<p>A successful marriage is all about compromise. There needs to be give and take on both sides to make it work. However, if you are looking to protect your own self interests from the get go it is going to be difficult to achieve the balance needed to make it work.</p>
<p>
Sometimes you have to protect your own interest. Ideally, a spouse would understand that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A couple of observations. I searched this thread for “love” and you are one of the very few posters who have expressed love between the spouses. Smile, it is the payoff.</p>
<p>I always was the driver for my Son. The truth is that your husband is getting a window into his son’s world on those trips.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. This is what I see in a lot of young people’s relationships, which is why I brought up the point. But, to poetgrl’s point, these days it is tough because young women know they need to look out for themselves. It makes finding that balance so much harder.</p>
<p>Look, nobody knows what my self interest is better than I do. Nobody knows what my husband’s self interest is better than he does. Both of us would put that behind the self interest of our kids while they were growing up…up.to.a. point.</p>
<p>I love the tv show “Friday Night Lights.” Such an honest show. It didn’t shy away from these challenges. Really told the truth.</p>
<p>If you want to pretend that the ideal would be everyone falling all over themselves for everybody else, then pretend away. But, the most successful marriages I have seen, and I count mine among them, contains a lot of honesty and a lot of challenge.</p>
<p>I wonder what exactly we all are talking about when we say that a woman has to look out for her own self-interest. It “sounds” ugly, but when you really think about it I don’t think that it is. If being a SAHM is what’s best for my family, it’s something I would do. But I do have my eye on the drawbacks. I would get certified in the field my mom works in so that I can work from home, and I have established connections with clients who have already offered me work whenever I want it-- the benefit of this work being that I set my own hours and can work as much or as little as I want depending on our needs at the time. We are talking about how things would be divided if we were to divorce. We have discussed that I take a huge risk to my livlihood if I do leave the workforce and if that is a risk we will take together then we both need to have “skin in the game,” as we like to say here. I would plan to do a lot of charity work like I’ve always wanted to do and would probably end up turning that work or one of my other hobbies into a job one way or the other eventually whether I wanted one or not. One way or the other, my skills would not all disappear. It would still be hard to re-enter the workforce but I think I’d be giving myself my best chance while still doing what I need to do to keep my family’s head above water. </p>
<p>I think that is “protecting my own self interests,” but it’s not like I am running around expecting my husband to screw me at every turn like “looking out for #1” implies-- it is to our family’s benefit that I not be destitute in the event of a divorce, and that includes my spouse. Our family unit has to be able to stay standing even if it breaks apart. I think that’s the whole point.</p>
<p>When I say you have to look out for your own self interest, it’s not at odds with my husbands, for what it’s worth. I have five divorced friends. one of them believed her husband would take care of her. She is the only one who didn’t have a career and she is the only one who ended up with nothing.</p>
<p>I’m just saying forever might not be forever. You can really end up with nothing by believing your relationship is “everything.”</p>
<p>*Quote:
or when one person sees a real necessity, and the other doesn’t?
*</p>
<p>Been there… I can remember H once telling me, “well, that’s your standard, not mine.” </p>
<p>To me, that response can be appropriate if someone is some neat-freak clean-fanatic (which no one would accuse me of being, except for my rentals…which H doesn’t get involved with). However, I hate that response when the expected “standard” truly is a normal one.</p>
<p>Do y’all remember that Raymond episode where Debra is trying to clean & pick up toys before company arrives and she wants Raymond to help out? My H hates that episode because it hits too close to home. lol Raymond starts whining that Debra wants to present the “fake home” to the guests by “lying” and having a clean home for those guests. lol H wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s “lying” but he has sometimes said that we don’t have to “pick up” before guests come…because HE doesn’t want to pick up things before guests come. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>It helps to keep yourself marketable and active in the community, especially if you’re taking a hiatus from the traditional workforce. You also have to be flexible about your re-entry and keep your skills as current as possible, however you are able. Often those skills can be useful in your community volunteering.</p>
<p>When I say look out for myself, I mean a lot of different things. Prioritizing my own health and well-being. My husband is very heavy, but I am not and I love to exercise. He would prefer to sit on the couch and snack together, but I prefer to exercise on a set schedule. I make sure to keep that schedule unless there is a compelling reason because (a) I deserve it and (b) my family needs me to be healthy. Looking out for myself means that I make sure that I have life insurance on my husband (as he does on me) in case the worst should happen. I have always made sure that my 401-k contribution is as large as possible to protect myself. It would be ideal to share the spending of that money with him, but nobody can promise me the future. I am not a fan of prioritizing myself to the true expense of my husband or our family, such as an expensive smoking habit that took money away from necessities, but I spend money to commute by expess bus rather than by ferry because I would be a lunatic if I had to do that commute. My husband golfs with the PBK regularly. I do not golf. It is great that he puts himself first by golfing because he deserves it. They are going on a boys golf weekend in the spring. Without me. I think it is absolutely wonderful and will joyfully wave them off!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re setting up a dichotomy where there doesn’t have to be. All successful marriages require a lot of honesty and a lot of challenge. But recognizing that you need to go into marriage expecting a lot of give and take just seems like good advice to the young. It would be nice we could get those marriage statistics up a bit, don’t you think?</p>
<p>It’s not just divorce that can cause the spousal partnership deal to derail. If the working spouse becomes unable to work for ANY reason, it’s a problem. Death (with inadequate insurance and adequate can be a whole lot), Disability, or just plain old unemployment for any reason can cause a huge problem. With another paycheck in the picture, it can be less of a catastrophe. The other spouse at least has a running start in having a job. </p>
<p>Of course, a lot of this has to do with living within means. really well below means. so that there is some leeway. When you live right up to the edge of what you can afford, it’s always risky when the income is threatened in any way. My SIL is currently unemployed, but it was easy for them to cut out their extras that her income provided. They are not thrilled with having to watch every cent when they were living without regard to money, but they had structured their budget so that necessities were provided for with a certain stream of income ( pension and rent from a property) and that savings and non essentials came from the paycheck. So, unemployment covers the food and other costs that can be variable, and the regular bills are covered without a blip. But if she doesn’t find a job for a certain amount in a certain time, the kids will be pulled from their private school. As it s, no vacations–zero, no extracurricular activities that cost money no driving around, eating out, and discretionary spendig as been frozen. They can do this because of how they structured and covered their necessary costs, AND because of the other source of income.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think most of us here are saying a career is a good thing for both partners. No argument there.
But to your point, this set-up requires a huge amount of give and take! Much more, in many ways, than the old SAHM way of doing things.</p>
<p>
Exactly. But a lot of us who are generally prudent and careful will stretch more than normal in the college years. Because the fact is that for those of us whose kids aren’t full-ride material, paying for even state schools can involve a substantial amount of money. For us, the risk has so far been worth it. One more tuition payment for D2.</p>
<p>I know several divorce attorneys who have attempted to promote and market mutual/reciprocal prenuptial agreements so that if there is career sacrifice at some point, this gets adjusted in any divorce.</p>
<p>Turns out that the idea has met resistance due to it being mutual.</p>
<p>Moonchild. I agree. As I said to my daughter, you might have to take turns on deciding whose career comes first and pass on this opportunity. </p>
<p>The difference, I think, is in the past, her passing on that opportunity would be a given and not taken into account in the next choice. </p>
<p>This time, she is notably giving something up. He moved for her last time. </p>
<p>It should be interesting to see how they find their rhythm. They seem well suited to me, as a couple.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting, but I’m not sure I know what you’re saying. Are you saying the wives are balking? Why would that be?</p>
<p>Yes. The potential bride (these are prenuptial agreements) is not willing in advance to agree to a calculation/formula that would provide for her making payments to the ex-husband if the decision was that he be SAHP.</p>
<p>Why? Apparently, it is viewed as giving the father a leg up with getting primary parental rights if he has been the SAHP. The father would be able to argue (1) I have the primary caregiver history, (2) she has the job that has supported us and (3) I get that prenup money in addition to state mandated child support and (4) therefore I may not need to get a job so I can continue to be stay at home for the child.</p>
<p>*I know several divorce attorneys who have attempted to promote and market mutual/reciprocal prenuptial agreements so that if there is career sacrifice at some point, this gets adjusted in any divorce.</p>
<p>Turns out that the idea has met resistance due to it being mutual.
*</p>
<p>What does that mean?</p>
<p>Does that mean that brides resist these because if their H’s sacrifice their careers, then the wives don’t want to support?</p>
<p>I do think that there needs to be something that indicates that the “sacrifice” was agreed upon (desired) by both parties.</p>
<p>I know of two cases where the H’s, without their wives agreement (and with their wives begging them not to do it) quit their good-paying jobs to take MUCH lesser paying part-time jobs (30 hrs/wk) so that the H’s would have more free time for themselves (not to take care of home/kids). In both cases, the wives had wanted to cut back to part-time when kids were young and H’s refused to let them…but then suddenly it was ok for them to do so…even tho it wasn’t to benefit the kids/home at all. </p>
<p>I acknowledge that these are not common situations at all.</p>
<p>Cross-posted…I see it is the brides.</p>
<p>07DAD It seems that if the pre-nup sets out financial contingencies, it could also set out parental rights contingencies. Could the couples not agree to shared parental rights from the get-go?</p>