fatherphil

i'd say they do it one way or the other with the main goal of keeping the family intact. if i were the man in this situation i'd probably end up putting my plans on hold until the kids are adults.

its not a matter of taking turns. i can't imagine a successful relationship working based on a your turn/my turn basis. i guess leadership of a family is based off of the same things leadership of anything is based on. leadership based on tyranny or pandering seems to seldom be successful.

as far as having a baby, i'd say both must be in agreement for that to work. but then how often are you going to be faced with that decision in 25 years of marriage?

Daleth

That sounds reasonable, except that you'd be putting it on hold for 8-10 years, missing out on the ground floor of the business venture entirely. The man in this situation couldn't stand giving it up. He saw this as a major turning point in his life, a huge opportunity. He was focussed on his immediate family rather than the extended family. He felt that the new venture would give him more time to spend with his kids... in fact parts of it they could work on together. So he saw it as strengthening his family. Had he let it pass completely, he'd likely have ended up serious resenting his wife and kids. And wouldn't the wife feel bad having him pass up something so important to him? (I would.)

I recommended a compromise like this:
They invest in the business venture only financially for a 2-3 years and watch how it is growing. If it seems to be stable and profitable after a few years, then they can plan a move knowing they'll have stable finances and can plan regular visits to the extended family. They've also seen the wife's mother through the worst of her grief and helped her settle into life without her husband. If the business is not stable after a couple years, good thing they didn't risk it all.

In this situation, don't you think there's likely to be less resentment on either side if they compromise? Would you feel it wrong if the husband decided on the move and the wife simply said no?

A smaller decision: The family has a dining room they never use. It's too formal for daily use and too small for company. It just sits there. Wife and 3 teenagers decide they'd like to put a pool table in there so the room would be used. Husband vetoes it because it just doesn't seem proper to him that a suburban house have a pool table on the main floor. 9 years later the room is still sitting there unused and the wife's still dusting it every couple of days.

What would be wrong with a compromise of putting in the pool table, but keeping the dining room curtains up and adding French doors to the room so that it won't be noticable when they have visitors? They both get what they want: her the pool table and him the appearance of propriety.

Taking turns works fine for some things... this year we'll go to Aspen and next year to Mexico sounds perfectly reasonable to me. This time we'll move for my career and next time you get whatever you want doesn't.

I just don't understand it, fatherphil. I don't understand the leadership existing at all. It sounds like an illusion of leadership. You get to decide when she gets what she wants. Or does she decide when you get what you want, and express that by not disagreeing? And then I'm a little turned around in this conversation because yguy was talking about authority and you are talking about leadership, and these aren't necessarily the same. If you screw up once, make a bad decision you can't see, does she have the right to put her foot down and refuse to accept that decision?

Anyway, once again, I have no argument with you living that way as long as it's what you've both agreed to. If you are defending your life choices, there's no need. I don't choose to live that way, and in fact I couldn't. I'd resent it even if I agreed with every decision he made. Would you, if you were in that position? Would you resent it if it were up to her to make the final decision about when you get your way? Do you think I should HAVE to choose what you and your wife chose? Is it immoral if I don't, if we're both happy with the different arrangement?

Well, that depends on the couple, doesn't it?

Dal

fatherphil

not here to force anyone to live under my precepts. just suggesting the benifits of a structure and system that is too often rejected in theory because it comes off somehow archaic to our modern concept of life where in practicality it actually may be the best structure if done right.

resentment really has no place in a marriage and decisions, final ones, should be made in a way that transcends personal feelings and desires with the welfare of the family as a whole being the main concern.

reality is that in a two person partnership, one will hold sway over the other. how you want to decide which one will eventually call the shots and what mechanism they use to do it is certainly up to you. in the past the father was expected to shoulder the burden of financing the arraingement in order to allow the mother the opportunity to actually be home to be a hands on caretaker for the children. in some situations that arraingement has been reversed and still in far too many the caretaking has been contracted to a third party. while these changes may have seemed expedient to the adults it may have shortchanged the kids but i guess that's the kid's problem.

cheetah

YOUR reality. I have been in my relationship for the better part of a decade and this is not true now nor has it ever been. Your suggestion that it could be a viable option is fine, but I suggest that if you can avoid it, as my partner and I have done, so much the better. We have never had a problem with coming to a conclusion or a compromise that maximizes the benefits to each, that makes each feel satisfied and that gets "buy-in" from both of us. Why would we want to switch, then? I would further suggest that if a relationship has to resort to having one person "hold sway over the other" maybe that relationship has a structural flaw in that the participants are unable or unwilling to work together to compromise and make decisions in which they both are invested equally, and since their relationship is not good enough to do that, they must resort to a system in which one hands over the reins of their life to the other in order to reduce the conflict of partnership decision-making. And to me, that's just a sad thing for that relationship.

fatherphil

no kidding cheetah? you mean that between the two of you, no one seems to be a more dominant personality?

also, the investment is equal since the structure is designed as a unit.

Daleth

You mean I'm not to blame for the downfall of the nation? What a breath of fresh air.

People should decide on what works best for them, regardless of what others might think of it. I don't think there is any one way that'll work best for all people.

But for a lot of people, what you describe is impossible. It was possible for more people when women were not educated. Once you educate a person, that person is far less likely to be content with having their decisions made for them. They start to do things like insist on the right to vote. I don't reject this system for myself simply because it's archaic, but because it honestly does not suit the person I am... a woman who is a different creature with substantially different expectations and experiences from a woman 100 years ago.

But of course sometimes [you] feel taken advantage of. That's a dandy ideal, but people will be human. Everyone will have moments in their life when they are emotionally screwed up or when they are preoccupied with something that prevents giving some decision its due consideration.

It really doesn't end up with one person always on top. I swear. Word of honor. I live it, 9.5 years. Now, we do each have our areas. For instance he'll usually get the final word on whether we can afford to spend a given amount, but I'll usually get the final word on whether the item in question is going to be worth the asking price. That's just how our strengths lie. And vacations... what are vacations?

That comes across as fairly insulting. If it was directed at me, you're barking up the wrong girl. Some girls want to grow up to be doctors and some girls want to grow up to be firetrucks. I wanted to grow up to be a mother. What I do for money is completely secondary to my real career choice... should I ever get lucky enough to have a child. I work at home for that reason. It's not the greatest job, but it is the job that will allow me to do what I want most with my life.

Sad fact is, we (general we) can not afford to have one parent in every family stop working or have both parents work part-time to make sure one of them is with the kids at all times. (In many careers part-time work is not even possible.) Families can't afford it individually, and the economy at large would crumble. The economy used to support that, but it has slowly changed. Lots of parents don't make 3rd party childcare decisions easily or because it's just expedient to them. Lots of parents cry about long after their kids adapt to it. People do the best they can with what they have.

This country, at least, has been very slow to make changes in childcare that reflect the changes in the economy and the need for double-income families. Slowly moe businesses are providing childcare for employees so that mums or dads can spend more time with their kids through the day and still work for a living. A lot of companies could make it possible for their employees to do large amounts of their work at home rather than in the office. More changes like that are needed, not for people to blame selfish mums and dads for wanting to be able to save up for their kids to go to college.

But then this conversation is going on in another thread, isn't it?

Dal

cheetah

No kidding. There are situations in which I defer to his good judgement and in which he defers to mine. For example, when we go backpacking, I defer to his planning and mostly his decisions, because he is a more experienced hiker than I and I trust him. In interacting with people, he mostly defers to me to represent our team, because I have better interpersonal skills. I say mostly above, because even within a situation, we find opportunities to use our varied strenghts and thus, do not allocate the entirety of the responsibility to one partner. I find this exciting and rewarding. These are some examples of compromises we make and the ways we exploit our personal strengths and weaknesses to make a stronger team. And when we make these decisions together, as a team, with compromise, even if it takes a while, I feel closer to him and more thankful for him and our wonderful partnership.

OK, so maybe the investment is equal, assuming the submisive partner agreed to be submissive, but I still maintain there is a structural flaw in a relationship that is unable to accommodate individual situations and compromise and must bail out and choose just one partner as the permanent lead.

fatherphil

dal, raising kids is the most important job i could imagine. i really think we, as a society, need to return to making it a priority and face whatever hardships may come as a result of a single income household. certainly these hardships are not life threatening.

cheetah, "last words" should never be made without deferment and certainly do not exclude possibilities of compromise.

Daleth

Why thank you. I'm glad you respect my decision. (It's sometimes disgusting how many people don't.)

I don't think you're being intellectually honest with yourself about this. A family can decide they are willing to live with less and go to a single income, but they can't if one spouse's income pays rent and the other pays for food and clothes... lots of families barely get by even with 2 incomes. You should be aware of how difficult life is for lots of people. Most of us aren't vacationing in Aspen or Mexico. And even if they'll be able to feed, shelter and clothe themselves, can parents be sure they are doing their kids a favor by deciding it's more important to be with them 24/7 than to be able to save for college?

What do you think would happen to the economy if one parent from every double-income family stopped working? Every industry would lose a substantial amount of its workforce. Add to them all the newly unemployed childcare professionals. Many of these families will now need to move into less expensive homes, so there's an effect on the housing industries and banks. They have less money so they all have to spend less overall. It would affect every part of the economy negatively. Every part. Would that make for a better life for our children? Do you think another great depression could be life-threatening?

Be realistic. Try to come up with options that let parents earn money AND take care of their kids. Thinking we can just put it back the way it was is hopelessly naive. Things have changed in very concrete ways.

fatherphil

the economy would adjust and i'm sure we'd survive quite well.
as for working at home, i think chasing 1 or more crumb crunchers could be a full time job all by itself and i'd hate to try it with the added task of meeting a dealine on some project.