Can we just be honest and say many women are trapped

[workiskillingme]

In unhappy relationships /marriages for years due to housing /income

I read so many threads on here advising people to leave their marriage if they are unhappy and live the life they deserve but in reality
A) women are often part time lower earners and wouldn't be able to afford to rent a property by themselves
B) couldn't afford to buy their husband /partner out
C) even if they sold their property and had equity would struggle massively to get a mortgage on one income
D) their other half/husband may more than likely refuse to leave the family home and continue to pay the mortgage so the wife and kids can remain there

Can we please just talk about this very real scenario and how women are meant to try and make it work?

Are you married? (Sometimes people say husband when they mean partner)
Any kids?
Do you work?
more info needed, but lots of people on here seem quite clued up and should be able to help. Best of luck.

As a previous poster said, ultimately, it's all down to personal responsibility. If you make choices that mean your life depends on another person's largesse, then of course you're going to feel trapped if you want to leave. I don't buy blaming your situation on 'societal pressures'. Yes, prices are rising which means it's more difficult to be single, but that affects everyone. The truth is that being a stay at home parent is a luxury and only the rich can really afford it. Middle and lower income earners will be fucked over by taking years off work, either at the time, or years later when they want to leave or need a pension.

This is what you've taken from this thread? Really.

Yes some women decide to be SAHMs and everything is hunky dory at first and then they regret it.

But there are plenty of other accounts on here that at least should give some nuances to your view.

It's not all down to personal responsibility. Not by a long shot. But well done on the victim blaming of women in abusive relationships and those who have had debilitating health problems as a consequence of giving birth.

And it's not simply "the rich" who can afford to be SAHM s in your synopsis btw, it's independently wealthy mothers who are married/partnered with wealthy men who are the only ones with a real insurance policy against it all going tits up.

We really need to educate women to ensure that they have the means to support themselves and that
don't compromise their independence for a man.
Except we are also asking women to STILL be the default parent, look after the dcs, go part time because nursery is too expensive, and do all the accommodation work wise (eg children off school ill) that will stop them from developing their career and be ‘independent’ from their DP.
It’s easy to blame women for not carry on working full time when the whole system is based on women being at home.

Is that a real crossover? IME people who advocate the bold bit don't advocate for the italic bit too

I wasn’t trapped. But I have always worked so was able to go full time (term time in reality bit longer hours).

none of my friends were trapped either. But again they all continued to work when they had children and developed good careers.

Well said.

My mother always told us there were 2 major questions to ask before deciding to have a child:

1. Would I have wanted this man to be my father?
2. If something unforseen happens, am I capable of financially and emotionally caring for this child on my own?

She said that if you could not answer yes to both of those questions that you were dooming both yourself and the child to a life reliant upon others ( benefits or other family members) to assume what should be your responsibility.

Question one made me think carefully before having casual sex with someone about whom I knew very little.
Question two made me realize that I needed a good education and a job that would provide a good quality of life for myself and a child before deciding to have a child.

She told us that sex was free but most often it did come without significant cost.

I have always been grateful to my mother for that advice.

" but I did not come without significant cost "

The entitlement of some people in here is insane!

"I want to be able to leave anytime and keep the house"!

Often in a relationship there is only one house and house prices are high. Why would it be fair to keep the house for one party and the husband who often worked hard to pay for that house should get nothing?

I don't understand why so many of the younger women I know - modern, intelligent, aware of the world around them - seem to slip in to '1950s wife' mode once they start planning to get married.

They change their surname without thought (not all, and I'm not suggesting it's wrong to change your name, but still more than not the woman changes her name to her husband's without considering why, and what it means), they immediately take on more of the housework and life admin, despite working the same hours as their OH, and when children come along they willingly stop working or move to PT hours. Sometimes there is a logical reason for this (eg they were the lower wage earner with less opportunity for promotion, and childcare would cost more than they earn) but it isn't always logical or sensible. Especially if they aren't married and don't have that protection if things go wrong.

Immediately they have taken on the (unfairly) de-valued 'wife work', have reduced their own income (and pension), dipped out of opportunities for career progression and promotion (and just keeping up with how their workplace operates) and therefore set themselves back professionally, even if they eventually return to work FT. When they return to work they are set back a few years or choose to take on lower paid work because they don't have the time or energy to make up for the missing years.

It's OK to give up work or go PT when you have children, if you can afford to do so and if you both agree it's workable, and if protection is in place for the person taking the career hit. The vast majority of the time it's the woman taking that hit. Is that because we are socially conditioned to think it's the woman's job / she's better at it? Is it because women are, generally, better carers and men more career-minded? I think it's more social conditioning than anything else.

We need to educate our children and grandchildren to question lazy assumptions and to make decisions like this with their eyes wide open and a plan in place for how it will pan out, and what will happen if their relationship goes wrong.

@C1N1C I’m sure you are intelligent enough to make the difference between your own specific case and what is true at the population level. The fact you are earning less than your dwife means Fuchs all tbh when as a population tgis is not the case. Unless you are arguing that all women should earn 3x as much as their DH??
Please stop the judgemental attitude if 90% of people,et are in full control if theur destinies. As if!!

Tell that to minorities who are suffering from an -ism, you know racism, sexism, ableism etc etc… Those STRUCTURAL issues that stop people from ‘reaching their potential’ in away YOU did, because you’re a privileged man.
When you will have been stopped from getting a promotion because you have a child, come back. Or been made redundant whilst on ML.

Unless the structural issues are addressed, women will always end up on the back foot.

I'm the breadwinner of the house and still feel I can't leave because worried H will be able to argue for 5050 or even more and he'll take all the equity in the house because he barely works and can't afford anything (he doesn't look after the kids either) and I won't be left with anything

Well exactly. But women are always in the right on here so…

The narrative to women from very young they must marry and procreate to be worthy is also damaging.

And the chidren??

because the reason women are saying they want the house is FOR THE CHILDREN, the ones THEY will look after full time and fir whom many many men refuse pay CM.

Before been horrified that women dare asking for such a thing, maybe look at your own behaviour first. Your behaviour as a group, nit you as a person, I’m sure you are perfect 😒😒. And then ask yourself why women are so careful and ant to protect themselves (just like they need to protect themselves from MEN raping them, sexually harassing them etc ec….)

@WakingUpDistress

Disagree completely. My comment wasn't about me, it was about my wife's potential with hard work and life's choices. She has surpassed me!

Yes, there are 'isms' as you say, but for the majority of people, (and I stress that word 'majority'), hard work can and will equal success.

All of my bosses have been women, and a GOOD employer will see talent over 'isms' any day of the week. I made a generalisation that 90% are in absolute control of their destiny and I absolutely believe that for the majority. If you CHOOSE to leave school or take a mickey mouse degree, you will most likely struggle to progress. If you CHOOSE to have children, then accept that there will be days you are not in control, sick days, sports days, half terms etc and this will impact your perceived reliability making your job less secure. If you CHOOSE to be a stay at home parent, you throw away the capacity to secure your own future as you will be reliant on your partner (male or female).

For you, your friends, or family, ask yourself, could you have studied harder? Could you have said no to those drinking nights, parties etc? Could you have used protection or abstained? Could you have held off on kids for another year until their future was a financial certainty? My comments are about the majority of the population, those that struggle now, not because of 'isms' or disabilities, but those that are fully capable and have chosen a more difficult path.

Women run circles around me every day of the week, and those women, successful, powerful women, have gotten there because of good choices over the poor choices (or laziness) of other women and men. Those women have succeeded, and if they can, you or any other woman can, and hiding behind sexism as a reason why, devalues the successes of those women that have pushed themselves.

I think it's because women on the whole desire children more than men do.

If men could only have children if they split the chores, life admin, parental leave/career break exactly 50/50 (not to mention possible health complications from childbirth) the vast majority of men would decline. Women on the other hand would compromise their life for having children.

Many women are trapped, but so are a number of men trapped. This isn't just a woman's issue.

Trapped is a bad place to be, regardless of if you're a man or woman.

Can we please just talk about this very real scenario and how women are meant to try and make it work?

Education would be a start. Getting a career that can sustain you.

Having a plan... you can't just up and leave tomorrow...but have a plan to get yourself out of the situation you're in.

There are apprenticeships that lead to good,

Don't have more kids than you can afford as a family.

Make smarter choices.

I cannot understand this. I am not in in and having kids and house and then marriage or no marriage seems to be not uncommon. Marriage is a legal contract and it offers legal protections. I think it is bananas to make oneself so vulnerable.

Women on the other hand would compromise their life for having children.
Maybe that way of thinking should change.

Yes op many women are trapped. But Hang around and read the many argumentative threads with sahm’ s encouraging women to do it, how it worked for them, how they’d not wish to let someone else raise their kids , how wonderful it is to be home, the threads where women spew forth about how all women should want to be at home, and anyone who works is jealous , although apparently won’t admit it, and the many threads from women saying they want to give up work, they really want to. How their wage wouldn’t cover child care, like it’s solely their cost. How they didn’t just have one child with some selfish fuck, but two or three, how they stayed home so their man could progress in his career, how his success is down to them.

then correlate that against the 50% divorces, women stuck in unhappy marriages, only there for the money.

Exc children with additional needs, women don’t need to do this to themselves. They really don’t. Just like men they don’t. But time and time again they do and urge other women to do so too, selling them a dream of how wonderful it is to be home raising your kids and financially reliant on your husband. The hard reality of that for most of these women, ten fifteen years down the line is hardship, abuse or poverty.

So yes many women are trapped. And as a society we are all to blame for that, for what we put up with, to the lives we chose, to how we raise our children and their beliefs and work ethics, the whole cycle is wrong but personal responsibility is also part of it, personal responsibility for the choices we make

It's beginning to in many western countries. One of the reasons immigration is so important to keep the pyramid going!

@Gardenerboo
This is true. Also the other issue that can lead to feeling or being trapped is not wanting to share custody.
Sending children to spend 50% of their time with a parent who can’t parent is what keeps many women in relationships they’d like to leave.

This is 90% of the reason for me feeling trapped. He's not violent or abusive, he's just not very good at being a dad, and my kids know it. They'd hate having to swap between houses every few days, as I would have when I was a kid, and I feel as if I have to suck it up and plough on miserably.

how they stayed home so their man could progress in his career, how his success is down to them.
That one always makes me laugh. Do they really think anyone believes that?

Aren’t most adults trapped? People get trapped for all sorts of reasons and in all sorts of ways. They stick out miserable relationships because they don’t want to hurt their kids, or because they can’t afford to leave. They get trapped in horrible, stressful jobs because they have a mortgage to pay and don’t want to live in a crappy part of town. They also get trapped by ageing parents. My partner’s friend is 46, tall, handsome, kind, charming...but he lives with his depressed, widowed mother. He can’t leave her because she’d probably take an overdose. He can’t even have proper relationships. Other people would love to move abroad, but their brother is a lonely alcoholic who depends on them. Or they can’t retire because their drug addict son is in and out of expensive rehab. When you analyse most people’s lives they are trapped. Who is free to just do what they want when they want?

The truly free people tend to be rich and selfish.

"I think there are differences, possibly for biological reasons, between the sacrifices mothers and fathers are prepared to make, ime as a rule men won't put their DC consistently above their own needs for a sustained period of time. Mothers usually do."

I've noticed this, although I don't think it's universal for men. I do think there is also an argument to be made that, for many men who invest a lot of their effort into their careers, they see it as something they are doing partly for their kids: to give their kids financial security and a nice home etc. But sacrifices that a man is making for his career, even if he is in a career that is difficult for him or that he dislikes, also come with significant benefits that accrue directly to that man: his career progression, his pension, etc. When a woman makes sacrifices of her career for the benefit of her children, then if the marriage breaks up, the benefit she gets is her good relationship with her children (but not always; some mums sacrifice a lot for their kids and yet still have a bad relationship with one or more of their kids). It's great if she has a good relationship with her kids, but that's not the crux of why she sacrificed (usually she did it because it was necessary for their wellbeing, not just because she wanted them to like her), nor does it put food on the table and a roof over her head. It's a valuable benefit in a spiritual sense, but doesn't meet her needs in any practical sense.

It's also not always true that women put the children's needs above her own, but I think there is much more societal pressure for women to do so, and it seems to me mostly when the kids are not living with their mother, there's usually mental illness or addiction or something like that in the mix.

But in the main, I do agree with you. And I think one problem with structuring society so that women have to self-protect from men's tendency to do this, is that it puts the woman in a dilemma between her child's survival and her own. If your child is sick, but you need to go to work, do you take your child to the doctor or do you go to work? If you might get fired if you don't go to work, then you are highly motivated to just look the other way on your child's illness, and that is a risk for your child.