I really don’t believe it’s all biological or that men are pigs.

That’s a lot of hogwash! (Get it? Get it?… Never mind.)

It’s just a question of circumstance, opportunity and attitude.

Plenty of women cheat. Just as much as men, I’d wager.

So here are my three vague theories about why it seems like men cheat more than women.

1. Generally more men are successful than women.

Hang on.

Don’t get your panties in a twist just yet.

Read the whole paragraph before going straight to the comments and ranting.

We have the infamous glass ceiling.

Women typically make less money than men, and get passed over for more executive promotions than men because of the fact that they’re the ones who get pregnant and give birth to babies.

That’s it.

That’s the only major difference between men and women in the workplace — maternity leave.

As a side note, great solution would be to implement mandatory paternity leave so it evens out the playing field.

For that reason, it is why men are generally more successful than women.

Which means, they are also usually the gender that is under the most scrutiny from the media and it SEEMS as though more men cheat than women.

2. Women in the relationship seem to be mistresses most of the time.

It really seems as though in many of the cases of women coming forward and saying that she slept with so-and-so, she is a single woman (or escort) with no boyfriend or husband.

It never seems to be a married woman with kids who risked it all to be with a politician or famous celebrity.

Those famous men are generally always married with/without kids and just simply have more to lose.

3. Men seem to be intimidated by famous, successful women.

Which means, that average men don’t approach said women.

And the chances of a married woman celebrity cheating on her husband is quite low as a result.

If they see a sexy celebrity across the way, most Average Joes are not going to go up and start whispering sexy sweet nothings in her ear.

They’re thinking: What the heck do I have to offer to her? She’s rich, famous, beautiful AND smart. I have nothing she wants.

The opposite is true with women approaching men.

Those women know they have the beauty and body that those men are craving for, and perhaps a slight biological need to spread the seed around, kicks into place.

A man with lots of women throwing themselves at him, is a happy man. He’ll take any of them.

And a woman, with lots of men after her, is a happy woman… but seeing as she has the “power” in these relationships, will only pick the best of the lot, and secure her choice.

More strategic, I think.

So those are my three hare-brained theories about why it SEEMS as though men cheat on women more.

Care to share any of your own?

This article from Well-Heeled about a couple that divorced 25 years ago, really annoyed me.

Long story short, they divorced amicably, and signed papers saying they would waive all future rights to alimony from each other.

The husband re-married, and 25 years later, the ex-wife took him to court to get $400/week payments of alimony from his retirement cheque because she had no savings, no retirement fund or health insurance…….and and she WON!

The judge granted the $1600/month alimony. 25 years after they had signed the papers waiving all rights.

Most of the comments on Well-Heeled’s posts said things along the line of:

Why didn’t she get her act together in the 25 years they were separated?

She had more than two decades to save, become frugal, say “I’m on my own now!”

Why did she even think about taking her ex-husband back to court, 25 years later?

In my personal opinion, that’s pretty low. She wanted to milk the only cow she saw available, and she went after the ex-husband as a result. Even though they had parted on good terms.

Why did the judge even GRANT that request?

They waived all rights to any future alimony at the time of their divorce, 25 years ago. WTF?

They were even divorced LONGER than they were married!

Married: 17 years. Divorced: 25 years.

Which brings me to my next question:

Why the hell does it seem that guys always get stuck with having to pay for everything?

I am not saying this is a general rule, but it is a prevailing attitude that I am getting from some of my girlfriends that bothers me.

Some of my girlfriends think that just because they’re girls, they should pay as little as possible.

The guy should take care of them.

He should pay for all dinners out, all trips, treat them to gifts, spoil them with flowers, all in exchange for being with them.

It isn’t even really a question of them making less money than their boyfriends that changes attitudes.

The difference could be negligible, or nonexistent.

I know a dentist who is dating another dentist, and she still feels he should pay for EVERYTHING.

She doesn’t even reach for her wallet when the bill comes at dinner, and she complains if he doesn’t buy her a gift once every other week.

I also have another friend who says “That’s just the way it is“, having lived with her father who paid for everything in the home out of his pay, and her mother who just squirreled her own paycheque away, not forking out a single cent.

They own all the assets together, 50/50, and the parents both own and work at the same family business!!!

And of course, other girls who don’t work at all, and just stay at home sponging off their boyfriends or husbands, who bring home the bacon.

Or you read other posts like this eye-opening one by Retire by 35 talking about pre-emptive lifestyle inflation:

Yesterday on Facebook I was scrolling through a friend’s post and he was being giddy about some new toys that he bought.

He wouldn’t reveal what it was, so a number of his friends started guessing what he bought.

A new camera? No. A new laptop? No. A new car? No.

Nobody was able to guess it and he was really happy about that too. Many posts down his girlfriend chimed in saying that if he got new toys then she wants new ones too.

She started naming off the “stuff” that she wants him to buy her: the new iMac, a new car, a jetski, a house, and other big-ticket items.

She asked him when he would buy it for them.

I know both of them (the boyfriend and girlfriend) and they each make around 40 to 50 thousand a year while living with their parents. Both are older than me. Both travel more, buy more, and eat more extravagently than me.

The girlfriend has been pressuring the boyfriend for marriage and to buy a house for both of them to live in. She wants to start a family.

She wants the white picket fence and 2.5 kids.

She wants the shiny new toys and the hobbies to match.

I don’t believe they have much savings since they complain about being broke.

Lest you think I stayed silent…

I HAVE brought it up to them, stating that I didn’t think the guy always had to be on the hook for everything.

I also stated that 50/50 seems to be the fairest compromise to me, so one doesn’t feel resentful of the other.

But I don’t want to push it, because I’m not their boyfriends.

If he’s happy paying, and she’s happy taking everything, then all the power to them.

But what if he gets annoyed one day and says: “Enough is enough”?

It just isn’t fair..

I don’t think these girls are necessarily stupid for taking their guys’ money.

I think the guy is stupid.

But regardless of who’s taking advantage of who, the bottom line to me, is that it just isn’t fair.

Barring circumstances such as being a SAHM with kids to take care of, a woman should always have control of her own financial destiny.

Being a girl myself, I feel strange, “So why does a guy have to buy and pay for everything for the girl? Why can’t the girl step up and do her own thing?”

And so what if the guy makes more money?

I still pay my half, because he shouldn’t feel punished for making more money.

And vice versa. Trust me, I’ve been there where I was the one paying for everything.

So I cannot imagine that anyone (man or woman) in a relationship who pays more, doesn’t feel the slightest tinge of resentment.

I felt A LOT of it.

So much, that I started resenting the relationship and feeling punished for being in a relationship where I had to fork out way more of my pay just because my partner was not doing his fair share.

So how can it be that a guy would not feel any sort of resentment or regret?

My new attitude as a result was:

If I can’t afford to pay half on a huge loft apartment that he wants, then I tell him that this is what I can afford to pay each month for rent.

We either pick something smaller and within my price range so the percentage stays at 50/50, or he makes a CONSCIOUS, thought-out decision to pay MORE than his fair share, so that he can get the loft he wants.

Simple.

And if the guy has to pay all the food, utilities, eating out, trips, gas bills, etc.. then the girl has no right saying she ran up the credit cards into the red, shopping to cure her boredom of staying at home alone all the time.

GET A JOB!

And the girl, has no right to say that she can only afford to chip in $200 a month, when the bills are $2000 a month, and then goes out to buy a designer purse for $500.

To me, it just isn’t fair.

In my case, the guy bought new gaming systems at $500 a pop, but couldn’t afford to fork over money for food and rent.

Whassup with that?

You definitely MUST have some play money, like $100 a month, but if you can afford a $500 bag each month, you can afford to give $400 more towards the bills.

Edit: To be fair, I feel this way now because…

I’ve been there and done it on the other side of the fence, and I am just trying to shed some light on how a person might feel in that situation.

Male OR female.

As for the situation now, BF and I earn about the same kind of cash.

If we are both working full-time on contracts, we earn around the same amount ($16k – $20k/month)

We may only work for 2 months out of the whole year, as the case was for 2009 (I didn’t work at all, having made the cash last year and BF worked for only 3 months).

But generally speaking, we earn around the same kinds of rates (him of course, getting more contracts and earning more money per hour) when we work.

I guess I am trying to say that I don’t hold it against him that he has more experience, gets more contracts, and gets more money per hour.

He earned it, and deserves it.

Even if I don’t have that kind of money making clout, I just save my money and live off it for the year or two that I need to, because I am forced to manage my own money instead of relying on him to step in and save me.

But I think some girls in the same position might feel resentful of that fact, that they have to really watch their money more, if they earn less.

I should also say that our basic expenses are very low, so we bank a lot of cash when we make it.

With everything included: rent, food, and home stuff, we pay around $800 a month each.

And I am not trying to dispute what works for some couples: 50/50 in our case, and proportionate payments in other cases.

I am trying to point out that SOME women (clearly not all) seem to have an entitlement issues with money from their parents or their boyfriends just because they are women.

Their self-centered attitudes are what I have the real bone to pick with.

What do you think?

LOL!!!!!! I LOVE THIS!!!!

It always amazes me to hear people I know say that buying a home is no big deal.

I mean, granted, they’re not my friends per se.. but some people are under the misconception that owning a home is “no big deal”.

It’s just a home. And they can sell it later if they decide they don’t want it any longer or if they split, right?

Wrong.

Many things go wrong with a home, such as this situation of a friend we know, who took the entire mortgage under his name, including paying for the downpayment.

(This is another friend. Not the Idiot from before.)

Her excuse?

Her student loans and her credit card debt would show a poor credit score next to his shining 800, and the cost of the mortgage would be more expensive as they wouldn’t get a better rate.

Hmm…

The kicker, is that the guy bought that story without checking it out to see if it were true with the mortgage broker, and after he signed that, she pressured him to put her name on the deed for half.

She also quit her job after they bought the home, and he fully supported her in her entrepreneurial business, giving her money, paying for everything .. but everything she earned, went only into her pocket.

See, her money was her money, but his money was theirs.

How fair is that BS?

The home was also convenient for her job, but a 4 hour daily commute for him by train. He couldn’t even drive to work, he had to take the train in for 2 hours to get down town, and come back in another 2 hours.

HMMMM…. Seems unbalanced eh?

He wasn’t married to her which means any property in his name as a common-law spouse would not be contested by the court to give her half.

Update: Vinny makes a clarification that if he bought and owned the property BEFORE they were together, he would not have to give her half, but if they lived in it together after being together, she gets half, regardless of the name on the deed.

He never imagined that she’d leave him because he did EVERYTHING for her. Gave her all of his money, paid for EVERYTHING even though she worked, and even spent his nights and weekends upgrading and doing work on this rickety shack to make it a better place for their family.

But leave him she did.. 7 years and 2 kids later.

She took full custody of the children, sending them to the father only on the weekends (her job is an odd job, and she only works on Friday nights and on weekends, as her clients are busy during the week).

Hmmm… How convenient.

The pain doesn’t stop there!!!

Then she ended up buying a SECOND HOME for herself, conditional on the fact that he would give her 50% of the value of the home that he essentially paid for, IN CASH, as a down payment on the new home.

In the end, we figured the poor schlep ended up paying 4x what he should have paid, and he bought a home and a half.

How so? Let me explain.

They bought a house for $200,000.

He took the entire mortgage under his name, and she didn’t pay a penny towards it — in down payment or in mortgage payments, even though she promised. Remember, she also quit her job, so she didn’t have any income for the first little while either, and was a bit of a shopaholic.

He also fronted the $40,000 down payment on the home (his ENTIRE life savings from working hard at kind of crappy jobs at corporations, never asking or getting a raise).

So the mortgage was left at $160,000.

When she ended up leaving him, her name was on the deed, so she was entitled to half of the home, if they sold it.

Key words to remember: if they sold the house.

We were all pushing him as friends, to get him to sell the home so that he could be rid of that monster (it was in a bad location, and it is a seriously run down shack for the price. He totally over paid), and start a new life on his own.

We told him he could rent a small little studio (like us) near downtown, and his commute would be half hour at the most, instead of 2 hours.

No, no. Instead, upon the advice of his ex-common-law wife (brilliant move there), he kept the home and didn’t sell it.

On top of that, she convinced him to take out line of credit, and give her the entire amount of the loan in cash, so she could buy the second home.

He basically paid 50% of her second, new home, worth $140,000.

So now.. the math gets a bit tricky when you think about how much extra he paid, versus if she had just pulled her own financial weight.

The down payment was all of him – $40,000 when it should have been $20,000.

Then he still had a $160,000 mortgage to pay off, when half of it should have been $80,000 her responsibility.

And then he took out ANOTHER $70,000 in a line of credit as the “value of the home” as per her amateur estimates without consulting a realtor (*scoff*) and gave it to her as the second home.

The guy essentially ended up buying a house and a half, and took out a debt against a mortgage that he hadn’t even gotten rid of yet!

In the end, she ended up paying only 50% of the current home she owns.

Now about that $70,000 line of credit, when she asked for half from him in cash, he should have either sold the home and then split the net proceeds, or given her only half of the actual equity in the home that he had paid down in it, including the down payment, so around $40,000 not $70,000.

We also think she’s lying on her tax forms, taking money under the table or not claiming it, because the judge gave him the maximum amount for child support at $1000 a month for 2 kids, because she claimed that she only made $10,000 a year and not the $60,000 a year we’re estimating.

He totally, utterly, got f*cked, just because he picked the wrong woman, but also because he was too naive and trusting, especially with a banker involved.

TOTAL LIFETIME OF F*CKAGE ACHIEVEMENT ($)

- $40,000 (Life Savings for Down Payment)
- $140,000 (~$20k a year x 7 years of supporting her 100% while she saved her own income to leave him)
- $18,000 (A nice brand new car for her to drive, while he drove a cramped secondhand wreck)
- $160,000 (First House’s Entire Mortgage)
- $70,000 (Second Home’s 50% of the Home’s Value)

TOTAL: $428,000*

*But it’s not yet all paid of, of course. But that’s the total amount, before interest or any other fees.

And I’m sure that’s an extreme case of a story.. but certainly not totally out there.

Here’s one I found from FML…

This is why I am such a strong believer in 50/50 in relationships.

I really don’t think one party could not in the slightest, feel resentful that the other person is not pulling their fair weight in a relationship.

If not financially, they should be doing other things to compensate, like taking care of the home, laundry, managing finances, being the admin and heart of the home.

This is because I understand some people have health problems and cannot work normal jobs, but those are exceptional circumstances and certainly not the case in this relationship.

It just isn’t fair to have a spouse lay around, eat chips and bonbons on the couch, lie on her tax forms and say that her money is her money but not the family’s, make you work a full-time job, commuting 4 hours a day to pay for a home in its entirety, only to watch her walk away with half of your life, including your kids.

FB Note: Don’t get all up in arms about this topic, okay?

I recently read an article on MSN called The Price of a Mom, a report that assigns a salary to a stay-at-home mother, based on the jobs she does in a normal week.

According to one report, $138,095 a year.
That’s the figure in a study put out by Salary.com, which calculates the wages that would have been paid a stay-at-home mom in 2007 if she were compensated for all the elements of her “job.” That total was up 3% from 2006′s salary of $134,121.

Moms who have jobs outside the house would earn another $85,939 for their mothering work, beyond what they bring home in existing salary.

The job descriptions that Salary.com used to determine a mom’s salary includes 10 jobs that moms do on an average day: housekeeper, day care center teacher, cook, computer operator, laundry machine operator, janitor, facilities manager, van driver, CEO and psychologist.

Salary.com had a similar report, see here.

Salary.com determined that the time mothers spend performing 10 typical job functions would equate to an annual salary of $122,732 for a stay-at-home mom.

Working moms ‘at-home’ salary is $76,184 in 2009; this is in addition to the salary they earn in the workplace.

Living Almost Large (LAL) also recently brought up the question about whether or not SAHM’s are “overpaid”

I truly believe a SAHM is a very hard job, no if, ands, or buts. But it’s not worth $122k. Why?

Well the average US salary is $48k for a family of 4. Assuming that the average primary breadwinner makes $40k, how in the world can Salary.com justify paying a stay at home mom $122k? Let alone saying a working mom earns $76k at home?

A normal working parent doesn’t even earn that much.

The truth is, that you have to clean your house, cook dinner, laundry, CEO, janitor, etc. These are basic living chores. Also, who pays all these people that much? You have a housekeeper come in once a week, and in a HCOLA it might be $100/week. How does this all translate to $122k?

Before we continue, let me clear the air.

I am using “MOM” for the sake of writing. I am not intentionally or unintentionally trying to be gender-biased (as per someone’s comment on my “Why your manager is a monkey” piece, where she said I kept referring to the bosses as MEN, when in fact I cited my own manager as a woman in the article for a good chunk of it).

It’s easier than having to type every single time “stay at home mother or father or partner”.

I don’t believe you can really put a price on what a mother does because … she’s a MOTHER.

You can’t price love.

Even my mom (a grandmother) can’t help herself, and does everything in her power (financially, emotionally and physically) out of love.

And having a stay at home mom is great.

I never had one, and I always wished I had a more at-home mother, but she was too busy trying to make ends meet to stay at home, couldn’t handle just being a SAHM (she said she would have gone nuts with us) and struggling with slight bouts of depression. But in the end, she found a good job and we all turned out fine.

I just wish I had more memories of her baking with me, or reading to me, but… that’s what I’m aiming to change when I have kids of my own – to be a mother that creates memories even if I have to bring home some bacon. Heartless Bitches International (not for the faint of heart) wrote a funny piece on this.

But a lot of moms (in general, not just stay at home ones) feel that their work is never done and don’t feel that they are valued enough and/or their partners and spouses leave the bulk of work up to them.

Have you ever watched “Everybody Loves Raymond”? Typical family reaction, right?

Poor Debra (the wife) gets lambasted by her mother in law for not being a cleaning, cooking, baby-raising machine, and her husband Raymond, makes cracks at her like “And what do you do all day at home, HUH!!?” as if his going to work is a free “Get out of raising kids” card for his entire life.

So maybe assigning a salary will make them see that they do have a worth and they can stop feeling like they aren’t contributing and others can appreciate their worth.

I totally agree that it would help, because I have seen so many couples where the poor wife literally does everything, and the husband is The King.

But I’ve also seen the reverse, and you cannot put a blanket label on ALL mothers, stay at home or not.

I also do believe that the article is meant to be a “feel good”, symbolic, heart warming article to make mothers feel even more loved and valued in their family. I hear you on that. I know it’s meant to be a heart warming kind of article, but ….

With all that being said I find that number of $122,732 to $138,095 as a salary (from a purely financial perspective) to be incredible.

Incredible… meaning, I don’t believe it’s accurate or reasonable. *dodges rotten tomatoes*

There are a ton of parents out there, single parents, married couples, people who put their heart and soul into their family, and trudge out into the trenches every single day to make $40,000 to help supplement the income of their family.

If they could really be valued at $138,095, why wouldn’t they just switch jobs and cite being a SAHP as their references?

This comment left in one of the message boards is heartbreaking. This former Stay at Home mother says she can’t find a job in the workforce any longer.

If a person earned $138,095 they would earn more than 91% of all Americans according to FiLife.com.

To me, it’s just not logical. 91% of Americans don’t make that kind of cash.

I’m not trying to devalue what single mothers or single fathers do. I am just trying to figure out a realistic salary with logic and no emotion involved.

I’m just saying that the 10 occupations that ‘fit’ what a stay at home mother or father does is … unrealistic as what I believe needs to be an accurate report.

Here are some comments left by working mothers and fathers:

So I thought it’d be fun to figure out what an accurate salary would be.

Let’s go over the jobs:

….housekeeper, day care center teacher, cook, computer operator, laundry machine operator, janitor, facilities manager, van driver, CEO and psychologist.

The ones highlighted in bold make me very nervous in their little survey because they sound too far fetched to me.

COOK:

I have seen mothers and fathers who cannot cook. At all. They buy frozen dinners and that’s what the kids eat. It’s sad, but true. And it’s not even that they can’t afford the food because on the contrary, it’s cheaper to buy fresh food and cook it than it is to buy a sad little frozen dinner.

COMPUTER OPERATOR:

This one in question because it is just too vague for me to take it seriously. You could call any IT professional a “Computer Operator”, you know, as well as a grade school kid who uses a computer.

CEO:

Um. No. I hate to be rude, but (I’m gonna be) and my answer is No.

I cannot imagine a CEO’s salary to be part of a mother’s skill set. A CEO has to do a hell of a lot more than just manage a company (or family). They are paid a lot because they are under a lot of pressure to perform for thousands of shareholders, they have to travel constantly, they are always in the spot light and being scrutinized.

I am sure mothers fit all of these skills.. but not to the same degree of pressure that a CEO goes under.

To me, if a Mom doesn’t get around to the laundry, or forgets to pick up the milk at a store, it’s not really a huge deal.

It won’t end a company and it won’t put people out of jobs. What it WILL do is make a kid cranky and/or have to wear dirty clothes again.

No big deal. It doesn’t end the whole household or ‘company’.

But a CEO could potentially shut down a company with a bad decision. And THAT is what they get paid for. To be the one guy or woman who has to answer and be responsible for the fates of thousands of their employees and shareholders.

PSYCHOLOGIST:

I also believe this one to be erroneous only because we are ALL mini psychologists. Even at work. Having to deal and finagle with office politics is my best example.

As humans, we also have to comfort our friends and be a sounding board to them, but you don’t see me claiming to be a psychologist just because I’m comforting a friend or trying to help a family member sort out their life.

With that being said, I also think the survey didn’t take into account that everything a mother does for her family.. she’s also doing for herself.

When she cooks for her family, she also cooks for herself.

When she does the laundry, she does it for herself.

I am (again), not trying to devalue or put down mothers (I hope to be one some day!) but every task that she does, she half does for herself for the very single reason that THEY ARE HER KIDS TOO!

And don’t try and use a loophole and say “What if they’re adopted? Or step kids?” To me, they’re your kids if you take care of them on a daily basis because you love them.

So I ran my own little estimation based on what I am guessing.

Notes:

When I put in an hour, I really mean a full 60 minutes of cleaning, not 30 minutes of cleaning and 30 minutes of something else.

I am assuming 16 hour days, only 5 days a week because weekends are a FREE ZONE to me.

I am assuming the partner who works outside the home, comes back and helps out a bit to relieve the stress and pressure.

I am assuming a mother multitasks. When she does the laundry, she doesn’t sit there and wait for it to be finished. She’s minding the kids or running an errand while waiting for the laundry.

I am not putting sex into the equation here. Let’s not get into a heated discussion about paid sex just because a mother stays at home.

I am not including shopping for clothes or other things like that. I am assuming that’s on the weekends with her partner (if she has one) that she can get all those things done.

I am not including fancy skills like assuming she’s a chef in a restaurant. I am assuming she’s an average mother, who makes a decent meal from scratch or using cans, but not feeding her family frozen dinners, buying take out all the time (my sister in law does this by the way) or just opening a can of soup and calling it a day.

My mom was no chef, but she knew how to bust out a good meal to fill our bellies and it was homemade from scratch some of the time.

I put in about 2 hours for a ‘break’ in total. *shrug* I have a statistic that I read on my Google Reader once that says women who stay at home spend about 57% of their time on the computer surfing the Internet. I find that percentage a bit high, so I just put in 2 hours out of the 16 hour day.

I also didn’t put in other things like managing finances or replying to emails because.. we ALL DO THAT. To me, we all manage finances, or reply to emails whether we are mothers or stay at home fathers or not.

I also didn’t include entertainment such as play dates, or driving kids to soccer because those are OPTIONAL tasks. You as a parent, do not have to set up play dates or enroll your kids in soccer (although I strongly encourage that you do), I am trying to stick to the basics here. Basic living.

Lastly, I am assuming mothers are efficient at multi-tasking (many are…like my Mom!) – so that means they won’t be running to the grocery store 5 times a week, for an hour each day. I put in 1.5 hours for just the weekday.

I researched actual wages of the jobs that I think an average mother fits in terms of skills and scale of who she is dealing with on a regular basis (not CEO or psychologist, obviously) and came up with this, keeping in mind the above notes.

I put the earnings divided in half, because like I said.. the kids are hers too. It’s a 50/50 split in my opinion. If someone stays at home, and the other person works, that other person is making money so that he or she can support the family.

A family is not single sided or individual. It is a cohesive TEAM and PARTNERSHIP.

An average salary of a Canadian is around $30,000. This looks just about right in the ballpark, and more realistic and reasonable than $138,000.

To me, the last defining factor is that on these Debt Shows that I watch like ‘Til Debt Do Us Part on Slice.ca, Gail makes a lot of stay at home mothers on maternity leave do the math.

The mothers do the math, they figure out how much it costs to stay at home, versus going back to work, even with childcare and having to buy work clothes… and more often than not, they go back to work because it’s more financially responsible and helpful for the family, even with childcare and other things factored in.

I also cannot imagine or believe that the other partner DOES NOT HELP OUT AT ALL when they get home at night.

Not even to lift a single finger to hold his or her child, or to read a story to them in the entire week unless they are gone because they’re traveling during the week (in which case, those are exceptional jobs and not ‘average’).

Sure, we can’t put a price on guilt either but…. to me, that’s a telling sign that the number up there of $138,000+ is a bit too outrageous to be believable. They also did the survey by asking 2500 mothers what they do.

I am not trying to target mothers, but I can tell you that in a lot of surveys, people don’t tend to be honest or accurate because they cannot remember (nor do they track) how many hours they spend cleaning or cooking on average in a week, and/or they don’t want to look bad in a survey.