Unfair?

>How did someone with such a terrible reading comprehension
>Paternity leave pretty much is not a thing and my hours are not really very flexible.

>>Paternity leave pretty much is not a thing and my hours are not really very flexible.
And this stops you from using my suggestion? Or did you once again fail to read and understand a very short and concise message?

OP outright said his hours are not flexible and he doesn't have a choice in the matter.

Men and their terrible excuses. Every time.

Just admit you are afraid of being around children, OP. Then I can give you advise on that instead, rather than have you grasp after pathetic and flimsy excuses for why you can't adjust your working hours.

Because that's the only part that's relevant. Finding another time wouldn't change anything, my job is just inherently time intensive. That's just how it works. All that would change is my location.

Another job"

>implying he isn't using it as an excuse to let the entire burden fall on his girlfriend
This is standard fare. Stay away all the time, if things go poorly for any reason, say, the kid grows up poorly, he can just blame her, because he didn't have time.

Having a stable work also prevents him from having excuses as to why he is home late while fucking a mistress.

Are you that daft? Judging from what OP has said, he's either a doctor of some sort, or a lawyer, or some other ludicrous job that takes up all your time. There ain't flexibility there.

So you admit you are just a spineless coward afraid to take responsibility for your child? Under some weak guise of "I dont have a choice!".

Man, men these days are pathetic.

Except that's not fucking true. Both lawyers and doctors can be good parents who have time for their kids.

This is so obviously a bad excuse that it hurts.

>Doctors
Depends on the doctor. If OP is just a standard physician then maybe but if he's a higher level surgeon then no, he has absolutely no flexibility.

>works 7 days a week
>extremely long hours
>has a salary that destroys a PhD
Yeah he's probably a surgeon and doesn't want to say.

I don't want to say what I do for a living but you guys are pretty good at guessing, I'll leave it at that.

It sounds to me like OP isn’t ready to be a father. Especially when he claims no role in the parenting of his kid. Like, what is even the point then?

Alright, so having established why, let's get down to your actual question:

There is no "unfair" or "fair". You do what you want with your life, and if you want two different things, you aren't a good match. I've had to break up twice due to this, and it just happens. No amount of compatibility or love will change different goals in life.

You want a housewife. You want someone with no ambitions in life other than being your wife and your childs mother. Some women like that sort of life, and you haven't found a woman like that.

It is unfair to force her to change her life goal for you. But it is also unfair of her to change your life goal. You see the problem right? What is fair doesnt work here, because it is always unfair to one side of this equation. So if you want this setup of you working and never having to interact much with your kids, you need to find a woman who wants the same as you.

PhD doesn't pay that much if you were studying in Social Justice courses.

Sometimes, you just arent cut out to be a father. That's fair. Some men are literally better fathers if they never interact with their children. Knowing your strengths is a good quality, and knowing you would fuck up your kids by your presence, is at least a mature admission.

My pointed questions wasn't about whether he should have kids or not, I was just trying to clarify why he was so adverse to it.

>Yeah he's probably a surgeon and doesn't want to say.
Or someone who stares at the screen all day, waiting for the S&P bull.

No.

Probably consider just not having kids then, because I guarantee whatever kid you have will hate your fucking guts for never being around. On the flip side it’ll give your wife more leverage for alimony in the divorce, so yeah I guess go for it OP

Fuck off, chaim

My dad was a soldier and I still view him as lesser (like legitimately inferior) to my mum because he was never around and when he was he was exhausted from work so he was a cunt. You're literally seeing yourself up for the world's shittest life archetype, but if that's the only way you can be a dad then good luck have fun with the next 30+ years

How is it that your wife can get a PhD but you can't figure out how to cut back costs, make more money, or game the system in your favor? You don't deserve children if you can't create an environment that will cultivate their well-being (i.e. both parents being around, both parents playing an active role, and both parents caring more about their children than their paychecks)

I think so long as you worship her equally because being a mom is going to be likely as hard as your nearly constant on call job, it would be fine.

Yes. Females are too privileged in this modern era.

>Today, the dynamic has shifted again. Today we need two working parents, so daycare/nanny is a necessity.
This is so true. I have two and until they hit school age it was tough but we both worked and the kids had a great time at daycare.
Do NOT expect her to be a stay-at-home mom if she does not want to be. She will resent you for it and possibly break an otherwise healthy marriage.

Fuck off virgin neet

OP here. People keep making assumptions so I guess I have to lay it out.

Yes, I am a surgeon. I work everyday, I'm on call 24/7 and its a job that's unavoidably long. It doesn't matter where I go, its going to be the same, that's just the nature of the job. The only way my hours will become more flexible is outright changing occupations completely. That's unreasonable, it would be throwing away years of investment of my life and everything I worked for. I don't want to work 7 days a week, I don't want to be on call constantly, who the hell wants to do that? This idea that I'm avoiding my girlfriend or something is ridiculous. I would love nothing more to be at home all the time, life sucks.

My girlfriend wants to be a professor. The thing is, the professor market is terrible. You just don't become a full-time professor making $100k/year that easily. That's very difficult to come by, there's a ton of competition and there's a lot of luck involved. So she's mostly likely going to be an adjunct professor which is comparatively awful. If you don't know why, look it up on Youtube or something, you'll understand quickly. If she could be the breadwinner, I'd be all for that. But it would still be foolish to give up so much income for seemingly no reason even in the perfect scenario.

Basically, there's no real flexibility on my side but there is a lot of flexibility on her side. We don't need her income to survive, we can raise a family of 5+ kids just on my salary. And I'm not saying there will literally never be flexibility on my side. Eventually my hours WILL get more flexible, but it just won't for the foreseeable future. Do I want things to change? Yes. Am I always looking for ways around it? Yes. Is it more likely going to happen? No.

Can you not cut down on expenses?

Yeah it's unfair. She's not considering your time spent at work.
She want to stay at home and only do 50%, come on...

I answered here:
Seems like I got my assumptions spot on. Either go through with it, and expect issues down the road because she refuses to be a stay at home mother, or find someone who is a better fit for you. This isn't about her being unreasonable. This is not about her salary being unnecessary. This is all about what you both want, and you should not force her to do something she doesnt want to do, just like she shouldn't make you throw away your career.

There is a midway point, but sometimes circumstances just doesnt allow enough wiggle room. In that case, you need to prioritize yourself, and not try to force your ideal scenario on someone else. It will guaranteed fall apart if you do.

Sure, some might call it "entitled" by your girlfriend, but it really isn't. You are both entitled to have your own life, and at the end of the day, you shouldn't sacrifice your dreams or your hard work for someone else. Both of you worked hard to get to where you are, and neither should throw that away. Even if it means you can't stay together.

I think the main issue you is looking at it as her being the 'main parent.' This phrasing inherently suggests a hands-off approach concerning your involvement in child-rearing.

Consider whether you want to be a parent. Think about whether you want to spend time with your children. A good parent wants to be involved even when they're tired or busy - they are willing to almost completely forego their own happiness during the first ten years or so of their child's life. If you can honestly answer yes, then sit down with your partner and explain this to her.

There is no fair in a relationship - there is only what you are willing or unwilling to do.

Also, if she wants help with taking care of babies, hire a live-in nanny. This wouldn't be to raise the child, but to help deal with all the awful shit that comes with young children up until age four or so. Your wife is still a full-time parent, but the nanny helps to cook and clean and lets her get some sleep during the night when the baby keeps waking up.

She's the one that wants the spawn so she should be willing to shoulder most of the responsibility.
You ,being the father, will have to put up with being tired to make sire your kid doesn't grow up to be some emotionally stunted parasite riddled with daddy issues.
Sit down with just your finances in mind and try to total the amount of this kid and your girlfriend during the pregnancy and in the first year of life including if your girlfriend will need hormone treatment to get pregnant, pregnancy tests, ovulation tests, initial prenatal visits, natural birth vs C section, moving expenses if you need a larger house, extra vitamins, cravings of said hormonal beast, if it will be a high risk pregnancy, Etc.
If after all of that she still wants the baby then ,again, she wants it to the point she is willing to put her fresh degree on the wall as more of a testimony than anything she should be willing to be "Mrs.Dad".

All things considered, I think that what you proposed is pretty fair. It's either: do that, have a daycare raise your child, or not have a child at all. If you make far more than she would, she should obviously be raising the child. Taking care of a baby and working as a surgeon probably have a similar level of workload, and it would be unfair if she expected you to work as a surgeon AND help raise your child. Because of modern feminism, it's seen as "sexist" to ask a woman to be a stay at home mom, even if it is the logical decision. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed

I think what you proposed is reasonable OP. Women just have a hard time accepting that there's more to raising children than just popping them out.

Dump the selfish cunt and get a good woman she is infected with the femen virus.

>wants to marry a surgeon and is shocked that he might too tired to take care of babby after a 20 hour shift
Wew

She will steal your $ your house and your kids, this is your last warning

Women see the dollar signs but not what goes into making it.

This dumb bitch is being handed easy mode and she's fighting against. Marry me instead OP.

Not OP but there are some good advice here. Is this really Jow Forums?

There isn't a thing such as a "main parent".
It's not about your girlfriend, it is about your children. If you don't have time for them, don't make them. They need your presence, love and time with you.
I do understand the fact that she should take care of most of the chores, given that she will be a stay at home parent. He will become socially maladjusted.

If she's a stay at home mom she should do most of the housework, and I believe that it is fair, but you have equal responsibility towards your children.

Yeah he should never make kids because his career is demanding while millions of uneducated, stupid, poor people, single mothers, and minorities with no prospects reproduce en masse. But no, OP who would provide literally the best possible environment, healthcare and education for his kids shouldn't because his presence will be a bit lacking. Nevermind that his kids will more than likely be as successful and intelligent as his parents are through sheer statistics. Seems legit man, seems like a swell idea.

This. OP said his time will be more flexible as time goes on. He can't be there all the time but that's pretty typical for Father's in many households. The sheer opportunity he would provide his kids makes up for it.

I understand what you're saying, and obviously OP's job is going to provide for them and give them the chance of a good live, but OP shouldn't have kids if he can't spend time with them.
You grow emotionally and socially maladjusted children. There's ton of research on how the kids of the most privileged end up with tons of emotional issues because their parents can't spend time with them. They're more likely to develop drug problems, become alcoholic, depressed, have low self esteem and a ton of other problems.
I understand that OP needs to work and I'm not suggesting that he stops working.
And while as an adult I can appreciate that having a lot of money to spend on my kids and send them to the best schools and all is awesome, as a child the only thing you want is having parents who spend time with you and love you.
I'm not suggesting OP drops his job, just that he makes time for his kids.
His girlfriend can take most of the responsibility for the house, but the idea that there should be a "main parent" is terrible for kids.

Fuck off

>The sheer opportunity he would provide his kids makes up for it.
It doesn't tho.
I'm dating someone from a wealthy family and I'm around his childhood friends who grew up wealthy. All went to great schools and all. All had good money.
1/3 of them did well in life, the rest has a shit ton of troubles.
All of them used drugs and started drinking as young as 12-13. 70% of the girls was anorexic growing up (like, at least 4 of them are infertile because of it). A lot of the men struggled with depression, and around 7 of their friends group killed themselves.
Having parents who love you and spend time with you is extremely important growing up. You underestimate how much it matters.

>mid 1900s
>industrial revolution
You’re actually retarded. That’s when the shift was made away from the nuclear family. Literally all throughout history the nuclear family has been the norm.

Can people stop taking everything so literally? He only said main parent as a descriptor not a locked in definition of her role.

If only anecdotes meant anything.

No it wasn't. Nuclear family as in mother, father, children wasn't a thing for most of the history.
People lived together with grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins in very big houses till society was mostly agricultural. While it isn't really true that "the whole village" grew the kids after we stopped living in tribes, it's true that grandmothers and other people looked after the children.
Nuclear family is relatively new, and it became a thing as people moved into cities with the industrial revolution.
Nuclear family is still the norm, but after the sexual revolution we have less problems with things such as divorce, children out of wedlock and single parenthood so it might be less apparent.

There's plenty of scientific research on the topic.
Children of wealthy homes are extremely emotionally and socially maladjusted.

There's no real difference. I understand being the one who takes mainly care of the house, not saying that she is the one who does most of the parenting. Taking care of the kids should be split as much as possible.

Well I knew many guys with dads who worked all the time and they ended up just fine.

If only anecdotes meant anything ;)

It's a mix of having great expectations set for you because you have a ton of opportunities, not having as much parental love, and other things. But it is pretty well documented.
You don't want to raise rich kids without strong parental figures. Both of them.

>rich
OP never said he's rich

I've yet to meet a surgeon who struggles to make ends meet.

Anecdotes don't mean anything, that's why there's no point in bringing them up. There are guys that having loving parents that murder and rape, so what?

There's a vast difference between rich and poor. If you have to work, you aren't rich.

My tip was on a sales job for a bank

Again, there's scientific research on the topic. It's a very well documented thing.
Kids of wealthy people are often maladjusted, and one of the main reasons is because they don't spend time with their parents.
Just google it, it's really a well known thing.

Surgeons are rich by any standard. The average income is 3x the average income of a household *at worst*, and can make up to 5+ times as much.

>Surgeons are rich
Nope. Well off =\= rich.

Professors in switzerland make 250k a year

Well, I went checking the studies and they normally use 150k$/year as the income of a rich household so I guess we're fine, however you want to call them.
You don't want to raise well off children without parental guidance, presence, validation and love.

That's because many wealthy people pawn off their kids to random caretakers. OP said he doesn't want to do that and again, he said his hours aren't set in stone forever.

As I said, the idea that the kids will have one "main parent" is flawed. He should spend a lot of time with his kids, and that should be his priority.

Kids don't understand that you're off working so they can go to Harvard and have a nice house and nice toys.
Kids understand that it is dinner time and you aren't there. That it's their soccer match and you didn't come. That you don't know the name of their friends in school.
It's really important for children to not feel like one of their parents is neglecting them, that they have to win their validation, that there's something in their life that matters more than them.
Obviously if both parents neglect the kid it is worse, but even if just one does it is really bad.
Kids want to have people who love them. If you work 90 hours a week you shouldn't have a family.

Well, don't have kids if she's not happy with this arrangement. If this is going to make her miserable and eventually hate you, don't do it. If she isn't fit to be a full time mom, which isn't easy, don't have kids. You can't change your work schedule and she worked hard as hell for whatever degree she's got. She still wants to work and you're not going to budge.
You both know the consequences that having children will require for both of you, and it sucks so just don't fucking do it unless you can figure out a situation where you both will be happy. Having children is a big thing. You also have to make sure they're happy.
Putting your kids in daycare is a good thing because they learn to socialize and pick up social skills. You're not "pushing your kids on people" when you can't find the time to take care of them. This whole problem exists because you're not ok with that. Who gives a shit. Again, being a full time mom is hell and if she doesn't think kindly of the idea now, she's probably going to be miserable.
So you get people who like raising kids and whatever. You're not giving them away, they're still teaching them good things, they're having a fun time, and they're not completely dependent or develop attachment issues on mommy.

No it's not unfair, even though I can see how she'd consider 50/50 fair. The purpose of the stay at home parent is to look after the upbringing of the children. Perhaps she could get a part time job as a middle solution.
With that said, men and women have very different mindsets. Even when she means well, a mother can't fully understand boys and their needs. Sons need their dads.

Sod off nigger, this isn't your personal sandbox.

Obviously this is the ideal, everybody already understands this. Parroting it repeatedly isn't bringing some new revelation. However, this idea is unlikely in the large majority of households. One because single motherhood is on the rise, two because most people aren't well off and have to work. Society needs people for it to work and not just low income worker bees. The thing is though, those houses are still in a worse situation because they have to work. OPs gf is available 24/7 which is far better than most houses already.

It's called compromise. Yeah it's not perfect but a perfect household doesn't have to be in place to produce functional children. Also, yet again, OP already said this isn't permanent. Stop acting like it is.

And I'll tell you right now, if you have her a full time mom and can't be there for your kids, you're going to have the least ever satisfying role as a father. Your relationships with them will be shit.

YES!

OP should wait till he has more time to spend with them before having them. If now he is on call 24/7, works crazy hours every day and when he comes home he's too tired to do anything, then he's not ready to be a dad and it is okay. He can wait till he has a more reasonable schedule.
I'm not saying both parents shouldn't work, but if you can't spend time with your kids don't have them because it's really unfair to them. You can work 40 hours a week, and then dedicate yourself completely to your family when you're off work.

>I'm a surgeon
>she's a PhD
>I won't take a pay cut to work as a GP
>she should give up her dreams for me tho

The idea that you can't change your situation is bullshit, and you'll have to choose between your dosh and your family.

I don't think you understand how doctors work. He would have to get re-certified, and at worst go through another residency. Residencies and fellowships are specialty specific, you can't go from one to another. That's not how it works.

You can't just become a GP from another specialty. Doctors in specialized fields are trained specifically for those specialized fields. That's not to say they're clueless about the other specialties, but obviously a heart surgeon or something is not going to be able to recognize the intricacies that a dedicated practitioner would. OP would have to do another residency specifically to become one.

Residencies are long, the hours are awful, and they pay like shit. Basically, they would be in their exact situation but with no money on top of it. Basically what you're suggesting is impractical, retarded and a waste of time.

Even ignoring that what they suggested is stupid, she's essentially saying OP's dream doesn't matter and he should give it up so she can live her dreams. Not all doctors are created equal. What if OP's dream is to be a surgeon and not sit in an office all day telling people what to do? The jobs are not the same.

the job market for most Phds is awful, they either find no job related to their research or get paid peanuts, she should be thanking you for not just leaving her considering a PhD is deadweight financially during and after school. She's also the one desiring a child when she herself can't sustain herself which is hypocritical, if she's the more adamant one on having a kid and she can't carry her financial weight then it's her responsibility to take up the domestic responsibility or hold off until your in a better state.

>she should give up her dreams for me tho
...Yeah? She's the one that wants to have children, are you expecting that to happen with no sacrifice? Women are so fucking arrogant and entitled, it's infuriating. Plus OP isn't even telling her to stay at home forever. Just read his fucking post.

>I told her that I wanted her to be a stay at home mom until our child is old enough to not really require that she be around all the time
>until our child is old enough to not really require that she be around all the time
What more do you want? She should be at home taking care of her fucking baby, because its HER FUCKING BABY.

This bitch is lucky that she even has this option. A lot of women don't have a doctor daddy to pay all the bills while they play mommy all day. They have to slave away and somehow juggle raising a child. Some women have like, what, 6 weeks at most from the day they give birth to the day they go back to work? And this bitch is complaining that "Boo-hoo, I want a baby but I don't actually want to raise a baby!" Who does this bitch think she is?

I hate this stupid fucking cunt and I hate you, faggot.

Look at it from her perspective. Imagine slaving away to get a doctorate only to be told by your husband that hue hue, sorry but you're staying at home and changing diapers. You wouldn't be a bit discouraged?

How old would you say that the child be when old enough to not really require that she be around all the time? This is past baby. This is past toddler. This is past elementary school. So middle school would you say? That's at least 10 years!
And mind you, if she's going to be there for this kid since birth, of course the kid is going to develop attachment issues which is why they should drop the kid off at daycare when it's old enough. To both separate from the mother, learn social skills, and get comfortable going to "school" for a while and returning home.

>This bitch is lucky that she even has this option. A lot of women don't have a doctor daddy to pay all the bills while they play mommy all day. They have to slave away and somehow juggle raising a child. Some women have like, what, 6 weeks at most from the day they give birth to the day they go back to work? And this bitch is complaining that "Boo-hoo, I want a baby but I don't actually want to raise a baby!" Who does this bitch think she is?
A-fucking-men. Women see working as some form of empowerment. Men don't see it that way, we work because shit needs to get done and bills need to be paid. If we could be lazy all day, we would. Women insist on stroking their egos though and working when its not necessary. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

That's the trade-off she has to face, being sad your degree isn't worth shit doesn't mean it's your partner's job to undermine their established success, especially when you're dependent on them and not providing anything in return. Either she holds off on having kids until they are more equal or she has one now and pulls the appropriate weight.

>She should be at home taking care of her fucking baby, because its HER FUCKING BABY.
It's THEIR baby, not hers only. She's not a single mom.

>It's THEIR baby
Funny how its never THEIR baby when its abortion.

She's the one who wants it and if you believe in pro choice you also believe in women having the final say on child birth meaning they are soley responsibile for the child.

That is true, the man has no say if he wants her to keep the baby or not because it's her body.

I used to want to have kids but this thread changed my mind. I hope my bf will understand that

I don't understand why you keep pushing the abortion thing when it is unrelated.
The baby would have two parents, who should both love him and spend time with him as much as they can.
No man should give a woman a baby "because she wants it", if OP doesn't want the baby he shouldn't have him.
If OP can't take care of the baby and spend time with him, he shouldn't have it.
It's as simple as that.
If he doesn't want it and doesn't have time/energy to take care of it, he can avoid having it. You can't have a kid and then drop responsibility on the mother.

But if she keeps it, it's their baby. They should raise that child, because she's not a single mother. With the logic user said above, that also means no man can ever say that they have children nor should feel responsible for taking care of them because it was "her choice for keeping it"

This!

The act of reproduction is inherently unfair towards women. Women just need to accept this at this point because its the children that suffer in the end.

Women are the ones that have to deal with periods, women are the ones that get pregnant and have to carry the child, women are the ones that squeeze a human being out their genitals, women are the ones that have to breastfeed and biologically sabotaged by hormones to be attached to the child (look it up) and women are expected by society to be caretakers to children. That last part is pretty much your fault though, as the gatekeepers to reproduction and the arbiters of "My body my choice!", you're expected to have agency for once in your life.

Yeah, it's unfair, but there's nothing we can do about it. We're just built that way and inevitably you're going to be the ones making the sacrifices.

Sorry but, deal with it?