Having a Family Doesn't Guarantee Happiness

Matt Walsh, who I agree with some on some really big things, is back [this entry is being bumped up] to beating the drum to marry and pop out kids. He starts off his column at The Daily Wire citing comments by former First Lady Michelle Obama. [This entry bumped up from January 2021.]

The former First Lady was interviewed by "Blackish" star Tracee Ellis Ross and the women together lamented the fact that girls "still dream of weddings" and "Prince Charming." The two agreed that some women (Tracee Ellis Ross included) can sacrifice family for the sake of a career and be "happy as a clam." In fact, it would seem that Mrs. Obama — who is married with two kids — thinks this path is preferable, given that she considers it a problem when girls aspire to marriage. Ross provided compelling evidence to prove that her decision to forgo family life was the right call: "Look where I'm sitting," she declared. Yes, the summit of all happiness is to sit on a stage with a former First Lady. Truly, this is the eternal bliss for which we were designed.

Maybe Ross is happy? I'm not aware of Walsh having psychic abilities.

Why Are They Surprised?

On Monday, December 30, Michael Medved sounded like he was baffled as to why more and more Americans are placing having (more) children on a much lower place on their list of priorities. Or, at least, he sounded upset. [This entry has been bumped up from 1/1/2020.]

He really needs to have someone who is proudly child-free on the show; someone who can articulate well why they don't see a need for themselves to have children or to encourage others to have children. I'm not talking about an abortion advocate or a population hysteric. Just someone who recognizes that the world has changed and children do not fit into their plans.

Being an observant Jew (of the more conservative - small "c" bent), Medved has no doubt been steeped in a subculture that encourages members to produce as many new congregants as they can (though perhaps not as strongly as Roman Catholicism or Mormonism). More individually, he's a grandpa. The days of struggling to actually raise children is a distant memory for him. Experiences as a  non-custodial grandfather are very different than those of a parent.

Children change EVERYTHING.

When Dr. Laura Tells Moms to Announce Their Switch to SAHM

Children being raised with attention, affection, a sense of security, and morality is one of Dr. Laura's top goals, which is why she condemns the use of day care and insists parents should raise their own children right up until Kindergarten, which is entered into at age 5 or 6 (boys should especially be started later, according to her). She's also big on homeschooling, but any form of daycare (including "preschool") from ages 0-4 is a no-no.

While she doesn't rule out "stay at home fathers", she says mothers are preferable from ages 0-3, and she notes that the "psychobiology" is that women prefer a man be a provider and they tend to lose respect for their husband if they earn more than him or he's home with the kids earning no income at all. Men also tend to like to provide.

So, she gets calls from employed women who are pregnant or have just given birth (again) or even have infants or toddlers who want to switch to being SAHMs, but have husbands who are opposed to that change or are at least reluctant to agree.

This is when Dr. Laura, who usually says big decisions, even getting a dog, have to have mutual agreement and if either spouse is a "no" then the change doesn't happen, leaves that principle aside. It is overruled by the importance of a mother's love. She tells the women to quit their jobs, come up with a one-income budget, to announce to their husband they will be staying home, and tell him that it will mean home-cooked meals, lots of great sex, and a more pleasant home.

That's all good, but only if the caller follows through. And only if the husband accepts the announcement. Will it be better if the family splits up than if they stay together with both parents working outside the home? Dr. Laura says men who aren't eager to be sole support for a wife and kids aren't real men, but would her opinion stop one man who is thinking along these lines from engaging in what he sees as self defense?

Married Fathers Do Better in the Workplace?

[Bumped up from Oct. 21, 2014 because it is still relevant.] On the episode of the Michael Medved Show still airing as I type this, Medved is talking about how a study says being a father can increase your success in the workplace while being a mother can limit your success in the workplace. While some of Medved's point is that men and women are different, he also again is trying to sell marriage to men. He cites all of the effort unmarried men put into "chasing women".

The problem with these statistics is that they lump everyone unmarried together. That means guys who can't get a date are lumped in with men who deliberately avoid marriage and fatherhood.

Things have changed a little bit since Medved was a single guy.

Today, the unmarried guys who aren't avoiding women entirely can spend very little time, money, or effort to get sex with a variety of women (thanks, feminism!).

Also, unmarried guys can work more and longer hours and don't have to check in with the "control tower" to get approval to do so. It is easier for unmarried, childless guys to go on business trips, network at happy hours and business lunches, and move for promotions. Married fathers are now expected by their wife/child to take time off to go to school, sporting, and performance events. That's a detriment to work.

Yes, there are the masses out there who let life wash over them and those guys who can't get dates because they have no game. However, there is a growing percentage of men who think these things through and are deliberately avoiding marriage and fatherhood and are better employees as a result.

I know with certainty that I was a better employee when I was single and childless. I know I'd also be taking home more pay, if not outright having a more advanced career.

In a culture in which women are becoming more and more difficult (more personality disorders, etc.), having a wife is increasingly becoming a liability to a man's career. (Remember, I'm talking about men dealing with women. If you're a woman, you might have found men increasingly problematic.)

When people like Medved tout stats about married men earning more, they want us to believe that marriage has "civilized" the man and encouraged him to work harder. But once again we're dealing with a correlation that could have a different explanation: maybe it is the men who are likely to earn more who attract a wife rather than the men who get married who are likely to earn more? Ever notice that women tend to prefer a man who earns more over one who doesn't earn as much? Implying that a man will do better professionally if he marries can be very misleading and set people up for failure.

Finally, even if I did earn more than I would have if I never married and never became a father, since half of my earnings legally belong to my wife, I'd have to earn twice as much to be personally better off. Also, so much of my money goes into raising the children. So a slightly better income is more than offset, isn't it?

Hey Anonymous Commenter: Stop Seeing Your Coworker

There are hundreds of comments on this blog's most popular entry, so it is easy to miss one. I'm addressing one in particular with this entry, but also below I will post an edited version of two recent comments on the same entry. I tend not to actually publish comments with "profanity", but if they're worthwhile, I'll address them like I'm doing here, edited.

Anonymous 6:36 AM:

Ok so, I'm not sure if anyone will read this or help me by responding but let me explain a bit on whats been going on. I'm 29 years old and have had my eye on this woman I work with for months,

WOAH!!! Hold up there.

If you care about your job, NEVER NEVER NEVER date a woman you work with, or who works for the same employer, or in the same location. NEVER!

Guys, do not ask them out.
Do not flirt with them.
Do not joke with them.
Do not socialize with them.
Do not compliment them.
Do not touch them (except for a handshake, when it is absolutely necessary). No hugs, no high-fives, no taps on the shoulder, no touching!!!
Do not look at them for more than a second at a time, and only in the eyes, or better yet, at their forehead.
Do not gossip or chit chat with them.
Do not talk about personal matters with them, or listen to them talk about personal matters.
Limit your interactions with women at work to what is STRICTLY NECESSARY per your job responsibilities.

When asked a personal question, redirect.

Example:

Your Child, Your Choice, Your Responsibility

The mommy wars never end. Michael Medved, as I type, has Erica Komisar on his show, who has a book out about the importance of mothers being with their children from birth to age three. Of course there are women calling up complaining about the fact that children benefit from actually being with their mother. They'd rather not hear the truth, apparently. And others are complaining that their employer doesn't facilitate this.

There are thee issues here.

1) It is YOUR responsibility to plan things so that if you have children, they will have their mother* with them. Your choice, remember? With choice comes responsibility. Daycare is almost always voluntary and a bad choice. If you're not cut out to be a mother, don't become one. If you don't have a marriage that allows for you to mother your own children, don't have them.

2) It is not a legitimate role of government to compel employers to provide daycare or maternity leave or any other of these accommodations parents want.

3) Employers should be free to run their businesses as they want. If they want to give mothers paid time off to raise their children, fine, but expecting all employers to offer it is an attitude of entitlement.

March Madness

People have the right to protest, not riot, and not litter. And we all have a right to analyze their protests to see if what they're saying is true and what they want is a good thing. A lot of people have spread this essay by Dina Leygerman. Let's take a look at it. After that, I'll link to some coherent and reality-based stuff.

It has the headline, "You Are Not Equal. I’m Sorry."

A post is making rounds on social media, in response to the Women’s March on Saturday, January 21, 2017. It starts with “I am not a “disgrace to women” because I don’t support the women’s march. I do not feel I am a “second class citizen” because I am a woman….”

This is my response to that post.

Because, if you don't think you're a victim, by golly you're wrong!

Employed Parents

You remember the guy who did the worst Prager U video ever, based on my personal opinion and viewer reactions? It's the video that told men they should get married because they'd earn more money but neglected to mention that 1) if his wife divorced him, most of his money would go to her and lawyers, and 2) even she stay married to him, most of his money would be spent by her? Yeah.

Well a tweet by him caught my attention. It linked to a Bloomberg story carried by Yahoo claiming that having children is a bad career move for women. The text of the tweet was:

As if money is the only thing to live for

Yup. From the guy who wanted men to stop doing the things they enjoyed under the lure of "you'll make more money!"

Rebecca Greenfield reports:

Build a Life Before Making More Life

Most of us no longer live our entire lives on a small family farm, or in the family shop. It is a different matter now to build a nest to raise a family. ANONYMOUS MOTHER IN NORTH CAROLINA wrote in to Dear Abby:

I am a young mother in my early 20s with two young children and another on the way.

LDS in an LDS community? Otherwise this usually doesn't go so well.

I have been married to my high school sweetheart for three years. We have been together since we were young teenagers.

Hmmm.

Both of us come from single-parent families, and our marriage has been less than perfect.

Well, yeah, the odds of marital survival are slim. My guess is you're not LDS. (I'm not, either.)

I work a full-time swing shift.

With what time?

My husband works only a part-time swing shift job.

Ah. Well, if he changed his shift, he could be there more for the kids.

I have asked him to take on another part-time job so we can be more comfortable financially, but he refuses.

Good thinking on your part. Let's make sure your kids never see either of you. Why don't you change your lifestyle so that you can get by on one full-time job? It is because you were both so busy making babies that you (plural) didn't get educated/trained for a career?

He says if I want more money in the household, I will have to get a second job.

Sounds reasonable to me. Look at that! He's bought into the feminist idea of "respecting" you as a career woman.

If it wasn't for our families' free baby-sitting, I don't know how we could afford child care.

So you're letting your parents/siblings raise your kids?

We have no money in the bank, and we are deep in debt.

Yeah, that tends to happen when you get married so young to your high school sweetheart and make three babies.

I feel overwhelmed with too much responsibility and don't know what to do about it.

Change your life around so that you can get by with one person going out of the home to earn the income. The other person can work from home. Other than that, you're pretty much stuck and you can be a good warning to others.

Dear Abby responded:

Start by telling your husband that with a third child on the way, you are in no position to take on another job -- but he is.

So Dear Abby isn't into gender equality?

If he refuses -- and he very well may -- then you will need to think seriously about your and your children's future, and to what degree it includes him.

Oh yeah, because divorce would do such great things for her finances and the kids.

This is who she chose to marry. She chose to make babies. She could have gone off to college, prepared herself to earn, met man with higher earning potential, or waited until this guy started his career. She could have done so many other things. But I know – she loved him. He loved her. And that meant they just had to get married and start having kids when they did.

Workin' 9 to 12?

TAKES MY JOB SERIOUSLY wrote in to Dear Abby:

I'm the supervisor of a small office. One of my biggest challenges is scheduling time off for the female employees. In my day, you didn't take a day off unless you were very sick or your child was sick. Now they seem to want time off for everything from school events, sporting events, getting their nails done, their faces waxed or tanning appointments. I am amazed at the decline in work ethic.

Some could argue that there has also been a decline in loyalty to employees. Which came first?

As I read about the unemployment in our country, I would think people would be grateful to have a well-paying job with benefits -- but the recession hasn't slowed any of our female employees down one bit. What has happened to the old-fashioned work ethic that founded this country?

The writer is female, by the way.

As far as school events – family should come before a job. However, it used to be that the parent "staying home" could attend those events, and the parent with the outside job could take time off for the really special events. As mothers have joined the professional workforce in greater numbers, they have expected the workplace culture to conform to them, rather than them conforming to the workplace culture. Plus, how many mothers have children, but not a husband? So they're the only parent that can attend these events.

But these life situations (being a mother in the workforce, not having a husband) are almost always entirely by the adult's choices, whether those choices were mostly made a long time ago or recently.

Keep this letter in mind the next time you read about a "wage gap" between men and women - especially about taking time off to tan.

Dear Abby responds:

If they choose to use the time the way you have described, it is their right to do so.

It sure is, if it is time they were assigned under company policy.

However, if they are taking more than the company offers, that could be a problem. While I understand your point, please try to be less judgmental.

She's running a business office, not a charity or social club. It's all well and good to take time off if you have it coming under company policy, but what about people who use up all of their time for playing around, then beg for leniency when they really do get sick?

More Reaction to Dr. Laura's Book Publicity

Wow. I am so blessed to have the wife that I do, who is my girlfriend and who is my daughter's mom and the Queen of our home. I am reminded of that simply by looking around for more reaction to Dr. Laura's media appearances promoting her latest book. My previous post on this is here. But now there's more.

http://becki325.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/this-can-not-be-real/
Prompted by a posting on WSJ's "The Juggle" "becki" checks in.

She finds some of Dr. Laura's comments "disturbing", even after waiting a week to post about she was so "riled up":

"When your husband comes home, wrap your body around him at the door and look at his eyes. What people need to learn is that it's not about the drudgery of housework — it's about being at home for all of those incredible moments that make your life more valuable than the person who replaced you at work."

This is not even worth a comment, but COME ON. If you are home all day with the kids, I am sure your disposition will not be ammenable to the above statement.

I don’t get it. When I come home, my wife cheers, wraps her body around me at the door, and looks into my eyes, tells me how much she missed me, and kisses me. So, is the housework at our place magically easier, taking care of our child magically easier, am I some sort of supernaturally hunky dude, or is my wife Supermom? Which is it?

"For everything in life, you have to make a priority list. This must be done. If we truly believe in something and cherish it, we find a way to make it happen. Women go from making seven-figure salaries to staying at home, and things just start to be less important."

Right, so I guess paying the mortgage becomes "less important".

Yes, that's what Dr. Laura says. Don't pay your mortgage.

No, actually, she advises people not buy things (or take out loans) that they can't afford. Or do downsize. You can't afford it if it keeps you from raising your own kids, because it costs you a lot more than money.

And hey, what about those of us who WANT to work because we LIKE OUR JOBS? What would Dr. Laura say to that?

From what I know from listening to/reading her, it would be that you should go ahead and work, if you enjoy that more than raising kids. But don't have kids if you're not going to raise them or have a husband who can raise them. You can't raise them if you aren't with them.

Yes, you have choices to make. Choices mean picking some things and not others. I can want both "A" and "non-A", but I can't have both at the same time in the same way.

Over at second blog from someone else who is also "riled up", we get this:

"I recommend that during the first three years, the mom should be at home because all of the research shows that the person whose body you come out of and whose breast you suck at, at that stage, really needs to be the mom - unless she's incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. After that, flip a coin."

First of all, let me say that I am so so so thankful that I have wonderful family and friends who are generous, kind, loving, good examples and caretakers for my daughter.

That shouldn't be their responsibility. They should take care of any kids they have. Once their kids are grown, they have done their part in that area.

I do not worry about her care because I know she is in a loving environment.

Better than a day orphanage, to be sure.

I really hope you are not calling me incompetent, irrelevant or immaterial since I'm not home with my child right now.

Read again. She's saying that your daughter is better off with you unless you are incompetent. She didn't say you are incompetent.

You think that all mommies should stay home

Not true. She thinks mothers should raise their own kids (or have a husband who does it) and make her husband and child(ren) her priority. If a mom can work and still 1) make sure that her child is with her or her husband; 2) see to it that the home is taken care of – either by her husband or hired help if not herself; and 3) be a good wife to her husband, then that works. Use some imagination.

and from what I get of the story (could be wrong), I'm missing out?

Yes, you are. I know I'm missing out when I'm away from my child.

Guess I should have gone on to get my PhD (and gone into debt for more schooling, but I digress) to fully let myself know what I was missing.

If this is a reference to what Dr. Laura did – she raised her own son.

You think I don't know I'm missing out? You think I take this lightly? You think I don't cry at work, in the car, and at home sometimes?

She doesn't say that. You might have mistakenly believed you haven't had a choice in the matter – that is what she's been telling women. And her book is about praising mothers who raise their own children. That's it.

In apparent agony, the blogger goes on to credit God with having her away from her kid - twice. It's very sad. She also goes on to call on Dr. Laura to do something about the mythical "pay inequality" and housing prices.

"Tina" chimed in on her blog.

She praised "SAHMs" but then goes on to write...

Seriously, I know that I could not do it. I can BARELY survive the weekend with my children. Poor Dr. Laura would probably shake her head at the selfishness of me. But honestly, it's not that I can't stay home with my kids. I don't want to. I truly don't believe that I would offer my kids the best version of me if I was at home all the time.

Sad. What if your husband were to say the same thing about spending every night with you? Nevertheless, if it is true, then how about having your husband home raising the kids?

Honestly, I know a SAHM who seriously barely smiles. She never has ANYTHING good to say about being at home. I never knew her to be a working woman necessarily but she pretty much seems miserable. She complains about all the things that are supposedly so fulfilling about being a SAHM.

I could say the same thing about some husbands I know being with their wives. Does that mean that marriage can't be happy?

Is she so happy because she is a SAHM?

Sounds like a miserable person who shouldn't have had kids to begin with. Still, she can choose to be happy.

There is incredible value offered to children who have Moms who stay at home to be their Moms full time. However, there is incredible value for these kids whose Moms choose to work.

Hmmm, I wonder if husbands could try that on their wives? "Honey, there's value in me consistently doing something other than being around you, so you can find someone else to talk with or to take out the trash." If you married a jerk, maybe you'd be happy with that. But if your husband is a decent person, you want him there. Your kids want their parents.

Over at "Mama Candy! For single mama overachieving chicks!", touting itself as "A place to go when you want to talk about everything FABULOUS from smashing open the corporate glass ceiling,to single parenting and life after ex.", we get more fodder.

So first of all, Dr. Laura can SUCK IT!

Great way to start analysis. The language gets worse. Maybe her kids are better off with strangers.

She's been pretty much anti-single mother as long as I've know of her existence, and she has now released a new book strongly urging all mothers to stay at home.

Wrong. It simply praises "SAHMs" and gives tips on being or becoming one. She doesn't say ALL mothers should stay at home. I've never heard her say she is against single mothers. She's against making babies out of wedlock with the wrong man, or driving the right man away after making babies with him, or deliberately conceiving a child who will not have a father raising him. She encourages pregnant women who will not have a husband in the picture to give the baby up for adoption.

Um, hate to break it to ya, I DON'T HAVE A HUSBAND!

And who chose to make a baby with the wrong man?

The blogger then goes on to reprint a news item from two years ago saying Dr. Laura's adult son was being investigated by his employer. Not sure what that has to do with Dr. Laura praising SAHMs. But the blogger tries to make a connection...

Gee, guess staying at home didn't help your kid after all, now did it?

Where does she say that people raised by SAHMs will never ever make mistakes? She doesn't. But study after study does show that children raised without a father are more likely to cause trouble and get into trouble. And, last I checked, her son is still with that employer. Regardless, what Dr. Laura is teaching in this area is true, regardless of any mistakes she or any other member of her family has or hasn't made.

Finally, she goes on to mock Dr. Laura's doctorate. So predictable.

I noticed something in surveying the anti-Dr. Laura bloggers (I have not linked to all of them). Some of them stated that they praise their own mothers for having been SAHMs and think SAHMs are great. That's exactly what Dr. Laura’s book is about. Yet the bloggers go on to either defend their choices not to give their own children that gift, or claim they don't have a choice.

In general, much of the criticism I found out there about Dr. Laura or her advice to women is made as though they are unaware that Dr. Laura also advises men to be dedicated husbands and fathers, to live up to their obligations, to put their family first, etc. For example, she does tell male callers that there are some hobbies or some jobs or some dreams of theirs that they have to either abandon to set aside for now, because they have a wife and kids.

Clearly, her advice is first and foremost concerned with the well being of children. That's a good thing, even when it means adults have to set aside some of the things they want.

SAHMs, Dr. Laura, and the Today Show

As was entirely predictable, Dr. Laura's appearance on the Today Show this morning has already prompted fits in the blogosphere. She's promoting her new book, which simply praises "stay at home" moms. But of course, she's not a perfect person, so other imperfect people can automatically ignore the merits of her statements as they blog away by citing some past mess-up on her part. There are some people out there who actually deal with the substance of her statements. You can find one here, and I left a comment.

Over at the Pursuit of Harpyness, there is an extensive analysis (and some vicious reader comments), but I wanted to deal with a few statements here. My analysis is based on what I have heard and read from Dr. Laura – I can’t actually speak for her, of course.

There it is again, the old trope that working mother = neglectful mother. Obviously if you worked and did not neglect your child, then logic dictates that other women can do the same thing.

Yes, that's true. Dr. Laura does say it is possible for women to earn income in some way and still give their child the attention they need. This is not in conflict with her ideal, however, that a husband earn the income, a mother tend to the young'uns as the pimary caretaker, and that through that division of labor, the children will get time with both parents and the husband and wife will have enough time and energy for each other.

You can't do something if you are not there. In Dr. Laura's case, she worked in a capacity where she could have her son with her.

Part of a marriage! I see! So single moms need not apply to your hallowed world filled with SAHMs? Because it’s kind of hard to leave the workplace if you don’t have a partner with their own income.

And who chose to make a baby without a committed and capable man? You see, Dr. Laura's encouraging of mothering does not come in a vacuum. She also advises that women save babymaking for marriage, that they choose their husband wisely, and that men not propose marriage until they are financially able to take care of a wife and any kids they want to have. That includes earning enough to save, invest, and insure – in case the husband gets killed by a robber (who are more likely to be guys raised without their own father). Choosing wisely and treating kindly, as Dr. Laura advises, greatly reduces the chances of divorce. Even so, there is something called... alimony and child support. And I strongly recommend pre-nups to make sure that the person who puts a career on hold will be provided for in the event the other person leaves.

And those gay folk? They can get married in a few places, but my guess is Schlessinger wouldn’t be in favor of any lesbian SAHMs.

Whether two women or two men can get a marriage license or not, she advises that children should have both a mother and a father (you know, the kind of coupling it takes to conceive a child in the first place), living together in a peaceful, stable marriage. A homosexual man can be a great person, but he can't be a mother, even with another homosexual man.

Underpinning all of this is this assumption that men are always the principal breadwinner,

Most women marry men who earn more than they do, and want him to continue to do so. Many of these women do not respect a husband who doesn't.

and that he has enough of an income that the wife doesn't need to take a job,

Yes, you see getting married and conceiving children are almost always voluntary actions, and Dr. Laura advises men to only marry and make babies if they are capable of providing financially.

never mind whether or not she wants one.

We all have choices to make. A man who wants a career that will keep him on the move from city to city and working 6-7 days a week, 14 hours a day, should not get married and have kids. If a woman wants a career and children, unless it is the kind of career where she can have her kids with her and interacting with her, she should be willing to let her husband stay home and still be able to respect him.

Why bother having kids if you are going to have strangers raise them? It's not like we are living in the days where you had them so you could have help on your farm. It's not like we don't have many contraceptive options, including tubal ligation.

From what I can tell, Dr. Laura esteems the ability of women to mother and the importance of her doing so more than a lot of other women in media today. It is a shame so many women think they are easily replaceable as caregivers to their own children.

Stay With Your Husband and Act Like a Wife

Time to check in on Dear Margo again.

DAZED wrote:

I am a married mother of three. My husband loves me and we have a nice life. Unfortunately, I no longer love him.

Of course not. After all, he loves you. That's boring!

I am in love with a man who is five years younger. (He is also married with a child.) We both married for the wrong reasons.

Too late now! You made babies.

Whatever free time we have we spend together

Free time? You have "free time" with a husband, three kids, and a job? The time you should be spending rejuvenating so that you can be a good wife and mother are spent carrying of this affair.

and he has helped me both financially and professionally.

Whore. (It's okay to use that word... it is Biblical.)

He's in the same situation: He does not love his wife, but doesn't want to leave because of his child.

Not to mention the alimony and child support! Oh, and right now, he gets to have sex with both of you.

I don't want to leave, either, because of how devastating it would be for the children. I am torn and don't know what to do.

How about:
1. Stop fornicating with this guy.
2. Stop seeing the guy at all.
3. Love your husband.
4. Mother your kids.
5. Quit your job, which could be key to steps 1-4.

I know he loves me; this is not just a simple affair.

You both loved your spouses, too, supposedly. You only "love" each other because you aren't obligated to each other.

We have so much in common and the same outlook on life.

Yeah, you are both adulterous fornicators.

I can talk to him about anything and be myself when I’m around him … not possible with my husband.

When "being yourself" means cheating, then I can see how that could be a problem for your husband. And talking is what your girlfriends are for.

I sometimes want to end it with him because I feel I should work on my marriage, but when I do try, it is clear things are broken beyond repair.

Really? I haven't read one word about her husband being an abuser, absent, an addict, or an adulterer. In fact, she wrote that her husband loves her. So if "things are broken" it is largely her doing, and she can change that. They aren't broken beyond repair – she just tells herself that so she won't feel as guilty.

I wonder how many of the kids are even her husband's? How many does he know aren't his, and how many does he think are his but aren't? Regardless, sounds like he is a better father to them than she is a mother.

Dear Margo responded:

The real key is whether or not your marriage would respond to "work." I do know that with a lover in the picture it is next to impossible to concentrate on one’s marriage. On the other hand, if there is absolutely no repair possible and you and this man have this wonderful connection, you could either keep the affair going (difficult, emotionally) or realize that divorce need not mean abandoning parental duties and roles.

Cut the crap. Divorce hurts kids and makes it harder for both parents to fulfill their parental obligations.

You would not be the first couple to undo a damaged marriage.

And if I decided to go on a killing spree, I wouldn't the first person either. What kind of advice is that?!?

Another consideration is, what are these various children seeing and feeling at home? If there is frost or fighting, that is not so great for kids, either.

She can change that if she wants.

Try to determine if the sex and secrecy are what’s fueling this romance.

Really, how could she trust ever her adultery buddy? Oh wait, I can answer that. Because she has the one and only magic vagina, so he would never betray her the way he's betraying his current wife. That's called DELUSION.

Is there guilt?

What difference does that make? If there isn't it just means she's a sociopath and perhaps should warn her husband that she is.

My responses would be the same if the adulterous guy had been the one writing in. That guy is a creep.