What's ur job before meeting ur husbie/wife?

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

well they don't... some people think it's necessary for a parent to be at home raising the children. I don't think it's necessary. but if they do think it's necessary, it's often unfortunately assumed that the woman should be the one

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Hey I'm a bean counter.

you into regulations too ?

... regulating the beans to keep a cap on natural gas production ?

Not when Charles is around.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's not hard to see it Steven....

Moral grandstanding aside, I'd really like to know how most couples here who are both working and have careers plan to juggle those careers while raising a family. There's no right or wrong answer here, but it seems that setting aside one's career to be with their spouse is somehow less noble than doing so to raise children?

As maw said, it's not rocket science. It's been happending for *GASP* decades, even centuries! Oh noes.

Forty years ago, more women stayed home to raise the children. Maybe for many woman, it wasn't much of choice compared to now, but the dilemma remains the same - the couple either puts the child in the care of someone else or one of the parents sets aside their career to stay home for the child. What I don't get is why some people perceive that as chauvinistic? Key word here is choice.

[natty bumppo 297]

nobody (but you) said she negotiated the sum of support her husband sends her. it just happened to be 2x the salary...

My husband asked me to quit my job and promised to support me financially & double my salary instead.

It just happened to be 2x?

plz point out the negotiation part.

agreed terms ...

you lost me there.

agreement -> negotiation complete

if not in agreement -> renegotiate

Edited June 25, 2008 by Natty Bumppo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

well they don't... some people think it's necessary for a parent to be at home raising the children. I don't think it's necessary. but if they do think it's necessary, it's often unfortunately assumed that the woman should be the one

Everyone's situation is different, but I'd say that if the mother is nursing the baby, then yes, she should be the one staying home with the baby. I realize this is a sensitive issue in this day and age, but there are certain biological factors that come into play and to put a blind fold on, thinking that either parent would suffice is just not being realistic. That isn't to say a father can stay home, but ideally, for many reasons, a mother at home would be better for the child...at least until they are weened.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

... it seems that setting aside one's career to be with their spouse is somehow less noble than doing so to raise children?

Doing it doesn't make it noble. Why one does it is the source of nobility.

When you 'sacrifice' your career in exchange for the predetermined sum of 2x salary, that's not very noble.

So if you're wife, before she married you, was making a lot of money back in her home country (for the sake of the argument), and she would have to walk away from that job and possible career just to be with a schmuck like you, you wouldn't think that were noble?

Not if it meant negotiating a specific price for her to do so.

nobody (but you) said she negotiated the sum of support her husband sends her. it just happened to be 2x the salary she was earning at the time her & her husband decided putting her career on hold would make communication easier during the seperation while waiting on the visa. there is a 13 hour time difference between here & the PI. myself & my SO also decided together for her not to work while going thru this process to make a communication schedule easier. this way we only have to work around my time responsibilities & not both of ours. i do send her $300 a month...if you're counting 2 1/2- 3x what she could be earning working in the PI. & i will continue to send the money for her family after she gets here. i am not buying her. i am not paying her for obediance. i love her, she loves me & we will do what ever we need to do to make things easier on each other.

but isn't that putting the cart before the horse, so to speak? quitting a decent job without the visa in hand is a bit premature - what if the visa is denied? then what?

[SMOKE 1,426]

nobody (but you) said she negotiated the sum of support her husband sends her. it just happened to be 2x the salary...

My husband asked me to quit my job and promised to support me financially & double my salary instead.

It just happened to be 2x?

plz point out the negotiation part.

agreed terms ...

you lost me there.

agreement -> negotiation complete

if not in agreement -> renegotiate

double my salary instead-> as in he decided to send her 2x her salary-> no negotiation

[natty bumppo 297]

nobody (but you) said she negotiated the sum of support her husband sends her. it just happened to be 2x the salary...

My husband asked me to quit my job and promised to support me financially & double my salary instead.

It just happened to be 2x?

plz point out the negotiation part.

agreed terms ...

you lost me there.

agreement -> negotiation complete

if not in agreement -> renegotiate

double my salary instead-> as in he decided to send her 2x her salary-> no negotiation

he requested her to quit ... provided conditions ... she agreed ... negotiation complete ...

[Marilyn. 340]

geez louise, this is still going on.. can't we stop trying to push people's buttons?? pretty please

[Fandango 1,439]

Candid Witch....what part of the arrangement did your husband compromise on?

And your use of the word 'consequences' makes me sad.

I agreed not to work "for the meantime" but... he agreed that I could work when we are already together...

I could work there but "no office jobs at home" (which is better especially when we already have kids)..

Hmmmm... Is it me who used the word "consequences"? (sorry, perhaps i didn't read again the whole thread carefully as I can't trace that)..

Him giving you permission to work after you get here does not sound like a 'compromise'...

And yeah, you used the words 'consequences'

My husband didn't TELL me (as he knows i do not want to be dominated). He REQUESTED if I could (means it would still be my DECISION).. We talked about the possibilities, consequences, etc..

Again, at the end of the day, you have the right to work, not work, whatever you want to do. What's sad is that you clearly like working, wanted to work, but had to make a choice in order to further the relationship. It's surprising to me how many well spoken professional ladies are in this thread with a similar story, and quite frankly...THAT is what is so upsetting to read. Each and every one of your fiancees/husbands met you while you had a career. As a couple, each of you were able to spend enough time together to get to know each other to the point of marrying/want to marry WHILE you had a career. Now all of a sudden, the time is an issue...and the only choice seems to be for the woman to quit her job, which to me seems sad and very controlling. It's emotional blackmail....quit or the relationship will suffer! You are leaving your homelands, leaving everything to start a new life, yet that isn't enough...no, you have to quit your jobs beforehand. Now if you ladies gladly want to leave your jobs and be stay at home wives, that's great...hey, enjoy life by not working....but to read the regret in doing so just makes me get the creeps at what kind of husbands put forth these 'compromises'

_____________

... it seems that setting aside one's career to be with their spouse is somehow less noble than doing so to raise children?

Doing it doesn't make it noble. Why one does it is the source of nobility.

When you 'sacrifice' your career in exchange for the predetermined sum of 2x salary, that's not very noble.

So if you're wife, before she married you, was making a lot of money back in her home country (for the sake of the argument), and she would have to walk away from that job and possible career just to be with a schmuck like you, you wouldn't think that were noble?

Not if it meant negotiating a specific price for her to do so.

the option is available for re-entering the market and continuing/changing career paths on arrival.

there again ... could it be it's only a matter of price

or if my masterhusband lets me keep a career AND raise kids...

Figures you'd read it as some form of male chauvinism. I'll give you a concrete example. We have 3 month old baby at home. If Jinky were working as a full fledged dentist, she'd be bringing in more than me. Right now, she's staying home with the baby, but if the opportunity arises where she can practice here in the states, I would willingly set aside my career and be a mister mom with the baby until he's at an age where we feel comfortable about leaving him under someone else's care. The dilemma for parents with toddlers is deciding whether its in the best interest of the child to have someone else care for them while both parents work. IMO, if it is financially possible for one parent to stay home, that would be the best option for the child. That's not chauvinism, that's just common sense.

this isn't a discussion about child rearing. This is a discussion about professional, accomplished women essentially being forced to choose between their careers and their husbands....when their husbands aren't even physically there. Work could serve as a huge diversion thru the wait, but no....somehow the relationships that were built DURING these time conflicts of the women working, all of a sudden will crumble if the woman continues to work. These men are opportunists at their worst and the whole thing makes me sick. If you LOVE someone, and you see they enjoy working, why on earth someone would try to take that away from the 'ONE THEY LOVE' just boggles the fricken mind. So don't try to muddy the waters because this is not some 'couple living together figuring child care issues' discussion.

[SMOKE 1,426]

nobody (but you) said she negotiated the sum of support her husband sends her. it just happened to be 2x the salary she was earning at the time her & her husband decided putting her career on hold would make communication easier during the seperation while waiting on the visa. there is a 13 hour time difference between here & the PI. myself & my SO also decided together for her not to work while going thru this process to make a communication schedule easier. this way we only have to work around my time responsibilities & not both of ours. i do send her $300 a month...if you're counting 2 1/2- 3x what she could be earning working in the PI. & i will continue to send the money for her family after she gets here. i am not buying her. i am not paying her for obediance. i love her, she loves me & we will do what ever we need to do to make things easier on each other.

but isn't that putting the cart before the horse, so to speak? quitting a decent job without the visa in hand is a bit premature - what if the visa is denied? then what?

maybe. but, you know more of our history/story than many here. you know money/work isn't an issue for her family. it just made things easier w/ the 13 hour time difference- before she quit we could only talk/chat on the weekends. if the visa were denied we would have dealt w/ that when it happened. luckily the visa was approved & its not an issue.

[Marilyn. 340]

I don't see any "forcing" going on ...you are just reading that into it..

my hubby asked me to quit and said he would said me money and I said sure sounds good....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

this isn't a discussion about child rearing. This is a discussion about professional, accomplished women essentially being forced to choose between their careers and their husbands....when their husbands aren't even physically there. Work could serve as a huge diversion thru the wait, but no....somehow the relationships that were built DURING these time conflicts of the women working, all of a sudden will crumble if the woman continues to work. These men are opportunists at their worst and the whole thing makes me sick. If you LOVE someone, and you see they enjoy working, why on earth someone would try to take that away from the 'ONE THEY LOVE' just boggles the fricken mind. So don't try to muddy the waters because this is not some 'couple living together figuring child care issues' discussion.

I haven't read through every post. All I saw was the OP getting flak for saying that she set aside her job and career for her husband. She didn't give all the details and I have no idea how close they are to getting her visa, but I don't understand all the hoopla. As for the choice of words being used ....keep in mind this is someone from another country and culture. I think a lot of people are interpreting what she has said to mean what they want to hear and not necessarily what is really going on. I think it's a bit rash to judge here and think that her husband has made unreasonable demands on her. She sounds happy in her decision so why beat it with a stick?

Edited June 25, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Marilyn. 340]

this isn't a discussion about child rearing. This is a discussion about professional, accomplished women essentially being forced to choose between their careers and their husbands....when their husbands aren't even physically there. Work could serve as a huge diversion thru the wait, but no....somehow the relationships that were built DURING these time conflicts of the women working, all of a sudden will crumble if the woman continues to work. These men are opportunists at their worst and the whole thing makes me sick. If you LOVE someone, and you see they enjoy working, why on earth someone would try to take that away from the 'ONE THEY LOVE' just boggles the fricken mind. So don't try to muddy the waters because this is not some 'couple living together figuring child care issues' discussion.

I haven't read through every post. All I saw was the OP getting flak for saying that she set aside her job and career for her husband. She didn't give all the detail and I have no idea how close they are to getting her visa, but I don't understand all the hoopla. As for the choice of words being used ....keep in mind this is someone from another country and culture. I think a lot of people are interpreting what she has said to mean what they want to hear and not necessarily what is really going on. I think it's a bit rash to judge here and think that her husband has made unreasonable demands on her. She sounds happy in her decision so why beat it with a stick?

it is VJ's way...

and to point it out Steven asked a question why it seemed people might think it more noble for a spouse to quit their job to raise a child then for a spouse to quit their job for the other spouse... that is how the subject of stay at home moms etc came up....

Edited June 25, 2008 by *Marilyn*

[no name 1]

Everyone's situation is different, but I'd say that if the mother is nursing the baby, then yes, she should be the one staying home with the baby. I realize this is a sensitive issue in this day and age, but there are certain biological factors that come into play and to put a blind fold on, thinking that either parent would suffice is just not being realistic. That isn't to say a father can stay home, but ideally, for many reasons, a mother at home would be better for the child...at least until they are weened.

Steven, there are these miracle things called breast pumps, and also, refrigerators.