What is something people don’t know about divorce until they’ve gone through it?

[diamondyes]

I truly appreciate all the open hearts here. Sometimes PS is such a special place, and the most sparkliest things are the people that post here. <3

 

[Tonks]

This sweet boy just graduated high school and leaves for college next week. He's a healthy, caring, smart, athletic, and all around great kid (not biased at all lol)!

What a beautiful smile!

Congrats to you and to him on his heading off to school. I hope it is a wonderful year for him. And congrats to you, mama—what a huge accomplishment, to have been there for him through all his complicated medical history, and to have raised a wonderful, smart, caring, and successful young man.

Btw, our kids are not all that different in age—mine have three more years of high school.

 

[Tonks]

I just told my husband the same @Gussie, he laughed and said he’d rather go out to work than do all the things that I did in the home, everything you listed, plus decorator and gardener. Great being a ‘parasite’ isn’t it?

I also talked with my husband about it, because, let’s face It, who’s not at least slightly bothered by being called “parasitic”?

His reaction, “I don’t know how you can call someone ‘parasitic’ when they’re adding so much value to our lives.” He went on to talk about how, while he does earn the money, I do so much that he cannot do because he is at work all day.

Hopefully that perspective is helpful.

 

[Elizabeth35]

Yes--I think it is important to understand that not all value is related to earning money.
A family involves teamwork---and sometimes one person earns the $$ and the other tends to the household and children. And those roles may change over time. And one person may eventually be the caregiver for an elderly spouse.
Our worth is not necessarily our paycheck.

 

[doberman]

That the person you divorce is not the person you married.

 

[monarch64]

This thread took a turn!

Oh boy. I went right back to work, I’m talking I was 4.5 weeks pp and was traveling to the nearest metropolitan area 1.5 hours away to view lines (I was an apparel and footwear buyer at the time). Then writing orders in between pumping and nursing around the clock. My ex had been laid off and was a SAHD. I was very resentful of missing that time with my baby. At the same time, I was kind of happy to have the distraction of work because WOW, motherhood is hard. Anyway, I worked for the next year or so while he stayed home and did consulting work, oh, and ran for office—gotta make sure HIS dreams were being fulfilled, haha—and then I took about 10 months off to stay with our baby when he found new employment outside the home. It was a tumultuous time.

I grew up in a very traditional household with a SAHM. I never wanted that for myself; in fact, I never wanted marriage or children but one day I did feel the want for a child hit me particularly unexpectedly, and hard. It was so strange. He had also grown up in a similar way, but I remember him once saying early on that he wouldn’t at all mind being a SAHD.

Life is funny. There is no right or wrong way to do things, no particular order, yet we tell ourselves we should adhere to social norms. Clearly it doesn’t have to be that way. And it often isn’t. I can’t find it in myself to judge one way or another if someone else is doing it right. I used to be very concerned about what others thought of me…I stopped giving a rip pretty recently, maybe 6-8 years back. I can only please myself and take care of my child. Those are my duties, I owe nothing to anyone else.

To compare the value of a full-time, do-it-all parent to a person working outside the home to provide everyone with that lifestyle is just pointless. One isn’t more important than the other. I think everyone can agree that as long as the child(ren) are well taken care of and getting their needs met, it’s pretty nuts to keep score of who did what all day. My god, when I think back about the naps I took when sometimes my daughter would be up happily playing or watching tv next to me…guess I was really being lazy! Or when I think back to hauling my medical grade breast pump to and from work every day in a Herculean effort to keep feeding her the good stuff, I sometimes think I’d have been a better mom just exclusively feeding her formula and getting some actual rest. No one else cared but me. I could’ve been a lot more selfish and it probably wouldn’t have made any difference.

Sorry, I don’t know if my input adds to the convo or not. I just find it ridiculous to spend energy on debating whether a SAHP is entitled or something in this day and age. It’s literally a choice now.

 

[Jambalaya]

Right, thanks for clarifying. As I said, a laughable amount to you is rent or groceries (or gas) to someone else. I hope your child is doing well, have a great day.

But @telephone89, how much gas, rent, or groceries can you get for $5? I bet even people living below the poverty line wouldn't give up being with their child to take home $5 a week. You'd be better off begging in the street. That's what I'd do, if I was as poor as that and faced being away from my child only to make $5. I'd take them with me for an hour or two each day and put out a sign saying "we are desperate." I bet you'd get more than $5 a week and you'd be with your child! I think it's really silly to suggest that you're privileged if you reject the idea of not being with your child for the sake of $5 a week. I don't think anyone would take that deal. They'd find some other way, like begging or taking in laundry or mending clothes, or something else you could do from home, like Avon.

 

[Lookinagain]

But @telephone89, I think it's really silly to suggest that you're privileged if you reject the idea of not being with your child for the sake of $5 a week. I don't think anyone would take that deal. They'd find some other way, like begging or taking in laundry or mending clothes, or something else you could do from home, like Avon.

I disagree. Some would and some do. As I said up thread, some people choose to work and pay for daycare that takes up almost all of their take home (it might be even more than their take home if they have a working spouse who pays the bills) because they don't want to drop out of the workforce for 5 years. And some people don't want to be home with their kids all day. Choosing to work isn't always just about money. Every parent doesn't wish that they could stay home and take care of their kids. And that's fine. Just like it's fine if they want to. But to assume every parent would want to stay home with their kids is just an incorrect assumption. Some prefer working over staying home, even if the end result is they net less than the cost of childcare. And there's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with staying at home. It's not one or the other. I keep coming back to this thread and feel like folks are trying to make one sound "better". One isn't better than the other. Just different. And no one needs to justify their choice.

 

[Jambalaya]

I told my husband that SAHPs were referred to as parasitic on here yesterday. He said that his parasite (lovingly and jokingly) is the finance manager, cook, nurse, taxi service, tutor, personal shopper, and emotional support provider and that he thinks it's a damn good deal.

Yeah, if you add up what it would cost to provide all the services that a SAHP provides for free...it's a LOT.

 

[Jambalaya]

I disagree. Some would and some do. As I said up thread, some people choose to work and pay for daycare that takes up almost all of their take home (it might be even more than their take home if they have a working spouse who pays the bills) because they don't want to drop out of the workforce for 5 years. And some people don't want to be home with their kids all day. Choosing to work isn't always just about money. Every parent doesn't wish that they could stay home and take care of their kids. And that's fine. Just like it's fine if they want to. But to assume every parent would want to stay home with their kids is just an incorrect assumption. Some prefer working over staying home, even if the end result is they net less than the cost of childcare. And there's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with staying at home. It's not one or the other. I keep coming back to this thread and feel like folks are trying to make one sound "better". One isn't better than the other. Just different. And no one needs to justify their choice.

Oh yes, of course - there are issues of career trajectory and long-term impacted earnings to consider when you stay home. I completely agree with what you say above and on your earlier post about the matter. But that scenario is pretty middle-class/upper class. I was talking about was when you're living below the poverty line and doing minimum-wage work, in which those two career issues aren't really primary considerations, and it also applied to when someone's pay is eaten by daycare and they DON'T want to miss out on being with their kids for such a tiny sum. If people are OK with the loss of kid time and not breaking even in order to maintain career and earnings momentum, all well and good. But many would see it as a terrible, terrible deal, especially if you have a job rather than a career.

 

[telephone89]

But @telephone89, how much gas, rent, or groceries can you get for $5? I bet even people living below the poverty line wouldn't give up being with their child to take home $5 a week. You'd be better off begging in the street. That's what I'd do, if I was as poor as that and faced being away from my child only to make $5. I'd take them with me for an hour or two each day and put out a sign saying "we are desperate." I bet you'd get more than $5 a week and you'd be with your child! I think it's really silly to suggest that you're privileged if you reject the idea of not being with your child for the sake of $5 a week. I don't think anyone would take that deal. They'd find some other way, like begging or taking in laundry or mending clothes, or something else you could do from home, like Avon.

$5 per week in take home pay could also offer health or dental care. $5 per week could also offer the future security of income by not leaving the workforce for 5, 10, 15+ years. You need to recognize that you are speaking from a place of privilege by scoffing at an amount that could be a full meal or bit of gas for someone else.

I will also say, Avon and similar MLMs (more so the modern day ones) are extremely predatory to women, especially SAHMs. Only 2% make more than minimum wage on them, many (vast majority) actually losing money. You also generally need cash up front to buy in, but a non-working person may not be able to afford that.

Edit: "i dont think anyone would take that deal" Um actually many people work multiple jobs to rarely see their kids. This keeps them barely above water, scraping by, pay cheque to pay cheque. A few people posted about how their kids had medical issues and they were able to quit their jobs (if they had them) to take care of them. This would have sent many families into bankruptcy. To be able to afford to live AND care for a sick child on one income? And claim that isnt privileged? "I literally can't even".

 

[yssie]

Edit: Deleted my earlier post. Stating the blindingly obvious isn’t worth my energy tonight.

- - - - -

$5 per week in take home pay could also offer health or dental care. $5 per week could also offer the future security of income by not leaving the workforce for 5, 10, 15+ years. You need to recognize that you are speaking from a place of privilege by scoffing at an amount that could be a full meal or bit of gas for someone else.

I will also say, Avon and similar MLMs (more so the modern day ones) are extremely predatory to women, especially SAHMs. Only 2% make more than minimum wage on them, many (vast majority) actually losing money. You also generally need cash up front to buy in, but a non-working person may not be able to afford that.

Edit: "i dont think anyone would take that deal" Um actually many people work multiple jobs to rarely see their kids. This keeps them barely above water, scraping by, pay cheque to pay cheque. A few people posted about how their kids had medical issues and they were able to quit their jobs (if they had them) to take care of them. This would have sent many families into bankruptcy. To be able to afford to live AND care for a sick child on one income? And claim that isnt privileged? "I literally can't even".

Diamond forum, just a reminder

 

[telephone89]

Diamond forum, just a reminder

I know. Apparently that "doesnt count" because someone was once a bartender

 

[Jambalaya]

$5 per week in take home pay could also offer health or dental care. $5 per week could also offer the future security of income by not leaving the workforce for 5, 10, 15+ years. You need to recognize that you are speaking from a place of privilege by scoffing at an amount that could be a full meal or bit of gas for someone else.

I will also say, Avon and similar MLMs (more so the modern day ones) are extremely predatory to women, especially SAHMs. Only 2% make more than minimum wage on them, many (vast majority) actually losing money. You also generally need cash up front to buy in, but a non-working person may not be able to afford that.

Edit: "i dont think anyone would take that deal" Um actually many people work multiple jobs to rarely see their kids. This keeps them barely above water, scraping by, pay cheque to pay cheque. A few people posted about how their kids had medical issues and they were able to quit their jobs (if they had them) to take care of them. This would have sent many families into bankruptcy. To be able to afford to live AND care for a sick child on one income? And claim that isnt privileged? "I literally can't even".

You can get health care or dental care for $5 a week? Surely not?

About Avon, I was an Avon lady, as was my sister and my mother before us. We certainly never experienced anything predatory. Avon is a hugely reputable company, although I can't speak for other MSM companies.

 

[Gussie]

$5 per week in take home pay could also offer health or dental care. $5 per week could also offer the future security of income by not leaving the workforce for 5, 10, 15+ years. You need to recognize that you are speaking from a place of privilege by scoffing at an amount that could be a full meal or bit of gas for someone else.

I will also say, Avon and similar MLMs (more so the modern day ones) are extremely predatory to women, especially SAHMs. Only 2% make more than minimum wage on them, many (vast majority) actually losing money. You also generally need cash up front to buy in, but a non-working person may not be able to afford that.

Edit: "i dont think anyone would take that deal" Um actually many people work multiple jobs to rarely see their kids. This keeps them barely above water, scraping by, pay cheque to pay cheque. A few people posted about how their kids had medical issues and they were able to quit their jobs (if they had them) to take care of them. This would have sent many families into bankruptcy. To be able to afford to live AND care for a sick child on one income? And claim that isnt privileged? "I literally can't even".

I was the one with the sick child. Go back and read my post as I mentioned my privilege more than once. Your horse is a bit high.

 

[Jambalaya]

@telephone89 I am insanely, disgustingly privileged, and I know that. I actually feel seriously guilty about it at times, just fyi.

 

[Jambalaya]

I know. Apparently that "doesnt count" because someone was once a bartender

But you don't have to own diamonds to join in here, and it's free. All you need is an internet connection. That's the privileged part, IMO - being able to afford a connection.

 

[telephone89]

You can get health care or dental care for $5 a week? Surely not?

About Avon, I was an Avon lady, as was my sister and my mother before us. We certainly never experienced anything predatory. Avon is a hugely reputable company, although I can't speak for other MSM companies.

It's $5 *take home pay*. That means you could make $5,000 per week but pay $4,995 in daycare, which pays for healthcare or dental or whatever as I said. Obviously someone isn't *literally* making $5/week, that particular conversation was about take home pay after childcare.

 

[telephone89]

I was the one with the sick child. Go back and read my post as I mentioned my privilege more than once. Your horse is a bit high.

You were one, not the only. I wasn't speaking to you specifically, just to the trend of the thread. You did mention privilege, but it was quite a sarcastic comment, I wasn't sure if you were serious or not TBH. I have no horse in this race - literally and figuratively lol.

 

[Jambalaya]

It's $5 *take home pay*. That means you could make $5,000 per week but pay $4,995 in daycare, which pays for healthcare or dental or whatever as I said. Obviously someone isn't *literally* making $5/week, that particular conversation was about take home pay after childcare.

Right, I realize that the discussion was about $5 take-home, after daycare.

Oh, I see! You mean that having employment can give you the health and dental benefits even though you're taking home $5 a week. My apologies; I misunderstood. In my mind, we were talking about a minimum wage job with no security and no benefits. In THAT scenario, I think it's more likely that someone would take in laundry or whatever and get to be with their kids, and also bring home more than $5 a week. Yeah, if you have a kick-ass job and are making $5k a week but spending almost all on daycare, keeping on your career trajectory and getting the health/dental care makes a lot of sense.

 

[telephone89]

Right, I realize that the discussion was about $5 take-home, after daycare.

Oh, I see! You mean that having employment can give you the health and dental benefits even though you're taking home $5 a week. My apologies; I misunderstood. In my mind, we were talking about a minimum wage job with no security and no benefits. In THAT scenario, I think it's more likely that someone would take in laundry or whatever and get to be with their kids, and also bring home more than $5 a week. Yeah, if you have a kick-ass job and are making $5k a week but spending almost all on daycare, keeping on your career trajectory and getting the health/dental care makes a lot of sense.

Yes, apologies if that got missed in the conversation. Just because the take home pay is little doesnt mean it doesnt still add HUGE value to a family. Honestly, even in the US, having stable steady healthcare could be considered privilege too. Perhaps a convo for your other thread

 

[Jambalaya]

When I was of child-bearing age and married, I took home $3k a month and daycare in my city was $4.5k a month for two children. We'd have been running into the red! I felt - rightly or wrongly - that the economics would have forced me to give up my career. It's one thing if you're JUST breaking even, but what if you're running at a deficit??

 

[yssie]

Direct sales (like Avon, Mary Kay) offer recession-proof jobs

abcnews.go.com

"Right now, our direct-selling opportunity is really the No. 1 product that we have to sell," says Geralyn Breig, president of Avon North America.

It seems like Avon made some significant changes to their sales model in the early 2000s… Away from focus on selling products, toward recruitment? This quote from an Avon exec in 2009 screams pyramid scheme to me. But in 2022 the company is still around, so either the quote is hyperbolized or they’ve covered their tracks well enough to convince to FTC to look elsewhere.

Everything I’m reading right now about the “recruitment benefit” sounds awfully predatory, not gonna lie.

 

[telephone89]

Direct sales (like Avon, Mary Kay) offer recession-proof jobs

abcnews.go.com

It seems like Avon made some significant changes to their sales model in the early 2000s… Away from focus on selling products, toward recruitment. This quote from an Avon exec in 2009 screams pyramid scheme to me.

Yes, I think when it started it was great (same with tupperware). Any of the modern MLMs are almost all complete and total scams. Unless you get in on the bottom floor you are just beholden to and paying someone else, and they specifically target SAHMs who want to contribute monetarily to their households. It's really sad and makes me quite angry honestly!

 

[Jambalaya]

@yssie and @telephone89 Interesting! I haven't kept up with the company over the years. My mom did Avon in the Seventies and Eighties, and my sister and I in the early Nineties. It was very simple back then: You just left the catalogs in the letterboxes of our established round in the cul-de-sac, went back to pick up any order slips, sent off the orders and then delivered them when they arrived at your house. I haven't really seen or heard anything of Avon since I went to college in 1993. I guessed it must have changed a lot with the internet.

ETA: Oh! My mom did Tupperware back in the Seventies, too. Yes, Avon and Tupperware were great back then for SAHPs who wanted to make some pin money but remain home.