Wives... were you glad pubs weren't open today

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

This keeps getting said, What lifestyle changes do you have to give up for your kids?

I have two kids and still do the same things I did before I had kids.

Imprompu nights out/trips. (You might actually have to give up some of these if you can't find a last minute babysitter, or if the kids are sick)

Less disposable income. Generally means some things become unaffordable.

Adult pursuits are not necessarily suitable for kids of all ages, either.
You'd hardly take a baby mountain climbing, for instance.

You may do the same things you did before you had kids, but if so, then either your partner is taking up the slack, or, you're in total denial...

Kids cost money. Kids get sick. Hobbies may or may not be child friendly.

Basically, kids bring change...

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

I'll cross that bridge when I come to it but even without grandparents there are cheaper alternatives to the second mortgage level of payment required for keeping a child in a creche.

may be cheaper but may not be better or even suitable, depending on your circumstances / location a creche may be the only choice

.......

This post has been deleted.

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

I'll cross that bridge when I come to it but even without grandparents there are cheaper alternatives to the second mortgage level of payment required for keeping a child in a creche.

Such as? I guess an au pair type arrangement? Personally, I'd want the best for my kids, not the cheapest.

0ph0rce0

Deleted User wrote: »

Imprompu nights out/trips. (You might actually have to give up some of these if you can't find a last minute babysitter, or if the kids are sick)

Less disposable income. Generally means some things become unaffordable.

Adult pursuits are not necessarily suitable for kids of all ages, either.
You'd hardly take a baby mountain climbing, for instance.

You may do the same things you did before you had kids, but if so, then either your partner is taking up the slack, or, you're in total denial...

Kids cost money. Kids get sick. Hobbies may or may not be child friendly.

Basically, kids bring change...

If you have the money it's not a problem.

Babies can go many places even Adult pursuits.

There's also babysitters and family who are more than willing to help out for times like these. Paid babysitters or for help in return from a family member.

Alternate so both of you get to do what you did before you had kids.

No denial here. A perfect balance of kids and lifestyle. Everyone's happy.

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

I'll cross that bridge when I come to it but even without grandparents there are cheaper alternatives to the second mortgage level of payment required for keeping a child in a creche.

Can I ask, have you spoken to your parents about this? Are they on board with minding the grandchildren full-time?

.......

This post has been deleted.

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

If you have the money it's not a problem.

Babies can go many places even Adult pursuits.

There's also babysitters and family who are more than willing to help out for times like these. Paid babysitters or for help in return from a family member.

Alternate so both of you get to do what you did beofre you had kids.

perhaps, but after a long week at work with a few nights of broken sleep because your little one is sick its hard to muster the energy for a night out, especially as baby sitter or not you will be up at 7am the next day.

also, for us at least, a night out is 100 quid before we eat or drink.

baby sitter 5 hours - 50
Taxi into town and back - 40
Taxi home for babysitter - 10-20

its not quite the same as it was

RuMan

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

If you have the money it's not a problem.

Babies can go many places even Adult pursuits.

There's also babysitters and family who are more than willing to help out for times like these. Paid babysitters or for help in return from a family member.

Alternate so both of you get to do what you did before you had kids.

No denial here. A perfect balance of kids and lifestyle. Everyone's happy.

Why ?

Personally I don't have much desire to do the things I did when I was single no more then I had a desire to do things I did as a teenager in my twenties.
Rather do things I can do with the missus and kids. Given most of our friends have kids a similar age its not a problem.

RuMan wrote: »

Why ?

Personally I don't have much desire to do the things I did when I was single no more then I had a desire to do things I did as a teenager in my twenties.
Rather do things I can do with the missus and kids. Given most of our friends have kids a similar age its not a problem.

Most of my nights are with work colleagues or friends (same for my gf) so what 0ph0rce0 describes with alternating so both get a night out a week (or do some other activity if you aren't into the pub) would work very well for me as it appears to do from him also. I have the same desire for nights out in my 30's as I did in my 20's as I did when I was 17.

Some people come across here like those very annoying type of parent who's life totally revolve around their kids and they talk about nothing but their kids (I've seen people start to exclude them from social invites as they are sick listening to them about their kids). Some people want a break from their kids etc and to do stuff that doesn't involve them and not be constantly talking about them etc.

0ph0rce0

RuMan wrote: »

Why ?

Personally I don't have much desire to do the things I did when I was single no more then I had a desire to do things I did as a teenager in my twenties.
Rather do things I can do with the missus and kids. Given most of our friends have kids a similar age its not a problem.

I'm not talking going on the piss every night so why not?

Read my post, I love the kids but i'm not going to bring them after their bed time to the gym, to play football with the lads, to have a pint.

Why can't i do that? Am i a bad parent because i like some me time? or want to do somethings I like? If the kids get quality time, well looked after and loved whats the problem.

If you like to spend all your time with your family fair play. Me i'd prefer to be out and about even if its only for an hour to play ball than sit at home while the wife's in the bath and the kids are snoring away.

I'll be downstairs love staring at the wall wheres the fun in that?

Chuchote

Child free hotels!

Never new there was such a thing! Heh!

RuMan

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Most of my nights are with work colleagues or friends (same for my gf) so what 0ph0rce0 describes with alternating so both get a night out a week would work very well for me as it appear to do from him also. I have the same desire for nights out in my 30's as I did in my 20's as I did when I was 17.

Fair enough. Not something i'd have any interest doing more then a few times a year anymore. Being honest going to the pub every single week holds zero attraction for me these days, not to say I wouldn't do it a few times a year.

I still have a desire to go out just the locations I go to and the time I go out has changed. In the main those locations would now involve friends , wifes and kids.

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Some people come across here like those very annoying type of parent who's life totally revolve around their kids and they talk about nothing but their kids (I've seen people start to exclude them from social invites as they are sick listening to them about their kids). Some people want a break from their kids etc and to do stuff that doesn't involve them and not be constantly talking about them etc.

and some people come across like they have no idea of how your life changes once you have kids like it or not

RuMan wrote: »

Fair enough. Not something i'd have any interest doing more then a few times a year anymore. Being honest going to the pub every single week holds zero attraction for me these days, not to say I wouldn't do it a few times a year.

I still have a desire to go out just the locations I go to and the time I go out has changed. In the main those locations would now involve friends , wifes and kids.

Well I consider many of my work colleagues as good friends so it was just to distinguish between friends I know since school and those I know from work.

Cyrus wrote: »

and some people come across like they have no idea of how your life changes once you have kids like it or not

But some parents are nothing like I describe so its not mandatory. I'm not saying nothing will change, of course it will but you don't have to basically give up on your life outside of the kids like some parents do. Its an utterly depressing thought to go down that road.

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Some people come across here like those very annoying type of parent who's life totally revolve around their kids and they talk about nothing but their kids (I've seen people start to exclude them from social invites as they are sick listening to them about their kids). Some people want a break from their kids etc and to do stuff that doesn't involve them and not be constantly talking about them etc.

Well, people talking constantly about their kids IS annoying but people who do the bolded sound like complete cunts. If someone is supposed to be your friend, you don't exclude them for one kind of annoying behaviour. Newsflash, everyone has annoying habits! Anyone who excludes someone like that is not a friend, simple as.

Murrisk wrote: »

Well, people talking constantly about their kids IS annoying but people who do the bolded sound like complete cunts. If someone is supposed to be your friend, you don't exclude them for one kind of annoying behaviour. Newsflash, everyone has annoying habits! Anyone who excludes someone like that is not a friend, simple as.

generally people with kids tend to talk about kids, they are such a big part of your life, its hard not to

people without them wont care for it, but again they will be doing the same thing once they have kids of their own

Cyrus wrote: »

generally people with kids tend to talk about kids, they are such a big part of your life, its hard not to

Well, there are definitely people who go on TOO much about their kids. :pac: But yeah, some people seem to have low tolerance for any talk of children which seems unreasonable. They are a big part of a parent's life!

Chuchote

A lot of it depends on background. If you're a man whose father is the type to remain in a long-drawn-out, perhaps permanent, adolescence where his whole emotional life is lived with his friends in a hail-fellow-well-met boys-will-be-boys atmosphere in the pub, then it's quite likely that you'll follow on and do the same, and your wife will be the one with the deep relationship with the kids - the kids will probably adore you, but not really rely on you.

If you're a man whose father came home and spent time with the kids, helped them fix their bikes and brought them adventuring around the countryside on bikes together, did jigsaws together, helped with the homework; and if he had a deep relationship with your mother that involved them both in a marriage of co-operation and love and consideration - then it's likely you'll do the same.

It's possible to break out of a cycle of adolescence, but it takes thought and care to learn to seek and find your emotional nourishment in your family, not mainly in your friends.

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

If you have the money it's not a problem.

Babies can go many places even Adult pursuits.

There's also babysitters and family who are more than willing to help out for times like these. Paid babysitters or for help in return from a family member.

Alternate so both of you get to do what you did before you had kids.

No denial here. A perfect balance of kids and lifestyle. Everyone's happy.

Here's what you originally said:

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

This keeps getting said, What lifestyle changes do you have to give up for your kids?

I have two kids and still do the same things I did before I had kids.

Yet, you now acknowledge that you do have to arrange babysitters, or arrange alternate nights out.

You also introduce the "if you have enough money, it's not a problem" concept.

So, in other words, you acknowledge that kids do bring some changes, and that money is a consideration for some people - which is pretty much what the rest of us having been saying all along...

Mr.Wemmick

Chuchote wrote: »

..seek and find your emotional nourishment in your family, not mainly in your friends.

Very well said.

Sums up the thread for me

Chuchote wrote: »

A lot of it depends on background. If you're a man whose father is the type to remain in a long-drawn-out, perhaps permanent, adolescence where his whole emotional life is lived with his friends in a hail-fellow-well-met boys-will-be-boys atmosphere in the pub, then it's quite likely that you'll follow on and do the same, and your wife will be the one with the deep relationship with the kids - the kids will probably adore you, but not really rely on you.

If you're a man whose father came home and spent time with the kids, helped them fix their bikes and brought them adventuring around the countryside on bikes together, did jigsaws together, helped with the homework; and if he had a deep relationship with your mother that involved them both in a marriage of co-operation and love and consideration - then it's likely you'll do the same.

It's possible to break out of a cycle of adolescence, but it takes thought and care to learn to seek and find your emotional nourishment in your family, not mainly in your friends.

A mix of both being the preferable scenario of course.

Chuchote

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

A mix of both being the preferable scenario of course.

Of course; but I'd say the healthy mix would be 80% family to 20% friends and hobbies.

andekwarhola

....... wrote: »

Well I do think its pretty nasty if two people are financially unequal in a marriage.

IMO the person hoarding the extra should be ashamed of themselves for being so selfish.

I earn a fair bit more than my wife does. We don't pool but it's definitely not the case I have much more surplus income than her. After paying into savings (which will be used if we all ever need it, it's not a stag or booze fund), I pay a higher proportion of the mortgage and cover the kids expenses (including Christmas and birthdays) as well as covering the majority of household bills and expenses. My wife would do more housework than me but because of our respective work hours, I actually look after the kids more and I do all the sports/matches/training runs myself.

I would think we're fairly equal and people should really look at each individual family situation.

arayess

Chuchote wrote: »

A lot of it depends on background. If you're a man whose father is the type to remain in a long-drawn-out, perhaps permanent, adolescence where his whole emotional life is lived with his friends in a hail-fellow-well-met boys-will-be-boys atmosphere in the pub, then it's quite likely that you'll follow on and do the same, and your wife will be the one with the deep relationship with the kids - the kids will probably adore you, but not really rely on you.

If you're a man whose father came home and spent time with the kids, helped them fix their bikes and brought them adventuring around the countryside on bikes together, did jigsaws together, helped with the homework; and if he had a deep relationship with your mother that involved them both in a marriage of co-operation and love and consideration - then it's likely you'll do the same.

It's possible to break out of a cycle of adolescence, but it takes thought and care to learn to seek and find your emotional nourishment in your family, not mainly in your friends.

...nonsense.

andekwarhola wrote: »

I earn a fair bit more than my wife does. We don't pool but it's not the case I have much more surplus income. After paying into savings (which will be used if we all ever need it, it's not a stag fund), I pay a higher proportion of the mortgage and cover the kids expenses (including Christmas and birthdays) as well as covering the majority of household expenses. My wife would do more housework than me but because of our respective work hours, I look after the kids more and I do all the sports/matches/training runs myself

I would think we're fairly equal and people should look at each individual family situation.

I don't think anyone would have any concerns about that, tbf.

What does concern people is when one partner appears to be very rigid about keeping what is "theirs", even if it means their partner is really struggling, financially.

There's "financial independence" in other words, and there's a very selfish, uncaring attitude - a determination to maintain their own lifestyle, no matter how the partner is affected.

The point I've been trying to make is that rigid structures don't generally work all the time, because life brings changes, whether illness, accident, children, unemployment, etc.

What works today can be a cause of huge stress when circumstances change, especially if one partner seems to believe they have an automatic right to more disposable income, ad infinitum, no matter what the circumstances...

andekwarhola wrote: »

I earn a fair bit more than my wife does. We don't pool but it's definitely not the case I have much more surplus income than her. After paying into savings (which will be used if we all ever need it, it's not a stag or booze fund), I pay a higher proportion of the mortgage and cover the kids expenses (including Christmas and birthdays) as well as covering the majority of household bills and expenses. My wife would do more housework than me but because of our respective work hours, I actually look after the kids more and I do all the sports/matches/training runs myself.

I would think we're fairly equal and people should really look at each individual family situation.

Right, so you contribute more financially because you earn more. This is the thrust of what people are saying here. You don't expect 50/50 contribution to expenses and the attendant much lower disposable income for your wife. Some on the thread seem happy for their spouse to have much less disposable all the name of contributing equally to expenses.

andekwarhola

Murrisk wrote: »

Right, so you contribute more financially because you earn more. This is the thrust of what people are saying here. You don't expect 50/50 contribution to expenses and the attendant much lower disposable income for your wife.

Of course not, splitting things 50/50 with two different incomes would be really unfair.