empty.

I want to be wrong on this. But the women of TAM are working darn hard to prove me right.


----------



## jld

_"Generally speaking, states award rehabilitative alimony, and long term or permanent alimony is fairly rare. This means that a court is interested in providing alimony to a spouse who needs to get back on his or her feet after the divorce. While many states do not provide set guidelines in terms of how long you have to be married before a judge will consider awarding alimony, a judge is unlikely to award alimony if:

The marriage didn't last for several years

The requesting spouse never left the workforce and therefore doesn't need to get back on his or her feet

There is nothing to prevent the spouse from going to work (ie no children at home, etc.)"_

Read more at Length of Marriage to Get Alimony


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> Seeking thrills? She is working hard. Did you read what life wrote about big money?
> 
> The woman in the OP is very honest with herself. Her conflict is with what "society" has told her she should want, should do.
> 
> And who has benefitted from her hard work? He has. He is relaxing at his low paid dream job while living the high life she provides. Sweet deal, if you can get it.
> 
> We do not know that there is no one out there who would want to provide the life she wants. That is one of the risks she is surely weighing.


i dont think you know what i am talking about...

yes, she is seeking thrills. she is not going to allow herself to be happy unless she is married to a rich and powerful guy who can "take care of her". well, it goes beyond that. apparently, a normal paying job is not enough. a man must not only "take care" of her, but also provide her with the flashy expensive lifestyle, or she isn't attracted to him. 

ever hear of the guys who are shallow enough to only want to "trophy wife"? well, that woman is the female equivalent. she wants her trophy husband to provide her with the fancy life so that she can get her rocks off. did he benefit from her hard work? sure. i have no doubt that he could have done it without it though. when people are driven and they want something, they just figure out a way to do it.

what she is really trying to get is daddys love. she wants a rich powerful and shallow man, like her father, to love _her_ enough to put her on a pedestal and tell her that she is worth adoring and showering with affection as if she were some super special snowflake.

funny enough, her husband is willing to do that, but alas, she wants the illusion. the money, the power, the flash. without it, it just doesn't quite feel right. never got daddys love i guess. who knows. 

she wont be happy without the thrills.

NOBODY can provide her with what she wants. 

if she were so honest with herself, then why is she in this predicament now? if she were honest with herself, why would she agree to him taking a lower paying job and leaving all the flashy high life behind?
or are you implying that honesty is a brand new thing for her?


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I think my husband thinks I am worth much more than that, John.


Start dividing his income by two, and let me know at what point he changes his mind. Or you change yours.


----------



## Cosmos

Kivlor said:


> Apparently she's not stuck to it either. And instead of saying "Hey this is a problem" she's refusing to discuss it. And blaming it all on anyone but her own actions. Like a petulant child.
> 
> The more I'm reading the responses from women here, the more I'm convinced that all women are petulant children. Completely incapable of introspection, self-awareness, empathy, etc. Unable to even know what turns them on. Not capable of knowing what they want. Completely living their lives wishing for some man to do it all for them.
> 
> The deeper this goes, the more of an advertisement this discussion is for "Just say "no" to women and their crap."


It's OK for us to have differing opinions, but kindly refrain from projecting your obvious issues with women onto me and turning this into one of your puerile little gender wars. It won't work.


----------



## MattMatt

jld said:


> Seeking thrills? She is working hard. Did you read what life wrote about big money?
> 
> The woman in the OP is very honest with herself. Her conflict is with what "society" has told her she should want, should do.
> 
> And who has benefitted from her hard work? He has. He is relaxing at his low paid dream job while living the high life she provides. Sweet deal, if you can get it.
> 
> We do not know that there is no one out there who would want to provide the life she wants. That is one of the risks she is surely weighing.


Everyone could be honest with themselves.

It's when they need to be honest with other people that problems can occur.


----------



## MattMatt

As'laDain said:


> i dont think you know what i am talking about...
> 
> yes, she is seeking thrills. she is not going to allow herself to be happy unless she is married to a rich and powerful guy who can "take care of her". well, it goes beyond that. apparently, a normal paying job is not enough. a man must not only "take care" of her, but also provide her with the flashy expensive lifestyle, or she isn't attracted to him.
> 
> ever hear of the guys who are shallow enough to only want to "trophy wife"? well, that woman is the female equivalent. she wants her trophy husband to provide her with the fancy life so that she can get her rocks off. did he benefit from her hard work? sure. i have no doubt that he could have done it without it though. when people are driven and they want something, they just figure out a way to do it.
> 
> what she is really trying to get is daddys love. she wants a rich powerful and shallow man, like her father, to love _her_ enough to put her on a pedestal and tell her that she is worth adoring and showering with affection as if she were some super special snowflake.
> 
> funny enough, her husband is willing to do that, but alas, she wants the illusion. the money, the power, the flash. without it, it just doesn't quite feel right. never got daddys love i guess. who knows.
> 
> she wont be happy without the thrills.
> 
> NOBODY can provide her with what she wants.
> 
> if she were so honest with herself, then why is she in this predicament now? if she were honest with herself, why would she agree to him taking a lower paying job and leaving all the flashy high life behind?
> or are you implying that honesty is a brand new thing for her?


Is it thrills she wants or frills? nice, expensive frills...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> It's not surprising at all to me. Women are always right, men are always wrong. If you are the man you must pay.
> 
> I think the lack of any criticism from female posters on this thread should drive home the message that feminism is not about equality it is about Supremacy. All men will ever be in the eyes of probably roughly 7 in 10 women is an economic utility. A wallet to be used up and discarded when empty.
> 
> I want to be wrong on this. But the women of TAM are working darn hard to prove me right.


And yet here I am trying to say that men have enormous value to us women! As long as he is tall, fit, and hot. 

I've never been supported by a man financially and never needed or wanted to be. But I need my man's sexual support, and lots of it!


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> And yet here I am trying to say that men have enormous value to us women! As long as he is tall, fit, and hot.
> *
> I've never been supported by a man financially and never needed or wanted to be. * But I need my man's sexual support, and lots of it!


Same here, FW. 

However, unless the women in this thread are prepared to completely demonize the woman we're somehow supporting her effed up way of thinking!


----------



## Personal

I don't see any problem with the "Breadwinner" ending her marriage if she isn't happy with her relationship.

If her relationship doesn't work for her she can try to fix it if she wants, otherwise if she can't fix it or doesn't want to she should move on.

For many of us there's simply no coming back from falling out of love with someone.


----------



## Duguesclin

john117 said:


> Start dividing his income by two, and let me know at what point he changes his mind. Or you change yours.


Divorce is not an option in our marriage, John. 
And money would be the least of my worries.


----------



## FrenchFry

Or you know, it's worthless arguing with you. Like, why the duck would I argue with a brick wall? Oh man the women who aren't totally tired of this **** aren't repeatedly bashing their skull against me, I must be right! 

Or you know, who ducking cares. Jesus, how do you get so emotionally invested in something that you rage on a forum on a npr 
article.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Duguesclin said:


> Divorce is not an option in our marriage, John.
> And money would be the least of my worries.


Ah, the familiar smell of denial....


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

jld said:


> Seeking thrills? She is working hard. Did you read what life wrote about big money?
> 
> The woman in the OP is very honest with herself. Her conflict is with what "society" has told her she should want, should do.
> 
> And who has benefitted from her hard work? He has. He is relaxing at his low paid dream job while living the high life she provides. Sweet deal, if you can get it.
> 
> We do not know that there is no one out there who would want to provide the life she wants. That is one of the risks she is surely weighing.



That's in the norm for many women in a relationship, why should it change just because it's the guy who gets to take the lower paid position?


----------



## john117

Duguesclin said:


> Divorce is not an option in our marriage, John.
> And money would be the least of my worries.


Few marriages survive serious financial issues. It's easy to think it won't happen, but financial issues cause super stress. That causes things to snowball.

If we were in Europe, my answer would be different. Not here. 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## lifeistooshort

Duguesclin said:


> Divorce is not an option in our marriage, John.
> And money would be the least of my worries.


Pay the bitters no mind. 

They're miserable so they assume you must be too.


----------



## MattMatt

Well, until either of them comes here, we will learn no more about this case.


----------



## john117

lifeistooshort said:


> Pay the bitters no mind.
> 
> They're miserable so they assume you must be too.


I have seen far more loving couples split due to money than due to any other issue.




Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## lifeistooshort

john117 said:


> I have seen far more loving couples split due to money than due to any other issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


I'm sure that's true.....money troubles do cause a lot of problems.

I just don't think it's applicable to dug and jld at this point.

And they are a team.


----------



## Wazza

Duguesclin said:


> Divorce is not an option in our marriage, John.
> And money would be the least of my worries.


Dug, not wishing it on you, but if one of you decides to walk, or cheat or whatever, you will find the other is ultimately powerless to stop it.


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> It's not surprising at all to me. Women are always right, men are always wrong. If you are the man you must pay.
> 
> I think the lack of any criticism from female posters on this thread should drive home the message that feminism is not about equality it is about Supremacy. All men will ever be in the eyes of probably roughly 7 in 10 women is an economic utility. A wallet to be used up and discarded when empty.
> 
> I want to be wrong on this. But the women of TAM are working darn hard to prove me right.


And here you are trying to start a gender war. That's not acceptable.

Maybe, just maybe, some people don't think that they need to get all worked up over some click bait peice. The woman who wrote the letter is not here to answer questions. Without getting more clarification from the letter writer the only thing one can do is to fabricate a story out of their imagination. You know like a lot of people are doing here on this thread.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> And here you are trying to start a gender war. That's not acceptable.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, some people don't think that they need to get all worked up over some click bait peice. The woman who wrote the letter is not here to answer questions. Without getting more clarification from the letter writer the only thing one can do is to fabricate a story out of their imagination. You know like a lot of people are doing here on this thread.


Or you could just read the words she wrote which include



> I'm very close to a breaking point, and I never stop thinking about leaving my husband. And no matter what other reasons I come up with, it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction.





> What I hate most of all is that this is not what my husband wants either. He never imagined that he would spend all of his savings to follow his dreams to come out on the other end making a quarter of his prior salary.





> He's doing everything in his power to make more of a financial contribution, but his fruitless attempts haven't pulled me out of this rut. It's embarrassing enough to him that I could never tell my friends or family the extent of our income divide, and I can't tell him exactly how I feel either.


He doesn't sound like the pathetic user some of the more misandrist commenters here are trying to make him out to be.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> Or you could just read the words she wrote which include


I read what she wrote. IMHO, more info is needed. She's not here to answer the questions that I have. I do not want to jump to conclusions like so many here have done. 



sokillme said:


> He doesn't sound like the pathetic user some of the more misandrist commenters here are trying to make him out to be.


So now you too are trying to stir a gender war??? 

People have different opinions. We allow different opinions on TAM. I so no one here who is pressing that they hate men, no one is expressing misandry.


----------



## MattMatt

There was a comedy sketch on the BBC many years back. John Cleese and an actress who I can't recall.

WOMAN: "What happened to us? We had something beautiful and good!"
MAN: "You spent it all!"


----------



## AliceA

Kivlor said:


> It's not surprising at all to me. Women are always right, men are always wrong. If you are the man you must pay.
> 
> I think the lack of any criticism from female posters on this thread should drive home the message that feminism is not about equality it is about Supremacy. All men will ever be in the eyes of probably roughly 7 in 10 women is an economic utility. A wallet to be used up and discarded when empty.
> 
> I want to be wrong on this. But the women of TAM are working darn hard to prove me right.


Or it could just be that there aren't as many women reading it as men, or they couldn't be bothered commenting on a post made somewhere else by someone who isn't even on the forum, or they are just sick of this sort of crap coming up in every thread and take long breaks, to come back and see this crap, and off they go again.


----------



## Kivlor

No, I'm not "trying to start a gender war". Why would I care to? I'm trying to point out the ridiculous level of cognitive dissonance here among many of the female posters at TAM.

And the farther I take my hyperbole, the more you all dig in on your positions, and even go so far as to make up things to add to this story. 

I get it. The introspection is too much for some. That's what happens with cognitive dissonance. One of the 2 irreconcilable ideas has to win out. But accepting we are wrong would hurt our pride, so we tend to take the option that says "I MUST BE RIGHT!" 

I understand. Kilvor's out to persecute the wimminz with his internet brigade. Carry on with the "It's always the man's fault" "People can disagree you know!" "If you disagree with us you are starting a gender war!" rhetoric. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Kivlor

I want to point out that I stand by my post very early in my commentary on this whole thread that this thread and this article are an advertisement for the whole MGTOW / Red Pill movement. 

Heck the original article reads like something a MGTOW would* make up *and send in to prove their point. And the ladies here ate it up.


----------



## As'laDain

Kivlor said:


> I want to point out that I stand by my post very early in my commentary on this whole thread that this thread and this article are an advertisement for the whole MGTOW / Red Pill movement.
> 
> Heck the original article reads like something a MGTOW would* make up *and send in to prove their point. And the ladies here ate it up.


i was just thinking the exact same thing...


----------



## EllisRedding

See, I still go back to the article and there are a couple of things. First, I believe some have commented here that he did a bait and switch. Maybe he did, I don't know. However, if you read the article, she posted this:



> Over the past four years, my career has skyrocketed in ways I never could have dreamed of.


So it sounds like the decision for him to make a career change was before this, and does seem to lessen the idea of a bait & switch unless he can read into the future (heck, she couldn't even have dreamed that her career would take off like it did, but somehow he knew ahead of time).

It is still not clear what her issue is. Is it that she is the breadwinner? Based on what she wrote, it is because she is the breadwinner in an extreme way (she equates it to 90% / 10%). What if it was 80%/20%, 70%/30%, 60%/40%, would she still feel the same way? Maybe the fact that she makes more than him (regardless of the split) is her issue, makes him less attractive, but by focusing solely on it being "extreme" helps her to rationalize this, IDK.

I read it and I see a lot of blameshifting. It's her Husband's fault, it's her father's fault, it's her mother in law's fault, it is probably my fault too and I don't even know her. She even states:



> Maybe this was a risk *he* shouldn't have taken.


Notice she says "HE". Sorry, but this is a risk YOU BOTH took.

I still think as well, the idea of being the "breadwinner" sounds real cool, but when you have to actually be that person instead of being able to fall back on someone else, it loses the appeal (at least for some like the OP)

Whether it is acceptable to say nowadays in the "equality"/"PC" world we live in, but in general there still seems to be a sense that for a guy, your best option is to be the successful one (or maybe simply put, the more successful one) in the relationship.


----------



## Duguesclin

john117 said:


> I have seen far more loving couples split due to money than due to any other issue.


Money can destroy marriages like sickness can. Anytime there is stress you find out how strong the marriage is. 

We have had our share of stress, like our son's cancer while we were expatriated to India during the biggest recession in a century. 

Lack of money would not be more stressful than what we have already experienced.


----------



## john117

Duguesclin said:


> Money can destroy marriages like sickness can. Anytime there is stress you find out how strong the marriage is.
> 
> We have had our share of stress, like our son's cancer while we were expatriated to India during the biggest recession in a century.
> 
> Lack of money would not be more stressful than what we have already experienced.


Some life altering events tend to unite a couple, others to divide. Serious health issues are generally the first kind, money issues the second.

That's been my experience at least. Health issues are not a choice. We deal with them. Money is a choice, and far easier to resent someone because of money.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Cosmos

Kivlor said:


> I want to point out that I stand by my post very early in my commentary on this whole thread that this thread and this article are an advertisement for the whole MGTOW / Red Pill movement.
> *
> Heck the original article reads like something a MGTOW would make up and send in to prove their point. And the ladies here ate it up.*


The only people eating anything up and taking a big doo doo in their pants over this nonsense are you and a few of your playmates.

Carry on.


----------



## Duguesclin

john117 said:


> Some life altering events tend to unite a couple, others to divide. Serious health issues are generally the first kind, money issues the second.
> 
> That's been my experience at least. Health issues are not a choice. We deal with them. Money is a choice, and far easier to resent someone because of money.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


John, this is not my experience. 

Sickness has slit many marriages.


----------



## john117

Duguesclin said:


> John, this is not my experience.
> 
> Sickness has slit many marriages.


It's a matter of degree. 

There's a significant social stigma associated with leaving a sick spouse or child to fend for themselves. Not quite as much for financial reasons.


Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Celes

For all the cries of misandry, if the genders were reversed, many women here would feel the same sympathy for the man. The men here would too. I know I would. I also feel sympathy for men whose wives' don't go back to work as agreed upon. Many women here do too. 

Unless it's agreed upon prior that one person will carry the weight financially, then a spouse should take absolute care in making decisions that could compromise their income.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> It's a matter of degree.
> 
> There's a significant social stigma associated with leaving a sick spouse or child to fend for themselves. Not quite as much for financial reasons.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


The psychologist at the hospital told us it is not uncommon for marriages to break up because of a child's illness. 

Stress on a marriage reveals and exacerbates the fracture lines. A weak marriage may not be able to bear the additional demands on it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Duguesclin said:


> John, this is not my experience.
> 
> Sickness has slit many marriages.


 Personally I feel sickness, some debilitating disease would be far worse.. having a healthy husband/ partner , even if he earned Less money over me (likely not to happen unless he gets laid off someday) then there would be a time frame I could be earning more so.. but this, so I feel would be far easier to cope with over the loss of our health .. where many times.. things will never be the same.. 

There is always hope with a financial crisis... 

My husband brought this saying home to me many years ago.. I never forgot it...I feel it's very true...


----------



## MSalmoides

This article is disturbing. She's attracted to power and a paycheck, not the man she married.

@Kivlor I have a divorced friend who is a bigtime MGTOW adherent. He stayed single until he was 46 and saved a lot of money over the years. He finally got married and his wife of two years as all happy until he ruined his shoulder in an accident at work. She was a school teacher but wanted to be a stay at home wife, and he refused to use his savings to support that lifestyle. She admitted during a huge fight that his money was a big part of the reason why she married him. I'll never forget the day I drove to his house with my truck and trailer to move him out. She was Medusa incarnate. Gah.

He infamously says that the only reason he would spend any money on a woman is to get laid.

~MS


----------



## barbados

All I got out of this article, and those like it, is that people (M or F) seem to go out of their way to find things to be miserable about.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> The psychologist at the hospital told us it is not uncommon for marriages to break up because of a child's illness.
> 
> Stress on a marriage reveals and exacerbates the fracture lines. A weak marriage may not be able to bear the additional demands on it.


True for many types of stress, including, but not limited to financial and health issues. 

I think the character of the individuals is tested a well as the relationship. 

Ironically, in a sense, it may not be adversity but prosperity that is the problem here. This couple appears to be quite prosperous. They are not struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table. They just have an imbalance that could be addressed without the need to break up, and the woman is conflicted within herself.

I suppose there is an aspect of gender in this, in as much as equality changes what is possible, and we have choices. But really I can relate some of what the woman says to things in my own marriage. Learning to handle problems in a way that builds the marriage can make a difference, as you and Dug appear also to have done.


----------



## Celes

Just as an example, I have taken a similar risk in my career as the man in the example. 2 years ago I switched fields. After getting my bachelors and working that field for 5 years. I always hated it. I talked to my husband about making a switch and he was supportive. The field I wanted to get into was risky too. 

But here's the thing. I never took a pay cut. My husband never felt a dip in our income. I worked at 4 different companies in the last 2 years. He makes fun of that. But I worked my ass off. I wanted to increase my salary and do something I enjoyed doing more. I was already making a decent income but I admit I'm more ambitious. 2 years later, I've increased my income more than 50%. And I'm happier in this field. We never felt a negative impact. 

But failure wasn't an option in my mind. I never wanted to disappoint my husband, especially after he supported my decision. The moves I made were strategic. I took jobs I didn't enjoy that paid the same income but gave me the experience I needed to grow in the new field.

If I did fail, I would have taken responsibility. I wouldn't fault my husband for resenting me if my decision ended up with me making 3/4 less income. I would have admitted I screwed up and I honestly wouldn't have blamed him if he wanted to leave me after that. Which is why I worked so hard to make sure that didn't happen. 

So this subject has nothing to do with gender in my mind.


----------



## FrenchFry

Kivlor said:


> I want to point out that I stand by my post very early in my commentary on this whole thread that this thread and this article are an advertisement for the whole MGTOW / Red Pill movement.
> 
> Heck the original article reads like something a MGTOW would* make up *and send in to prove their point. And the ladies here ate it up.


Well, you and your SEE WOMEN SUCK crew ate it up. Because of course you did. Of course those steeped deep in internet bulls hit can't help but spread it around everywhere. 

By ate it up you mean the four women left who haven't gotten tired of pushing your buttons chimed in with their opinions and of course, this obviously means all women everywhere..what? Sympathize with this woman? Think all women are right? 

You continue on your brigade. Please, we need more women suck articles on TAM. You guys are slacking lately.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> I read what she wrote. IMHO, more info is needed. She's not here to answer the questions that I have. I do not want to jump to conclusions like so many here have done.
> 
> 
> 
> So now you too are trying to stir a gender war???
> 
> People have different opinions. We allow different opinions on TAM. I so no one here who is pressing that they hate men, no one is expressing misandry.


Just like there are men on here who project the issues they had with their ex-wives onto every woman who post or stories posted about women. There are women on here who have a definite agenda when it comes to these types of posts probably because of the same issue and yes they are misandrists, I have no problem saying it.

I will just as fast call out the more misogynistic posters on her too.


----------



## EllisRedding

FrenchFry said:


> You continue on your brigade. Please, we need more women suck articles on TAM. You guys are slacking lately.












>


----------



## john117

A lot of illness related stress is financial... The medical side, if its fixable, it gets fixed if money is available. Even if it's a lengthy recovery,it boils down to having money to pay for things t help the process along.

Money in itself is seen as a choice. Yea, I could be working for that Seattle mail order place for 2x the salary. Wifey would be elated. But cost of living doesn't factor in her head, tho it does in mine. Nor does the convenience of her getting a job in a much more competitive and fluid job market. All she sees is Kentucky and $X, Seattle and $2X, therefore he's a lazy a$$hole for keeping us here.

Critical thinking is s terrible thing to waste.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Wazza

Celes said:


> Just as an example, I have taken a similar risk in my career as the man in the example. 2 years ago I switched fields. After getting my bachelors and working that field for 5 years. I always hated it. I talked to my husband about making a switch and he was supportive. The field I wanted to get into was risky too.
> 
> But here's the thing. I never took a pay cut. My husband never felt a dip in our income. I worked at 4 different companies in the last 2 years. He makes fun of that. But I worked my ass off. I wanted to increase my salary and do something I enjoyed doing more. I was already making a decent income but I admit I'm more ambitious. 2 years later, I've increased my income more than 50%. And I'm happier in this field. We never felt a negative impact.
> 
> But failure wasn't an option in my mind. I never wanted to disappoint my husband, especially after he supported my decision. The moves I made were strategic. I took jobs I didn't enjoy that paid the same income but gave me the experience I needed to grow in the new field.
> 
> If I did fail, I would have taken responsibility. I wouldn't fault my husband for resenting me if my decision ended up with me making 3/4 less income. I would have admitted I screwed up and I honestly wouldn't have blamed him if he wanted to leave me after that. Which is why I worked so hard to make sure that didn't happen.
> 
> So this subject has nothing to do with gender in my mind.


Money is a means to an end. You can decide that you need "enough" (whatever that is for you) or you can decide that getting all you can is the highest priority.

I'm older, my children are adults who have left home, and while I'm not rich, I now work only because I want to, and my wife and I can afford more than we want. I do still remember when we had money worries, but we are unlikely ever to have them again (touch wood). But part of this is to learn contentment. Our house is modest, but it's ours, not the bank's. Our cars are not flashy. We eat well, but simply. And so on.

In such a circumstance, things like health, and spending your time on what matters to you, matter most. And getting all heated about who makes the most seems pointless. Money is just one of the things people contribute to a successful long-term marriage.


----------



## Cosmos

FrenchFry said:


> Well, you and your SEE WOMEN SUCK crew ate it up. Because of course you did. Of course those steeped deep in internet bulls hit can't help but spread it around everywhere.
> 
> By ate it up you mean the four women left who haven't gotten tired of pushing your buttons chimed in with their opinions and of course, this obviously means all women everywhere..what? Sympathize with this woman? Think all women are right?
> 
> You continue on your brigade. Please, we need more women suck articles on TAM. You guys are slacking lately.


Quite.

I for one find her mindset quite shuddersome, but this is more about character and values than gender.

There are _many_ people out there whose relationships are built on poor values / conditions. This woman just happens to be one of them. It could just as easily be a post from a wealthy man who's thinking of getting rid of his trophy wife because he doesn't feel the same about her since she put on weight and lost some of her good looks...

Shallowness is genderless.


----------



## Kivlor

FrenchFry said:


> Well, you and your SEE WOMEN SUCK crew ate it up. Because of course you did. Of course those steeped deep in internet bulls hit can't help but spread it around everywhere.
> 
> By ate it up you mean the four women left who haven't gotten tired of pushing your buttons chimed in with their opinions and of course, this obviously means all women everywhere..what? Sympathize with this woman? Think all women are right?
> 
> You continue on your brigade. Please, we need more women suck articles on TAM. You guys are slacking lately.


Yup. That's what I said. All women everywhere. It's an exact quote. /sarc

I get the feeling I said something that struck a nerve. 

People suck FrenchFry. Not just women. 

PS: I'm a single poser here. I don't have a brigade. I don't organize other posters coming and going. Persecution complex much?


----------



## jld

When I think about the strongest, healthiest, longest-lasting marriages I know, there is a sense, on both sides, that they are each getting a good deal. 

I think this woman currently feels she is not getting a good deal. To me, it seems natural she would want to change that.

Now, will divorcing mean she will find someone who gives her a good deal, according to her? 

Not necessarily. There may not be many men who can or want to do that. She may end up alone, having children through a sperm donor and providing for her family herself.

But that does not mean, imo, that she should not consider it. If she wants to leave, now, before kids, is the time.


----------



## jld

I think another reason I am sympathetic to this young woman is that I can very much see my own daughter enjoying the same success this young woman has. I would not want to limit this young woman's satisfaction and happiness any more than I would want to limit my own daughter's.


----------



## jld

I also have four sons. If my son were in this situation, I would gently tell him that he may not be able to satisfy his wife. It may be best if he take honest account of what he can reasonably offer her (not only financially) and ask himself if she were his daughter instead of his wife, would he, as her father and trusted advisor, find the offer sufficient.

Sorry to sound 100 years old and from a culture of arranged marriage. I just think both have to be satisfied for this to work long term.


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> When I think about the strongest, healthiest, longest-lasting marriages I know, there is a sense, on both sides, that they are each getting a good deal.
> 
> I think this woman currently feels she is not getting a good deal. To me, it seems natural she would want to change that.
> 
> Now, will divorcing mean she will find someone who gives her a good deal, according to her?
> 
> Not necessarily. There may not be many men who can or want to do that. She may end up alone, having children through a sperm donor and providing for her family herself.
> 
> But that does not mean, imo, that she should not consider it. If she wants to leave, now, before kids, is the time.


sure. if she wants to leave, let her. no need to blame the man as if he did anything wrong by her. she agreed to something and now doesn't like it. she wants to leave the marriage now that her feelings are all jacked up. she may not have seen it coming, but that doesn't mean its his fault.


----------



## john117

Sometimes it works. Friend's friend is an American guy married to a Caribbean banker lady. Guy met her there, got married... She makes super serious money while he tends bar and teaches English. 

No bait and switch here. The issue is more noticeable when a bait and switch occurs.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> I also have four sons. If my son were in this situation, I would gently tell him that he may not be able to satisfy his wife. It may be best if he take honest account of what he can reasonably offer her (not only financially) and ask himself if she were his daughter instead of his wife, would he, as her father and trusted advisor, find the offer sufficient.
> 
> Sorry to sound 100 years old and from a culture of arranged marriage. I just think both have to be satisfied for this to work long term.


so you wouldn't wonder if your son pulled a bait and switch just so that he could have a piece of her wealth while he got to live his dream on her dime?


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> sure. if she wants to leave, let her. no need to blame the man as if he did anything wrong by her. she agreed to something and now doesn't like it. she wants to leave the marriage now that her feelings are all jacked up. she may not have seen it coming, but that doesn't mean its his fault.


I do not see any jacked up feelings. I see a young woman less naive than she was four years ago.

It has still not been determined whether life's theory about him is correct or not. That has to be kept under consideration, too.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Sometimes it works. Friend's friend is an American guy married to a Caribbean banker lady. Guy met her there, got married... She makes super serious money while he tends bar and teaches English.
> 
> No bait and switch here. The issue is more noticeable when a bait and switch occurs.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Some women are absolutely fine with being the breadwinner. I can think of several I have seen IRL.


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> I do not see any jacked up feelings. I see a young woman less naive than she was four years ago.
> 
> It has still not been determined whether life's theory about him is correct or not. That has to be kept under consideration, too.


her feelings aren't all jacked up? she is not happy. she is conflicted. i would say her feelings are pretty jacked up.

if they weren't, she would be at peace.


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> so you wouldn't wonder if your son pulled a bait and switch just so that he could have a piece of her wealth while he got to live his dream on her dime?


I do not think my sons would do that. If I did have any inkling of such a thing, I would certainly bring it out in the open. That sort of thing does not end well.


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> her feelings aren't all jacked up? she is not happy. she is conflicted. i would say her feelings are pretty jacked up.
> 
> if they weren't, she would be at peace.


Maybe I have a different understanding of the term than you do.

I think her feelings are genuine and valid. She is right to question whether he can satisfy her. I see nothing amiss in that. I think it is wise on her part, and to both of their benefit.


----------



## jld

Water seeks its own level, in marriage as in the rest of life.

Why should we be shocked by it here?


----------



## EleGirl

john117 said:


> Some life altering events tend to unite a couple, others to divide. Serious health issues are generally the first kind, money issues the second.
> 
> That's been my experience at least. Health issues are not a choice. We deal with them. Money is a choice, and far easier to resent someone because of money.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


When faced with the serious illness of a spouse, men are far more likely to walk away than women, a study shows.

Women in the study with cancer or multiple sclerosis were more than six times as likely to become separated or divorced within an average of six months of being diagnosed as were men with similar health issues.

The overall divorce and separation rate among the study participants was similar to the population as a whole.
But when the wife was the patient, the divorce and separation rate was close to 21%, compared to 3% when the husband was seriously ill.

9 of 10 Breakups in Female Patients

The study included 515 patients with malignant brain tumors, other cancers, or multiple sclerosis who were married at the time of their diagnosis. About half the patients were women.

Within an average of six months of diagnosis (range one to 14 months) 60 of the patients became divorced or separated.
Among the 214 patients with brain tumors, 78% of the divorces or separations occurred among women.

Gender Divorce Gap After Illness Strikes


----------



## Buddy400

Cosmos said:


> There are _many_ people out there whose relationships are built on poor values / conditions. This woman just happens to be one of them. It could just as easily be a post from a wealthy man who's thinking of getting rid of his trophy wife because he doesn't feel the same about her since she put on weight and lost some of her good looks...
> 
> Shallowness is genderless.


I don't think we're saying that men aren't shallow as well.

The difference is that we all know what men are shallow about. The wealthy guy above knew what he was shallow about and no doubt wouldn't be surprised at his reaction.

The letter writer didn't know what she was shallow about and was surprised. 

That's the point that's interesting to me. 

Many women go on and on about how wealth and power isn't what attracts them to men; but then it turns out (for some) that it is.


----------



## EleGirl

Celes said:


> For all the cries of misandry, if the genders were reversed, many women here would feel the same sympathy for the man. The men here would too. I know I would. I also feel sympathy for men whose wives' don't go back to work as agreed upon. Many women here do too.
> 
> Unless it's agreed upon prior that one person will carry the weight financially, then a spouse should take absolute care in making decisions that could compromise their income.


There have been quite a few threads on TAM in which a man complains that his wife either making less now because she left a high paying job for an easier/dream job, or that the wife is a SAHM who refuses to go back to work. He says that he does not want to be the major breadwinner of the family. He wants his wife to earn to her potential. 

On these threads, the men have gotten support from both the men and women who post on TAM. The idea is that this is not a unilateral decision. Both parties have to come to agreement on things like jobs and earing an income. And people do change in marriage, what might have seemed ok at one point, might not seem ok now. We change/grow as people. Our needs change over time. That is why it is critical for couples to talk about their needs, feelings, etc. And it's why the must pay attention to meeting the other's needs.

The needs of both spouses are important, not just the needs of one spouse. And discussing one's needs and feelings does not make the person evil.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Water seeks its own level, in marriage as in the rest of life.
> 
> Why should we be shocked by it here?


^^^Herein lies the truth...

My perception is that the woman was attracted to the man's position, income, power and lifestyle, which was her main condition for marrying him.

After a while, the man decided to follow a dream he had, and his wife agreed to support them both for a certain period of time whilst he studied in order to realise that dream.

And although: 

_"My husband now has his dream job. I'm proud of everything he's accomplished and what we were able to do together to make it happen."_

the downside to all this is the unpalatable truth that what had actually attracted the woman to her husband (his position, income power and lifestyle) is no longer evident. In fact, she probably feels that their roles have been reversed.

When relationships are so material and status based, both partners are_ usually_ aware of that basis and, if they want the marriage to subsist, are wise enough to not try to drastically change the status quo.

IMO, there are no victims here.


----------



## jld

Respectfully, I do not think she is shallow. I think she is smart to think ahead. 

Having enough money to take care of your family in the way you want to take care of them is just prudent thinking. 

If a man chooses a woman with certain physical features so that he can try to assure his physical pleasure, I think he is taking a short-sighted, big risk. 

Much more likely for him to lose his pleasure than for a prudent young woman, if she has chosen wisely, to lose that money.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> ^^^Herein lies the truth...
> 
> My perception is that the woman was attracted to the man's position, income, power and lifestyle, which was her main condition for marrying him.
> 
> After a while, the man decided to follow a dream he had, and his wife agreed to support them both for a certain period of time whilst he studied in order to realise that dream.
> 
> And although:
> 
> _"My husband now has his dream job. I'm proud of everything he's accomplished and what we were able to do together to make it happen."_
> 
> the downside to all this is the unpalatable truth that what had actually attracted the woman to her husband (his position, income power and lifestyle) is no longer evident. In fact, she probably feels that their roles have been reversed.
> 
> When relationships are so material and status based, both partners are_ usually_ aware of that basis and, if they want the marriage to subsist, are wise enough to try drastically changing the status quo.
> 
> *IMO, there are no victims here.*


I agree, Cosmos, provided lifeistooshort's theory is incorrect. If she is wrong, then this is just tuition in the school of life for this couple.


----------



## Cosmos

Buddy400 said:


> I don't think we're saying that men aren't shallow as well.
> 
> The difference is that we all know what men are shallow about. The wealthy guy above knew what he was shallow about and no doubt wouldn't be surprised at his reaction.
> 
> *The letter writer didn't know what she was shallow about and was surprised. *
> 
> That's the point that's interesting to me.
> 
> Many women go on and on about how wealth and power isn't what attracts them to men; but then it turns out (for some) that it is.


I think she does, but it's all she's ever known. She was reared on it:-
_
"I never stop thinking about leaving my husband. And no matter what other reasons I come up with, it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction. I hate myself for it. I hate my sexist, wealthy, materialistic father, who likely instilled these ideals in me"
_


----------



## TheTruthHurts

Money money money me me me me

Shallow people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

EleGirl said:


> When faced with the serious illness of a spouse, men are far more likely to walk away than women, a study shows.
> 
> Women in the study with cancer or multiple sclerosis were more than six times as likely to become separated or divorced within an average of six months of being diagnosed as were men with similar health issues.
> 
> The overall divorce and separation rate among the study participants was similar to the population as a whole.
> But when the wife was the patient, the divorce and separation rate was close to 21%, compared to 3% when the husband was seriously ill.
> 
> 9 of 10 Breakups in Female Patients
> 
> The study included 515 patients with malignant brain tumors, other cancers, or multiple sclerosis who were married at the time of their diagnosis. About half the patients were women.
> 
> Within an average of six months of diagnosis (range one to 14 months) 60 of the patients became divorced or separated.
> Among the 214 patients with brain tumors, 78% of the divorces or separations occurred among women.
> 
> Gender Divorce Gap After Illness Strikes


How many of those were Medicare or otherwise insurance related divorces?

The numbers reported above are on the high side.. here reports lower https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...nce-of-divorce-later-in-life-husbands-doesnt/

But at the same time...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00739.x/abstract

Or...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6807860

The last link retracted a study that made lots of waves 





Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

I don't discount that wife illness often brings divorce, and the shallowness of men, but it happens the other way around as well. 

And while we may know divorce is happening, we don't know why. And it often makes sense to divorce...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...ue-to-medical-bills-sometimes-it-makes-sense/

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Kivlor

john117 said:


> I don't discount that wife illness often brings divorce, and the shallowness of men, but it happens the other way around as well.
> 
> And while we may know divorce is happening, we don't know why. And it often makes sense to divorce...
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...ue-to-medical-bills-sometimes-it-makes-sense/
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


I was actually uploading that same article to go with your previous post, until I saw you beat me to it. 

2006 Medicaid law changes resurrected the practice of "Medicaid Divorce" or divorce as a family planning tool. Often couples in dire medical circumstances divorce to preserve assets for their children/grandchildren, and it is an agreed to circumstance. Not someone betraying their vows.


----------



## MJJEAN

I really do think it's two different, but related, problems and the wife is absolutely NOT shallow.

1) She's insecure about his ability to support the family should she become pregnant and complications occur during gestation or delivery. And she is perfectly correct! How could they live for months on end with his savings depleted and his income only covering about 10% of their expenses??

Look, I've read many comments from men regarding her income and employment, but the problem is that men are thinking like..well...men. When a man's wife has some complication during pregnancy, he can continue to work. The woman, often, is given instructions to limit stress and activity for the duration. 

I had a very unexpected complication with DD#2 and was put on bed rest for nearly 5 months. Now, imagine this woman, who wants to become a mother, is pregnant and must go on bed rest for a few months or more in addition to the unknown weeks she may have to continue healing after the delivery. 

Most companies will NOT hold a position for that long. And, frankly, the mortgage, utility, credit card, and car loan companies don't take "But he's working his dream job!" as payment.

This, of course, is not even considering she may suffer permanent damage or have a child with special needs that she wants to stay home and raise herself.

Even in the modern world, complications aren't uncommon. We're just better able to treat them and have better outcomes than in the past. But make no mistake, pregnancy and childbearing are still risky business. I know more than one mother with nerve damage or who suffer regular debilitating migraines just from the epidural alone.

Women crave security. This woman is not secure as her husband cannot provide decently for her and any future offspring in the event she cannot work.

2) He is not the man she thought he was when they met and married. 

They met through their careers, so that says they were in the same field. They had much in common including ambition and success. They were the same kind of people and appeared to want the same lifestyle. Now, he has changed. It's more than his income level, you know. He went back to school which is bound to change ways of thinking and behaving. Then he took a position vastly different from his previous position.

She lives in one world, now, and he in another.

I'm sure he's a great guy. She describes him as such. It's just that he isn't looking to be the right guy for her.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Water seeks its own level, in marriage as in the rest of life.
> 
> Why should we be shocked by it here?


Why is he not on her level because he doesn't make the same money as her?


----------



## MJJEAN

Kivlor said:


> I was actually uploading that same article to go with your previous post, until I saw you beat me to it.
> 
> 2006 Medicaid law changes resurrected the practice of "Medicaid Divorce" or divorce as a family planning tool. Often couples in dire medical circumstances divorce to preserve assets for their children/grandchildren, and it is an agreed to circumstance. Not someone betraying their vows.


You posted as I was typing. I have actually considered this! DH has a good job, but it doesn't offer health insurance because the company is small enough they don't have to. If he took another job, he'd be able to get insurance. However, he'd also take a cut in pay and the additional costs of insurance would be too high for us to be able to meet our other bills.

Years ago, I had an infected tooth. After the pain and swelling got bad, I went to Urgent Care and paid a fee to see a doctor. My blood pressure was so high, the staff did the readings 3 times on 3 different machines before summoning the doctor. He then proceeded to tell me he was amazed I wasn't having a stroke and to take myself to the ER. I lol'd. An ER visit would bankrupt us.

For the next year, I had random heart "flutters" sometimes resulting in chest pain, nausea, and dizziness. Since my mom died at 44 from heart and lung failure, we were seriously concerned I was going to die. Which is when we started talking about divorcing so that I could qualify for healthcare.

DH spoke to his parents and, in course of conversation, explained we may be divorcing on paper only in order to get me the medical attention I needed. His parents were very against any such thing and offered to help pay for my doctors visits. For another year, I went to the public health center. Then our state changed their insurance guidelines (Obamacare) and we were able to get coverage through medicaid for a small monthly fee.

So, yeah, divorce for insurance is a thing. So is staying married on paper in order to keep insurance. My uncle did that for a while to keep his STBX wife alive.

In case anyone is wondering, we suspect I did have a small stroke at one point about 3 years ago. After much testing and 3 different doctors, I was finally diagnosed with Hasimoto's (auto immune thyroid disorder) and put on a synthetic replacement thyroid hormone. So far, so good. I might even be off blood pressure meds for good and my heart is behaving itself now.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Why is he not on her level because he doesn't make the same money as her?


He is not satisfying her, sokillme. They both need to be satisfied for the marriage to be healthy long term.


----------



## jld

MJJEAN said:


> You posted as I was typing. I have actually considered this! DH has a good job, but it doesn't offer health insurance because the company is small enough they don't have to. If he took another job, he'd be able to get insurance. However, he'd also take a cut in pay and the additional costs of insurance would be too high for us to be able to meet our other bills.
> 
> Years ago, I had an infected tooth. After the pain and swelling got bad, I went to Urgent Care and paid a fee to see a doctor. My blood pressure was so high, the staff did the readings 3 times on 3 different machines before summoning the doctor. He then proceeded to tell me he was amazed I wasn't having a stroke and to take myself to the ER. I lol'd. An ER visit would bankrupt us.
> 
> For the next year, I had random heart "flutters" sometimes resulting in chest pain, nausea, and dizziness. Since my mom died at 44 from heart and lung failure, we were seriously concerned I was going to die. Which is when we started talking about divorcing so that I could qualify for healthcare.
> 
> DH spoke to his parents and, in course of conversation, explained we may be divorcing on paper only in order to get me the medical attention I needed. His parents were very against any such thing and offered to help pay for my doctors visits. For another year, I went to the public health center. Then our state changed their insurance guidelines (Obamacare) and we were able to get coverage through medicaid for a small monthly fee.
> 
> So, yeah, divorce for insurance is a thing. So is staying married on paper in order to keep insurance. My uncle did that for a while to keep his STBX wife alive.


This would be good on a thread in the Politics and Religion section. Interesting here, too, but might be especially interesting there.

Glad things worked out for you, MJ. Those flutters must have been frightening.


----------



## MJJEAN

sokillme said:


> Why is he not on her level because he doesn't make the same money as her?


He's in a VASTLY different income bracket, likely has made very different professional and social contacts, and on and on. They are no longer the same.

Face it, if he'd been working his dream job and living the lifestyle that income level affords, they'd have been moving in different circles and she'd never even have met him.


----------



## Kivlor

MJJEAN said:


> So, yeah, divorce for insurance is a thing. So is staying married on paper in order to keep insurance. My uncle did that for a while to keep his STBX wife alive.
> 
> In case anyone is wondering, we suspect I did have a small stroke at one point about 3 years ago. After much testing and 3 different doctors, I was finally diagnosed with Hasimoto's (auto immune thyroid disorder) and put on a synthetic replacement thyroid hormone. So far, so good. I might even be off blood pressure meds for good and my heart is behaving itself now.


I've seen people stay "married" for healthcare reasons more than once. Especially when children are involved. 

Glad you're getting the treatment you need finally. Strokes are terrifying things. I'm not scared of a heart-attack (which several family members have died from) it's strokes that frighten me. Watched my stepmom's dad deteriorate for years after a bad one. His long-term memory was great, but his short term memory evaporated. He would just keep repeating the same things. If you were visiting, and went to the restroom, when you came back he would be surprised and say "Hey! When did you sneak in?!" and start the previous conversation over. 

Anyways, I'm glad you didn't suffer any apparent permanent damage like that.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> There have been quite a few threads on TAM in which a man complains that his wife either making less now because she left a high paying job for an easier/dream job, or that the wife is a SAHM who refuses to go back to work. He says that he does not want to be the major breadwinner of the family. He wants his wife to earn to her potential.
> 
> On these threads, the men have gotten support from both the men and women who post on TAM. The idea is that this is not a unilateral decision. Both parties have to come to agreement on things like jobs and earing an income. And people do change in marriage, what might have seemed ok at one point, might not seem ok now. We change/grow as people. Our needs change over time. That is why it is critical for couples to talk about their needs, feelings, etc. And it's why the must pay attention to meeting the other's needs.
> 
> The needs of both spouses are important, not just the needs of one spouse. And discussing one's needs and feelings does not make the person evil.


You conveniently left out the "power" part of the quote. Her husband is not sexy to her anymore because he doesn't have the perceived power he once did. For her making a bunch of money makes him powerful. This is quite shallow in my opinion What would have happened if he worked in an industry that ended up being outsourced, guess she would have dumped him as well. 

In this case, it would be like a man divorcing his wife because she had to get a mastectomy. Doubt everyone would be falling over themselves to protect him. This is why many guys on here are upset. Again it's not like he even expected to make the low level of money. She says that herself. In fact, she is harder on herself than some of the posters on here are. This is why I call them misogynistic because even the poster doesn't blame her husband she thinks she is wrong and wants to change. Yet lots of women here think it is perfectly fine to be this shallow. Yet these same posters hate the Red Pill (which I do to) when it says that many women are shallow. Go on though continue to prove the example. The woman is shallow she even says so herself this is why she asked for help. Shallow is shallow doesn't matter if it is man or woman.

Sadly he made the mistake of marrying a shallow person and also believing her when she said she wasn't shallow.


----------



## Andy1001

Maybe I'm just being naive but this giving up a well paid job to go to college for two years,spend his savings and then earn a fraction of what he used to earn has me baffled.Where I came from he would have been given a kick in the ass and told do your dream job when you have enough money made to live on for the rest of your life and nobody else to worry about.This is an example of people being led to believe they are entitled to be happy at all times and fcuk everyone else.This woman is right in my opinion and she should have shown him the door when he quit his job.


----------



## EllisRedding

sokillme said:


> What would have happened if he worked in an industry that ended up being outsourced, guess she would have dumped him as well.
> .


I was actually wondering this. What if, instead of him making a career move, something happened where he lost his job and was unable to get a job that could quite fill the role of his previous job in terms of money and stature? This is a hypothetical of course, but you would have to guess that the outcome would be the same.


----------



## sokillme

MJJEAN said:


> He's in a VASTLY different income bracket, likely has made very different professional and social contacts, and on and on. They are no longer the same.
> 
> Face it, if he'd been working his dream job and living the lifestyle that income level affords, they'd have been moving in different circles and she'd never even have met him.


OK just confirming that for you and jld here money determines a person worth or status. Funny Red pill says men should earn as much money as possible because that makes them attractive to women. Generally, the thought is women are materialistic. Seems you agree at least tacitly.


----------



## Andy1001

EllisRedding said:


> I was actually wondering this. What if, instead of him making a career move, something happened where he lost his job and was unable to get a job that could quite fill the role of his previous job in terms of money and stature? This is a hypothetical of course, but you would have to guess that the outcome would be the same.


There is a world of difference in losing your job through no fault of your own and giving up a job to "follow a dream".


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Maybe I'm just being naive but this giving up a well paid job to go to college for two years,spend his savings and then earn a fraction of what he used to earn has me baffled.*Where I came from he would have been given a kick in the ass and told do your dream job when you have enough money made to live on for the rest of your life and nobody else to worry about.*This is an example of people being led to believe they are entitled to be happy at all times and fcuk everyone else.This woman is right in my opinion and she should have shown him the door when he quit his job.


She was naive, Andy. But her eyes are being opened.

And the bolded, coming from a man, is certainly a breath of fresh air on this thread.


----------



## EllisRedding

Andy1001 said:


> There is a world of difference in losing your job through no fault of your own and giving up a job to "follow a dream".


Says who? The OP confirmed that she viewed his power and money as sexy. Regardless of how he lost it, he still lost it. I doubt her attraction is that selective to differentiate.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> He is not satisfying her, sokillme. They both need to be satisfied for the marriage to be healthy long term.


And why doesn't he satisfy her, because he doesn't make as much money and have as much status/power. So you also jld tacitly agree with Red Pill. Since you see no problem in her not being satisfied then you should have no problem when they say woman are materialistic. Hell jld you seem to think this is quite reasonable, as you defend her materialism as just kind of normal. 

Here jld you seem to be confirming this hypothis. Maybe you should start posting on there. You would probably agree with a lot of what they say actually.


----------



## Andy1001

sokillme said:


> OK just confirming that for you and jld here money determines a person worth or status. Funny Red pill says men should earn as much money as possible because that makes them attractive to women. Generally, the thought is women are materialistic. Seems you agree at least tacitly.


Of course women are materialistic,it is them who have been conditioned to be the homemaker.If someone's dream is to teach limbo dancing on copacabana beach that's great,it's not going to pay the mortgage though.


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> There is a world of difference in losing your job through no fault of your own and giving up a job to "follow a dream".


Not when they both agreed on it.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> OK just confirming that for you and jld here money determines a person worth or status. Funny Red pill says men should earn as much money as possible because that makes them attractive to women. Generally, the thought is women are materialistic. Seems you agree at least tacitly.


It does not determine anyone's worth. But it is going to be a factor in how comfortably they live.

Funny how no man other than Buddy has directly addressed how he would want his own grown daughter to proceed in this situation. And he said he would want her to divorce.


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> Of course women are materialistic,it is them who have been conditioned to be the homemaker.If someone's dream is to teach limbo dancing on copacabana beach that's great,it's not going to pay the mortgage though.


So do the woman who post on here agree that women are materialistic?


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Not when they both agreed on it.


She is not obligated to stay with him. He is not entitled to her.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Of course women are materialistic,it is them who have been conditioned to be the homemaker.If someone's dream is to teach limbo dancing on copacabana beach that's great,it's not going to pay the mortgage though.


Women are usually practical, especially if they are financially dependent. It is how women have survived.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> And why doesn't he satisfy her, because he doesn't make as much money and have as much status/power. So you also jld tacitly agree with Red Pill. Since you see no problem in her not being satisfied then you should have no problem when they say woman are materialistic. Hell jld you seem to think this is quite reasonable, as you defend her materialism as just kind of normal.
> 
> Here jld you seem to be confirming this hypothis. Maybe you should start posting on there. You would probably agree with a lot of what they say actually.


Sorry, can't relate, sokillme.


----------



## lifeistooshort

sokillme said:


> OK just confirming that for you and jld here money determines a person worth or status. Funny Red pill says men should earn as much money as possible because that makes them attractive to women. Generally, the thought is women are materialistic. Seems you agree at least tacitly.


I don't understand this. Nobody would bat an eye if a gym rat guy married a gym rat woman, and she stopped working out and gained weight after marriage.

Or a woman who gave a lot of oral and then later decided she didn't want to give oral anymore.

Many of the guys would be screaming about a bait and switch and how that's not what he married and he should dump her.

So is it a separate set of rules for mens sex lives?

The issue isn't the money he makes making him a lesser person, it's that she married an ambitious, powerful guy.

That was important to her.....distasteful as it may be to you people are entitled to look for what attracts them. This includes men who just want a hot woman. 

He changed the rules on her.

Why is it perfectly acceptable for men to scope out the hottest woman they can get and then scream if she lets herself go but a woman can't look for money and power if that's what she values?


----------



## Andy1001

sokillme said:


> Not when they both agreed on it.


I've said this before on another thread.Its all about the money.Money=power=influence.
You can sarcastically or sanctimoniously ask does someone's money define their worth or status and the sad fact is it does.If this guy had fifty million in the bank his wife would look at it differently.
But he doesn't and she won't.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> It does not determine anyone's worth. But it is going to be a factor in how comfortably they live.
> 
> Funny how no man other than Buddy has directly addressed how he would want his own grown daughter to proceed in this situation. And he said he would want her to divorce.


I would be horrified if my daughter divorced her husband after they agreed that he was going to go for his dream job. There is no inclination here that money is tight for them by the way. Actually, it sounds like they are making more now. I would feel like I failed if it was because of the shallow reason that he is to sexy because he isn't making big money. I would think I must have raised her wrong that money determines her attraction to people. If you read any of my posts you should know that I would hope I would raise her to pick character and honor. But then I would also feel like a failure as a father if my daughter didn't talk to her husband but wrote to a blog when she was having issues. 

I would also tell my son not to divorce his wife is she put on 30 pounds, or had a mastectomy.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> It does not determine anyone's worth. But it is going to be a factor in how comfortably they live.
> 
> Funny how no man other than Buddy has directly addressed how he would want his own grown daughter to proceed in this situation. And he said he would want her to divorce.


Where does she say they are having money problems? I didn't read any of that. She also doesn't say she isn't comfortable she specifically says she is not attracted. Quit making stuff up.


----------



## jld

Okay, I would like to open the question to mothers of grown daughters. 

If your daughter were in this exact situation, what would you tell her?

Your very own flesh and blood, ladies. What would you want for her?


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> I would be horrified if my daughter divorced her husband after they agreed that he was going to go for his dream job. There is no inclination here that money is tight for them by the way. Actually, it sounds like they are making more now. I would feel like I failed if it was because of the shallow reason that he is to sexy because he isn't making big money. I would think I must have raised her wrong that money determines her attraction to people. If you read any of my posts you should know that I would hope I would raise her to pick character and honor. But then I would also feel like a failure as a father if my daughter didn't talk to her husband but wrote to a blog when she was having issues.
> 
> I would also tell my son not to divorce his wife is she put on 30 pounds, or had a mastectomy.


Do you have an actual grown (21+) daughter?

I am not interested in hypotheticals. I want your very own daughter on the line here.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Okay, I would like to open the question to mothers of grown daughters.
> 
> If your daughter were in this exact situation, what would you tell her?
> 
> Your very own flesh and blood, ladies. What would you want for her?


I would suggest she sign up on TAM and start a thread :grin2:


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Where does she say they are having money problems? I didn't read any of that. She also doesn't say she isn't comfortable she specifically says she is not attracted. Quit making stuff up.


We all have the right to our own definition of "comfortable," sokillme.


----------



## sokillme

lifeistooshort said:


> I don't understand this. Nobody would bat an eye if a gym rat guy married a gym rat woman, and she stopped working out and gained weight after marriage.
> 
> Or a woman who gave a lot of oral and then later decided she didn't want to give oral anymore.
> 
> Many of the guys would be screaming about a bait and switch and how that's not what he married and he should dump her.
> 
> So is it a separate set of rules for mens sex lives?
> 
> The issue isn't the money he makes making him a lesser person, it's that she married an ambitious, powerful guy.
> 
> That was important to her.....distasteful as it may be to you people are entitled to look for what attracts them. This includes men who just want a hot woman.
> 
> He changed the rules on her.
> 
> Why is it perfectly acceptable for men to scope out the hottest woman they can get and then scream if she lets herself go but a woman can't look for money and power if that's what she values?


I don't have any problem with this, but then you are not tying yourself in knots to make him out to make her problem with him to be anything else than here attraction to his power. That obviously was her primary reason for marrying him, even if she didn't realize it. My problem is with the posters on here trying to make it something that is never even mentioned in her post, such as they are suffering financially.

My only point is, admit it. She wants a high powered money maker to take care of her. Lots of women want that. I think it is shallow and really not a good reason to marry someone but it is obvious that lots of women feel that way. Just like lots of men want a woman with a model figure.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> We all have the right to our own definition of "comfortable," sokillme.


Not when she said nothing of comfort, it was attraction that was her problem. You are doing what you usually do which is projection.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Do you have an actual grown (21+) daughter?
> 
> I am not interested in hypotheticals. I want your very own daughter on the line here.


No but I would raise her no different from my own morals.


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> I don't understand this. Nobody would bat an eye if a gym rat guy married a gym rat woman, and she stopped working out and gained weight after marriage.
> 
> Or a woman who gave a lot of oral and then later decided she didn't want to give oral anymore.
> 
> Many of the guys would be screaming about a bait and switch and how that's not what he married and he should dump her.
> 
> So is it a separate set of rules for mens sex lives?
> 
> The issue isn't the money he makes making him a lesser person, it's that she married an ambitious, powerful guy.
> 
> That was important to her.....distasteful as it may be to you people are entitled to look for what attracts them. This includes men who just want a hot woman.
> 
> He changed the rules on her.
> 
> Why is it perfectly acceptable for men to scope out the hottest woman they can get and then scream if she lets herself go but a woman can't look for money and power if that's what she values?


And ultimately, it does not matter what anyone else thinks of it. The two people in the couple are the ones who both have to feel satisfied. Otherwise it is a "duty marriage," I guess.


----------



## MSalmoides

EllisRedding said:


> I would suggest she sign up on TAM and start a thread :grin2:


_Waiting for @GusPolinski to lay down an appropriate gif..._

~MS


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> No but I would raise her no different from my own morals.


Sorry, you don't meet the criteria for the question.


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> I've said this before on another thread.Its all about the money.Money=power=influence.
> You can sarcastically or sanctimoniously does someone's money define their worth or status and the sad fact is it does.If this guy had fifty million in the bank his wife would look at it differently.
> But he doesn't and she won't.


So ladies Andy seems to be advocating the ideas espoused here. Do you agree?


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> Maybe I'm just being naive but this giving up a well paid job to go to college for two years,spend his savings and then earn a fraction of what he used to earn has me baffled.Where I came from he would have been given a kick in the ass and told do your dream job when you have enough money made to live on for the rest of your life and nobody else to worry about.This is an example of people being led to believe they are entitled to be happy at all times and fcuk everyone else.This woman is right in my opinion and she should have shown him the door when he quit his job.


There is no indication that his dream job is not enough to live on. Sounds like he is the type of person that doesn't care about material things. She is the one who does.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

sokillme said:


> I don't have any problem with this, but then you are not tying yourself in knots to make him out to make her problem with him to be anything else than here attraction to his power. That obviously was her primary reason for marrying him, even if she didn't realize it. My problem is with the posters on here trying to make it something that is never even mentioned in her post, such as they are suffering financially.
> 
> My only point is, admit it. She wants a high powered money maker to take care of her. Lots of women want that. I think it is shallow and really not a good reason to marry someone but it is obvious that lots of women feel that way. Just like lots of men want a woman with a model figure.


"Take care of her" in this case means to back her power plays and extended her reach, as opposed to the "keep in casual idle comfort" sense. ie basically "promote her whims" at his expense.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Not when she said nothing of comfort, it was attraction that was her problem. You are doing what you usually do which is projection.


_". . . it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction. I hate myself for it. I hate my sexist, wealthy, materialistic father, who likely instilled these ideals in me."_

_"I hate that I want a more traditional lifestyle with a husband who can provide for me. I hate that I'm not confident enough in myself to have children because I don't think I can be the financial provider and a mother."_

_"I want to be taken care of. I want to pull back at work in order to have a family."_

She is not going to be happy on a schoolteacher's salary, sokillme. Unlikely on twice that or even three times that. She grew up with wealth, is able to provide it herself, and is unlikely to settle for less.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Sorry, you don't meet the criteria for the question.


I get it so my opinion doesn't align with yours so now I don't meet the "criteria". Typical. jld I hope you have never served on a jury.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> _". . . it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction. I hate myself for it. I hate my sexist, wealthy, materialistic father, who likely instilled these ideals in me."_
> 
> _"I hate that I want a more traditional lifestyle with a husband who can provide for me. I hate that I'm not confident enough in myself to have children because I don't think I can be the financial provider and a mother."_
> 
> _"I want to be taken care of. I want to pull back at work in order to have a family."_
> 
> She is not going to be happy on a schoolteacher's salary, sokillme. Unlikely on twice that or even three times that. She grew up with wealth, is able to provide it herself, and is unlikely to settle for less.


I'm living with the exact thing above. 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> I get it so my opinion doesn't align with yours so now I don't meet the "criteria". Typical. jld I hope you have never served on a jury.


You need skin in the game for me to respect your opinion, sokillme. You don't have it. 

Dug just said it is easy to have morals for other people. When it is your own flesh and blood on the line, it can all of a sudden look different.


----------



## MJJEAN

sokillme said:


> You conveniently left out the "power" part of the quote. Her husband is not sexy to her anymore because he doesn't have the perceived power he once did. For her making a bunch of money makes him powerful. This is quite shallow in my opinion What would have happened if he worked in an industry that ended up being outsourced, guess she would have dumped him as well.


It is and isn't about the money. Yes, money is often equated with power. Has been since money was invented. But it is more than that. It's about a certain personality type. She thought he was an ambitious businessperson, just like her. He turned out to be more of a flaky hippie, unlike her. He is literally not the kind of man she thought he was when she agreed to become his wife.



Andy1001 said:


> Maybe I'm just being naive but this giving up a well paid job to go to college for two years,spend his savings and then earn a fraction of what he used to earn has me baffled.Where I came from he would have been given a kick in the ass and told do your dream job when you have enough money made to live on for the rest of your life and nobody else to worry about.This is an example of people being led to believe they are entitled to be happy at all times and fcuk everyone else.This woman is right in my opinion and she should have shown him the door when he quit his job.


I <3 you, Andy! 

Also, please don't get freaked out about all the talk of complications during pregnancy. It's a possibility, but you can't let that be a dark cloud over you while awaiting the birth of your baby girl. Even if there is a complication, don't freak until a doctor tells you to freak. Babies often gratuitously scare the snot out of their parents before birth and many times after.



sokillme said:


> OK just confirming that for you and jld here money determines a person worth or status. Funny Red pill says men should earn as much money as possible because that makes them attractive to women. Generally, the thought is women are materialistic. Seems you agree at least tacitly.


I didn't determine a dang thing. I didn't invent the way of the world. Of course money is deemed to have bearing on a person's worth and status. If it didn't I'd be calling my good friends, the Trumps, and arranging a nice lunch with Putin because he intrigues me. Oh, wait, those people move in vastly different circles and wouldn't give me the time of day....

My husband came from an upper middle class family. Two of his brothers went Ivy League. Both are millionaires many times over. DH went to 3 universities before he realized that he just wasn't cut out to become some white collar businessman and instead became a trucker. I've met his elder brother once. He was nice enough, but we had zero in common. His other elder brother has been to visit a few more times and we've spent time with his family, but again, we don't have much in common. I even tried to bond over all of us being parents, but his brother started talking about what the au pair told them the kids did and I had to suddenly use the rest room. To cry. At that point, I had 3 kids 8 and under and hadn't left the house without at least one of them attached to me in almost a year.

Now, before you say it's all about the money, it isn't.

Although the two older brothers are nearly equally wealthy and close in age, one went out west and is in the entertainment industry and the other stayed on the east coast and worked in the financial sector before he retired in his late 40's. The two elder brothers aren't close because they don't have anything in common, either. Vastly different lifestyles.

So, its part money, part personality type, and part lifestyle. 



sokillme said:


> Not when they both agreed on it.


If I am reading the situation correctly, it appears she agreed to support the family with help from his savings until he graduated and then his income would return to normal or close to it. She specifically mentions that if she'd known how little he'd make, that she'd have to support him, she'd never have married him.



EllisRedding said:


> Says who? The OP confirmed that she viewed his power and money as sexy. Regardless of how he lost it, he still lost it. I doubt her attraction is that selective to differentiate.


I agree. Power and status are a way of being. A way of dressing, moving, behaving. It's all about that certain something and it appears he lost that when he switched careers.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Andy1001 said:


> Of course women are materialistic,it is them who have been conditioned to be the homemaker.If someone's dream is to teach limbo dancing on copacabana beach that's great,it's not going to pay the mortgage though.


"conditioned"? Are they some kind of unthinking victim or animal, incapable of independent thought and analysis?

What's more important (to most of the world)... pursuing your dreams in life, or paying down some of your mortgage (seriously, look up technical origins of the term "mortgage").

A few centuries ago women were considered "non-materialistic" and "more spiritual/compassionate/emotional", which is why many decisions were not left in their hands.......

I think you'll find "materialistic" is the symptom, not the cause.

try "immanent". also check out basic drives like "curiosity" and "jealous" (of other females).


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> _". . . it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction. I hate myself for it. I hate my sexist, wealthy, materialistic father, who likely instilled these ideals in me."_
> 
> _"I hate that I want a more traditional lifestyle with a husband who can provide for me. I hate that I'm not confident enough in myself to have children because I don't think I can be the financial provider and a mother."_
> 
> _"I want to be taken care of. I want to pull back at work in order to have a family."_
> 
> She is not going to be happy on a schoolteacher's salary, sokillme. Unlikely on twice that or even three times that. She grew up with wealth, is able to provide it herself, and is unlikely to settle for less.


I get it she thinks of herself as a modern woman but really her desire is to live like the 50's. jld do you think that most women secretly desire for their men to take care of them financially? Is it ultimately healthy emotionally for a woman to supports a man financially?


----------



## FrenchFry

Kivlor said:


> Yup. That's what I said. All women everywhere. It's an exact quote. /sarc
> 
> I get the feeling I said something that struck a nerve.
> 
> People suck FrenchFry. Not just women.
> 
> PS: I'm a single poser here. I don't have a brigade. I don't organize other posters coming and going. Persecution complex much?


The only nerve you struck is how much these forums suck when instead of trying to figure out relationship problems we get sucked into the clickbait internet outrage MENZ/WOMENZ ****. 

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. If you feel like you can can name all the women on this site who are misandrist, believe me you in in a group that begins with an M as well.

Let me point out the BS and the good.

Hey, this post deals with the individual situation at hand.



> What is shameful is that she hasn't been honest with her H about this. She goes on, pretending that everything is okay, refusing to talk to him about this. It's a recipe for cheating and divorce.
> 
> Of course, her H should have seen this coming. He's a fool for thinking his wife could be relied upon in this kind of way long-term.


*This is baiting gender war garbage. This is rolling around in internet **** and wondering why you stink.*



> This should be a lesson for all those reading: NEVER believe a woman's tripe about feminist ideals and equality. If she spouts that kind of crap, you should assume she is either A) a liar or B) crazy or C) both.
> 
> "Oh, I think it would be a great idea for you to chase your dreams, and gamble our livelihood on it." Yeah right. She's saying that to avoid conflict and to make you think she's in this relationship for reasons other than your wallet.


*This is you acting like you don't know what you are posting:*



> I understand. Kilvor's out to persecute the wimminz with his internet brigade. Carry on with the "It's always the man's fault" "People can disagree you know!" "If you disagree with us you are starting a gender war!" rhetoric. Nothing to see here.


Now, you can continue to do the whole "pat the girl on the head" routine, I don't care. It's just sad because when you aren't raging against the machine your voice might reach a few more people.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I'm living with the exact thing above.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


You could give a direct answer, John. Your own grown daughter in the exact same situation as the OP. What does Dad tell her to do?

Let's get down to brass tacks. Is he dead weight on her? Or would other potential redeeming qualities offset his drawbacks? What does Dad think?


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> You need skin in the game for me to respect your opinion, sokillme. You don't have it.
> 
> Dug just said it is easy to have morals for other people. When it is your own flesh and blood on the line, it can all of a sudden look different.


Do you have a daughter? What would you tell her?


----------



## farsidejunky

Ahem... (this is the second time)



jld said:


> It does not determine anyone's worth. But it is going to be a factor in how comfortably they live.
> 
> Funny how no man other than Buddy has directly addressed how he would want his own grown daughter to proceed in this situation. And he said he would want her to divorce.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Ahem... (this is the second time)


?

This is the second time I am responding with a question mark. I am not inderstanding what you are trying to communicate.


----------



## farsidejunky

Never mind...

I just found out a few posts later that I have no "skin in the game", so my thoughts on this are irrelevant.

ETA: I responded to your question pages ago.



farsidejunky said:


> Ahem... (this is the second time)


----------



## As'laDain

i actually answered the question as well. i said that i would tell my daughter to divorce the guy so that he can find someone that actually cares about him. i would tell her she should not marry again until she decides that she wants to be an actual wife. 

i would also pull the guy aside and tell him to kick my daughter to the curb.


----------



## Kivlor

FrenchFry said:


> The only nerve you struck is how much these forums suck when instead of trying to figure out relationship problems we get sucked into the clickbait internet outrage MENZ/WOMENZ ****.
> 
> Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. If you feel like you can can name all the women on this site who are misandrist, believe me you in in a group that begins with an M as well.
> 
> Let me point out the BS and the good.
> 
> Hey, this post deals with the individual situation at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> *This is baiting gender war garbage. This is rolling around in internet **** and wondering why you stink.*
> 
> 
> 
> *This is you acting like you don't know what you are posting:*
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you can continue to do the whole "pat the girl on the head" routine, I don't care. It's just sad because when you aren't raging against the machine your voice might reach a few more people.


Ohhh, I'm a misogynist! Ohhh, scary... Lookout for Kivlor wimminz...

I know it may be hard to admit, but any man who believes a woman who tells him "Oh, I'm so into you! I promise your wallet has nothing to do with it" or "Please, gamble everything you've built and saved on your dreams, and if things go bad I'm here for us" is a fool. Especially if he's making good money. Her job is irrelevant. It doesn't make women evil. It's just life. It's not a "gender war", it's viable advice, that I would hope you'd give your sons if you ever have/had any. 

And if you're dating a guy and he's carrying on about your amazing personality, he's almost certainly lying. Doubly so if you're a 5+. Increase the odds by several orders of magnitude if alcohol is involved. It's not a gender war. It's how things are. The topic of men hasn't really been addressed, because we're not talking about a man lying to his wife in this thread, we're talking about a wife admitting that she's omitting her concerns from conversation with her H. I shouldn't have to make some weird paragraph completely unrelated to the conversation aimed at criticizing men every time I criticize female behaviors, just to make it clear I'm EEO on my criticism. 

@MJJEAN said it right. Women want security. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But if women want that, then be honest, and drop the whole "YAY Feminism!" bologna. It's counterproductive. And dishonest.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Do you have a daughter? What would you tell her?


I have a 21 year old daughter who I could very clearly see rising to the top of her career. As I alluded to in an earlier post, I would advise her to think hard about other qualities he may have that offset his financial drawbacks. Divorce is not something I would encourage lightly.

It is a gamble. A woman at the top may find herself very lonely. But she cannot pretend a man is at her level if he simply is not.

And if he is not, divorce may be the most humane option for both of them.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Never mind...
> 
> I just found out a few posts later that I have no "skin in the game", so my thoughts on this are irrelevant.
> 
> ETA: I responded to your question pages ago.


You responded to my question mark? 

Sorry. I must have missed it.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I have a 21 year old daughter who I could very clearly see rising to the top of her career. As I alluded to in an earlier post, I would advise her to think hard about other qualities he may have that offset his financial drawbacks. Divorce is not something I would encourage lightly.
> 
> It is a gamble. A woman at the top may find herself very lonely. But she cannot pretend a man is at her level if he simply is not.
> 
> And if he is not, divorce may be the most humane option for both of them.


What if he is a successful firefighter or a school teacher. What determines what her level is. For you is it just financial? What is she decides to work at a nonprofit and she meets a very wealthy man is she then not on his level?


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> i actually answered the question as well. i said that i would tell my daughter to divorce the guy so that he can find someone that actually cares about him. i would tell her she should not marry again until she decides that she wants to be an actual wife.
> 
> i would also pull the guy aside and tell him to kick my daughter to the curb.


You do not have a *grown* daughter. That is the criteria for the question.


----------



## farsidejunky

No. To the question regarding how I would advise my hypothetical daughter in this situation.



jld said:


> You responded to my question mark?
> 
> Sorry. I must have missed it.


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> You do not have a *grown* daughter. That is the criteria for the question.


and you dont have a rich married daughter. your point?

my niece is 17 though. just a few years younger than your daughter. im raising her, so does that count? 

i actually recently told her ex boyfriend that he would be an absolute fool to date her again... 
i told her the same thing. that he would be a fool to date her again.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> What if he is a successful firefighter or a school teacher. What determines what her level is. For you is it just financial? What is she decides to work at a nonprofit and she meets a very wealthy man is she then not on his level?


I want a good deal for my daughter. Whatever man gets her is going to be extremely lucky. I want him to be worthy of her.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> You could give a direct answer, John. Your own grown daughter in the exact same situation as the OP. What does Dad tell her to do?
> 
> Let's get down to brass tacks. Is he dead weight on her? Or would other potential redeeming qualities offset his drawbacks? What does Dad think?



They aren't getting into a relationship with someone who is not sharing the same or similar passion. And they aren't getting into a relationship with someone who thinks work is a hobby or looks for "dream career changes" halfway thru.

I can understand taking career risks. I took a huge risk switching areas between my MA and my PhD. I could be the guy in the article. But the change was well planned and at the end it worked out. But only because I took the time and effort to be ready and keep learning at age 35-40. 

I can understand not taking risks too. I've been courted by a bunch of West coast companies but I'm not interested in killing myself working 80 hour weeks.

Hopefully my girls have learned. 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> You need skin in the game for me to respect your opinion, sokillme. You don't have it.
> 
> Dug just said it is easy to have morals for other people. When it is your own flesh and blood on the line, it can all of a sudden look different.


I raised my cousins. My sisters were under my care as long as I can remember. They all still come to me for advice on life. 

I would, with any of the girls (4 total), tell them that I'm disappointed in them and that they should be honest with their H. And that now that I'm involved, they have a limited amount of time, before I fess up for them. Because I'll not be dragged into their charade, and commit lies of omission for them. I'd offer to help them figure out how to talk to their H about it too, and offer ideas on how to right the ship that is their marriage. 

But I have standards, and ethics, and all that. But what do I know? I've only been teaching, feeding, cleaning, playing with and otherwise caring for children for over 20 years. I'm sure I don't have skin in the game either.


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> and you dont have a rich married daughter. your point?


Not yet. 



> my niece is 17 though. just a few years younger than your daughter. im raising her, so does that count?


You are not her father, Asla. You came into her life within the last year, correct, not having even known her the 17 years previously? 

Sorry. I am interested in answers from john and other actual dads of grown daughters. Lifelong biological investment there.



> i actually recently told her ex boyfriend that he would be an absolute fool to date her again...
> i told her the same thing. that he would be a fool to date her again.


I will take your word for it.


----------



## lifeistooshort

sokillme said:


> Not when they both agreed on it.





sokillme said:


> So ladies Andy seems to be advocating the ideas espoused here. Do you agree?


Women who value power and money look for it, as is their prerogative.

It's not even like i have a dog in this fight.....I'm the higher earner in my house, though certainly not 90/10, and I'm ok with that. 

My hb is a man on many levels.....I just happen to be a nerd in a high paying field. 

My position is only that one should look for what they want and are entitled to be upset if their partner changes the rules after marriage.

I knew exactly what i was getting and I'm still getting something similar.

Seems to me like this guy used his money and power to attract her and then changed things after he married her.

I think she should leave, because it's not fair to either one to live like this. 

They have no kids and can both find a more compatible partner.


----------



## Andy1001

sokillme said:


> I get it she thinks of herself as a modern woman but really her desire is to live like the 50's. jld do you think that most women secretly desire for their men to take care of them financially? Is it ultimately healthy emotionally for a woman to supports a man financially?


I have a girlfriend who is pregnant with my daughter.When she comes of age she will inherit a substantial sum of money.She will never need any man to support her financially.The thought of her subsiding some guy who wants to live his "dream"is giving me a headache.


----------



## sokillme

lifeistooshort said:


> Women who value power and money look for it, as is their prerogative.
> 
> It's not even like i have a dog in this fight.....I'm the higher earner in my house, though certainly not 90/10, and I'm ok with that.
> 
> My hb is a man on many levels.....I just happen to be a nerd in a high paying field.
> 
> My position is only that one should look for what they want and are entitled to be upset if their partner changes the rules after marriage.
> 
> I knew exactly what i was getting and I'm still getting something similar.
> 
> Seems to me like this guy used his money and power to attract her and then changed things after he married her.
> 
> I think she should leave, because it's not fair to either one to live like this.
> 
> They have no kids and can both find a more compatible partner.


The only point I would differ on is that he asked her if it was alright and she agreed. Where they got in trouble is that once he got the career they found out it pays sh!t. She says he is not happy about that. She needs to tell him that she needs him to make more money because she is no longer attracted to him. Just like the guy whose wife has put on 50 pounds needs to tell his wife he is no longer attracted to her. It's up to the spouse then to decide what action they take.


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> Not yet.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not her father, Asla. You came into her life within the last year, correct, not having even known her the 17 years previously?
> 
> Sorry. I am interested in answers from john and other actual dads of grown daughters. Lifelong biological investment there.
> 
> 
> 
> I will take your word for it.


i came into her life five years ago, she has been living with me for over a year now. 

i find it interesting that you would dismiss that out of hand simply because she is not my biological daughter and because i took her on as a teenager. 

i guess adopted kids are not real children to you. 
regardless of how YOU want to label it, she is one of my girls.


----------



## FrenchFry

Kivlor said:


> Ohhh, I'm a misogynist! Ohhh, scary... Lookout for Kivlor wimminz...
> 
> I know it may be hard to admit, but any man who believes a woman who tells him "Oh, I'm so into you! I promise your wallet has nothing to do with it" or "Please, gamble everything you've built and saved on your dreams, and if things go bad I'm here for us" is a fool. Especially if he's making good money. Her job is irrelevant. It doesn't make women evil. It's just life. It's not a "gender war", it's viable advice, that I would hope you'd give your sons if you ever have/had any.
> 
> And if you're dating a guy and he's carrying on about your amazing personality, he's almost certainly lying. Doubly so if you're a 5+. Increase the odds by several orders of magnitude if alcohol is involved. It's not a gender war. It's how things are. The topic of men hasn't really been addressed, because we're not talking about a man lying to his wife in this thread, we're talking about a wife admitting that she's omitting her concerns from conversation with her H. I shouldn't have to make some weird paragraph completely unrelated to the conversation aimed at criticizing men every time I criticize female behaviors, just to make it clear I'm EEO on my criticism.
> 
> @MJJEAN said it right. Women want security. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But if women want that, then be honest, and drop the whole "YAY Feminism!" bologna. It's counterproductive. And dishonest.


You aren't scary. You are an internet illusion. However, in case you ever wonder why you don't get any differing responses than the ones you have received this response is the reason why. It's 100% pointless to engage with you. You are more content to paint with broad brushes than engage in any sort of real manner for the most part. It is tedious to interact with phoniness and internet bravado. Most people write this **** off and carry on with life.
But don't act like you aren't getting responses because of cognitive dissonance or misandry. It's because you don't really want to talk to people.


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> I have a girlfriend who is pregnant with my daughter.When she comes of age she will inherit a substantial sum of money.She will never need any man to support her financially.The thought of her subsiding some guy who wants to live his "dream"is giving me a headache.


Why, what if living his dream means making enough to live a happy responsible life. Seriously if I remember you made your money selling software and you weren't even trying to make big money you just happened to find a niche. Why did you write the software to begin with? was that not your passion. I have read your posts Andy you of all people should understand money doesn't make you happy. Frankly, I could care less how much money someone makes as long as they are responsible. I have met terrible rich people and wonderful poor people. Maybe what you are talking about is not taking care of his financial responsibilities, there is a difference.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I want a good deal for my daughter. Whatever man gets her is going to be extremely lucky. I want him to be worthy of her.


Even though you don't think my opinion matters I would tell my kids to marry someone who has honor and character. She or he will have a happier life and a much safer life. If he or she is rich or powerful or even sexy, all of those things are transitory but honor and character usually are pretty consistent. They are also not dependent on daily circumstances.

I would hope though that my example would have instilled in them an attraction to character, it is absolutely what attracted me to my wife. Yes there were other things but this was the thing that made me want to marry her.


----------



## EllisRedding

Well this thread took an interesting turn ... pretty cool watching someone dictate who can/cannot answer a question, especially as a means of dismissing their opinion :scratchhead: Think I will just sit back and watch how this one plays out :grin2:










I am convinced someone at TAM convinced the lady in the article to make up the whole story since things had been getting stale here lol.


----------



## Andy1001

sokillme said:


> Why, what if living his dream means making enough to live a happy responsible life. Seriously if I remember you made your money selling software and you weren't even trying to make big money you just happened to find a niche. Why did you write the software to begin with? was that not your passion. I have read your posts Andy you of all people should understand money doesn't make you happy. Frankly, I could care less how much money someone makes as long as they are responsible. I have met terrible rich people and wonderful poor people. Maybe what you are talking about is not taking care of his financial responsibilities, there is a difference.


I made my money by developing a system that every person writing here today has used,most of them unknowingly.I bought the gym on a whim but when I developed my software I intended to make money and I made a lot of it.I spent two years living off savings while developing it and you can call it following a dream but if it hadn't worked out I could and would have returned to my previous job.
I do think it is very important for a man to face up to his responsibilities both financially and emotionally,in other words be a man.


----------



## FrenchFry

EllisRedding said:


> Well this thread took an interesting turn ... pretty cool watching someone dictate who can/cannot answer a question, especially as a means of dismissing their opinion :scratchhead: Think I will just sit back and watch how this one plays out :grin2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am convinced someone at TAM convinced the lady in the article to make up the whole story since things had been getting stale here lol.


Nobody is dictating crap. If the question is: why aren't the women of TAM calling this woman out, my response is: what is the ****ing point if the general tone is "This is just how women are!" The women are going to say "Nuh uh," the men are going to go "Yes huh." If this is what TAM is, if this is how we roll (which it seems like it is) you are going to get the same people arguing the same points over and over. What a shocker, this is what has happened.


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> I made my money by developing a system that every person writing here today has used,most of them unknowingly.I bought the gym on a whim but when I developed my software I intended to make money and I made a lot of it.I spent two years living off savings while developing it and you can call it following a dream but if it hadn't worked out I could and would have returned to my previous job.
> I do think it is very important for a man to face up to his responsibilities both financially and emotionally,in other words be a man.


I agree we all should live up to our responsibilities. In a sense though, you did what this guy did, there is no indication that this guy isn't able to financially support this woman, just that they may not be able to live the lifestyle she is now accustom to. Also he doesn't even know she is unhappy. If she had not made a lot of money on her own he probably would have had to quit his job. She is making money and at least from his point of view has not complained. You were lucky in a sense that your dream happens to be in something that is lucrative.

How would you feel if your daughter married a studio musician who say makes $50,000 a year, or a person working in the movie business, or a set designer on broadway. Maybe not making great money but living the dream.


----------



## EllisRedding

FrenchFry said:


> *Nobody is dictating crap*. If the question is: why aren't the women of TAM calling this woman out, my response is: what is the ****ing point if the general tone is "This is just how women are!" The women are going to say "Nuh uh," the men are going to go "Yes huh." If this is what TAM is, if this is how we roll (which it seems like it is) you are going to get the same people arguing the same points over and over. What a shocker, this is what has happened.


Lol at bolded ... Can I still reserve my right to eat popcorn?


----------



## FrenchFry

No.


----------



## EllisRedding

Andy1001 said:


> I do think it is very important for a man to face up to his responsibilities both financially and emotionally,in other words be a man.


Since part of this thread is about discussing perceived gender roles, maybe you can expand further on your comment above in terms of financial responsibility. What constitutes financial responsibility (are there certain levels / amounts / percentages). As it relates to the OP and her H, do you perceive him as not being a "man"?


----------



## As'laDain

EllisRedding said:


> Lol at bolded ... Can I still reserve my right to eat popcorn?


only if your popcorn is fully grown. and has been your popcorn since birth.

if you adopted that popcorn, then get outa here with that crap.


----------



## EllisRedding

FrenchFry said:


> No.


Popcorn buckets are for rookies!


----------



## sokillme

FrenchFry said:


> Nobody is dictating crap. If the question is: why aren't the women of TAM calling this woman out, my response is: what is the ****ing point if the general tone is "This is just how women are!" The women are going to say "Nuh uh," the men are going to go "Yes huh." If this is what TAM is, if this is how we roll (which it seems like it is) you are going to get the same people arguing the same points over and over. What a shocker, this is what has happened.


If this post is triggering you, you should just not read it. Seriously this was posted in the general "discussion" sub. The point is to discuss, hence the name of the sub. I really don't see why you are upset that we don't agree, it really misses the point and is not adding anything to the discussion. The point of the thread and sub is to discuss, not come to a consensus. It's OK if we don't agree, no need to be threatened by it. This is a topic, not us trying to help someone suffering.


----------



## sokillme

EllisRedding said:


> Since part of this thread is about discussing perceived gender roles, maybe you can expand further on your comment above in terms of financial responsibility. What constitutes financial responsibility (are there certain levels / amounts / percentages). As it relates to the OP and her H, do you perceive him as not being a "man"?


This is a good question why in today's society where the zeitgeist seems to be gender is a construct is it the man's responsibility to support the woman?


----------



## FrenchFry

Nothing is triggering me. However, I am a little tired of being nice and polite on this forum while the same vortex of suck keeps on dominating the discourse here and not calling it out. You want more responses and differing opinions maybe--just maybe--we post like it actually matters and quit fighting internet fights.

Or, we can just call each other feminazis and misogynists and make passive agressive marks about people being misandrists and misogynists while posting that all one gender does one thing and all one gender is another. Don't care either way, but I do feel pretty good about calling it out.


----------



## Andy1001

sokillme said:


> I agree we all should live up to our responsibilities. In a sense though, you did what this guy did, there is no indication that this guy isn't able to financially support this woman, just that they may not be able to live the lifestyle she is now accustom to. Also he doesn't even know she is unhappy. If she had not made a lot of money on her own he probably would have had to quit his job. She is making money and at least from his point of view has not complained. You were lucky in a sense that your dream happens to be in something that is lucrative.
> 
> How would you feel if your daughter married a studio musician who say makes $50,000 a year, or a person working in the movie business, or a set designer on broadway. Maybe not making great money but living the dream.


I would tell her to stay away from showbiz people because they're bad news lol.I don't like discussing money on tam because I think I come across as a snotty ******* and I honesty don't mean to.I started an apprenticeship at sixteen and halfway through I was offered another job at ten times the salary,if I elaborate somebody may recognise me.To live where I live,fifty grand a year just will not cut it and if my daughter lives with me until she is eighteen then she will be accustomed to a certain lifestyle and I don't think she should change because of some starving artist.This may seem as some guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth talking siht but when I left home my parents paid my rent for one year and never gave me another cent,every cent I have I earned myself.


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> i came into her life five years ago, she has been living with me for over a year now.
> 
> i find it interesting that you would dismiss that out of hand simply because she is not my biological daughter and because i took her on as a teenager.
> 
> i guess adopted kids are not real children to you.
> regardless of how YOU want to label it, she is one of my girls.


You are 10 or 12 years older than she is, correct?

I am sure she appreciates your taking her in this last year and being an active uncle to her. It has surely made a great difference on her life. 

But no, I do not put your situation in the category of actual fathers of grown daughters. And that is my interest with my question.


----------



## MJJEAN

sokillme said:


> Where does she say they are having money problems? I didn't read any of that. She also doesn't say she isn't comfortable she specifically says she is not attracted. Quit making stuff up.


No, they do not appear to be struggling. However, she clearly said she wants to have a child and does not feel comfortable doing that because his dream job wouldn't be enough to cover the bills. Again, if there are complications during her pregnancy and she cannot work for a time or loses her job altogether, "But he's working his dream job!" isn't acceptable currency to debtors.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> They aren't getting into a relationship with someone who is not sharing the same or similar passion. And they aren't getting into a relationship with someone who thinks work is a hobby or looks for "dream career changes" halfway thru.
> 
> I can understand taking career risks. I took a huge risk switching areas between my MA and my PhD. I could be the guy in the article. But the change was well planned and at the end it worked out. But only because I took the time and effort to be ready and keep learning at age 35-40.
> 
> I can understand not taking risks too. I've been courted by a bunch of West coast companies but I'm not interested in killing myself working 80 hour weeks.
> 
> Hopefully my girls have learned.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


You keep evading the question. I give up.

Buddy answered directly. I hope more fathers (and mothers) of grown daughters chime in. I would like to know what other parents with a lifelong investment in their daughter think about this. I cannot be the only parent of a grown daughter out there with a strong opinion on this subject.


----------



## Kivlor

FrenchFry said:


> Nobody is dictating crap. If the question is: why aren't the women of TAM calling this woman out, my response is: what is the ****ing point if the general tone is "This is just how women are!" The women are going to say "Nuh uh," the men are going to go "Yes huh." If this is what TAM is, if this is how we roll (which it seems like it is) you are going to get the same people arguing the same points over and over. What a shocker, this is what has happened.


Swing and a miss. He wasn't talking about K1vl0r, H8r of w0m1nz. 

I haven't dictated who can and cannot answer my questions....


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> I would tell her to stay away from showbiz people because they're bad news lol.I don't like discussing money on tam because I think I come across as a snotty ******* and I honesty don't mean to.I started an apprenticeship at sixteen and halfway through I was offered another job at ten times the salary,if I elaborate somebody may recognise me.To live where I live,fifty grand a year just will not cut it and if my daughter lives with me until she is eighteen then she will be accustomed to a certain lifestyle and I don't think she should change because of some starving artist.This may seem as some guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth talking siht but when I left home my parents paid my rent for one year and never gave me another cent,every cent I have I earned myself.


Seems your gift was computers, what if your gift had been playing piano, or writing music instead of code. Seriously the thing admirable in what you did was that you were persistent and made the most of your gift, not the amount of money you earned. Seeing yourself as valuable because of you earning power is a trap. You happened to born in a time where your gift translated into money, yes, but you were smart enough to take advantage of your gift and make money, that is impressive. 

As far as your daughter's lifestyle I agree to a point, it could lead to trouble. However, it's not your decision to make. I think you would do better to teach her to look for character and don't worry about the money. 

PS if you made the plug in that formats this site to fit iOS then you ripped people off. >


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> You are 10 or 12 years older than she is, correct?
> 
> I am sure she appreciates your taking her in this last year and being an active uncle to her. It has surely made a great difference on her life.
> 
> But no, I do not put your situation in the category of actual fathers of grown daughters. And that is my interest with my question.


thats ok. you barely fall into your own category. 

it seems more likely that you created a category so that you can dismiss the responses that you don't agree with while simultaneously calling people out for not answering your question. 

it doesn't look like you actually want dialogue or discussion. it seems more likely that you want to manipulate the course of the discussion by excluding dissenters so that you can "win".


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I have a girlfriend who is pregnant with my daughter.When she comes of age she will inherit a substantial sum of money.She will never need any man to support her financially.The thought of her subsiding some guy who wants to live his "dream"is giving me a headache.


It gives me a stomachache.

But to each their own. We are all entitled to our own values.


----------



## FrenchFry

Kivlor said:


> Swing and a miss. He wasn't talking about *K1vl0r, H8r of w0m1nz. *
> 
> I haven't dictated who can and cannot answer my questions....


You know I can edit your sig line, right?


----------



## sokillme

FrenchFry said:


> Nothing is triggering me. However, I am a little tired of being nice and polite on this forum while the same vortex of suck keeps on dominating the discourse here and not calling it out. You want more responses and differing opinions maybe--just maybe--we post like it actually matters and quit fighting internet fights.
> 
> Or, we can just call each other feminazis and misogynists and make passive agressive marks about people being misandrists and misogynists while posting that all one gender does one thing and all one gender is another. Don't care either way, but I do feel pretty good about calling it out.


This point is just you complaining again. If you have a point to make, just make your point, who says you have to be sweet about it. Do I seem nice to you? You don't seem that nice either. I used the word misandrist here because there are one or two posters here who take every subject and turn it into "this is the mans fault". If you read here more then a week I think you should be able to figure out who they are. 

Yes there are also men on here who basically think lots of woman are gold diggers, does this may make them misogynists? Maybe? I have a much bigger problem with the male posters who think that woman are not capable of being their intellectual or moral equals. To me this is what makes them misogynists. There ARE a lot of gold diggers out there, there are also a lot of men out there who are pigs too.


----------



## Kivlor

FrenchFry said:


> You know I can edit your sig line, right?


I was considering editing mine. >


----------



## Andy1001

EllisRedding said:


> Since part of this thread is about discussing perceived gender roles, maybe you can expand further on your comment above in terms of financial responsibility. What constitutes financial responsibility (are there certain levels / amounts / percentages). As it relates to the OP and her H, do you perceive him as not being a "man"?


I can only speak for myself here.
I was brought up to think that a mans first and most important responsibility was to his partner and his children.Anything else came a very poor second.I have a real problem with men who abandon their children or who fight over every penny they have to pay in child support or alimony.It seems to me that their attitude is,well my first attempt at having a family didn't work out but surely I'm not expected to pay for it,I'll do better next time.When I hear of men going off to "live the dream" or,god save us "find themselves" I feel like puking.
I will also admit that my girlfriend is pregnant with my daughter and maybe that has skewed my opinion a little.


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> thats ok. you barely fall into your own category.
> 
> it seems more likely that you created a category so that you can dismiss the responses that you don]t agree with while simultaneously calling people out for not answering your question.
> 
> it doesn't look like you actually want dialogue or discussion. it seems more likely that you want to manipulate the course of the discussion by excluding dissenters so that you can "win".


What would I "win"?

Asla, when my oldest child was 7, I saw some things differently than I do now. Things can change over the decades of being a parent.

I am very interested in hearing from parents of actual grown children. My daughter has always been a high achiever and just got her "dream job" with a major corporation. This young woman's situation does not seem implausible to me at all. 

I know there are other parents here in similar circumstances, like John. Their opinions are going to carry more weight with me than parents of young kids. We are not all in the same parenting place, age or experience wise. 

Yes, I am "honing in" on my group. It is not any different than other people here who ask for input only from people who meet certain qualifications.

I think this situation looks different when it could potentially be your very own child we are talking about. It is that sincerity and immediacy I am looking for.


----------



## sokillme

MJJEAN said:


> No, they do not appear to be struggling. However, she clearly said she wants to have a child and does not feel comfortable doing that because his dream job wouldn't be enough to cover the bills. Again, if there are complications during her pregnancy and she cannot work for a time or loses her job altogether, "But he's working his dream job!" isn't acceptable currency to debtors.


Except her main point was that she was no longer sexually attracted to him because of his lack of "power". This seems to be where I and most of the men here have a problem or not even a problem, but more are highlighting. Again this is what Red Pill always preaches "never stop earning money because if you do she will lose her attraction to you". Alpha's get their status and attraction from earning power, and muscles:wtf:. The women's movement was supposed to eliminate the money equals status idea because women could earn their own money, this is what today's man is being taught. The biggest problem is she sold him on the idea that she didn't' care what he made because she was a modern woman. This is where the real bait and switch was. If he had known she care so much about his "power" he may not have married her knowing he wanted to pursue a low-paying career which was his dream. She even says that these feelings disturb her because she knows this is not who she thought she was. The point is she is the one who changed not him, she agreed to let him pursue his dream, she could have said no. I am sure in his mind he thought she wouldn't care, because she said so, she is a modern woman who can earn her own, hear her roar.


----------



## Andy1001

EllisRedding said:


> Since part of this thread is about discussing perceived gender roles, maybe you can expand further on your comment above in terms of financial responsibility. What constitutes financial responsibility (are there certain levels / amounts / percentages). As it relates to the OP and her H, do you perceive him as not being a "man"?


Maybe I can ask you a question.Is it acceptable to you that the woman in question has to lower her standard of living,maybe work a few years longer or even not have children because her husband wants to live his dream.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> What would I "win"?
> 
> Asla, when my oldest child was 7, I saw some things differently than I do now. Things can change over the decades of being a parent.
> 
> I am very interested in hearing from parents of actual grown children. My daughter has always been a high achiever and just got her "dream job" with a major corporation. This young woman's situation does not seem implausible to me at all.
> 
> I know there are other parents here in similar circumstances, like John. Their opinions are going to carry more weight with me than parents of young kids. We are not all in the same parenting place, age or experience wise.
> 
> Yes, I am "honing in" on my group. It is not any different than other people here who ask for input only from people who meet certain qualifications.
> 
> I think this situation looks different when it could potentially be your very own child we are talking about. It is that sincerity and immediacy I am looking for.


What about your son jld? What would you tell him if his wife made more than him, or if he just wanted to be a school teacher but fell in love with say a high powered lawyer?


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> Maybe I can ask you a question.Is it acceptable to you that the woman in question has to lower her standard of living,maybe work a few years longer or even not have children because her husband wants to live his dream.



How about you Andy, what if the roles were reversed is it acceptable for a woman to be a stay at home mom because it is her dream even if it means her husband has to retire later?


----------



## Andy1001

sokillme said:


> How about you Andy, what if the roles were reversed is it acceptable for a woman to be a stay at home mom because it is her dream even if it means her husband has to retire later?


If you are directing that question to me personally then I will be delighted if my gf wants to be a sahm.
However, I know that most families can't manage on one income but I honestly believe if at all possible that children should be with one of their parents up to school age.Again I know that isn't always possible but you asked for MY opinion.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> What about your son jld? What would you tell him if his wife made more than him, or if he just wanted to be a school teacher but fell in love with say a high powered lawyer?


I explained in an earlier post what I would tell my son if he found himself in the situation in the OP (post #416):


_I also have four sons. If my son were in this situation, I would gently tell him that he may not be able to satisfy his wife. It may be best if he take honest account of what he can reasonably offer her (not only financially) and ask himself if she were his daughter instead of his wife, would he, as her father and trusted advisor, find the offer sufficient._

As to your question above . . .

Some women are truly career women. They do not want, and never will want, children. However . . . 

Things can change. And quickly.

I am telling my boys they need to seriously consider being able to support their families by themselves. If she wants to work, for whatever period of time, that is a plus. 

But it is prudent to base a life plan on one income. And it is likely going to be his. He would be wise to keep that in mind when choosing his life's work.


----------



## EllisRedding

Andy1001 said:


> Maybe I can ask you a question.Is it acceptable to you that the woman in question has to lower her standard of living,maybe work a few years longer or even not have children because her husband wants to live his dream.


Before I answer, I would throw back at you, would it be acceptable if the roles were reversed?

Now, and for some reason some people keep glossing over, in the case of the OP, they AGREED to this. The H didn't unilaterally decide he was going after his dream job. Did they both f$ck up, most likely, but once again it was THEIR f$ck up, not his. All indications from the OP post is that her H is doing everything possible to contribute more:



> He's doing everything in his power to make more of a financial contribution, but his fruitless attempts haven't pulled me out of this rut.


Now, if you told me he was just sitting on his as$ and didn't care, that is another story. All we can get from the OPs post was that THEY agreed to this change, neither one either really thought it out or truly comprehended what the potential consequences were.

At this point they should simply go their separate way


----------



## Andy1001

EllisRedding said:


> Before I answer, I would throw back at you, would it be acceptable if the roles were reversed?
> 
> Now, and for some reason some people keep glossing over, in the case of the OP, they AGREED to this. The H didn't unilaterally decide he was going after his dream job. Did they both f$ck up, most likely, but once again it was THEIR f$ck up, not his. All indications from the OP post is that her H is doing everything possible to contribute more:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if you told me he was just sitting on his as$ and didn't care, that is another story. All we can get from the OPs post was that THEY agreed to this change, neither one either really thought it out or truly comprehended what the potential consequences were.
> 
> At this point they should simply go their separate way


I agree, they need to separate at least and probably divorce.


----------



## TheTruthHurts

jld said:


> It does not determine anyone's worth. But it is going to be a factor in how comfortably they live.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how no man other than Buddy has directly addressed how he would want his own grown daughter to proceed in this situation. And he said he would want her to divorce.




I didnt read the trashy article but TAM has certainly argued it well enough to get the gist of it,
@jld first I would applaud my daughter for supporting her H's decision to pursue a worthwhile career, particularly if it made him - and Her by extension - happy. Second, I would help my daughter save and invest her hard earned dollars, and advise she downsize and live well below her means so she can reap the rewards of her career. Finally I would help design a life plan that allows her to have a fulfilling role - as SATM or part time consultant - so she and her happy H can give me grandkids.

That's the plan I followed. It took this long in this thread for me to realize I followed OP's H's path. I left a lucrative gig and career path to C-level executive (CFO or CIO) to focus on family. My friends and peers sit in those roles now. I, on the other hand, have 5 amazing kids, a wonderful wife, and got to watch my kids grow up.

When I was diagnosed with C I had my final confirmation that I actually had not made any sacrifice at all - I had only made the best decision for me and my family.

So I am serious about what I would advise my daughter. Live below your means, save what you can, and enjoy life and your family.

You can't take money to the grave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme

EllisRedding said:


> Before I answer, I would throw back at you, would it be acceptable if the roles were reversed?
> 
> Now, and for some reason some people keep glossing over, in the case of the OP, they AGREED to this. The H didn't unilaterally decide he was going after his dream job. Did they both f$ck up, most likely, but once again it was THEIR f$ck up, not his. All indications from the OP post is that her H is doing everything possible to contribute more:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if you told me he was just sitting on his as$ and didn't care, that is another story. All we can get from the OPs post was that THEY agreed to this change, neither one either really thought it out or truly comprehended what the potential consequences were.
> 
> At this point they should simply go their separate way


See now here is where I disagree, and I am one who advocates for divorce when it comes to cheating almost always. I am not pro divorce however and in this case I think she should just tell him and see what he does. Let him decide what i more important. If he loves her maybe he changes his work a little and goes back to the career where he can make more money. 

A lot of it has to do with what kind of job he has, there are a lot of honorable professions where the person may not make a huge amount of money but may gain great respect. If he has one of these jobs and she just is materialistic than that isn't a good sign. If he is a sculptor then he may want to rethink it. Not that being a sculptor is a bad thing but it may not be something most can make a living at.


----------



## jld

TheTruthHurts said:


> I didnt read the trashy article but TAM has certainly argued it well enough to get the gist of it,
> @jld first I would applaud my daughter for supporting her H's decision to pursue a worthwhile career, particularly if it made him - and Her by extension - happy. Second, *I would help my daughter save and invest her hard earned dollars, and advise she downsize and live well below her means so she can reap the rewards of her career. Finally I would help design a life plan that allows her to have a fulfilling role - as SATM or part time consultant - so she and her happy H can give me grandkids.*
> 
> That's the plan I followed. It took this long in this thread for me to realize I followed OP's H's path. I left a lucrative gig and career path to C-level executive (CFO or CIO) to focus on family. My friends and peers sit in those roles now. I, on the other hand, have 5 amazing kids, a wonderful wife, and got to watch my kids grow up.
> 
> When I was diagnosed with C I had my final confirmation that I actually had not made any sacrifice at all - I had only made the best decision for me and my family.
> 
> So I am serious about what I would advise my daughter. *Live below your means, save what you can, *and enjoy life and your family.
> 
> You can't take money to the grave.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think the bolded is a very practical plan--if she wants to stay married. Could you address that part of this young woman's dilemma?

Also, are your daughters in their 20s or 30s? I am guessing so since you have been married over 30 years, correct? 

And your youngest two are male twins, age 18? I think I remember reading that.


----------



## Blondilocks

How this thread got to 37 pages on so little data is amazing.


----------



## Cosmos

TheTruthHurts said:


> I didnt read the trashy article but TAM has certainly argued it well enough to get the gist of it,
> @jld first I would applaud my daughter for supporting her H's decision to pursue a worthwhile career, particularly if it made him - and Her by extension - happy. Second, I would help my daughter save and invest her hard earned dollars, and advise she downsize and live well below her means so she can reap the rewards of her career. Finally I would help design a life plan that allows her to have a fulfilling role - as SATM or part time consultant - so she and her happy H can give me grandkids.
> 
> That's the plan I followed. It took this long in this thread for me to realize I followed OP's H's path. I left a lucrative gig and career path to C-level executive (CFO or CIO) to focus on family. My friends and peers sit in those roles now. I, on the other hand, have 5 amazing kids, a wonderful wife, and got to watch my kids grow up.
> 
> When I was diagnosed with C I had my final confirmation that I actually had not made any sacrifice at all - I had only made the best decision for me and my family.
> 
> So I am serious about what I would advise my daughter. Live below your means, save what you can, and enjoy life and your family.
> 
> You can't take money to the grave.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You would help and advise your daughter this way because you are obviously a responsible, loving, sound parent. The woman in the article, however, appears to have been reared with some very skewed values and your type of thinking would likely be very alien to her...

It's good that this couple don't have children, though, and hopefully she will find a little more undertanding of life, humanity and relationships before deciding to have any.


----------



## jld

Blondilocks said:


> How this thread got to 37 pages on so little data is amazing.


It is bringing up our deepest values, and tapping into our love for our kids. How could it be a short thread?

I think it is a fascinating discussion. I wish it would be more serious and heartfelt, though.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> It is bringing up our deepest values, and tapping into our love for our kids. How could it be a short thread?*
> 
> I think it is a fascinating discussion. I wish it would be more serious and heartfelt, though.*


It certainly is a very interesting topic and, like several others here, I have a lot more that I would like to add on the subject. However, any genuine attempt at a serious discussion on TAM seems to be mainly a waste of time.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> It certainly is a very intereting topic and, like several others here, I have a lot more that I would like to add on the subject. However, any genuine attempt at a serious discussion on TAM seems to be mainly a waste of time.


You are a lovely lady, Cosmos, and always offer something interesting to think about. 

I, for one, would love to hear more about what you think. It is always good to hear heartfelt views, whether there is agreement or not. That is how we can learn.


----------



## EllisRedding

sokillme said:


> See now here is where I disagree, and I am one who advocates for divorce when it comes to cheating almost always. I am not pro divorce however and in this case I think she should just tell him and see what he does. Let him decide what i more important. If he loves her maybe he changes his work a little and goes back to the career where he can make more money.
> 
> A lot of it has to do with what kind of job he has, there are a lot of honorable professions where the person may not make a huge amount of money but may gain great respect. If he has one of these jobs and she just is materialistic than that isn't a good sign. If he is a sculptor then he may want to rethink it. Not that being a sculptor is a bad thing but it may not be something most can make a living at.


I do agree, she should talk to him. I just gather from the tone of her post that the attraction is gone, and it will be tough living in a marriage knowing how fragile her attraction to him is, all dependent on the wealth and power he exhibits.


----------



## MJJEAN

sokillme said:


> The women's movement was supposed to eliminate the money equals status idea because women could earn their own money, this is what today's man is being taught.


Yeah, well, here's what really happened. Women became more independent and more powerful. Then they no longer had to settle, so such women began to expect more from men. Remember, either be her equal or her superior, anything else is less.


----------



## lifeistooshort

sokillme said:


> The only point I would differ on is that he asked her if it was alright and she agreed. Where they got in trouble is that once he got the career they found out it pays sh!t. She says he is not happy about that. She needs to tell him that she needs him to make more money because she is no longer attracted to him. Just like the guy whose wife has put on 50 pounds needs to tell his wife he is no longer attracted to her. It's up to the spouse then to decide what action they take.


I agree that if she hasn't told him directly that she's not happy or attracted to him that conversation needs to happen now, before she meets a guy who does.

And it will happen. She may or may not act on it, but we all know that when you're not attracted to your spouse that need is open to be filled. 

He clearly knows she's unhappy if he's trying to find ways to make a little more, but maybe he's nor clear on how bad it is.

Even though she agreed, in life we need to reevaluate our decisions from time to time to see if they're working for us.

Even if they did work at one time they may not continue to work. 

We all have to balance what we want with what makes our spouse happy. If I decided it was my dream to pursue Ironmans and my hb said ok, then it killed my sex drive, it certainly wouldn't be fair to tell him that he agreed to it so suck it up. It wound be an unforseen consequence that would need to be addressed.


----------



## jld

MJJEAN said:


> Yeah, well, here's what really happened. Women became more independent and more powerful. Then they no longer had to settle, so such women began to expect more from men. Remember, either be her equal or her superior, anything else is *less*.


I would change the bolded to "not worth it."

Jmho.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

sokillme said:


> I get it she thinks of herself as a modern woman but really her desire is to live like the 50's. jld do you think that most women secretly desire for their men to take care of them financially? Is it ultimately healthy emotionally for a woman to supports a man financially?


I have found that most women do not desire that. Most seem to be more interested in getting on with their own things - having a man for a "support" is means to ends and/or part of the "rules" that they're expected to keep up with from the other women.


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> I agree that if she hasn't told him directly that she's not happy or attracted to him that conversation needs to happen now, before she meets a guy who does.
> 
> And it will happen. She may or may not act on it, but we all know that when you're not attracted to your spouse that need is open to be filled.
> 
> *He clearly knows she's unhappy if he's trying to find ways to make a little more, but maybe he's nor clear on how bad it is.*
> 
> Even though she agreed, in life we need to reevaluate our decisions from time to time to see if they're working for us.
> 
> Even if they did work at one time they may not continue to work.
> 
> We all have to balance what we want with what makes our spouse happy. If I decided it was my dream to pursue Ironmans and my hb said ok, then it killed my sex drive, it certainly wouldn't be fair to tell him that he agreed to it so suck it up. It wound be an unforseen consequence that would need to be addressed.


Don't you think it would be strange if he has not tried to talk to her about it? 

If he is scared to, and she senses that, it is likely making him even less attractive to her.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> You keep evading the question. I give up.
> 
> Buddy answered directly. I hope more fathers (and mothers) of grown daughters chime in. I would like to know what other parents with a lifelong investment in their daughter think about this. I cannot be the only parent of a grown daughter out there with a strong opinion on this subject.


I've answered.

If the dream is viable maybe. If it is noble maybe. If its owning a bar or some other such, no.

I'll remind y'all that we really took a risk pursuing our dream of having the magic acronym after our name. Industry does not like to overpay so we knew it could backfire and we'd be teaching at the University of Phoenix. 

DD1 tried dating the millionaire kid for five years. At the end he was not her intellectual equal. Design is a harsh business. Now she's got design guy and it's a match made in heaven, even counting the fact that neither of them will ever make the kind of money their education would make you think they should be earning...

But I would be rather unapproving if he decides to join an artist colony in Eugene Oregon or some such...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme

MJJEAN said:


> Yeah, well, here's what really happened. Women became more independent and more powerful. Then they no longer had to settle, so such women began to expect more from men. Remember, either be her equal or her superior, anything else is less.


Did they? Equal and superior is subjective for some people your job has very little to do with that. Remember unless you're Edison it never says, was the best Pharmaceutical Rep. on your tombstone. Most people don't care, and sure won't when you are gone. Hell your company won't in 20 years, all you get is a plate and a retirement party. What a waste of a life. 

I will say this if a woman is attracted to a man because of is power, it's good that that is out in the open so he judge accordingly.

I would take a fireman, or woman over most American office jobs by far.

I used to have one of those jobs made more money then I do now, I do good now, then I did better. I hated it, it was stupid and useless I made very little difference on the planet. Now I work in education and everyday what I do counts. Money and the pursuit of money is a trap, and equating money to value is an even bigger trap. I am rarely impressed by quote unquote powerful people who push papers. There jobs are silly and make no difference in the world really, unless you are talking about supporting ones family.


----------



## sokillme

lifeistooshort said:


> I agree that if she hasn't told him directly that she's not happy or attracted to him that conversation needs to happen now, before she meets a guy who does.
> 
> And it will happen. She may or may not act on it, but we all know that when you're not attracted to your spouse that need is open to be filled.
> 
> He clearly knows she's unhappy if he's trying to find ways to make a little more, but maybe he's nor clear on how bad it is.
> 
> Even though she agreed, in life we need to reevaluate our decisions from time to time to see if they're working for us.
> 
> Even if they did work at one time they may not continue to work.
> 
> We all have to balance what we want with what makes our spouse happy. If I decided it was my dream to pursue Ironmans and my hb said ok, then it killed my sex drive, it certainly wouldn't be fair to tell him that he agreed to it so suck it up. It wound be an unforseen consequence that would need to be addressed.


A bigger fear for her might be what happens when she meets another powerful man commits to him and then and even more powerful man comes into the picture. This would seem to be a problem since power is her main attraction. I equate this to falling in love with a woman because she is young and has great beauty. Eventually this will change, same goes for the powerful job. This is why it is shallow. You are basing your attraction on sand.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> I get it she thinks of herself as a modern woman but really her desire is to live like the 50's. jld do you think that most women secretly desire for their men to take care of them financially? Is it ultimately healthy emotionally for a woman to supports a man financially?


I think I missed this question earlier, sokillme. Sorry about that.

I think different women are different on this. Some are true career women. They are not going to be happy without pursuing an exciting career of some kind. They are often high achievers, and ambitious right from the get go.

Other women are not. They know right away they want to be home. A possible job for them may just be a way to help pay the bills, nothing more.

And of course plenty of women are in between.

I would not want my daughter to support a man financially, unless it was good for her in some significant way, as I suggested yesterday when my daughter was talking about doing a MD/PhD program. I thought that was a realistic way for her to have a family as well as devoting sufficient time to that particular career field.

I think it is risky for women to support men. Those women are likely helping an awful lot at home, too. Plus they will be the ones going through pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding. That feels lopsided to me. But if they are happy with it, more power to them.

I do cringe when I hear about men who are at home with a wife at work, especially when the kids are, say, high school age, though. I hope those women are not being taken advantage of.

I think women work very, very hard in life. They give greatly of themselves in their relationships, and in just about every other way. 

Nearly every woman I have ever known is like that, anyway. I want a better deal for women going forward than what most women have gotten in the past.

Jmho, obviously.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> A bigger fear for her might be what happens when she meets another powerful man commits to him and then and even more powerful man comes into the picture. This would seem to be a problem since power is her main attraction. I equate this to falling in love with a woman because she is young and has great beauty. Eventually this will change, same goes for the powerful job. This is why it is shallow. You are basing your attraction on sand.


Money can grow and grow and grow, long after you have earned it.

Beauty just fades.


----------



## jld

spotthedeaddog said:


> I have found that most women do not desire that. Most seem to be more interested in getting on with their own things - having a man for a "support" is means to ends and/or part of the "rules" that they're expected to keep up with from the other women.


That whole keeping up with other women idea seems nuts to me. My friends are not like that. I do not care about their handbags or cosmetics or anything like that, and I am sure they don't, either.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Money can grow and grow and grow, long after you have earned it.
> 
> Beauty just fades.


So from a guys point of view who is into the beauty then it makes sense for him to move on right?


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I think I missed this question earlier, sokillme. Sorry about that.
> 
> I think different women are different on this. Some are true career women. They are not going to be happy without pursuing an exciting career of some kind. They are often high achievers, and ambitious right from the get go.
> 
> Other women are not. They know right away they want to be home. A possible job for them may just be a way to help pay the bills, nothing more.
> 
> And of course plenty of women are in between.
> 
> I would not want my daughter to support a man financially, unless it was good for her in some significant way, as I suggested yesterday when my daughter was talking about doing a MD/PhD program. I thought that was a realistic way for her to have a family as well as devoting sufficient time to that particular career field.
> 
> I think it is risky for women to support men. Those women are likely helping an awful lot at home, too. Plus they will be the ones going through pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding. That feels lopsided to me. But if they are happy with it, more power to them.
> 
> I do cringe when I hear about men who are at home with a wife at work, especially when the kids are, say, high school age, though. I hope those women are not being taken advantage of.
> 
> I think women work very, very hard in life. They give greatly of themselves in their relationships, and in just about every other way.
> 
> Nearly every woman I have ever known is like that, anyway. I want a better deal for women going forward than what most women have gotten in the past.
> 
> Jmho, obviously.


In your opinion what is in it for the man?


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I've answered.
> 
> If the dream is viable maybe. If it is noble maybe. If its owning a bar or some other such, no.
> 
> I'll remind y'all that we really took a risk pursuing our dream of having the magic acronym after our name. Industry does not like to overpay so we knew it could backfire and we'd be teaching at the University of Phoenix.
> 
> DD1 tried dating the millionaire kid for five years. At the end he was not her intellectual equal. Design is a harsh business. Now she's got design guy and it's a match made in heaven, even counting the fact that neither of them will ever make the kind of money their education would make you think they should be earning...
> 
> But I would be rather unapproving if he decides to join an artist colony in Eugene Oregon or some such...
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


John, I am not talking about the gal in the OP four years ago. I am saying right now, when her husband is in his dream job and her resentment is growing by the day. What do you tell her right now, this very minute? Remember, she has lost her attraction.

And, perhaps more interestingly, what would you say to *him*?


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> In your opinion what is in it for the man?


The pleasure of her companionship. The opportunity to reproduce with her.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> So from a guys point of view who is into the beauty then it makes sense for him to move on right?


I have told my boys to avoid those girls like the plague. I also told them that if they don't, they deserve whatever comes from it.

If you are smart, young men, you will _Look beyond the packaging!_


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I have told my boys to avoid those girls like the plague. I also told them that if they don't, they deserve whatever comes from it.
> 
> If you are smart, young men, you will _Look beyond the packaging!_


Yet you have no problem telling your daughter to look for money and power.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> The pleasure of her companionship. The opportunity to reproduce with her.


Don't take this the wrong way but you are almost pathological in your lack of empathy for men.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> John, I am not talking about the gal in the OP four years ago. I am saying right now, when her husband is in his dream job and her resentment is growing by the day. What do you tell her right now, this very minute? Remember, she has lost her attraction.
> 
> And, perhaps more interestingly, what would you say to *him*?


If the plans were made bilaterally and were agreed upon and understood by both sides, not much. I would not be forthcoming with any help tho. 

If the plans are temporary due to layoff etc I would be understanding and trying to help if asked.

If it was unilateral and permanent, such things would not be acceptable and the future would not bode well.



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Yet you have no problem telling your daughter to look for money and power.


I am not telling her to look for it. But she has to be aware of it, and discerning.

And she will be. She is a smart, stable young woman.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Don't take this the wrong way but you are almost pathological in your lack of empathy for men.


My boys and my husband feel quite loved by me, sokillme. They would laugh at your statement above.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> If the plans were made bilaterally and were agreed upon and understood by both sides, not much. I would not be forthcoming with any help tho.
> 
> If the plans are temporary due to layoff etc I would be understanding and trying to help if asked.
> 
> If it was unilateral and permanent, such things would not be acceptable and the future would not bode well.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


What does it take to get a direct answer from you, john? 

Did you read the OP, by chance?

If you do, and you could give a brief monologue of what specifically you would say to her (_"Daughter, I would advise you to . . . "_), I would be interested in hearing it.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Let's not forget that everyone has standards and that's normal or we'd all settled for the first opportunity we got. 

Different people have different standards.

My hb doesn't have to make a ton of money but I do need him to contribute enough to make me feel safe and secure. True with my current job I could take care of myself but the feeling of safety with our man is so important to most of us women. 

I'm not even sure I could give an absolute answer as to what it takes, I just know I feel safe with him and I would not feel safe if I was paying 90 percent of the bills.

This woman doesn't feel safe with her hb. She feels like the burden is on her.

I don't think biologically women are wired for this. True we can work and contribute, and as I make more I have no issue paying for more, but our difference isn't so much that I feel unsafe.

I imagine men can feel like this.....I always thought that when my hb lost his job it was a secure feeling for him to know I still had a job. But maybe that's not how men see it? I honestly don't know, but I was happy I could help keep the finances smooth.

So maybe it's not all about the money for her....maybe she maybe she just doesn't feel safe and secure with him. It might not take him going back to what he was doing.....him getting to a point where if she has a baby and suffers complications she won't be pressured to return to work right away. 

I've had two difficult pregnancies involving bed rest and childbirth injuries. It can and does happen and is difficult to recover from. I can't imagine what could make me respect my hb less than if I'd just been injured having his child and I had to get my butt back to work right away because he had his dream job that didn't pay squat.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> What does it take to get a direct answer from you, john?
> 
> Did you read the OP, by chance?
> 
> If you do, and you could give a brief monologue of what specifically you would say to her (_"Daughter, I would advise you to . . . "_), I would be interested in hearing it.


There's rarely a circumstance in life that matches another circumstance... 

I reread the original post, and feel we need to guess. He went back to college to get a masters degree and do his dream job... Teacher? Similar? I would be relatively OK here. We're not talking band roadie or bar owner. If he went back to get a musical theater degree and become a stage hand to "Wicked"... Well, no. A teacher is a noble profession. A stage hand... Not.

But guess what. I carried my family financially when wifey was in grad school, and did it because it was the right thing to do. 90%? I'll see 100%. Why is the lady in the article feel bad at 90%? 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Celes

EleGirl said:


> There have been quite a few threads on TAM in which a man complains that his wife either making less now because she left a high paying job for an easier/dream job, or that the wife is a SAHM who refuses to go back to work. He says that he does not want to be the major breadwinner of the family. He wants his wife to earn to her potential.
> 
> On these threads, the men have gotten support from both the men and women who post on TAM. The idea is that this is not a unilateral decision. Both parties have to come to agreement on things like jobs and earing an income. And people do change in marriage, what might have seemed ok at one point, might not seem ok now. We change/grow as people. Our needs change over time. That is why it is critical for couples to talk about their needs, feelings, etc. And it's why the must pay attention to meeting the other's needs.
> 
> The needs of both spouses are important, not just the needs of one spouse. And discussing one's needs and feelings does not make the person evil.


Yeah I've seen those threads and those responses.

I guess we can conclude that the women here just happen to be more objective :wink2:


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> There's rarely a circumstance in life that matches another circumstance...
> 
> I reread the original post, and feel we need to guess. He went back to college to get a masters degree and do his dream job... Teacher? Similar? I would be relatively OK here. We're not talking band roadie or bar owner. If he went back to get a musical theater degree and become a stage hand to "Wicked"... Well, no. A teacher is a noble profession. A stage hand... Not.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Sigh. And here I thought your post was going to begin with _"Daughter, I would advise you to . . . "_ 

Please specifically address her lack of attraction, if you do decide to make the post.

John, you are not holding back for fear of what others here might think, are you?


----------



## Cosmos

sokillme said:


> I get it she thinks of herself as a modern woman but really her desire is to live like the 50's. jld do you think that most women secretly desire for their men to take care of them financially? Is it ultimately healthy emotionally for a woman to supports a man financially?


I would say that some women are conflicted, the same as some men are also conflicted about what were once clearly defined traditional male / female roles.

Personally, I also believe that there's perhaps an element of biological hardwiring at play with these things. After all, there was a time in human history when it was vital for our very survival to have a mate who was a good hunter and could provide well for his family. 

Whilst I've provided for myself for as long as I can remember (and my son when he was growing up), and I'm fiercely independent, I have to admit that I do get a buzz when my SO steps in and takes charge financially. It has nothing to do with money, though, but everything to do with feeling safe, loved and protected.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Sigh. And here I thought your post was going to begin with _"Daughter, I would advise you to . . . "_
> 
> Please specifically address her lack of attraction, if you do decide to make the post.
> 
> John, you are not holding back for fear of what others here might think, are you?


Sigh.

"Daughter, I would advise you to look at the big picture in the relationship. Not merely the income difference or the degree of attraction or personality match and so on. The big picture is, where do you and him want to be in five years? Fifteen? Thirty?"

How am I holding back? I would love to become a professor in a small college and the pay is pretty horrible. But I'm at the stage of my life where I could afford it. In a normal marriage I would ask for my partner's support in making such a decision. 

Last year wifey had an offer to join the local medical school as a staff researcher. Equally horrible pay but awesome work. She considered it, esp the ability to do published research again. But with large insurance co throwing serious money on the table... I offered a compromise to sell the McMansion and downsize, and for her to take the position. Being the greedy gollum she is, she went for the money. Can't say I blame her.

As I said, there's no right answer.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> My boys and my husband feel quite loved by me, sokillme. They would laugh at your statement above.


Love and empathy are not the same.


----------



## sokillme

lifeistooshort said:


> Let's not forget that everyone has standards and that's normal or we'd all settled for the first opportunity we got.
> 
> Different people have different standards.
> 
> My hb doesn't have to make a ton of money but I do need him to contribute enough to make me feel safe and secure. True with my current job I could take care of myself but the feeling of safety with our man is so important to most of us women.
> 
> I'm not even sure I could give an absolute answer as to what it takes, I just know I feel safe with him and I would not feel safe if I was paying 90 percent of the bills.
> 
> This woman doesn't feel safe with her hb. She feels like the burden is on her.
> 
> I don't think biologically women are wired for this. True we can work and contribute, and as I make more I have no issue paying for more, but our difference isn't so much that I feel unsafe.
> 
> I imagine men can feel like this.....I always thought that when my hb lost his job it was a secure feeling for him to know I still had a job. But maybe that's not how men see it? I honestly don't know, but I was happy I could help keep the finances smooth.
> 
> So maybe it's not all about the money for her....maybe she maybe she just doesn't feel safe and secure with him. It might not take him going back to what he was doing.....him getting to a point where if she has a baby and suffers complications she won't be pressured to return to work right away.
> 
> I've had two difficult pregnancies involving bed rest and childbirth injuries. It can and does happen and is difficult to recover from. I can't imagine what could make me respect my hb less than if I'd just been injured having his child and I had to get my butt back to work right away because he had his dream job that didn't pay squat.


Where did she say she didn't feel safe, she said she wanted to stay home an have a kid and she wanted him to be powerful so she could be attracted to him.


----------



## Duguesclin

sokillme said:


> Love and empathy are not the same.


Love and empathy are not the same, but JLD has both. What she does not have is the stomach to enable weak guys to take advantage of women. It is not good for the women and it is not good for the men.

Women are increasingly seeing the truth about men. Many men do not want to do much. And many whine about how women don't do enough for them.

Women as they mature see the reality of life: _Personne ne vit d'amour et d'eau fraîche_. (No one lives on love and fresh water)


----------



## MJJEAN

sokillme said:


> Did they? Equal and superior is subjective for some people your job has very little to do with that. Remember unless you're Edison it never says, was the best Pharmaceutical Rep. on your tombstone. Most people don't care, and sure won't when you are gone. Hell your company won't in 20 years, all you get is a plate and a retirement party. What a waste of a life.
> 
> I will say this if a woman is attracted to a man because of is power, it's good that that is out in the open so he judge accordingly.
> 
> I would take a fireman, or woman over most American office jobs by far.
> 
> I used to have one of those jobs made more money then I do now, I do good now, then I did better. I hated it, it was stupid and useless I made very little difference on the planet. Now I work in education and everyday what I do counts. Money and the pursuit of money is a trap, and equating money to value is an even bigger trap. I am rarely impressed by quote unquote powerful people who push papers. There jobs are silly and make no difference in the world really,* unless you are talking about supporting ones family*.



Ummm, supporting the family IS what we're talking about. This clown is apparently only able to cover 10% of their current expenses. His income couldn't support him and his wife, much less a baby. In case of emergency, the wife would be better off getting a roommate. At least a roommate would pay half the household expenses.


----------



## MJJEAN

john117 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> "Daughter, I would advise you to look at the big picture in the relationship. Not merely the income difference or the degree of attraction or personality match and so on. The big picture is, where do you and him want to be in five years? Fifteen? Thirty?"


Isn't personality match and sexual attraction a rather big deal in a marriage? Are you saying you'd advise a daughter to consider staying in a marriage where she no longer finds her husband sexually attractive and isn't compatible with him in other key ways, as well?

If I were your daughter and I came to you for advice, the phrasing you used would have me thinking that you would disapprove of me leaving a marriage due to some serious compatibility issues and would be pleased if I stayed even though my husband isn't a good match for me.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> "Daughter, I would advise you to look at the big picture in the relationship. Not merely the income difference or the degree of attraction or personality match and so on. The big picture is, where do you and him want to be in five years? Fifteen? Thirty?"
> 
> How am I holding back? I would love to become a professor in a small college and the pay is pretty horrible. But I'm at the stage of my life where I could afford it. In a normal marriage I would ask for my partner's support in making such a decision.
> 
> Last year wifey had an offer to join the local medical school as a staff researcher. Equally horrible pay but awesome work. She considered it, esp the ability to do published research again. But with large insurance co throwing serious money on the table... I offered a compromise to sell the McMansion and downsize, and for her to take the position. *Being the greedy gollum she is, she went for the money. Can't say I blame her.*
> 
> As I said, there's no right answer.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Does that make you a greedy gollum, too? 

Does your response to your daughter mean that you do not consider the lack of attraction important? Do you think it will just resolve on its own?

I could see you teaching in a college. I bet the students would love you.


----------



## sokillme

MJJEAN said:


> Ummm, supporting the family IS what we're talking about. This clown is apparently only able to cover 10% of their current expenses. His income couldn't support him and his wife, much less a baby. In case of emergency, the wife would be better off getting a roommate. At least a roommate would pay half the household expenses.


She doesn't think of him as a clown.


----------



## MJJEAN

sokillme said:


> Where did she say she didn't feel safe, she said she wanted to stay home an have a kid and she wanted him to be powerful so she could be attracted to him.


"I hate that I want a more traditional lifestyle *with a husband who can provide for me*. I hate that I'm not confident enough in myself to have children because *I don't think I can be the financial provider and a mother*."

"The year we got married, he wanted to take a risk and go back to graduate school to find his dream job. *I trusted his judgment*, and between his savings, my new job, and some sacrifices, we comfortably lived while he went through two years of graduate school."

"I became the breadwinner in an extreme way*. I committed to supporting us for two years, but we're going on four now, and it will likely be five. *Our income divide is so extreme that I pay for 90 percent of our living expenses."

"*When I ask myself if I would've ever married an older man that I would financially support for the first five years of marriage, and possibly forever, the answer is a hard "no.*" And most days I feel like I can't do this one second longer."

This whole thing is about insecurity.

She wants to be a mother, but should something go wrong or should she want to scale back on her work hours to be a hands on parent, she knows he cannot support the family. Financial insecurity.

She trusted his judgement when he went back to college and now he has no savings and 1/4 his previous income. Clearly, his judgment was flawed. So, she now knows that she cannot trust his judgement. Not being able to trust your husbands judgement would make any wife feel generally insecure.

She was lead to believe she'd only be responsible for supporting them for a couple of years and she is still supporting them going on 5 years later, so she knows she cannot rely on him when planning for the future. Not being able to rely on your husband in this way would also make any women feel generally insecure.

The bottom line is that she wants to be a mother. She also wants to know her husband will have her back in case of emergency. The harsh truth she has learned is that her husband doesn't have her back because he made a series of bad choices that took him from equal/superior status to dependent status.


----------



## Yag-Kosha

I read it but I am still kinda scratching my head. 

Different people expect different things out of life to be satisfied. Especially when it comes to what money can provide. I doubt I can relate to this couple in any way. For me, traveling to my fridge is a long-distance vacation and an adventure all rolled into one.


----------



## MJJEAN

sokillme said:


> She doesn't think of him as a clown.


I'm very close to a breaking point, and* I never stop thinking about leaving my husband. And no matter what other reasons I come up with, it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction*.

I would never look at my husband the same way if he was a stay-at-home dad.

He's doing everything in his power to make more of a financial contribution, but *his fruitless attempts *haven't pulled me out of this rut. *It's embarrassing enough to him that I could never tell my friends or family the extent of our income divide*", 

"and I can't tell him exactly how I feel either." 


She has certainly lost respect for him to the point where she can't even talk to him about it because she thinks she has to protect him from her feelings as if he's not strong enough to handle it. 

Considering this man threw away a decent career, blew his savings, spent 2 years in grad school, makes 1/4 what he made previously, and the words "fruitless attempts" and "embarrassing" were used, I'd say clown fits.


----------



## john117

MJJEAN said:


> Isn't personality match and sexual attraction a rather big deal in a marriage? Are you saying you'd advise a daughter to consider staying in a marriage where she no longer finds her husband sexually attractive and isn't compatible with him in other key ways, as well?
> 
> If I were your daughter and I came to you for advice, the phrasing you used would have me thinking that you would disapprove of me leaving a marriage due to some serious compatibility issues and would be pleased if I stayed even though my husband isn't a good match for me.


Define "good"...

My parents redefined the concept of opposites attract. Near zero in common... Amazing marriage. I know many people with awesome attraction who hate each other. 

I'm not worried about perfect matches, but I demand commitment to rational discussion. 

DD1 and her SO are in Italy for the semester and thanks to the miracle of Ryanair and Airbnb they spent a week in the motherland. They visited everywhere. On their last day he wanted to see a specific - and well regarded - site that the motherland is famous for. Except it's a long train ride. DD was not very happy and wanted to explore the capital. After a lengthy discussion I convinced her to go along, if only as a courtesy. She went along and just as I expected they both loved the place - UNESCO world heritage site and all. I told her that you win some, you lose some, but you discuss things and reassess. You don't simply turn off. They wasted a day meeting my relatives so it was only fair he gets his turn picking. 

A trivial example but sometimes it's the little things. What they have between them is a lot bigger than a simple argument. They both learned that rational discussion trumps childishness. 

Relationships are interactive things, not static. After spending four months in Europe they'll be separated for four as he's got co-op work. So instead of sulking they're planning their times together. 

Do I have concerns? Some. But I'm quite pleased with how they work things out. High levels of emotional maturity and a lot of empathy. Can't complain.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

MJJEAN said:


> She has certainly lost respect for him to the point where *she can't even talk to him about it because she thinks she has to protect him from her feelings as if he's not strong enough to handle it*.


Sadly, I think a lot of women are in this position, MJJean.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Does that make you a greedy gollum, too?
> 
> Does your response to your daughter mean that you do not consider the lack of attraction important? Do you think it will just resolve on its own?
> 
> I could see you teaching in a college. I bet the students would love you.


Physical attractiveness is always going to be balanced against the guy . I know they are superbly compatible emotionally and mentally. The guy, raised poor, has a lot of practical aspects I like. But he's down to earth, very polite, clean, straight as an arrow. And he's good looking but compared to DD... Not a fair comparison.

The cat loves him tho.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Physical attractiveness is always going to be balanced against the guy . I know they are superbly compatible emotionally and mentally. The guy, raised poor, has a lot of practical aspects I like. But he's down to earth, very polite, clean, straight as an arrow. And he's good looking but compared to DD... Not a fair comparison.
> 
> The cat loves him tho.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Let me know when you want to respond regarding the OP and her attraction issue. 

Sounds like your daughter found a good match.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Let me know when you want to respond regarding the OP and her attraction issue.
> 
> Sounds like your daughter found a good match.


I'm not a big believer in attraction for the sake of attraction. And definitely not a believer of losing attraction because of issues like power or money. 

Thankfully my girls learned that lesson too. DD1 could have been an NBA wife 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## MJJEAN

john117 said:


> Physical attractiveness is always going to be balanced against the guy . I know they are superbly compatible emotionally and mentally. The guy, raised poor, has a lot of practical aspects I like. But he's down to earth, very polite, clean, straight as an arrow. And he's good looking but compared to DD... Not a fair comparison.
> 
> The cat loves him tho.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


DD2 dated a guy I very much liked. I loved the way they were together. I watched them both become better people. Two years in, she was done. He wasn't ambitious enough for her and she couldn't see them ever being able to live on their own without him contributing more. He always had a plan to make a change, you see, but nothing ever happened.

The dogs and I got attached. Our cat, tortoise, and parrot liked him, too. I know this because he touched them and still has all his fingers. Everyone misses him but my DD.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I'm not a big believer in attraction for the sake of attraction. And definitely not a believer of losing attraction because of issues like power or money.
> 
> Thankfully my girls learned that lesson too. DD1 could have been an NBA wife
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


But the OP has lost it. That is where she is.


----------



## jld

MJJEAN said:


> DD2 dated a guy I very much liked. I loved the way they were together. I watched them both become better people. *Two years in, she was done. He wasn't ambitious enough for her and she couldn't see them ever being able to live on their own without him contributing more. He always had a plan to make a change, you see, but nothing ever happened.*
> 
> The dogs and I got attached. Our cat, tortoise, and parrot liked him, too. I know this because he touched them and still has all his fingers. Everyone misses him but my DD.


You have a smart girl there, MJJean. She saved herself a lot of frustration.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> It does not determine anyone's worth. But it is going to be a factor in how comfortably they live.
> 
> Funny how no man other than Buddy has directly addressed how he would want his own grown daughter to proceed in this situation. And he said he would want her to divorce.


I would advise her to divorce because attraction is vital in a marriage and she no longer had it.

I wouldn't feel good about it though. 

Kind of like a guy who married his wife for her great body and then divorced her after she had a mastectomy.


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> I would advise her to divorce because attraction is vital in a marriage and she no longer had it.


I agree. I think I would ultimately tell my daughter the same thing.

Painful (but necessary) lesson, though.


----------



## sokillme

MJJEAN said:


> I'm very close to a breaking point, and* I never stop thinking about leaving my husband. And no matter what other reasons I come up with, it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction*.
> 
> I would never look at my husband the same way if he was a stay-at-home dad.
> 
> He's doing everything in his power to make more of a financial contribution, but *his fruitless attempts *haven't pulled me out of this rut. *It's embarrassing enough to him that I could never tell my friends or family the extent of our income divide*",
> 
> "and I can't tell him exactly how I feel either."
> 
> 
> She has certainly lost respect for him to the point where she can't even talk to him about it because she thinks she has to protect him from her feelings as if he's not strong enough to handle it.
> 
> Considering this man threw away a decent career, blew his savings, spent 2 years in grad school, makes 1/4 what he made previously, and the words "fruitless attempts" and "embarrassing" were used, I'd say clown fits.


To me the word clown connotates that he did this the with the idea that he wouldn't make money afterwards. To me it sounds like they both thought it was a good idea but it didn't work out. Why doesn't she get some blame too after all she went along with the plan. Why is she not a clown.


----------



## sokillme

Duguesclin said:


> Women as they mature see the reality of life: _Personne ne vit d'amour et d'eau fraîche_. (No one lives on love and fresh water)


As they mature? What does that mean?


----------



## jld

Just thinking further about TTH's idea of encouraging her to save and invest the money . . . I don't think it would change anything in terms of increasing her attraction to him. She would know that she had earned the money, she had invested the money, and it was ultimately still her providing for the family. I do not see anything in there that would make her feel inspired by him. 

He would still remain fundamentally optional.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> To me the word clown connotates that he did this the with the idea that he wouldn't make money afterwards. To me it sounds like they both thought it was a good idea but it didn't work out. Why doesn't she get some blame too after all she went along with the plan. Why is she not a clown.


Because she is paying nearly all the bills?

I guess you could argue she is a fool, though . . . if she stays.


----------



## Fozzy

Just found this thread, not reading through 41 pages.

First instinct:

She states she wants to be taken care of--but pursues an extraordinary career and expects her husband to surpass it. She admits her career has taken off like a rocket, but still holds her husband to a higher standard than she holds herself.

I get the need to be taken care of, but if you're going to endlessly pursue your career for money, power and prestige, are you truly looking to be taken care of by another person? Do you really trust that person to do right by you?


----------



## MJJEAN

sokillme said:


> To me the word clown connotates that he did this the with the idea that he wouldn't make money afterwards. To me it sounds like they both thought it was a good idea but it didn't work out. Why doesn't she get some blame too after all she went along with the plan. Why is she not a clown.


"The year we got married, he wanted to take a risk and go back to graduate school to find his dream job. I trusted his judgment, and"

When they met and married, he was an older man in a senior position. She had no reason not to trust his judgement. He, on the other hand, was old enough and experienced enough that he should have known better.


----------



## Buddy400

MJJEAN said:


> Yeah, well, here's what really happened. Women became more independent and more powerful. Then they no longer had to settle, so such women began to expect more from men. Remember, either be her equal or her superior, anything else is less.


The problem is that all the women can't be married to "top men".

And the "top men" may be too busy chasing after centerfold models to notice the "more independent and powerful" women.


----------



## sokillme

MJJEAN said:


> "The year we got married, he wanted to take a risk and go back to graduate school to find his dream job. I trusted his judgment, and"
> 
> When they met and married, he was an older man in a senior position. She had no reason not to trust his judgement. He, on the other hand, was old enough and experienced enough that he should have known better.


OK, clown it is. They should have never gotten married, but she has not been honest with him either.

Wonder how she will get on with the powerful men she will go for. Generally really powerful men aren't the most faithful. Too many options precisely because they are powerful. Also even if you find a unicorn, he is going to be more concerned about being powerful because the only way you get powerful is that is your all consuming passion.


----------



## MJJEAN

Buddy400 said:


> The problem is that all the women can't be married to "top men".


No, but they can find equals or something close to it. I think a lot of women would be fine with 60-40 and still consider the man her equal. But 90-10? Nope.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Buddy400 said:


> I would advise her to divorce because attraction is vital in a marriage and she no longer had it.
> 
> I wouldn't feel good about it though.
> 
> Kind of like a guy who married his wife for her great body and then divorced her after she had a mastectomy.


This is WHY the whole thread is ugly to me.. because it basically proves that LOVE doesn't mean SH**... it's all pretty words.. this unconditional crap we speak out of our mouths.. who are we kidding... 

It's very moving to see genuine Love going forth.. when a couple, because of their commitment, a foundation laid..is bound & determined to get through whatever hits them...together... by Gawd they will work at it, till they find a peace they both can live with, and seek to restore their passion for each other -if they are struggling.... I happen to see this dilemma as more of a Blessing on the wife's part... yet she is not satisfied... and he suddenly is a clown / worthy of little to no respect... 

I like your analogy here very much @Buddy400 . .. I see it the same.. but one thing is for sure.. pretty much everyone here would think very very VERY lowly of any man who would leave his wife, if God forbid she had cancer & had her breasts removed... loosing attraction for her... we can't call this love... Love would overcome...

Love would work at it.. it would remember all that was shared, it would revel in the important things.. Love would rejoice that she's still alive...and thank God we live in the day of silicone... 

Can we just acknowledge one thing here.. Neither situation is about Love... bearing all things.. sticking by one's side - with every challenge... just acknowledge the obvious... Love is dead for most.... Lifestyle is the new "love"...


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> The pleasure of her companionship. The opportunity to reproduce with her.


I don't think that would do it for me.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> This is WHY the whole thread is ugly to me.. because it basically proves that LOVE doesn't mean SH**... it's all pretty words.. this unconditional crap we speak out of our mouths.. who are we kidding...
> 
> It's very moving to see genuine Love going forth.. when a couple, because of their commitment, a foundation laid..is bound & determined to get through whatever hits them...together... by Gawd they will work at it, till they find a peace they both can live with, and seek to restore their passion for each other -if they are struggling.... I happen to see this dilemma as more of a Blessing on the wife's part... yet she is not satisfied... and he suddenly is a clown / worthy of little to no respect...
> 
> I like your analogy here very much @Buddy400 . .. I see it the same.. but one thing is for sure.. pretty much everyone here would think very very VERY lowly of any man who would leave his wife, if God forbid she had cancer & had her breasts removed... loosing attraction for her... we can't call this love... Love would overcome...
> 
> Love would work at it.. it would remember all that was shared, it would revel in the important things.. Love would rejoice that she's still alive...and thank God we live in the day of silicone...
> 
> Can we just acknowledge one thing here.. Neither situation is about Love... bearing all things.. sticking by one's side - with every challenge... just acknowledge the obvious... Love is dead for most.... Lifestyle is the new "love"...


It is clearly a painful situation for her, too, SA. She does not like or want the feelings she has. 

But he surely would not want her to stay with him out of pity or duty, don't you think?


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> I don't think that would do it for me.


We all negotiate our own deals, Buddy. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> Don't take this the wrong way but you are almost pathological in your lack of empathy for men.


Someone, on a long ago TAM post, pointed out that it's almost impossible for women to feel empathy for men.

That had never occurred to me before, but lately I see that it's largely true.


----------



## sokillme

Buddy400 said:


> Someone, on a long ago TAM post, pointed out that it's almost impossible for women to feel empathy for men.
> 
> That had never occurred to me before, but lately I see that it's largely true.


It's just a few people on here, and both sexes do it. I suspect that many are on here trying to save marriage that have problems because of their lack of empathy.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> It is clearly a painful situation for her, too, SA. She does not like or want the feelings she has.
> 
> But he surely would not want her to stay with him out of pity or duty, don't you think?


As you already well know... I do not feel a bit bad for this woman... we are on the opposite sides of the spectrum here.. I find her despicable ....just as you would the man who lost attraction to his wife if she got cancer... You want to address how much of a worthless soul he would have - in your eyes?


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> Where did she say she didn't feel safe, she said she wanted to stay home an have a kid and she wanted him to be powerful so she could be attracted to him.


I think some women here are saying that they are different aspects of what amounts to the same thing. 

I believe them

I'm happy to see some women agreeing that what attracts men and women are different.

I have no problem with them being different, I have a problem with people pretending that the are the same (the gender as a social construct crowd).

I'm very interested on how society is going to deal with this.


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> I imagine men can feel like this.....I always thought that when my hb lost his job it was a secure feeling for him to know I still had a job. But maybe that's not how men see it? I honestly don't know, but I was happy I could help keep the finances smooth.


I'd bet that you being in a position to cover for him made him feel even worse.

I think if he had been relieved that you were able to pay the bills and took his time looking for "just the right job", you would have lost some attraction to him. 

Not that you were doing anything wrong.


----------



## sokillme

SimplyAmorous said:


> This is WHY the whole thread is ugly to me.. because it basically proves that LOVE doesn't mean SH**... it's all pretty words.. this unconditional crap we speak out of our mouths.. who are we kidding...
> 
> It's very moving to see genuine Love going forth.. when a couple, because of their commitment, a foundation laid..is bound & determined to get through whatever hits them...together... by Gawd they will work at it, till they find a peace they both can live with, and seek to restore their passion for each other -if they are struggling.... I happen to see this dilemma as more of a Blessing on the wife's part... yet she is not satisfied... and he suddenly is a clown / worthy of little to no respect...
> 
> I like your analogy here very much @Buddy400 . .. I see it the same.. but one thing is for sure.. pretty much everyone here would think very very VERY lowly of any man who would leave his wife, if God forbid she had cancer & had her breasts removed... loosing attraction for her... we can't call this love... Love would overcome...
> 
> Love would work at it.. it would remember all that was shared, it would revel in the important things.. Love would rejoice that she's still alive...and thank God we live in the day of silicone...
> 
> Can we just acknowledge one thing here.. Neither situation is about Love... bearing all things.. sticking by one's side - with every challenge... just acknowledge the obvious... Love is dead for most.... Lifestyle is the new "love"...



I agree it's depressing, but then it helps you understand why people have trouble in their marriages doesn't it? As you can see from this and many other threads, what people expect of marriage is not at all what it is. That's why they don't work for them. What they lack is empathy and compassion. The poster is a shallow person in the end, but at least she knows she is and is asking for help. Some others only see what she can get from her H he is a tool for her success. I think they should break up because what she wants is really unobtainable and he will end up hurting in the end. 

You don't marry someone because they are powerful, or sexy, or even because they take care of you. You marry someone because you want to give yourself to them. That is the only way it works, and only if the other person gives themselves back. If you don't have that mentality I don't think you shouldn't marry because it won't go well for you. 

Again I am not surprised that you have a good marriage SA. If your husband is like you, no wonder. Sorry if my cynicism got you down, basically I was unable to say what you just posted so eloquently.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> As you already well know... I do not feel a bit bad for this woman... we are on the opposite sides of the spectrum here.. I find her despicable ....just as you would the man who lost attraction to his wife if she got cancer... You want to address how much of a worthless soul he would have - in your eyes?


I don't think it is analogous. A woman who left a man with penile cancer, who had to have his penis removed, would not exactly inspire admiration, either.

Until men can get their bodies flooded with estrogen and get pregnant, deliver children, and breastfeed, there are likely going to be different expectations between the sexes, at least for some people. I think the wisest (and most realistic) thing to do is to just work within the natural parameters of each relationship.

SA, you would not want a woman to stay with a man out of pity or duty, would you? How would that ultimately make him feel?


----------



## sokillme

Buddy400 said:


> I don't think that would do it for me.


The best is that this doesn't seem much different from what Redpill says. This is why they say marriage is a bad deal for men, a lot of this thread is.


----------



## jld

The husband, if they divorce, will surely pick up another gal who adores him in no time. No pressure on him to earn more. He can just enjoy his dream job.

How is that not a plus for him?


----------



## sokillme

Buddy400 said:


> Someone, on a long ago TAM post, pointed out that it's almost impossible for women to feel empathy for men.
> 
> That had never occurred to me before, but lately I see that it's largely true.


By the way this is complete bullsh!t, damaged people have trouble with empathy. Healthy women and men can feel empathy for each other. Don't let this place which is a website for people with marriage problems by and large be you control group on that.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> The best is that this doesn't seem much different from what Redpill says. This is why they say marriage is a bad deal for men, a lot of this thread is.


How is this a bad deal for him? He surely came out of grad school debt-free, while enjoying a comfortable lifestyle. Not everyone can say that.

And now he has his dream job and is unlikely to have any problems finding another adoring woman. I would say he has lucked out.


----------



## Fozzy

jld said:


> How is this a bad deal for him? He surely came out of grad school debt-free, while enjoying a comfortable lifestyle. Not everyone can say that.
> 
> And now he has his dream job and is unlikely to have any problems finding another adoring woman. I would say he has lucked out.


How do you imagine that having his wife (whom he likely still loves) leave him because she finds him unworthy is anything but a negative in his eyes?


----------



## jld

Fozzy said:


> How do you imagine that having his wife (whom he likely still loves) leave him because she finds him unworthy is anything but a negative in his eyes?


Temporarily, Fozzy. But a new woman has a way of healing a man, right?


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> How is this a bad deal for him? He surely came out of grad school debt-free, while enjoying a comfortable lifestyle. Not everyone can say that.
> 
> And now he has his dream job and is unlikely to have any problems finding another adoring woman. I would say he has lucked out.


jld, if you can't figure out why the man's wife (whom probably means the world to him, who he probably dreamed of spending his life with) dumping him because he doesn't make enough money, and is not powerful enough, is a bad deal for him, I am done. The fact that you even ask that question proves my point. *You are incapable of feeling empathy for men.* You don't seem to even think we have emotions, feel love, pain or even can bond with our wives. In your mind we are just automatons sent on earth to take care of woman and provide for as you put it, for companionship and babies. Seriously I am really holding my tongue here at how disgusting this question is because I don't want to get banned again. 

Something is *really* wrong with you. I feel bad for all the men in your life.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Temporarily, Fozzy. But a new woman has a way of healing a man, right?



Again you prove my point.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> jld, if you can't figure out why the man's wife (whom probably means the world to him, who he probably dreamed of spending his life with) dumping him because he doesn't make enough money and is not powerful enough is a bad deal for him I am done. The fact that you even ask that question proves my point. *You are incapable of feeling empathy for men.* You don't seem to even think we have emotions, feel love, pain or even can bond with our wives. In your mind we are just automatons sent on earth to take care of woman and provide for as you put it, for companionship and babies. Seriously I am really holding my tongue here at how disgusting this question is because I don't want to get banned again.
> 
> Something is *really* wrong with you. I feel bad for all the men in your life.


Where is your empathy for her?

And why is he not willing to give up the dream job for her, if he loves her so much and wants to stay with her?

He is not a victim, sokillme. Not any more than she is. They both made their choices and they are both living with the consequences. And I think hers may end up being more severe than his.


----------



## sokillme

@Buddy400 - Redpill is wrong about women and marriage, don't assume all woman think like jld, also don't marry a woman who thinks like jld.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I don't think it is analogous. A woman who left a man with penile cancer, who had to have his penis removed, would not exactly inspire admiration, either.
> 
> Until men can get their bodies flooded with estrogen and get pregnant, deliver children, and breastfeed, there are likely going to be different expectations between the sexes, at least for some people. I think the wisest (and most realistic) thing to do is to just work within the natural parameters of each relationship.
> *
> *SA, you would not want a woman to stay with a man out of pity or duty, would you? How would that ultimately make him feel?


Absolutely NOT ....The idea of my sons being looked upon with how this woman is... SICKENS ME....PLEASE rid yourself of her [email protected]#$ There is a name for this : "Hypergamy"... (colloquially referred to as "marrying up") is a term used in social science for the act or practice of a woman marrying a man of higher caste or social status than herself."

.. Please dear sons... Screen a woman for this - I beg you - if that is possible... if she is primarily attracted to your ALPHA Power, prestige & success...Understand if you hit a set back... she may be out the damn door... so you need always to be on your toes to keep her... if you slip below....she will suddenly loose all attraction & seek another to fill your now lower class shoes.. you are so easily replaceable......

Screw Love, vows & Commitment ! Isn't this what poster Machiavelli was always saying on here.. a lot of sympathy on this thread for being this way...

Look ...I am not geared this way...Sure I care that a man has work ethic.. that we can afford to live, pay our bills... I even wanted to stay home, raise our kids... 

About this article... one thing is clear....we are all picking apart pieces of it....reading into/ assuming what SHE EARNS (at 90%-breaking the glass ceiling)... and what his lowly income in - at only contributing 10% ..... You see your daughter who will rise to the top of the chain & could BE this woman someday... 

I see my husband and sons... I do not get the impression his 10% income is a LOW income.. chances are this clown earns as much or more than my own Husband (Let's say $70,000 a year) ... so if HE is a CLOWN.. what does that say about MY LIFE.. who I am married to.. he's not worth too da** much either then... not worthy of respect.. Yeah.. that's very ugly to me... 

Others may be interpreting his income as a measly $20,000 a year but I doubt it...as he went & got a Master's Degree, or did I read that in there? Then others are thinking this is her life for many years to come.. when she said herself.. she was only expecting *2 years* but now it will be *5*.. I don't look upon this as all that horrible...the woman has been mightily Blessed [email protected]#.. even if it was 7 years where she earned MORE.... I read the article as she believed his income would catch up....but it was taking TOO LONG... apparently others see it as completely hopeless.. he's not worthy to stay married to.... her impatience is justified...

There are too many holes in the story for anyone to know the facts.. so we will continue to see it how we are personally interpreting it...


----------



## sokillme

SimplyAmorous said:


> Absolutely NOT ....The idea of my sons being looked upon with how this woman is... SICKENS ME....PLEASE rid yourself of her [email protected]#$ There is a name for this : "Hypergamy"... (colloquially referred to as "marrying up") is a term used in social science for the act or practice of a woman marrying a man of higher caste or social status than herself."
> 
> .. Please dear sons... Screen a woman for this - I beg you - if that is possible... if she is primarily attracted to your ALPHA Power, prestige & success...Understand if you hit a set back... she may be out the damn door... so you need always to be on your toes to keep her... if you slip below....she will suddenly loose all attraction & seek another to fill your now lower class shoes.. you are so easily replaceable......
> 
> Screw Love, vows & Commitment ! Isn't this what poster Machiavelli was always saying on here.. a lot of sympathy on this thread for being this way...
> 
> Look ...I am not geared this way...Sure I care that a man has work ethic.. that we can afford to live, pay our bills... I even wanted to stay home, raise our kids...
> 
> About this article... one thing is clear....we are all picking apart pieces of it....reading into/ assuming what SHE EARNS (at 90%-breaking the glass ceiling)... and what his lowly income in - at only contributing 10% ..... You see your daughter who will rise to the top of the chain & could BE this woman someday...
> 
> I see my husband and sons... I do not get the impression his 10% income is a LOW income.. chances are this clown earns as much or more than my own Husband (Let's say $70,000 a year) ... so if HE is a CLOWN.. what does that say about MY LIFE.. who I am married to.. he's not worth too da** much either then... not worthy of respect.. Yeah.. that's very ugly to me...
> 
> Others may be interpreting his income as a measly $20,000 a year but I doubt it...as he went & got a Master's Degree, or did I read that in there? Then others are thinking this is her life for many years to come.. when she said herself.. she was only expecting *2 years* but now it will be *5*.. I don't look upon this as all that horrible...the woman has been mightily Blessed [email protected]#.. even if it was 7 years where she earned MORE.... I read the article as she believed his income would catch up....but it was taking TOO LONG... apparently others see it as completely hopeless.. he's not worthy to stay married to.... her impatience is justified...
> 
> There are too many holes in the story for anyone to know the facts.. so we will continue to see it how we are personally interpreting it...



:allhail:

@Buddy400 - This is who you marry if you ever find someone who thinks like this, and then you do everything in your damn power to make her happy and live up to her. And you don't give a sh!t if she gains some weight or is grumpy some times or anything else that this world tells you makes her special. You thank your lucky stars you met a woman of character. 

Thank you @SimplyAmorous. Again you have said what I think better then I could.


----------



## EleGirl

john117 said:


> There's rarely a circumstance in life that matches another circumstance...
> 
> I reread the original post, and feel we need to guess. He went back to college to get a masters degree and do his dream job... Teacher? Similar? I would be relatively OK here. We're not talking band roadie or bar owner. If he went back to get a musical theater degree and become a stage hand to "Wicked"... Well, no. A teacher is a noble profession. A stage hand... Not.
> 
> But guess what. I carried my family financially when wifey was in grad school, and did it because it was the right thing to do. 90%? I'll see 100%. Why is the lady in the article feel bad at 90%?


You carried your wife when she was getting her degree. After that, she earns a good living, right?

The woman who wrote the letter supported her husband financially while he was getting his degree, probably close to 100%. And now that he's completed his MS/MA, she is supporting by 90%. And she is looking at supporting him 90% for the rest of her life. That's a situation quite different from yours.


----------



## As'laDain

yep. the woman is not marriage material. 

if it is ok for her to divorce her husband so that she can find someone who makes more money and has more power, then its perfectly fine for him to divorce his wife because she is getting older, so that he can go find a younger woman that he is more attracted to.


there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, right? her dumping husband after husband for men with more money and power? 

and him dumping wife after wife for hot women in their early 20s?


its pretty much the same thing.


----------



## jld

SA, if you do not want her to stay with him out of pity or duty, what do you propose?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I want a good deal for my daughter. Whatever man gets her is going to be extremely lucky. I want him to be worthy of her.


That outlook may not make you the world's most popular mother in law. 

I have children in the age group of these two, and I would not presume to tell them what to do. But I believe none of them would do what this girl is doing, and their upbringing is probably a factor in that. 

If they sought my advice, it would be that they need to work through the situation with their spouses.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> And why is he not willing to give up the dream job for her, if he loves her so much and wants to stay with her?


It's a reasonable point if they have discussed the issue. If she doesn't tell him, just leaves him out of the blue, different story.


----------



## john117

Again, incomplete information. An MA teaching for $40-50k a year instead of $150-200k a year corporate job is one thing. An MA musical theater or similar is quite different...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## lifeistooshort

As'laDain said:


> yep. the woman is not marriage material.
> 
> if it is ok for her to divorce her husband so that she can find someone who makes more money and has more power, then its perfectly fine for him to divorce his wife because she is getting older, so that he can go find a younger woman that he is more attracted to.
> 
> 
> there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, right? her dumping husband after husband for men with more money and power?
> 
> and him dumping wife after wife for hot women in their early 20s?
> 
> 
> its pretty much the same thing.


It is absolutely not the same thing. 

Divorcing your wife because she's getting older (men get older too, though many are under the mistaken illusion that their looks aren't deteriorating) is the same as divorcing your hb because he lost his job and had to take a lower paying one. 

Life happens and we support our spouses through these things....the things they don't deliberately cause to happen.

This guy made a deliberate decision. Divorcing him is like a guy divorcing his wife because she let herself go by sitting on the couch eating cookies all day and he married a fit woman. 

And guys here would be encouraging said divorce, accusing the wife of marital bait and switch.

This is an extremely case. I'm not sure she needs him to be rich and powerful.....there is a long way between rich and powerful and working your dream job that leaves 90 percent of the financial support to your wife so she can't even take time off if she has pregnancy complications.

This guy used his money to attract a younger woman and then as soon as they got married pulled a bait and switch. Men scream bloody murder when they marry a fit woman and she gains a bunch of weight right after the wedding.

Why should that be a problem? He married her so why should she have to maintain herself? Surely men should be ok with that because her weight isn't a measure of her as a person, right?


----------



## farsidejunky

lifeistooshort said:


> It is absolutely not the same thing.
> 
> Divorcing your wife because she's getting older (men get older too, though many are under the mistaken illusion that their looks aren't deteriorating) is the same as divorcing your hb because he lost his job and had to take a lower paying one.
> 
> Life happens and we support our spouses through these things....the things they don't deliberately cause to happen.
> 
> This guy made a deliberate decision. Divorcing him is like a guy divorcing his wife because she let herself go by sitting on the couch eating cookies all day and he married a fit woman.
> 
> And guys here would be encouraging said divorce, accusing the wife of marital bait and switch.
> 
> This is an extremely case. I'm not sure she needs him to be rich and powerful.....there is a long way between rich and powerful and working your dream job that leaves 90 percent of the financial support to your wife so she can't even take time off if she has pregnancy complications.
> 
> This guy used his money to attract a younger woman and then as soon as they got married pulled a bait and switch. Men scream bloody murder when they marry a fit woman and she gains a bunch of weight right after the wedding.
> 
> Why should that be a problem? He married her so why should she have to maintain herself? Surely men should be ok with that because her weight isn't a measure of her as a person, right?


I don't agree with your theory. They both chose to do this, not just him. Had he unilaterally done so, I would say that your theory would be much closer to the truth.


----------



## As'laDain

lifeistooshort said:


> It is absolutely not the same thing.
> 
> Divorcing your wife because she's getting older (men get older too, though many are under the mistaken illusion that their looks aren't deteriorating) is the same as divorcing your hb because he lost his job and had to take a lower paying one.
> 
> Life happens and we support our spouses through these things....the things they don't deliberately cause to happen.
> 
> This guy made a deliberate decision. Divorcing him is like a guy divorcing his wife because she let herself go by sitting on the couch eating cookies all day and he married a fit woman.
> 
> And guys here would be encouraging said divorce, accusing the wife of marital bait and switch.
> 
> This is an extremely case. I'm not sure she needs him to be rich and powerful.....there is a long way between rich and powerful and working your dream job that leaves 90 percent of the financial support to your wife so she can't even take time off if she has pregnancy complications.
> 
> This guy used his money to attract a younger woman and then as soon as they got married pulled a bait and switch. Men scream bloody murder when they marry a fit woman and she gains a bunch of weight right after the wedding.
> 
> Why should that be a problem? He married her so why should she have to maintain herself? Surely men should be ok with that because her weight isn't a measure of her as a person, right?


really? according to the woman, they discussed it and she agreed to it. 

and now she isnt happy with the results of her decision because he hasnt been able to make up the extra income as fast as she wants.

so, i guess that it would be ok if my wife and i decide to have a kid, and then i decide to divorce her because she doesnt lose the baby weight as fast as i want, right? 

i mean, yeah, i totally agreed to the decision , but hey, i cant help not being attracted to fat, so it would be ok to just divorce her right?


----------



## lifeistooshort

farsidejunky said:


> I don't agree with your theory. They both chose to do this, not just him. Had he unilaterally done so, I would say that your theory would be much closer to the truth.


They agreed to her supporting him indefinitely?


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> That outlook may not make you the world's most popular mother in law.


With a son-in-law, I am okay with that. 

With daughters-in-law, different story.



> I have children in the age group of these two, and I would not presume to tell them what to do. But I believe none of them would do what this girl is doing, and their upbringing is probably a factor in that.
> 
> If they sought my advice, it would be that they need to work through the situation with their spouses.


You have daughters, Wazza? Are they high achievers?

Basically your way would be to stay out of it, and let the couple figure it out?


----------



## lifeistooshort

As'laDain said:


> really? according to the woman, they discussed it and she agreed to it.
> 
> and now she isnt happy with the results of her decision because he hasnt been able to make up the extra income as fast as she wants.
> 
> so, i guess that it would be ok if my wife and i decide to have a kid, and then i decide to divorce her because she doesnt lose the baby weight as fast as i want, right?
> 
> i mean, yeah, i totally agreed to the decision , but hey, i cant help not being attracted to fat, so it would be ok to just divorce her right?


Except that everyone knows a pregnancy means extra weight so in that sense you know what you're agreeing to. I don't think she knew what she was agreeing to....she trusted his judgement. 

Do you think he was honest with her about his dream meaning a quarter of his salary?

Id bet not. She was naive to trust him, but he wasn't straight either. 

But yes, if your wife still has 100 extra pounds 5 years later and does very little to address it despite knowing it bothers you then you have a problem. 

Cmon, the guys of TAM wouldn't be telling you that life's too short to live a deprived sex life with a wife who makes token efforts but still keeps in hundred extra pounds?

This isn't working for her now.....it's not turned out to be a good decision for the marriage.

So if my hb agrees to me triathlon training full time and it kills my sex drive, I guess he should suck it up because hey, he agreed to it.


----------



## farsidejunky

lifeistooshort said:


> They agreed to her supporting him indefinitely?


Did she say his income would be indefinitely? I though she said it would take another couple of years.


----------



## jld

I think a lot of people here are getting hung up on the morality of her decisions moving forward (with of course not a word about his). But that is basically irrelevant.

They are both free to do as they wish. No doubt there is no fault divorce available where they live.

This is more a question of each getting a good enough deal that they both feel motivated to stay. Getting their needs met.

Honestly, young, with no kids involved, who cares if they stay together? This is the ideal time to get out if they are not both satisfied.

I bet religions came up with vows as a means of social control. When each one's needs are being met, vows are unnecessary. Neither has the desire to leave, anyway.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Did she say his income would be indefinitely? I though she said it would take another couple of years.


Maybe you could go check?


----------



## lifeistooshort

farsidejunky said:


> Did she say his income would be indefinitely? I though she said it would take another couple of years.


I'll adnit that's not entirely clear.

She said she agreed for a couple of years and now it's looking like it'll be at least 5.

It begs the question of how long is reasonable? Not all dreams work out.


----------



## Celes

farsidejunky said:


> I don't agree with your theory. They both chose to do this, not just him. Had he unilaterally done so, I would say that your theory would be much closer to the truth.


When they made the decision, he was older and more successful than her. She trusted his judgment. She assumed that obviously someone who is that successful should know what they're doing. Naive on her part but it doesn't make her equally responsible. 

When I was 23 I was engaged to a 29 year old. He seemed like he had his *** together. Good job, smart guy. He decided to take a 200K line of credit on his house (which he inherited). He told me it was to invest in properties. I thought he knew what he was doing. He never ended up using that money for investments. He lost his job (his fault) then started spending like crazy. Taylor made suits and shirts, $1000 shoes, 5 star restaurants. Totally crazy. I ended up graduating and got a well paying job and tried to help pay off the debt. By the time the wedding came around, I found out his debt was close to 100K. We ended up breaking up for a myriad of reasons thank goodness. But sometimes someone younger and less experienced can be too trusting.


----------



## EllisRedding

farsidejunky said:


> I don't agree with your theory. They both chose to do this, not just him. Had he unilaterally done so, I would say that your theory would be much closer to the truth.


It doesn't fit the narrative so neatly for some, easier to just assume he made this decision solo.


----------



## jld

For all of you who are so upset that she might leave him, what do you propose be done about her lack of attraction?

Do you want her to just stay with him out of pity or duty, so he gets the benefit of her money? Another sexless marriage, even though they are young with no kids?


----------



## lifeistooshort

jld said:


> I think a lot of people here are getting hung up on the morality of her decisions moving forward (with of course not a word about his). But that is basically irrelevant.
> 
> They are both free to do as they wish. No doubt there is no fault divorce available where they live.
> 
> This is more a question of each getting a good enough deal that they both feel motivated to stay. Getting their needs met.
> 
> Honestly, young, with no kids involved, who cares if they stay together? This is the ideal time to get out if they are not both satisfied.
> 
> I bet religions came up with vows as a means of social control. When each one's needs are being met, vows are unnecessary. Neither has the desire to leave, anyway.


I wonder if he'd keep his dream job if he didn't have her to support him?

Clearly he can't support their current lifestyle, but he has the skills to do so. 

Maybe he'd be ok living a more frugal life if it meant he had his dream job....or maybe he'd find a way to make more. 

We already know that this job is worth his wife's happiness, but is it also worth him taking a big hit to his standard of living?

His timing is suspect here. He conveniently waited until she married him to do this, but at least if he was willing to give up this lifestyle for his job that would be a little more palatable.


----------



## farsidejunky

lifeistooshort said:


> I'll adnit that's not entirely clear.
> 
> She said she agreed for a couple of years and now it's looking like it'll be at least 5.
> 
> It begs the question of how long is reasonable? Not all dreams work out.


This is fair.


----------



## jld

Celes said:


> But sometimes someone younger and less experienced can be too trusting.


Bingo!


----------



## EllisRedding

Realistically, these two should just part ways. They both hopefully have a better understanding now of who they are and what they want. The H may need to understand that with his current career, he may have to adjust to attracting a slightly different crown then previously. The W, I honestly don't know. She is clearly attracted to money/power/stature. So I guess set her sights very high in a mate, find someone who meets that criteria, and hopefully be upfront with him that once they marry she wants to back off her career so there is no bait & switch (I guess it would help as well if she makes it clear to this guy that his power/status/wealth is very important to her).


----------



## Cosmos

farsidejunky said:


> I don't agree with your theory. They both chose to do this, not just him. Had he unilaterally done so, I would say that your theory would be much closer to the truth.


They_ mutually _agreed that she would support them both _for two years_, but she has a problem with the fact that she's still (90%) doing so _four years _later, "_and it will likely be five_." This wasn't what they agreed upon...

I don't believe that money itself is the main issue here. She thought that she was marrying someone who was capable of maintaining a certain standard of living for his family, but it is no longer clear to her that he will ever be in a position to do so...

I think they both made an error of judgment.


----------



## farsidejunky

Celes said:


> When they made the decision, he was older and more successful than her. She trusted his judgment. She assumed that obviously someone who is that successful should know what they're doing. Naive on her part but it doesn't make her equally responsible.
> 
> When I was 23 I was engaged to a 29 year old. He seemed like he had his *** together. Good job, smart guy. He decided to take a 200K line of credit on his house (which he inherited). He told me it was to invest in properties. I thought he knew what he was doing. He never ended up using that money for investments. He lost his job (his fault) then started spending like crazy. Taylor made suits and shirts, $1000 shoes, 5 star restaurants. Totally crazy. I ended up graduating and got a well paying job and tried to help pay off the debt. By the time the wedding came around, I found out his debt was close to 100K. We ended up breaking up for a myriad of reasons thank goodness. But sometimes someone younger and less experienced can be too trusting.


While this situation is tragic, being the younger one in the relationship does not make the fact that she willingly entered into this agreement any less relevant.

That does not mean it cannot be revisited. 

It also makes it more difficult to paint her as a hapless victim.


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> I wonder if he'd keep his dream job if he didn't have her to support him?
> 
> Clearly he can't support their current lifestyle, but he has the skills to do so.
> 
> Maybe he'd be ok living a more frugal life if it meant he had his dream job....or maybe he'd find a way to make more.
> 
> *We already know that this job is worth his wife's happiness, but is it also worth him taking a big hit to his standard of living?*
> 
> His timing is suspect here. He conveniently waited until she married him to do this, but at least if he was willing to give up this lifestyle for his job that would be a little more palatable.


You know you are brilliant, life? I hope you go to law school one day! You make absolutely fabulous points, one after the other!


----------



## farsidejunky

EllisRedding said:


> It doesn't fit the narrative so neatly for some, easier to just assume he made this decision solo.


Or via manipulation. 

That is ether speculation or projection.


----------



## wild jade

Fozzy said:


> Just found this thread, not reading through 41 pages.
> 
> First instinct:
> 
> She states she wants to be taken care of--but pursues an extraordinary career and expects her husband to surpass it. She admits her career has taken off like a rocket, but still holds her husband to a higher standard than she holds herself.
> 
> I get the need to be taken care of, but if you're going to endlessly pursue your career for money, power and prestige, are you truly looking to be taken care of by another person? Do you really trust that person to do right by you?


I didn't get the impression that she needs him to surpass her, I think she's just realized that she's not actually on board with this whole career breadwinner thing at all, and really just wants to be looked after. 

My impression is that she feels like she's supported him in the achievement of his dream, but is now realizing that this means that she'll never be supported in hers. And while I can't relate at all to what she's looking for, I do get the importance of having chances to pursue our dreams and the desire to lament when what wake up and realize that we won't ever have what we've always wanted.


----------



## Celes

farsidejunky said:


> While this situation is tragic, being the younger one in the relationship does not make the fact that she willingly entered into this agreement any less relevant.
> 
> That does not mean it cannot be revisited.
> 
> It also makes it more difficult to paint her as a hapless victim.


She's not a hapless victim but I won't look down on her for realizing she was naive and getting the hell out of dodge, like most are doing here. I look back and want to kick myself for agreeing to the line of credit loan. It cost me a **** ton of money. But according to people's logic here, I should have just married him because I was equally responsible for agreeing to it. Yeah no thanks.


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> I didn't get the impression that she needs him to surpass her, I think she's just realized that she's not actually on board with this whole career breadwinner thing at all, and really just wants to be looked after.
> 
> My impression is that she feels like she's supported him in the achievement of his dream, but is now realizing that this means that she'll never be supported in hers. And while I can't relate at all to what she's looking for, I do get the importance of having chances to pursue our dreams and the desire to lament when what wake up and realize that we won't ever have what we've always wanted.


But luckily for her, she has the chance to get out, while she is young and without children.

In times past, she would have been chained to him.


----------



## wild jade

EllisRedding said:


> It doesn't fit the narrative so neatly for some, easier to just assume he made this decision solo.


In all fairness, it was his dream. And sure she agrees to support him in it, but it was all for him.

And it's a good thing to do for a partner. To give them that chance to realize what they've always wanted, that will bring them fulfullment.

But it's really hard to keep living a life that you hate all for the sake of keeping another person happy. At some point there needs to be some turnaround or compromise. Or the relationship will end.


----------



## lifeistooshort

EllisRedding said:


> Realistically, these two should just part ways. They both hopefully have a better understanding now of who they are and what they want. The H may need to understand that with his current career, he may have to adjust to attracting a slightly different crown then previously. The W, I honestly don't know. She is clearly attracted to money/power/stature. So I guess set her sights very high in a mate, find someone who meets that criteria, and hopefully be upfront with him that once they marry she wants to back off her career so there is no bait & switch (I guess it would help as well if she makes it clear to this guy that his power/status/wealth is very important to her).


See if don't know if this is true. If the wife really needs a top earner then her choices will be slim for sure.

But I think she just needs a guy who can take care of things financially if she needs to take time off for pregnancy and the baby phase. I don't think that's unreasonable.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> While this situation is tragic, being the younger one in the relationship does not make the fact that she willingly entered into this agreement any less relevant.
> 
> That does not mean it cannot be revisited.
> 
> It also makes it more difficult to paint her as a hapless victim.


Less experienced often means more naive and vulnerable, far. 

So I guess she could be seen as a victim.


----------



## lifeistooshort

jld said:


> You know you are brilliant, life? I hope you go to law school one day! You make absolutely fabulous points, one after the other!


That's what my dad used to say.....but he was very biased


----------



## Tiggy!

Celes said:


> She's not a hapless victim but I won't look down on her for realizing she was naive and getting the hell out of dodge, like most are doing here. I look back and want to kick myself for agreeing to the line of credit loan. It cost me a **** ton of money. But according to people's logic here, I should have just married him because I was equally responsible for agreeing to it. Yeah no thanks.


:iagree:

It seems she followed what a lot of people advise (trust and support your husbands judgment) and it's backfired.
I don't see her as a victim, I also don't see her husband as a victim either.


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> That's what my dad used to say.....but he was very biased


And rightly so.


----------



## As'laDain

so, let me get this straight:

man is successful, makes a lot of money, and is in a position of authority with his company. 
he decides to pursue his dream job, wife is on board. he accomplishes it, she supports him, and is proud of his accomplishments. wife suddenly makes a WHOLE lot more money than either of them imagined, completely unforseen. now husband isnt good enough because she really just wants to get taken care of.

so, this intelligent woman who is apparently smart enough to rise to the top of a male dominated field was apparently naive enough to never do a google search and see how much her husbands dream job was likely to pull in? 

i doubt that. she probably knew full well what he was likely to make. but, neither of them expected her to suddenly rise to the top and make a whole lot more money. 

and now that she makes more than either of them thought she would, the onus is now on him to somehow find a way to make more money than his chosen profession is known for? so that she can now find him attractive again? 

not only that, but we should call his character into question, accusing him of the old bait and switch?


----------



## EllisRedding

lifeistooshort said:


> See if don't know if this is true. If the wife really needs a top earner then her choices will be slim for sure.
> 
> But I think she just needs a guy who can take care of things financially if she needs to take time off for pregnancy and the baby phase. I don't think that's unreasonable.


See, and I am not taking sides here as I see blame/fault in both people (and I agree with you as well as I don't see it unreasonable what she wants), the OP does state:



> I hate that I want a more traditional lifestyle with a husband who can provide for me.


To me that sounds like she simply does not want to be the breadwinner. She doesn't want a 90/10, 80/20, 70/30 split, she wants a husband to provide for her

I have no issues if that is what she wants. What I have stated all along is that they both f$cked up, neither truly understood themselves and what the other person wanted at the time. We all make mistakes, and hopefully now they both use it as a learning lesson as they move forward with their lives (whether together or separate)


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> so, let me get this straight:
> 
> man is successful, makes a lot of money, and is in a position of authority with his company.
> he decides to pursue his dream job, wife is on board. he accomplishes it, she supports him, and is proud of his accomplishments. wife suddenly makes a WHOLE lot more money than either of them imagined, completely unforseen. now husband isnt good enough because she really just wants to get taken care of.
> 
> so, this intelligent woman who is apparently smart enough to rise to the top of a male dominated field was apparently naive enough to never do a google search and see how much her husbands dream job was likely to pull in?
> 
> i doubt that. she probably knew full well what he was likely to make. but, neither of them expected her to suddenly rise to the top and make a whole lot more money.
> 
> and now that she makes more than either of them thought she would, the onus is now on him to somehow find a way to make more money than his chosen profession is known for? so that she can now find him attractive again?
> 
> not only that, but we should call his character into question, accusing him of the old bait and switch?


Someone can be talented in their line of work while still being naive to a partner's manipulation, Asla. 

Neither is obligated to stay with the other. Nowadays people have the luxury of staying together because they want to, not because they have to.

If he does not meet her needs, she is likely (and probably wisely) going to leave him. And he is certainly free to do the same.


----------



## jld

He will still have his dream job, no matter what happens with his marriage. Since that has been his priority, that will surely be a great comfort to him.

A partner is not an entitlement.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> He will still have his dream job, no matter what happens with his marriage. Since that has been his priority, that will surely be a great comfort to him.
> 
> *A partner is not an entitlement.*


Somehow, I think you miss the irony of your own statement. :scratchhead:


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Somehow, I think you miss the irony of your own statement. :scratchhead:


Sorry, not seeing it. They are each free to leave.


----------



## Fozzy

jld said:


> Sorry, not seeing it. They are each free to leave.


You always make divorce seem so casual, like buying a new set of clothes. :scratchhead:


----------



## EllisRedding

Fozzy said:


> You always make divorce seem so casual, like buying a new set of clothes. :scratchhead:


Follow your heart @Fozzy :smthumbup:


----------



## jld

Fozzy said:


> You always make divorce seem so casual, like buying a new set of clothes. :scratchhead:


I am sure it is not without its costs, Fozzy.

But ultimately we all have to take responsibility for our marital choices. If we stay it is because we choose to do so.

And owning it can be empowering.


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> Someone can be talented in their line of work while still being naive to a partner's manipulation, Asla.
> 
> Neither is obligated to stay with the other. Nowadays people have the luxury of staying together because they want to, not because they have to.
> 
> If he does not meet her needs, she is likely (and probably wisely) going to leave him. And he is certainly free to do the same.


i really have no issue with that. the part i have an issue with is the idea that he must have manipulated her, based on the facts presented. 

while it is possible, the facts do not support it. why reach for some way to paint him in a bad light when its easier to support the argument that life just happened, as it usually does, and she simply lost attraction to him because **** happens?

because thats life, **** happens all the time. its much more plausible to believe that they are both in an unfortunate position that neither of them saw coming. if HE saw it coming, it is not likely that he would be willing to try and make more money in his new career in order to please his wife. he would just thank her for her contribution to his life and let her go.


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> i really have no issue with that. the part i have an issue with is the idea that he must have manipulated her, based on the facts presented.
> 
> while it is possible, the facts do not support it. why reach for some way to paint him in a bad light when its easier to support the argument that life just happened, as it usually does, and she simply lost attraction to him because **** happens?
> 
> because thats life, **** happens all the time. its much more plausible to believe that they are both in an unfortunate position that neither of them saw coming. if HE saw it coming, it is not likely that he would be willing to try and make more money in his new career in order to please his wife. he would just thank her for her contribution to his life and let her go.


Sounds like you and lifeistooshort may just see the "facts" differently.


----------



## Cosmos

Long, long ago, a beautiful young cave dweller known as Jez left the affluent hearth of her father for that of a powerful, successful young hunter named Zorg. The couple were deliriously happy together, and it was their hope that one day they would be joined by children. 

Shortly after joining his hearth, Zorg confided in Jez that he had a dream to do something, but that it would prevent him from hunting for two whole years; but Jez quickly assured him that she could work twice as hard at gathering food and committed to sustain them both for the two years that Zorg would be unable to hunt.

Jez proved highly adept at gathering. Not only was she able to provide the couple with an abundance of fruits, roots, nuts etc, but she also taught herself to kill and the couple lived very well.

Two years later Zorg returned to his hunting and Jez started to look forward to the day when they would bring children to their hearth. However, she started to notice that when Zorg returned from his hunt, rather than having a deer or bison straggling his large, muscular shoulders, as in the past, the most he would have with him was a small rabbit or squirrel dangling from the belt she had made him...

Jez had hoped that in time things would improve, but it was coming up to five years now and she was still having to work very hard, not only gathering food for them both, but also supplementing Zorg's kill by continuing to hunt herself. 

She became increasingly concerned at how she would manage if they had children, because there was no two ways about it; Zorg's decision to follow his dream had caused him to lose his ability to hunt animals that were large enough to feed and clothe a family.

Slowly, Jez became resentful towards Zorg. None of this had been part of _their_ plan, and Zorg was no longer what she had been looking for in a mate... She felt that he had realized his dream at the expense of hers, and his inability to provide poperly for his own hearth eventually caused her to lose attraction for him as a man...


----------



## jld

I have asked a question a few times here that, afaik, has heretofore gone unanswered. 

If you feel this woman should stay with this man, whether out of duty (vows) or pity (he will feel hurt if she leaves) or another reason (please specify), how would you propose they solve her lack of attraction to him?

Or should it not be solved?


----------



## MJJEAN

Cosmos said:


> Long, long ago, a beautiful young cave dweller known as Jez left the afflluent hearth of her father for that of a powerful and successful young hunter named Zorg. The couple were deliriously happy together, and it was their hope that one day they would be joined by children.
> 
> Shortly after Jez joined Zorg's hearth, he confided in her that he had a dream to do something, but that it would prevent him from hunting for two whole years; but Jez quickly assured him that she could work twice as hard at gathering food and committed to sustain them both for the two years that Zorg would be unable to hunt.
> 
> Jez proved highly adept at gathering. Not only was she able to provide the couple with an abundance of fruits, roots, nuts etc, but she also taught herself to kill and the couple lived very well.
> 
> Two years later Zorg returned to his hunting and Jez started to look forward to the day when they would bring children to their hearth. However, she started to notice that when Zorg returned from his hunt, rather than having a deer or bison straggling his large, muscular shoulders, as in the past, the most he would have with him was a small rabbit or squirrel dangling from the belt she had made him...
> 
> Jez had hoped that in time things would improve, but it was coming up to five years now and she was still having to work very hard, not only gathering food for them both, but also supplementing Zorg's kill by continuing to hunt herself.
> 
> She became increasingly concerned at how she would manage if they had children, because there was no two ways about it; Zorg's decision to follow his dream had caused him to lose his ability to hunt animals that were large enough to feed and clothe a family.
> 
> Slowly, Jez became resentful towards Zorg. None of this had been part of _their_ plan, and Zorg was no longer what she had been looking for in a mate... She felt that he had realized his dream at the expense of hers, and his inability to provide poperly for his own hearth eventually caused her to lose attraction for him as a man...


:yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay:


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I have asked a question a few times here that, afaik, has heretofore gone unanswered.
> 
> If you feel this woman should stay with this man, whether out of duty (vows) or pity (he will feel hurt if she leaves) or another reason (please specify), how would you propose they solve her lack of attraction to him?
> 
> Or should it not be solved?


I think most of us who haven't jumped to "DIVORCE!! DIVORCE!! DIVORCE!! HE'S AN EVIL MANIPULATIVE MAN!!" are saying she should address this with her husband, and see what he says and does. 

If there is no communication, of course things like resentment set in. But she's not interested in communicating, by her own admission. She should talk to her H, see if he's willing to analyze the situation and make some changes. If they can't come to a compromise, then obviously they will have to go their separate ways. But starting with "D! D! D!" as the mantra is not how marriages flourish. It is setting her up for failure in future relationships. It's dishonest. 

I really like TAM. But this is something that frustrates me here, the attitude of "oh, it's not going perfect? Divorce!" What a crock. Life is hard. Expecting things to always be perfect is childish. If you're going to divorce your spouse because you don't like how things are going, but the way things are going is something you discussed and agreed on, and you haven't bothered to ask to revisit the arrangement, you may not be marriage material.

Regarding "attraction", well, I'm just not convinced that is what a marriage is best built on. In fact, all of the relationships I've seen (and even experienced) that were based on that have ended in ruin. Marriage is about building an alliance. And alliances require communication, teamwork, similar goals, etc. Sure, attraction is helpful. But it's not key. And focusing on that is shallow, and setting yourself up for failure, whether you're a man or a woman. 

Some day, whatever person you marry will stop working, and retire (if they're lucky to live that long), so if you base your marriage (and "attraction") on their work, you are going to find yourself in the same boat. If you base it on being "hot", well as we age, we naturally deteriorate in the "hot" category, and you will find yourself in this same boat in time. Basing a life-long relationship on something as transient as looks and prestige are recipes for failure.

Of course I understand that some people here at TAM openly admit their word has no value, and that their vows (marital or otherwise) are just a cute set of phrases.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> With a son-in-law, I am okay with that.
> 
> With daughters-in-law, different story.
> 
> 
> 
> You have daughters, Wazza? Are they high achievers?
> 
> Basically your way would be to stay out of it, and let the couple figure it out?


Firstly I have kids of both gender, and I treat them the same. You apparently don't. You are of course entitled to your view, but by my values it is sexist.

Secondly, there are all sorts of definitions of high achievement. Rising within a corporate structure, and making a lot of money, are not the only definition, and will not always lead to happiness. It can be the exact opposite. But in the short term it can be very seductive. I think there an element of that in the problem we are discussing. 

Thirdly, my kids are all strong minded individuals. They think for themselves, and don't in general want an interfering parent. I have usually found it best to offer advice only when requested. If advice were requested, I would advise my child to work through the issue with their spouse and look for a solution to the problem. Since this involves important decisions like career choice, financial positioning, life partner and children, I think they have to make the decision. I could not make it for them. But if my thoughts on the decision were requested, I would say (1) that they need to talk about the problem as a couple and look for practical solutions (2) to think about the level of money they need and want, not to be seduced by what is available and (3) to recognise that life changes, and preserving effective relationships through those changes is a skill. Someone who walks away from relationships too easily is not developing that skill.


----------



## Fozzy

Cosmos said:


> Long, long ago, a beautiful young cave dweller known as Jez left the affluent hearth of her father for that of a powerful, successful young hunter named Zorg. The couple were deliriously happy together, and it was their hope that one day they would be joined by children.
> 
> Shortly after joining his hearth, Zorg confided in Jez that he had a dream to do something, but that it would prevent him from hunting for two whole years; but Jez quickly assured him that she could work twice as hard at gathering food and committed to sustain them both for the two years that Zorg would be unable to hunt.
> 
> Jez proved highly adept at gathering. Not only was she able to provide the couple with an abundance of fruits, roots, nuts etc, but she also taught herself to kill and the couple lived very well.
> 
> Two years later Zorg returned to his hunting and Jez started to look forward to the day when they would bring children to their hearth. However, she started to notice that when Zorg returned from his hunt, rather than having a deer or bison straggling his large, muscular shoulders, as in the past, the most he would have with him was a small rabbit or squirrel dangling from the belt she had made him...
> 
> Jez had hoped that in time things would improve, but it was coming up to five years now and she was still having to work very hard, not only gathering food for them both, but also supplementing Zorg's kill by continuing to hunt herself.
> 
> She became increasingly concerned at how she would manage if they had children, because there was no two ways about it; Zorg's decision to follow his dream had caused him to lose his ability to hunt animals that were large enough to feed and clothe a family.
> 
> Slowly, Jez became resentful towards Zorg. None of this had been part of _their_ plan, and Zorg was no longer what she had been looking for in a mate... She felt that he had realized his dream at the expense of hers, and his inability to provide poperly for his own hearth eventually caused her to lose attraction for him as a man...



OOORRRRRRRR


Zorg brings home deer,
Jez goes out and brings home a mammoth,
Jez is upset Zorg is not bringing home a HERD of mammoths.

If those two lovebirds ever work things out, it could spawn a new genre of caverotica.


----------



## Wazza

lifeistooshort said:


> We already know that this job is worth his wife's happiness, but is it also worth him taking a big hit to his standard of living?


On the information available, this may be spectacularly unfair. 

If she tells him there is a problem, tries to find a solution, and he won't budge, at that point I think you could make this statement. Not before.


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> @Buddy400 - Redpill is wrong about women and marriage, don't assume all woman think like jld, also don't marry a woman who thinks like jld.


Redpill is right about some women and wrong about others. Their mistake is to think they know what ALL women are like.

Then there are those who claim that Redpill is wrong about ALL women. Equally misguided.

I've been in a wonderful marriage for 27 years. No complaints here.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I have asked a question a few times here that, afaik, has heretofore gone unanswered.
> 
> If you feel this woman should stay with this man, whether out of duty (vows) or pity (he will feel hurt if she leaves) or another reason (please specify), how would you propose they solve her lack of attraction to him?
> 
> Or should it not be solved?


I'm not sure anyone has said she should just stay, therefore I am not sure why you are asking the question. Which is as close as I can get to an answer with the available information. :grin2:


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> :allhail:
> 
> @Buddy400 - This is who you marry if you ever find someone who thinks like this, and then you do everything in your damn power to make her happy and live up to her. And you don't give a sh!t if she gains some weight or is grumpy some times or anything else that this world tells you makes her special. You thank your lucky stars you met a woman of character.
> 
> Thank you @SimplyAmorous. Again you have said what I think better then I could.


If @SimplyAmorous ever hits the market, I wouldn't be able to fight my way through all the other guys lined up.


----------



## john117

Fozzy said:


> Zorg brings home deer,
> Jez goes out and brings home a mammoth,
> Jez is upset Zorg is not bringing home a HERD of mammoths.


My wife expects the herd meat all dressed ready for the freezer and for me to invent fire to cook the meat, and a Weber grill to cook on...



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> My wife expects the herd meat all dressed ready for the freezer and for me to invent fire to cook the meat, and a Weber grill to cook on...
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


I am further convinced of her intelligence, john.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> I'm not sure anyone has said she should just stay, therefore I am not sure why you are asking the question. Which is as close as I can get to an answer with the available information. :grin2:


That is my understanding from the posts I have read, Wazza. Several have brought up the question of vows and his hurt feelings. Do you draw a different conclusion from that?


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> They agreed to her supporting him indefinitely?


The problem seems to be that we're all imagining different scenarios. The women seem to be looking at the worst case and the men the best case. Let's identify some and discuss what we'd think.

1) The husband pulled a bait & switch 

If that were the case, I think we'd all agree that it's his problem

2) The husband intentionally misled his wife about his post-grad school earning potential.

Still pretty much all on him

3) The husband intentionally took his dream job at far less pay than he could have gotten elsewhere without consulting his wife

Still pretty much all on him

4) The husband took the best post-grad job he could fine. Both he and his wife misjudged how much money he'd be able to make with his new degree

It's on both of them

5) He took a job making pretty much what both he and his wife had expected. Meanwhile, his wife unexpectedly started making far more money than she expected. She lost attraction for her husband because he now made far less than she. The husband was not aware of the true reason his wife was originally attracted to him.

This is pretty much all on her. She was unaware of why she was actually attracted to him. Her being unaware of this caused her to agree to something that she later turned out to have a problem with.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Firstly I have kids of both gender, and I treat them the same. You apparently don't. You are of course entitled to your view, but by my values it is sexist.


Interesting question.

I just asked my boys, and they all said I treat their sister the same as them. My oldest remarked, "Where does he get the 'you apparently don't.'

Though, I am perfectly fine treating them differently, if I think that is in their best interests. 



> Secondly, there are all sorts of definitions of high achievement. Rising within a corporate structure, and making a lot of money, are not the only definition, and will not always lead to happiness. It can be the exact opposite. But in the short term it can be very seductive. I think there an element of that in the problem we are discussing.


I think success is indeed very seductive in the short term. I certainly agree that long term interests need to be considered, too.

And perhaps if I did not have a high achieving child, I might see this whole issue differently. Not sure, though.



> Thirdly, my kids are all strong minded individuals. They think for themselves, and don't in general want an interfering parent. I have usually found it best to offer advice only when requested. If advice were requested, I would advise my child to work through the issue with their spouse and look for a solution to the problem. Since this involves important decisions like career choice, financial positioning, life partner and children, I think they have to make the decision. I could not make it for them. But if my thoughts on the decision were requested, I would say (1) that they need to talk about the problem as a couple and look for practical solutions (2) to think about the level of money they need and want, not to be seduced by what is available and (3) to recognise that life changes, and preserving effective relationships through those changes is a skill. Someone who walks away from relationships too easily is not developing that skill.


I certainly agree that it is best that adult children ask our opinions, rather than our inserting ourselves into their decisions. Otoh, sometimes they seem to appreciate some insertion.

I do think it is a valuable skill to know which relationships to walk away from, and quickly. _An incredibly time-, energy-, and treasure-saving one._

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Wazza.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I think most of us who haven't jumped to "DIVORCE!! DIVORCE!! DIVORCE!! HE'S AN EVIL MANIPULATIVE MAN!!" are saying she should address this with her husband, and see what he says and does.
> 
> If there is no communication, of course things like resentment set in. But she's not interested in communicating, by her own admission. She should talk to her H, see if he's willing to analyze the situation and make some changes. If they can't come to a compromise, then obviously they will have to go their separate ways. But starting with "D! D! D!" as the mantra is not how marriages flourish. It is setting her up for failure in future relationships. It's dishonest.
> 
> I really like TAM. But this is something that frustrates me here, the attitude of "oh, it's not going perfect? Divorce!" What a crock. Life is hard. Expecting things to always be perfect is childish. If you're going to divorce your spouse because you don't like how things are going, but the way things are going is something you discussed and agreed on, and you haven't bothered to ask to revisit the arrangement, you may not be marriage material.
> 
> Regarding "attraction", well, I'm just not convinced that is what a marriage is best built on. In fact, all of the relationships I've seen (and even experienced) that were based on that have ended in ruin. Marriage is about building an alliance. And alliances require communication, teamwork, similar goals, etc. Sure, attraction is helpful. But it's not key. And focusing on that is shallow, and setting yourself up for failure, whether you're a man or a woman.
> 
> Some day, whatever person you marry will stop working, and retire (if they're lucky to live that long), so if you base your marriage (and "attraction") on their work, you are going to find yourself in the same boat. If you base it on being "hot", well as we age, we naturally deteriorate in the "hot" category, and you will find yourself in this same boat in time. Basing a life-long relationship on something as transient as looks and prestige are recipes for failure.
> 
> Of course I understand that some people here at TAM openly admit their word has no value, and that their vows (marital or otherwise) are just a cute set of phrases.


I am not sure how many people these days will go for a marriage without attraction, kivlor. It is likely part of the foundation of that alliance you suggest people build.

Attraction is not just physical, remember.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> That is my understanding from the posts I have read, Wazza. Several have brought up the question of vows and his hurt feelings. Do you draw a different conclusion from that?


Yes.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> With a son-in-law, I am okay with that.
> With daughters-in-law, different story.





jld said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> I just asked my boys, and they all said I treat their sister the same as them. My oldest remarked, "Where does he get the 'you apparently don't.'.


The answer to your boy's question is in the first quote. The only differentiating factor I can see there is gender. Am I missing something?

In fact, the divide between the way men and women are seeing this question is what interests me about this thread.


----------



## Wazza

john117 said:


> My wife expects the herd meat all dressed ready for the freezer and for me to invent fire to cook the meat, and a Weber grill to cook on...
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


With all that stuff you need to be working on a bigger cave, sir.


----------



## Cosmos

Fozzy said:


> OOORRRRRRRR
> 
> 
> Zorg brings home deer,
> Jez goes out and brings home a mammoth,
> Jez is upset Zorg is not bringing home a HERD of mammoths.
> 
> If those two lovebirds ever work things out, it could spawn a new genre of caverotica.


I might have known that post would have been a waste of time. Silly me...

I'm out of here.


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> See if don't know if this is true. If the wife really needs a top earner then her choices will be slim for sure.
> 
> But I think she just needs a guy who can take care of things financially if she needs to take time off for pregnancy and the baby phase. I don't think that's unreasonable.


If she's making $250,000 / year it's going to take a lot more than a husband making $100,000 a year to smooth out that dip in income.

When we had our first kid my wife was making maybe $10,000 more a year than I was. After a year of having a nanny raise our kid, we decided on her staying home. You notice an income drop like that!

BTW, I would have been willing to be the one to stay home. Kind of glad it didn't go that way or my wife (as wonderful a person as she is) may have lost some attraction for me.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I am not sure how many people these days will go for a marriage without attraction, kivlor. It is likely part of the foundation of that alliance you suggest people build.
> 
> Attraction is not just physical, remember.


Again, I'm not saying that there should be no attraction, or that it is completely unimportant. But if that's the basis for your marriage JLD, you're setting up for failure when time catches up with you.

A _part_ of the foundation of an alliance? Maybe. A major factor? Well, you're building a foundation on sand.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> The answer to your boy's question is in the first quote. The only differentiating factor I can see there is gender. Am I missing something?
> 
> In fact, the divide between the way men and women are seeing this question is what interests me about this thread.


But what would that have to do with how I treat my own children? 

And from that you extrapolate that I am raising my kids in a sexist fashion? Did I misunderstand you?

I thought it was interesting to see how Andy saw things. He was certainly a minority among the TAM men.


----------



## Wazza

Cosmos said:


> I might have known that post would have been a waste of time. Silly me...
> 
> I'm out of here.


Genuinely scratching my head at this one. You outlined one perspective, and Fozzy laid out another. Do you think there is something inherently wrong with what he said?

I think both are possibilities. Do you see it differently?


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Again, I'm not saying that there should be no attraction, or that it is completely unimportant. But if that's the basis for your marriage JLD, you're setting up for failure when time catches up with you.
> 
> A _part_ of the foundation of an alliance? Maybe. A major factor? Well, you're building a foundation on sand.


:lol::rofl::lol::rofl:

That was cute, Kivlor. 

Back to my 20+ year marriage and my five children now . . .


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> I might have known that post would have been a waste of time. Silly me...
> 
> I'm out of here.


I can join you, Cosmos. I got a text this morning from my daughter saying that I should not worry. She said if she ever found herself in a situation like the woman in the OP, she would divorce. She said she is not a bit surprised the woman lost attraction, and questions what the man is bringing to the table anymore.

I am greatly relieved. My own personal fears have been allayed.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> :lol::rofl::lol::rofl:
> 
> That was cute, Kivlor.
> 
> Back to my 20+ year marriage and my five children now . . .


I don't think for a minute that "attraction" is your foundation JLD. Regardless of what you say about it. It seems pretty obvious that your marriage is built on communication and respect among other things.

I hope Dug never loses his income, or suffers something disfiguring/crippling. Because I do think you place far more value on those transient things than should be given to them. :|


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> But what would that have to do with how I treat my own children?
> 
> And from that you extrapolate that I am raising my kids in a sexist fashion? Did I misunderstand you?
> 
> I thought it was interesting to see how Andy saw things. He was certainly a minority among the TAM men.


I think the first thing to stress is, I use the word sexist as an attempt to grapple with ideas. It's not intended to be a criticism. Just an observation

1. Treating your inlaws differently based on gender means treating the marriages differently based on gender means treating your kids differently based on gender. 

2. Treating your kids differently on the basis of gender is sexist.

That was my logic.

You and I have participated in many discussions where the topic of gender has come up, and I think you have always been honest that you have different expectations of men than women. You have a right to that view. It's just not how I see it.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> I can join you, Cosmos. I got a text this morning from my daughter saying that I should not worry. She said if she ever found herself in a situation like the woman in the OP, she would divorce. She said she is not a bit surprised the woman lost attraction, and questions what the man is bringing to the table anymore.
> 
> I am greatly relieved. My own personal fears have been allayed.


So exactly who are very high achieving women who want families supposed to marry?

If they require husbands who make more or even as much as they do, that'll severely limit the field. Especially since, as previously noted, high earning men might not be looking for high earning women.

Who would raise the kids?


----------



## Cosmos

Wazza said:


> Genuinely scratching my head at this one. You outlined one perspective, and Fozzy laid out another. *Do you think there is something inherently wrong with what he said?*
> 
> I think both are possibilities. Do you see it differently?


I don't think there's anything wrong with what Fozzy said, Wazza. It really is just down to differing perspectives and opinions, and I think the secret with a forum like TAM is to probably just state rather than debate - then leave the thread alone. ;-)


----------



## Andy1001

Buddy400 said:


> So exactly who are very high achieving women who want families supposed to marry?
> 
> If they require husbands who make more or even as much as they do, that'll severely limit the field. Especially since, as previously noted, high earning men might not be looking for high earning women.
> 
> Who would raise the kids?


That is the most important question asked yet on this thread.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

jld said:


> I certainly agree that it is best that adult children ask our opinions, rather than our inserting ourselves into their decisions. Otoh, sometimes they seem to appreciate some insertion.


Even as I near 50 I still find input from my parents valuable. I know they have my interests at heart, not their own profit and 2 yr goal/KPI, and that they'll be honest in what they bring up (not avoiding what might "drive off a client"), also it can be good because they can help me by projecting stuff forwards for ideas/explorations - a lot of professionals won't engage in such things for the risk of "misleading a client" and their "professional reputation" should a client 'take their advice'/'at face value' - while sharing such things with peers can set oneself for business competition.

Also my parents have years of real experience, and I know some of what they've gone through. I know that they're close to me, so I cannot just take their advice; that I have to de-emotionalise the ideas. This again is a good step for planning things out. I seldom follow their advice directly but have always been the better off for taking it. But then I'm lucky because my parents are skilled and helpful, where some of my friends parents are either useless (drugged out/stuck in bed) or even openly hostile to the concept that their children might do better than they have.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Andy1001 said:


> That is the most important question asked yet on this thread.


Is a permanent nanny any worse than a step-parent?


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Cosmos said:


> Long, long ago, a beautiful young cave dweller known as Jez left the affluent hearth of her father for that of a powerful, successful young hunter named Zorg. The couple were deliriously happy together, and it was their hope that one day they would be joined by children.
> 
> Shortly after joining his hearth, Zorg confided in Jez that he had a dream to do something, but that it would prevent him from hunting for two whole years; but Jez quickly assured him that she could work twice as hard at gathering food and committed to sustain them both for the two years that Zorg would be unable to hunt.
> 
> Jez proved highly adept at gathering. Not only was she able to provide the couple with an abundance of fruits, roots, nuts etc, but she also taught herself to kill and the couple lived very well.
> 
> Two years later Zorg returned to his hunting and Jez started to look forward to the day when they would bring children to their hearth. However, she started to notice that when Zorg returned from his hunt, rather than having a deer or bison straggling his large, muscular shoulders, as in the past, the most he would have with him was a small rabbit or squirrel dangling from the belt she had made him...
> 
> Jez had hoped that in time things would improve, but it was coming up to five years now and she was still having to work very hard, not only gathering food for them both, but also supplementing Zorg's kill by continuing to hunt herself.
> 
> She became increasingly concerned at how she would manage if they had children, because there was no two ways about it; Zorg's decision to follow his dream had caused him to lose his ability to hunt animals that were large enough to feed and clothe a family.
> 
> Slowly, Jez became resentful towards Zorg. None of this had been part of _their_ plan, and Zorg was no longer what she had been looking for in a mate... She felt that he had realized his dream at the expense of hers, and his inability to provide poperly for his own hearth eventually caused her to lose attraction for him as a man...



Why would Jez become resentful?

They don't need 2 antelope to feed even a small family. Is not Zorg's happiness important to Jez?
Does Jez not have happiness and price in her own skill and actions?


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

lifeistooshort said:


> See if don't know if this is true. If the wife really needs a top earner then her choices will be slim for sure.
> 
> But I think she just needs a guy who can take care of things financially if she needs to take time off for pregnancy and the baby phase. I don't think that's unreasonable.



I think your first comment is even more important.

She now sees that those "top earners" are 'just above' her league but in reach. And thus she now believes that she is entitled to "have" one of those (and why shouldn't she, other successful women have them, so she should be successful/entitled/need to progress/social move up have one of them two.) Why should "useless husband" be entitled/hold her back/expectation/penalise/carry him in a manner that doesn't let her have what she should have (her freedom to move forwards as a success independent working woman (with all correct accoutrements) )?


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

jld said:


> For all of you who are so upset that she might leave him, what do you propose be done about her lack of attraction?
> 
> Do you want her to just stay with him out of pity or duty, so he gets the benefit of her money? Another sexless marriage, even though they are young with no kids?


I think the TAM answer is clear on that point already.

Two people following their dreams in opposite directions.

I think everyone here has enough water under the bridge to spell out the emotional states and results of this situation. No matter how we see the facts and the considerations, I think we're all agreed on the outcome.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Wazza said:


> That outlook may not make you the world's most popular mother in law.
> 
> I have children in the age group of these two, and I would not presume to tell them what to do. But I believe none of them would do what this girl is doing, and their upbringing is probably a factor in that.
> 
> If they sought my advice, it would be that they need to work through the situation with their spouses.



Avoiding the problem because it isn't yours makes you a useless person

What if this was YOUR relationship, what if you were one of these two people, do you have enough emotional capacity to stand in another persons shoes, or are you so solely interested in yourself.


----------



## Andy1001

spotthedeaddog said:


> Is a permanent nanny any worse than a step-parent?


I see once again you are having a dig at me but on a different thread.
Ah well,you have to listen to thunder.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

lifeistooshort said:


> This guy used his money to attract a younger woman and then as soon as they got married pulled a bait and switch. Men scream bloody murder when they marry a fit woman and she gains a bunch of weight right after the wedding.
> 
> Why should that be a problem? He married her so why should she have to maintain herself? Surely men should be ok with that because her weight isn't a measure of her as a person, right?



women do this stuff all the time. Good husbands are just supposed to support and provide.

My ex-wife was originally a _vocal_ "No kids" woman. Two years into marriage after a 5 year engagment (for financial reasons). She's all "I want children".

Her and my next-significant partner were both "we want a career", "we're happy to invest in stuff so we can have passive income while we do things". Both "nested" and wouldn't budge. ex-partner even agreed to shift cities for work then pretty much refused to leave the house until we moved back to earlier town (where she nested in what was supposed to be our investment property) and hung out with all her old friends while I was expected to just pay for the lifestyle.

that is the _norm_. You're just supposed to support her. "Daddy" is supposed to get all his social needs etc from employment. Women see employment not as an endeavour which men use to grind away at the coal face to try and sustain a family and a their real interests, but as a social engagement where all the nice suits/power fashion is, and everyone gets to spend larger amounts of resources.
A CEO of a large company is sweet Daddy Warbucks to them. (he even gives presents like "company cars", and "free holidays and learning stuff (aka training/promotions weekends), and rewards the clever/pretty girls...) ), and is supposed to either have the nicest toys, or the naughtiest perks.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

jld said:


> I don't think it is analogous. A woman who left a man with penile cancer, who had to have his penis removed, would not exactly inspire admiration, either.
> 
> Until men can get their bodies flooded with estrogen and get pregnant, deliver children, and breastfeed, there are likely going to be different expectations between the sexes, at least for some people. I think the wisest (and most realistic) thing to do is to just work within the natural parameters of each relationship.
> 
> SA, you would not want a woman to stay with a man out of pity or duty, would you? How would that ultimately make him feel?


The estrogen is possible (and can also be simulated with hypnosis and spirit training in the Anima).

the other things... jld... not all woman can do these things, and using them to define a woman is very hurtful. (including to those who end up bottlefeeding, and to those who adopt children for whatever reason)


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

sokillme said:


> By the way this is complete bullsh!t, damaged people have trouble with empathy. Healthy women and men can feel empathy for each other. Don't let this place which is a website for people with marriage problems by and large be you control group on that.



incorrect sokillme - you're getting "empathy" confused with "sympathy" ("sympathy" is often then confused for "pity"). What you describe is sympathy, not empathy.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

jld said:


> How is this a bad deal for him? He surely came out of grad school debt-free, while enjoying a comfortable lifestyle. Not everyone can say that.
> 
> And now he has his dream job and is unlikely to have any problems finding another adoring woman. I would say he has lucked out.


Why is there an expectation of "another adoring woman"

why are you perpetrating the myth that a man is not complete without a woman? (or that a well off man is deserving of a woman (said in _all_ its connotations, and with respect to the OPosting))


----------



## sokillme

EllisRedding said:


> Realistically, these two should just part ways. They both hopefully have a better understanding now of who they are and what they want. The H may need to understand that with his current career, he may have to adjust to attracting a slightly different crown then previously. The W, I honestly don't know. She is clearly attracted to money/power/stature. So I guess set her sights very high in a mate, find someone who meets that criteria, and hopefully be upfront with him that once they marry she wants to back off her career so there is no bait & switch (I guess it would help as well if she makes it clear to this guy that his power/status/wealth is very important to her).


And hope that some hotter chick doesn't come along with here own money. Either way she better stay in good shape. Lose that baby weight fast. High demand men marry trophy wives.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

EleGirl said:


> You carried your wife when she was getting her degree. After that, she earns a good living, right?


No, she went and did volunteer work "because she didn't want to "chase money", and " ""we"" have enough income" (I was doing 10-12 shift & 24/7hr on-call)


----------



## sokillme

Cosmos said:


> They_ mutually _agreed that she would support them both _for two years_, but she has a problem with the fact that she's still (90%) doing so _four years _later, "_and it will likely be five_." This wasn't what they agreed upon...
> 
> I don't believe that money itself is the main issue here. She thought that she was marrying someone who was capable of maintaining a certain standard of living for his family, but it is no longer clear to her that he will ever be in a position to do so...
> 
> I think they both made an error of judgment.


Amazing how you don't believe it when the first thing she mentions as the problem is


> it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction.


You can believe what you want, but the woman's words are right there for all of us to read, first thing she writes is money.

It is actually amazing to see how many people here just skip over this part. The first line no less. Her biggest problem is NOT supporting him it's that she has lost attraction to him because he makes less money and in her mind has lost his power. This is what she was asking help for, not the supporting part, there is no instance where she talks about they are struggling. She basically says they are doing fine, she wants a "powerful" man.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Buddy400 said:


> The problem is that all the women can't be married to "top men".
> 
> And the "top men" may be too busy chasing after centerfold models to notice the "more independent and powerful" women.


No, the top men are too busy banging the bunnies and the wannabes. (certain Hollywood 70s parties ring a bell?) Where to you think all that stupid pretty educate meat comes from for them to bang away at? (nasty tone to prove a discerning point, that if you want to play kiss/sleep up the chain, then you are nothing but ignorant fodder to those you're trying to sell yourself to)


And Those try to beat the rules on the way up, "land" those successful men, and the stupid consider that "their man is totally different from the big sharks he has to swim with", the smart realise that to be social paired to a top man then they have to put up with him swimming with the other sharks and be contented with the fact that she is a successful woman and not be just shark-food. Often these are the first and second wives of the top men, and they're a totally different breed to the "groupies" and "wannabes" that feed the signs and "benefits" of success. They instead have their own rules (don't look to far behind the emerald curtain), measure yourself against your own peers and your own goals, not be measured by your man alone...... which is why all the "lesser (actual beta) females" after their man, the beta's want _her_job_, success is when they can take _her_ social role, and do _her_ social deeds.
And the second/third+ wives/partners, are the trophy crew, which is what the more ambitious bunny-meat really really hope for, with the glamour and the elbows to rub, and the not having to work for a boss. But this is not a position you can bunny yourself into. 

("bunny" as in "bunk bunny". screwing the crew for vocational and social mobility)


----------



## sokillme

As'laDain said:


> i really have no issue with that. the part i have an issue with is the idea that he must have manipulated her, based on the facts presented.
> 
> while it is possible, the facts do not support it. why reach for some way to paint him in a bad light when its easier to support the argument that life just happened, as it usually does, and she simply lost attraction to him because **** happens?
> 
> because thats life, **** happens all the time. its much more plausible to believe that they are both in an unfortunate position that neither of them saw coming. if HE saw it coming, it is not likely that he would be willing to try and make more money in his new career in order to please his wife. he would just thank her for her contribution to his life and let her go.


jld feels that any woman that makes a mistake was manipulated into it by a man. That is not a joke by the way she actually thinks this.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

sokillme said:


> She basically says they are doing fine, she wants a "powerful" man.


Because she now considers herself worthy for that social slot in the hierarchy


----------



## sokillme

Buddy400 said:


> The problem seems to be that we're all imagining different scenarios. The women seem to be looking at the worst case and the men the best case. Let's identify some and discuss what we'd think.
> 
> 1) The husband pulled a bait & switch
> 
> If that were the case, I think we'd all agree that it's his problem
> 
> 2) The husband intentionally misled his wife about his post-grad school earning potential.
> 
> Still pretty much all on him
> 
> 3) The husband intentionally took his dream job at far less pay than he could have gotten elsewhere without consulting his wife
> 
> Still pretty much all on him
> 
> 4) The husband took the best post-grad job he could fine. Both he and his wife misjudged how much money he'd be able to make with his new degree
> 
> It's on both of them
> 
> 5) He took a job making pretty much what both he and his wife had expected. Meanwhile, his wife unexpectedly started making far more money than she expected. She lost attraction for her husband because he now made far less than she. The husband was not aware of the true reason his wife was originally attracted to him.
> 
> This is pretty much all on her. She was unaware of why she was actually attracted to him. Her being unaware of this caused her to agree to something that she later turned out to have a problem with.


5 is much closer to what she wrote by the way, and why she asked for help.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Andy1001 said:


> I see once again you are having a dig at me but on a different thread.
> Ah well,you have to listen to thunder.


Not even slightly. I don't bother taking digs *at* people. Sorry to disappoint your ego(s) but you're just not that important to me.

Historically people used to hire wet nurses and nannies. Indeed, people like Rudyard Kipling had far more "adoptive parent" relationship with their nanny (which could be up until 16+yrs) than with the parents in his household - such was the norm for many Anglo-European families in India (where the nannies would have to remind the children to speak English to Father and Mother).
It was so normal in upper classes, that the middle class, for whom social mores were far more important, tended to ape their betters behaviour in order to be considered the higher social rank (where the working class had to be "economically reasonable" and deal with their children directly and even raise them at their own breast).
Even in the US this is common with tutors and childcare centers. And the more modern "Creche"

So if both parents are high income earners - why not just hire a nanny (basically a step-parent), or go in a time-share on a group of nannies (childcare center/creche).
It only takes 3 generations to become the new normal, with the children of today not knowing of the "funny old ways".

How is having a well-resourced nanny any different to a step-parent?


----------



## Buddy400

spotthedeaddog said:


> Why would Jez become resentful?
> 
> They don't need 2 antelope to feed even a small family. Is not Zorg's happiness important to Jez?
> Does Jez not have happiness and price in her own skill and actions?


I think that the idea is that both Jez and Zorg should be able to hunt if they so desire (to only allow Zorg to hunt would be sexist).

However, Jez should be able to stop hunting whenever she wants.

Zorg, on the other hand is required to hunt all the time.

If Zorg isn't as good of a hunter as Jez, then Jez will not want to have sex with him.

For the record, I'm all in favor of both Jez and Zorg being able to hunt.


----------



## sokillme

spotthedeaddog said:


> women do this stuff all the time. Good husbands are just supposed to support and provide.
> 
> My ex-wife was originally a _vocal_ "No kids" woman. Two years into marriage after a 5 year engagment (for financial reasons). She's all "I want children".
> 
> Her and my next-significant partner were both "we want a career", "we're happy to invest in stuff so we can have passive income while we do things". Both "nested" and wouldn't budge. ex-partner even agreed to shift cities for work then pretty much refused to leave the house until we moved back to earlier town (where she nested in what was supposed to be our investment property) and hung out with all her old friends while I was expected to just pay for the lifestyle.
> 
> that is the _norm_. You're just supposed to support her. "Daddy" is supposed to get all his social needs etc from employment. Women see employment not as an endeavour which men use to grind away at the coal face to try and sustain a family and a their real interests, but as a social engagement where all the nice suits/power fashion is, and everyone gets to spend larger amounts of resources.
> A CEO of a large company is sweet Daddy Warbucks to them. (he even gives presents like "company cars", and "free holidays and learning stuff (aka training/promotions weekends), and rewards the clever/pretty girls...) ), and is supposed to either have the nicest toys, or the naughtiest perks.


This post is just as bad as some of the woman on here thinking the guy is a clown. You are now projecting your situation. You just fell in with some very bad women.


----------

