Did I miss it or is no one in this thread taking issue with the OP’s claim that housekeeping isn’t work?
Because it is. A lot. Of work.
-FrL-
Oh, how wonderful. If I hadn’t done a vanity search I’d not know I’d acquired my first Hater on the board.
Well, news for you, my long-necked non-friend. 
I’ve been calling my husband Himself online for *years * now, and I ain’t about to change that for you. 
(Oh, yay, I’m somebody now, after 8 years on the board! A mod hates me! Wheeeee! 
)
in her defense, Snookie **was ** taken.
True. I’d NEVER want to step on the Snookie-toes.
“clever girl”.
Tell Snookie I love him, too. 
I noticed that, too. I’m not commenting because frothing at the mouth in fury while typing a rebuttal cuts into my precious bon-bon eating time.
Then the one who stayed home got a gift of not having to be the one to work 80 hours per week and got supported throughout the marriage. Why would it go on when the marriage is over? Hopefully they did support you with the proceeds but that should be for life? Even when the stay at home person no longer has any association with the one who is working? Don’t see how that would be fair under any circumstances. We aren’t talking motherhood here…we are talking about a “honey, I am making enough for both of us so you get to do what you want to do because I love you and want you to be happy” The stay at home person made the choice to not develop professional skills and would have to pay for that mistake if the ride ends for whatever reason.
Housekeeping IS work, but it isn’t a full time job for the normal household. I guess if you had a 10000 sq foot house that you cleaned alone that had windows that needed to be washed daily etc, it would be but I would imagine a couple like that would have household help.
I said it’s some people’s paid job.
I love you in a totally creepy cyberstalker way for this remark.
Wow that this thread should be read by me on the day that I walked out of my workplace intent on quitting asap. Of course, the lifestyle that my husband and son and I enjoy will dictate that I have to get another job. So I will - but probably with a paycut. After 13 years in the same trench, I’ve had enough.
Anyway, the OP has no problem with people who don’t work and instead study. I applaud education and training as much as the next person, but I have met far too many ‘professional students’ for my liking, and believe that a life of study without productive work is an issue. I know men and women who left school, got a degree, decided that it was all too hard, got a masters, decided to switch tack and do another degree and now are in their 40s (I kid you not) and have never done a days paid work.
Two of them are qualified primary school teachers, who then did programming and now one is studying tourism whilst the other is studying languages. Fabulous - I have a bigger issue with these sorts of people, than I do with those who choose for one partner to remain home whilst the other works. That said, last time I checked - there wasn’t a law against it, like there was years ago in Broken Hill NSW (mining town) that had a rule that stipulated that married women couldn’t be employed, as it was taking a job from a man. When my mother died in 1996, she continued to say that my working was immoral as I was married and taking a perfectly good job … from a man.
No, we are talking about a “honey, I am going to spend every minute of my life at work or shmoozing people that can help my career. In order to do that, I need someone to do all the shopping, including for my professional wardrobe, all the household finances, all the chores, all the family relationship stuff–for my family as well as yours–and basically everything that isn’t directly applicable to me making partner in 10 years. I need someone who can pack my bags when I erratically go out of town. I also need someone to entertain for me and accompany me to anything that calls for spouses.” What you have there is two people making a partnership in a business–the business is the one person’s career. If they split, it makes sense that they each get some portion of that–not just of the money earned, but the money that will be earned now that the investment is starting to pay off.
This isn’t the case for every stay at home spouse. But it does happen.
So essentially a butler, right?
Are you seriously saying that a guy moving up the corporate ladder for a Fortune500 would have to be married (or employ a PA) to be able to make it?
I don’t think this has much to do with it. What’s being implied here? Let’s try it out:
Hmm, no, that doesn’t go to well. Let’s try it the other way:
Sounds a bit more like it.
I don’t think she’s saying that he’d *have * to. I’m sure it can be done without one. But it seems worth mentioning that almost every high-powered executive I know has a SAHW/H or a “House Manager” (I swear, this is the term I’m hearing lately).
This is why I can’t join the pile-on on the OP. I’ve heard from WAY too many newly-divorced men bitching about paying alimony for an ex-wife with no marketable skills. Even if the SAH spouse had a career, getting back into the workforce after a multi-year gap is a trial.
I’d have a SAH husband if I could stand working until 65, but I’d be investing in extra Disability Insurance, Life Insurance, and have a post-nup detailing alimony in case of divorce. To do otherwise is letting hope triumph over reality.
Meh… I’ve heard way too many people bitching about the spouse who, while they were married “takes care of everything, I couldn’t live without him/her”, and now that they’re getting divorced “sat on his/her ass and sucked me dry for XX years” to have a whole lot of sympathy.
I’ve always worked exactly because there’s no way in hell I’m counting on anyone else’s money, and I’m certainly not in favor of alimony in perpetuity, but IMO, if both parties agreed that one should stay home, and the marriage ends, there should be, in addition to fair division of the assets, a “grace period” (of not more than a couple of years) for the previously SAH partner to acquire the skills necessary to support themselves in a reasonable manner.
My main problem with the whole stay-at-home thing is that I think a lot of the stay-at-homers (new word?) are doing themselves a disservice. There is a significant chance that something might happen to either the bread-winner or the relationship, and then what do you do? There are too many women who have stayed at home only to be stuck in a situation where they have little to no marketable skills once they need to go out there and make money on their own. This was a reason why it was so important for women to get back out in the workplace, so that they wouldn’t be dependent on a husband, and I do think it is a little bit worrying that a number of younger women seem to want to “get back to the good old days”.