the guardian letters feature

Robsweezie

don't usually read the guardian, but came across their 'a letter to...' feature where anonymous folk write letters to those they've encountered in their life, for all kids of reasons ''to the man who raped me, to the daughter I never knew'' etc. I know they're only letters from anonymous strangers but they contain issues a lot of us can relate to.

this one is the latest and the one that caught my eye. a mans letter to his wife who wont get a job. usually you'd expect some mushy love letter to a wife who works too hard.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/02/a-letter-to-my-wife-who-wont-get-a-job-while-i-work-myself-to-death?CMP=fb_gu

Shint0

While responsibilities should be shared there is a slightly condescending, judgemental tone about the type of jobs his wife did while she was employed like she was dumbing down. People don't always necessarily end up in their field of study as a career.

Having said that I do know there are people with a sense of entitlement who make 'careers' and lifestyles out of being a gold digger and want everything handed to them without any input on their part. This has often been traditionally attributed to women but I know of cases where it applies to men as well.

It would be interesting to read the opposite letter from the wife's perspective as with everything there are always two sides to every story and then there's the truth.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don't think it's a problem with just women married to men with good jobs.
A girl I went to school with, very intelligent, did quite well in school, didn't want to go to college, didn't need a career because all she wanted - and she would tell you this - was to be a wife and a mother.
So, she left school and she worked in various retail jobs until she met her now husband, and was engaged after 4 months. As soon as she was married, she left work. She was "too sick" to work. She was pregnant a few months later and she definitely had no interest in going back to work as she didn't want to miss out on her babies important years.

Her husband just had a retail job, which he lost and for about two years both of them weren't working though to be fair to him he was really looking.

I've been in their house when they've had proper full on arguements about her not working, not contributing, putting her hair appointments on the credit card, putting new iphone on the credit card, etc. She is angry with him because she can't understand why he's being so mean with money, why he's not taking his role to support their family more seriously. She sees her parents and how her dad works so hard so her mum doesn't have to, and can't understand why it's not the same for her.

To me it's a bizzare set up, but both my parents worked, my mom had her own money, it was never a subject that caused a lot of tension. I suppose it's a role you have an idea of in your head. The traditional role or to be independent.

eviltwin

I see staying home to raise children as making a contribution. Why is it seen as being lazy or a gold digger? I see the kids are older now, she should look at helping out but having been out of work so long she's going to struggle.

Shint0

The letter suggests the wife had this attitude from before pregnancies and he gives a sense that she has lots of spare time to pursue her hobbies and interests while he feels he is disproportionately carrying the can. As I said in a previous post this is not always a gender-based issue but definitely seems to be a gap between both their expectations as to roles within a marriage or partnership.

We do need to hear the other side of the argument from the wife's perspective. As Lexie said sometimes it can be based on perceived tradtional roles but sometimes it can be down to the individuals' own attitudes as well.

suicide_circus

eviltwin wrote: »

I see staying home to raise children as making a contribution. Why is it seen as being lazy or a gold digger? I see the kids are older now, she should look at helping out but having been out of work so long she's going to struggle.

That's all well and good except this man's schedule is literally killing him while she goes volunteering and exercising with her fellow non working ladies. I presume she is banking on a geneous life assurance policy when the inevitable happens. We'd all like to give our kids our full attention and abdicated financial worries to someone else but that's not the attitude of a responsible adult.

seamus

I guess it's all about expectations.

If someone enters a relationship and then a marriage on the expectation that both will work and be successful, then it seems fair that they will feel hard done by when the other partners decides to renege on that.

Raising children is a full-time job, but once they start going off to school, and especially once they're older than 8ish, there are many hours free in the day to go to the gym and meet your mates for lunch. It becomes a life of leisure.

And if the other partner is happy with that, great. But if you've been struggling and it was never agreed that it would be a single-income household, you can see why the earning partner will become resentful.

I guess the key in this guy's letter is that he's killing himself to keep their heads above water, while she goes off and pursues hobbies, whch presumably cost money, and simultanesouly worries about money. If they were comfortable and he didn't have to do 60 hour weeks, it would likely be a source of less tension for him.

eviltwin

suicide_circus wrote: »

That's all well and good except this man's schedule is literally killing him while she goes volunteering and exercising with her fellow non working ladies. I presume she is banking on a geneous life assurance policy when the inevitable happens. We'd all like to give our kids our full attention and abdicated financial worries to someone else but that's not the attitude of a responsible adult.

It's a two way street. She should be making an effort to work but he needs to also look at his own work life balance and try to adjust it. I wonder if he's killing himself because he needs to or is it that he thinks he needs to. A drop in money would be worth cutting back on his hours. He's no use to anyone dead or suffering a nervous breakdown.

Everyone should work to support themselves, their family, what is interesting from that letter is how he does not see how having a partner at home enabled him to have the career he has had plus he sound a bit depressed and has located the cause of it as his wife not having a job, I bet good money if his wife got a job he would still be depressed along with being perplexed that the 'cure' didn't make him feel any better.

Often one partner wants the other partner to get a job when the children are of a certain age however they don't what it to interfere with their own working arrangements or the running of the households.

One partner at home taking a significant amount for responsibility for running the household confers a significant advantage on the working partners career allowing them to work late, travel for work commit more to their career and so on.

Shenshen

eviltwin wrote: »

It's a two way street. She should be making an effort to work but he needs to also look at his own work life balance and try to adjust it. I wonder if he's killing himself because he needs to or is it that he thinks he needs to. A drop in money would be worth cutting back on his hours. He's no use to anyone dead or suffering a nervous breakdown.

That was my thought, to be honest. Much as I sympathise with him for feeling the full burden of being the only income earner, I suspect that if he decided to take a step down, take work a bit easier and simply bring home less money, that might well give his wife an incentive of going out to work and earn her own money.
She may not take it well, though, having to cut down on time spent on her hobbies.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Having a partner at home enabled him how? Plenty of successful men have partners who also contribute. Their children are almost at college age. There's no excuse.

Shenshen

mariaalice wrote: »

Everyone should work to support themselves, their family, what is interesting from that letter is how he does not see how having a partner at home enabled him to have the career he has had plus he sound a bit depressed and has located the cause of it as his wife not having a job, I bet good money if his wife got a job he would still be depressed along with being perplexed that the 'cure' didn't make him feel any better.

Often one partner wants the other partner to get a job when the children are of a certain age however they don't what it to interfere with their own working arrangements or the running of the households.

One partner at home taking a significant amount for responsibility for running the household confers a significant advantage on the working partners career allowing them to work late, travel for work commit more to their career and so on.

To be fair, he doesn't sound like he feels she's pulling her weight at home, either : " Many of my free hours are spent helping with the house and the kids"
I've seen partnerships like that, so while it would be interesting to hear his wife's take on things, I'm quite prepared to accept that they're having problems with labour distribution.

eviltwin

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Having a partner at home enabled him how? Plenty of successful men have partners who also contribute. Their children are almost at college age. There's no excuse.

Enabling him by taking the responsibility for the house and children off his shoulders. He could devote himself to his career because someone was at home taking up the slack.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Having a partner at home enabled him how? Plenty of successful men have partners who also contribute. Their children are almost at college age. There's no excuse.

Because the partner at home does most all the childcare/household stuff.

A simple example that I know of one partner works in a career that was took a nose dive during the crash in fact they went away to work, they are now married with a two year old and working in Dublin they are rarely home before 7pm sometime later and they have to travel for their job, now the other partner works in the winder public services so drops and collects the child and arranges their work as much as they can to suit childcare responsibilities, something the other partner never has to consider thus allowing them to work in a way someone with childcare responsibilities could never do.

hawkwind23

Funny , i read that article on the app over the weekend.
I do sympathise with the author , i had a failed relationship where i was the main breadwinner , it works for while and i wanted it that way for the kids sake and maybe something to do with a traditional upbringing in the 70's.
But modern life has too many stresses , too many bills etc , i got really stressed , used to annoy me i was half killing myself and she was drinking coffees and doing lunch with her friends, she also didnt drive so i did all the school runs and pick ups , shops etc etc.
After about 10 years i just had a "falling down" moment and just quit , i cut work back to 4 days and took a college course one day a week ,refused to carry on with a one earning family - she left a few months later
I guess she came from privilege and felt it was her right , she married soon after , funny enough he was very wealthy and more kids.

Anyways i feel it was our upbringing that caused issues , i felt i needed to be the breadwinner and protector like my father and she maybe felt she deserved to not work like her mother , whatever it was it was very dysfunctional.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

eviltwin wrote: »

Enabling him by taking the responsibility for the house and children off his shoulders. He could devote himself to his career because someone was at home taking up the slack.

But she's not though because he states he spends his free time looking after the house and kids. Both my parents worked, and we're both successful and we lived in a clean house and weren't neglected.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

mariaalice wrote: »

Because the partner at home does most all the childcare/household stuff.

A simple example that I know of one partner works in a career that was took a nose dive during the crash in fact they went away to work, they are now married with a two year old and working in Dublin they are rarely home before 7pm sometime later and they have to travel for their job, now the other partner works in the winder public services so drops and collects the child and arranges their work as much as they can to suit childcare responsibilities, something the other partner never has to consider thus allowing them to work in a way someone with childcare responsibilities could never do.

These kids are almost away to college, I'm sure they're able to make their own way home from school and don't need constant supervision

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

These kids are almost away to college, I'm sure they're able to make their own way home from school and don't need constant supervision

I am making a general point not a specific point, I know a lot of women who work part time or non traditional hours and did so once children came along and they have never returned to full time work, even when the children were grown up I don't know any men working part. It might be an age thing as I would say that it changing now.

Samaris

mariaalice wrote: »

I am making a general point not a specific point, I know a lot of women who work part time or non traditional hours and did so once children came along and they have never returned to full time work, even when the children were grown up I don't know any men working part. It might be an age thing as I would say that it changing now.

I wonder if there's an element of it just being damn hard to reskill and skill up to return to the workplace after ten years minding the sprogs. You're older at that point, less flexible, probably less energy. In another twenty years or so, when it has been far more normalised for the husband to be the child-rearer and the mother to be the breadwinner as much as the other way around, it might be different.

(Grew up in a family where by the time I came around, my father was retired and the child-rearer for me, and my mother worked. Was the other way around with my older siblings.
Out of myself and my partner, it would almost certainly be him doing child-rearing and me working. I'm a lot more career-oriented, he's a lot more family-oriented)

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I don't think it's a problem with just women married to men with good jobs.
A girl I went to school with, very intelligent, did quite well in school, didn't want to go to college, didn't need a career because all she wanted - and she would tell you this - was to be a wife and a mother.
So, she left school and she worked in various retail jobs until she met her now husband, and was engaged after 4 months. As soon as she was married, she left work. She was "too sick" to work. She was pregnant a few months later and she definitely had no interest in going back to work as she didn't want to miss out on her babies important years.

Her husband just had a retail job, which he lost and for about two years both of them weren't working though to be fair to him he was really looking.

I've been in their house when they've had proper full on arguements about her not working, not contributing, putting her hair appointments on the credit card, putting new iphone on the credit card, etc. She is angry with him because she can't understand why he's being so mean with money, why he's not taking his role to support their family more seriously. She sees her parents and how her dad works so hard so her mum doesn't have to, and can't understand why it's not the same for her.

To me it's a bizzare set up, but both my parents worked, my mom had her own money, it was never a subject that caused a lot of tension. I suppose it's a role you have an idea of in your head. The traditional role or to be independent.

I don't know why but when you talk about people you know it always put me in mind of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Mule

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't know why but when you talk about people you know it always put me in mind of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Mule

Huh??

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't know why but when you talk about people you know it always put me in mind of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Mule

I know the feeling, when I read your posts it always puts me in mind of what it was like back in the 70s.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I know the feeling, when I read your posts it always puts me in mind of what it was like back in the 70s.

It my age I can't help it we are all products of our background.

Shint0

The husband in this case presumably had the expectation because his wife was pursuing a third level education and studying for a law degree that she had a work ethic and would share the burden of financial responsibilty where feasible and practicable.

As someone else here mentioned how much did he contribute in creating the situation as he seemed somewhat critical of some of her previous employment choices. Would this now be an obstacle if she felt he may be equally critical of any further employment choices which he may regard as beneath her.

Everyone should try to take up employment where possible if it doesn't impact on their other responsibilties. I would have far greater respect for someone who takes a job cleaning toilets which is a valuable role in itself, rather than relying on others to shoulder most of the financial burden especially if there is an abundance of time and capacity.

Even people with mild to moderate disabilities should be encouraged and supported to work where possible regardless of how many hours they can be productive as work gives meaning and purpose, has a therapeutic and rehabilitative effect with a contribution to the economy. There have always been initiatives to meet this purpose some more effective than others but the sentiment remains the same.

The issue of tensions around equitable division of labour wouldn't be unique to the nuclear family unit. In societies where there is still a joint family culture and lack of state welfare systems the family would be expected to act as a social welfare unit to fill that role.

While certain cultures hold up the model of the joint family system as being superior to the nuclear family unit the same tensions are often found within with some family members claiming lack of fairness and having to make more sacrifies that others. So it's definitely not a gender-based issue or unique to more modern family units.

Sapphire

Samaris wrote: »

I wonder if there's an element of it just being damn hard to reskill and skill up to return to the workplace after ten years minding the sprogs. You're older at that point, less flexible, probably less energy.

I've worked since my mid-teens. At one point I took a 6 month gap between jobs to spend time with someone who was terminally ill. As soon as I returned to the job hunt, that stupid six-month gap out of nearly 20 years of jobs was all I was ever asked about. One recruitment agency at the time suggested I plug it with some fabricated trip. :rolleyes:

Putting a gap year in OZ partying non stop on a CV seems to be more acceptable than if you take time out of the workforce to rear children or help in the care of a sick relative. Being a stay at home parent demonstrates more skills transferable to the workforce IMO, but its not seen like that to employers.

FWIW, I do think that staying at home has immense value, but once the kids are a certain age, showing them a good work ethic is equally important.

Shint0

Sapphire wrote: »

I've worked since my mid-teens. At one point I took a 6 month gap between jobs to spend time with someone who was terminally ill. As soon as I returned to the job hunt, that stupid six-month gap out of nearly 20 years of jobs was all I was ever asked about. One recruitment agency at the time suggested I plug it with some fabricated trip. :rolleyes:

Putting a gap year in OZ partying non stop on a CV seems to be more acceptable than if you take time out of the workforce to rear children or help in the care of a sick relative. Being a stay at home parent demonstrates more skills transferable to the workforce IMO, but its not seen like that to employers.

It is always possible to be creative when it comes to explaining gaps without having to bend the truth. It's the obvious elephant in the room so preparatiom is key when it comes to a CV and the interview stage

You need to be able to link your personal situation to the requirements of the job and give relevant examples as to how that experience adds value to the position. Employers love to hear candidates talk in figures and numbers.

In a personal caring capacity did you have to make applications or negotiate with relevant authorities for subsidies or funding to assist with care? Dd you need external care assistance and negotiate salary/hours based on need? Were there ongoing expenses/supplies you needed in the care of the person that you negotiated to get a better rate from a different supplier etc. etc

Regarding the OP and the letter as both had a legal background, it reminds me of someone I know who volunteered while raising their children, went on to develop a career in advocacy and subsequently qualified as a solicitor. They are now working in the legal field related to their original voluntary role.

Dr Strange

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I've been in their house when they've had proper full on arguements about her not working, not contributing, putting her hair appointments on the credit card, putting new iphone on the credit card, etc. She is angry with him because she can't understand why he's being so mean with money, why he's not taking his role to support their family more seriously. She sees her parents and how her dad works so hard so her mum doesn't have to, and can't understand why it's not the same for her.
.

Sounds like something out of Married... with Children...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8OjoUA0b7g

noaddedsugar

Realistically speaking the wife after so long out of the workforce isn't going to be able to bring in a lot of money, you are looking at low paid work. It won't be enough for him to sit back. If he really feels he is killing himself with stress then he should look at changing his job now and adjusting lifestyles to suit. It seems to me though that having the 'trappings of middle class success' are more important to him then his health or alternatively things aren't anywhere near as bad as he is making out.

He paints her as a layabout yet he says he 'helps her' with the house and kids in his free time. If there is no work to be done with the kids what exactly is he 'helping' her with?

This is just one side of the story from someone who so obviously dislikes his wife.

seamus

noaddedsugar wrote: »

Realistically speaking the wife after so long out of the workforce isn't going to be able to bring in a lot of money, you are looking at low paid work. It won't be enough for him to sit back.

The UK run a tax-free allowance system, where the first of your income is completely tax free.

In this guy's case, if his wife were to take up employment that gave her a modest income of k per year (a 28-hour work week on minimum wage), he could take a salary drop of k (say by doing less hours, or less stressful work), and their combined net income would increase by around per year.

In most European countries, the best income you make (i.e. the one taxed the least), is the first ~30kish. In most cases, a spouse or partner doing even 20 hours a week can massively reduce the burden on the main earner. In Ireland's case, every euro earned at the lower rate is worth 60% more than one earned at the higher rate.

Shint0

noaddedsugar wrote: »

This is just one side of the story from someone who so obviously dislikes his wife.

Yes, it is just one side of the story. Regardless of the contents of that letter, there are people who desire to live a charmed life and prefer to live off the fat of another's sacrifices and success where they would never be in a position to provide themselves with the same standard of living. It's naive to think it doesn't happen.

What seemed to be an underlying source of consternation for that husband was why his wife never seemed bothered pursuing a career despite having a solid educational background.

Caliden

seamus wrote: »

The UK run a tax-free allowance system, where the first of your income is completely tax free.

In this guy's case, if his wife were to take up employment that gave her a modest income of k per year (a 28-hour work week on minimum wage), he could take a salary drop of k (say by doing less hours, or less stressful work), and their combined net income would increase by around per year.

In most European countries, the best income you make (i.e. the one taxed the least), is the first ~30kish. In most cases, a spouse or partner doing even 20 hours a week can massively reduce the burden on the main earner. In Ireland's case, every euro earned at the lower rate is worth 60% more than one earned at the higher rate.

From the letter it seems that his wife's initial attempts at holding a job just made her seem disinterested in working at all.

At this stage he just wants her to do paid work to understand the value of money.

To be honest he needs to take control, cut back on their standard of living and work an easier job. If his wife doesn't like that she can go ahead and get a job to increase their cash flow.

ceadaoin.

Shint0 wrote: »

Yes, it is just one side of the story. Regardless of the contents of that letter, there are people who desire to live a charmed life and prefer to live off the fat of another's sacrifices and success where they would never be in a position to provide themselves with the same standard of living. It's naive to think it doesn't happen.

What seemed to be an underlying source of consternation for that husband was why his wife never seemed bothered pursuing a career despite having a solid educational background.

Maybe she just wasn't bothered. Not everyone is. There is no indication that she wanted to live a charmed life. I presume he didn't instantly start earning a salary that allowed them all the trappings of middle class life or whatever he said. He wouldn't have been able to work tons of hours and progress in his career if someone wasn't at home taking on all the childcare. He seemed to be happy with this arrangement when the kids were young. Now because it's not benefitting him as much he wants his wife to work.

If he isn't happy with his working life it's up to him to scale back on the amount of hours he works. He can just tell his wife they have to make cut backs in certain areas. I'm sure they could reach a compromise. Maybe his wife could work part time in an area related to her volunteering or something?

Some people are just selfish arseholes. I'd be happy to be the only breadwinner, or be a stay-at-home dad for that matter. If it's affordable and fair that is. The one not working should have the huge majority of household things to do as well as dropping kids off etc. Spending a grand or two a year on take-out coffees which could be spent on a holiday if things are tight isn't on. Nor is spending 600 quid on a new phone.

Shint0

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Maybe she just wasn't bothered. Not everyone is. There is no indication that she wanted to live a charmed life.

No, I wasn't suggesting that in relation to her but simply pointing out the fact that it's not unheard of for some people to allow others shoulder more of the responsibilties financially in relationships.

Like I said in another post I do think if someone has an abundance of time on their hands they should consider other paid work to ease the pressure on their partner if they both still want to maintain a certain standard of living or like you say he should cut back on his hours. I think he does have responsibilty in creating the situation too but clearly they are not able to discuss it if he has to resort to a mainstream newspaper to offload.

DEFTLEFTHAND

To never have practiced law after all that hard work and study seems odd. What was the point of it all.

Shint0

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

To never have practiced law after all that hard work and study seems odd. What was the point of it all.

Who knows. There can often be external pressures from families to choose a particular career path. My husband would ideally have liked to be an artist but in his family that just wouldn't have been acceptable so he had to choose a profession.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Shint0 wrote: »

Who knows. There can often be external pressures from families to choose a particular career path. My husband would ideally have liked to be an artist but in his family that just wouldn't have been acceptable so he had to choose a profession.

I understand that can happen in families, especially if the particular profession entails some risk and lacks guaranteed financial security but I could never envisage a situation where somebody would be discouraged from practicing law by their loved ones.

Robsweezie

Shint0 wrote: »

While responsibilities should be shared there is a slightly condescending, judgemental tone about the type of jobs his wife did while she was employed like she was dumbing down. People don't always necessarily end up in their field of study as a career.

I think it was his way of saying ''come on love, you're better than that'' maybe it was meant in a loving way, you cant be sure

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I understand that can happen in families, especially if the particular profession entails some risk and lacks guaranteed financial security but I could never envisage a situation where somebody would be discouraged from practicing law by their loved ones.

I think Shint0 is suggesting that the wife, when she was a student, may have been influenced to pursue a career which never interested her, which is why she never kept a job in that area.

Plenty of regretful lawyers, dentists, doctors and architects in the world.

steddyeddy

eviltwin wrote: »

It's a two way street. She should be making an effort to work but he needs to also look at his own work life balance and try to adjust it. I wonder if he's killing himself because he needs to or is it that he thinks he needs to. A drop in money would be worth cutting back on his hours. He's no use to anyone dead or suffering a nervous breakdown.

I think there's only a certain amount of control you have over your work life. If it's a single income family and your OH is lazy there's not much on your part you can do.

gutenberg

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

To never have practiced law after all that hard work and study seems odd. What was the point of it all.

Some of the others have made good points about her maybe not being all that interested in it and so just never pursuing it since she didn't have to.

The more cynical part of me says part of her reason for going to university etc. may have been to find herself a to-be professional who could take care of her & provide her with the nice middle class lifestyle she wanted, without her ever having to work. Maybe that's waaaaay too cynical but I think it does happen with some people...

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It's funny reading the comments here and the comments on that thread a few weeks ago where the girlfriend felt she shouldn't have to pay her partner back since he's the one with the income and she's not.

Shint0

From what I recall of that thread, the OP had been made redundant and while they currently couldn't afford to contribute much financially they were trying to set up their own business from their redundancy payment. So she appeared to have a work ethic but her partner didn't really get the concept of 'for richer or poorer or in sickness or in health'.

There is no such thing as real equality in relationships or society but we must always strive to achieve some degree of it.

From this thread here there seemed to be an ongoing, overriding lack of fairness in the marriage from the husband's perspective at least with no attempt to redress the situation on his wife's part where she might have been in a position to do so. Over the long-term this perceived lack of fairness can cause tensions.