I see any one who refers to people as 'resources' or any similar terms as just a parasite. Unfortunately, I had the misfortune for working with so many of these parasitic slave traders.
Same here. My wife calls herself a feminist. Yet, when I cried one time in front of her, instead of comforting me, she told me - stop crying, you are making me angry.
Another time, she told me that the only value I bring to her life is 'to provide for our kid until they turn adult'.
I don't think we will be together much longer lol.
Man, I'm sorry to hear that. That's a terrible thing to hear.
I don't know the best way to proceed, since you no doubt have entanglements such as your children to consider, but I wish you all the best in finding your way out of that relationship. You deserve better than someone who would treat you that way.
I would not recommend divorcing. She has said she will remain married to you until the kids are adult. This is a GREAT commitment.
Appreciate that she has made this commitment. Confirm it to her and tell her you are on board, and you will make life as easy as possible for the both of you until then. See if she is willing to make the same commitment out loud.
I have a suspicion, perhaps too romantic, that once you and her are broken from the bonds of obligation, you will discover yourselves again and will voluntarily decide to stay together.
But then again, some people just shouldn't be married.
>> I would not recommend divorcing. She has said she will remain married to you until the kids are adult. This is a GREAT commitment.
So where I live, the standard for alimony is 1 year for every 3 that you are married. On top of that, if you're married 20+ years they think you should pay for life. There is no law that states this and couples are free to decide whatever they can agree to, but once layers are involved you're at a more significant financial risk the longer you stay married.
In short, if you honestly believe it will not work you should get out sooner rather than later. It will be better for both of you. Not sure about the kids though, but living under a broken relationship isn't good for them either.
As a man, I find myself increasingly detesting other men who whine. Our society now wants all men to be able to cry just like women can and everyone should applaud. But we have a billion generations of evolution behind us pushing men who don't cry in the face of problems, but fight and overcome. Maybe I am just a backwards throwback, but maybe not. All of the men who cry in front of women (even women who claim crying is okay) that I've heard of are not embraced, but reviled. That is just biology. Toughen up.
how does gender even play into this? seems a lot more like you married a shitty person who has more rigid ideas about gender norms than you. this situation can just as easily apply to two men.
In fact I’ve watched it play in reverse many times. Men telling their partners to overcome psychological barriers to perform certain tasks to their preference for example.
A guy I knew once told his girlfriend “just be a mom!” when she was tired and their son was crying. Rather than be a dad, he demanded that she resume a role and shamed her for wanting a break.
And yet I’ve experienced the same as a man. The sort of “just be a man” mentality and rhetoric you can encounter is widespread and ranges through all depths of relationships. Ever been unemployed as a man? People can be absurdly insensitive and unkind about it. It really makes people uneasy sometimes… Like there must be something wrong with you. Never mind why you’re unemployed; there could be any number of valid reasons, but people seem to assume that’s not the case.
The point is that this isn’t a gendered problem. I suppose it’s a people being selfish problem first, coupled with many possible issues leading to the selfishness and the gendered presumptions we make about our partners. We do the same thing with genderless accusations though. We just want certain behaviours from our partners and use all kinds of means to justify it, gendered or not.
Well, I wouldn't advise that without knowing the full details of the situation, and especially how sensitive the kid is. I've heard many discussions on that point, with divorced parents arguing "it's better for the kid if they don't see us quarrel all the time" and those still being couples saying "a kid needs both parents."
My personal observation is that if the parents love the kid more than they dislike themselves, they are going to stay, at least until the kids become adults.
My personal experience says that it's way better for the kid not to grow up in a dysfunctional household: they will grow up not even knowing what a functional relationship looks like. Just "being civil" to the other is not enough, kids will form their attachment models on how they see their parents interact.
If you want your kid to have successful relationships when they grow up, FFS don't let your kid grow up in an unsuccessful one.
right, but once you have a failed relationship, either choice (stay together or separate) will have a negative impact. so really, the best way to salvage the kids future is to actually repair the relationship.
Yes. Children are 800-3000% more likely to be physically or sexually abused by the mother's live-in boyfriend or step-father than by their biological father, but we don't want them to have bad feels.
Kids need role models. One saying is roughly about: boys grow up wanting to be like their dads, and girls grow up wanting to marry similar men.
If kids are exposed to frequent arguments, spirals of primitive abuse, hatred, emotional coldness etc. they won't end up faring well in adulthood, and all the efforts of parents trying to stay together for them are pointless.
But yeah its a shitty situation where everybody loses.
That personal observation is an excellent point of wisdom.
I would replace "dislike" with "incompatible" though.
You can be very attracted physicslly to someone who is your intellectual and economic equal, to then not be able to hold it together because that person's personal traits ans preferences are so far off one's own. It goes beyond "he liked to watch tv instead of going out to eat w me"
That being said, your observation should be a heuristic, and it should be repeated more often.
We have enough information, though. The wife doesn't respect him. Regarding the kid, s/he will be fine. Even if there is some turmoil on the kid's life, your life as an adult also matters. You deserve to be happy. Don't sacrifice yourself to make what you think are the best decisions to your son. You really don't have all that power you think you have to influence their lifes.
While I agree that nobody should have to put up with that sort of treatment, demanding an apology is not going to work. Couple's therapy might help if you manage to find a good one, but frankly chances are low and he should mentally prepare himself to move out and potentially fight for custody.
Some people might be happy with that role, and sure, if it works for them, great!
But I do think it's quite reasonable to expect more from life and relationships. Women tend to expect more, and society doesn't tell them not to.
It's possible to have a self-consistent worldview that does tell both men and women to expect less, but personally I think that would make for a worse society.
I mean, this is par for the course for nearly every married man in the West, myself included. We are objectified as wallets, we are treated very poorly, and when they inevitably leave to "find myself", they collect 50% of the assets we've earned and saved, and we collect 50% of the debts they've racked up in their instagram-influenced spending.
You can characterize the situation as "disgusting", but it's reality for millions of us.
Reality doesn't care about our moral judgements. It is what it is. The best we can do is attempt to educate our sons on the risks inherent in contractually obligating oneself to people who hate you.
> this is par for the course for nearly every married man in the West
Good grief, I hope not. My wife is nothing like that. At all. And very few of my friends and acquaintances have experienced a relationship like that. How sad to think that this is what marriage ought to be. That's horrifying. I'd be single and celibate before I'd let someone treat me that way.
Idk, I think it's pretty common. Certainly not for healthy relationships; but I'd wager there are a really really high number of not healthy relationships at any given moment, even if they don't usually last that long. There are toxic people all over the place, and not everyone is good at recognizing toxicity.
While I’m sure you’re right, the comment I replied to specifically said “nearly every married man.”
Not to discount the lived experiences of men in this thread, but the discussion in here reeks of bitter manosphere ideology. Maybe people need to stop extrapolating their toxic relationships to an entire gender, or blaming them on biology.
I would argue that a majority of men have encountered a potential partner that viewed them that way, but yeah applying that to all marriages is just... not even remotely true.
But you chose to marry this woman, so at that time you thought it would turn out well, and that the legal contract and possibility of paying alimony was fair?
Marriage is, unfortunately, not a rational decision for many of us. In my specific case, she got pregnant, and I "did the right thing" for the sake of a stable home for my child(ren).
And on that specific front, things are fine. The kids believe they are being raised in a warm, loving household. I've accepted my fate, but I will raise my son with different lessons than I had.
That said, I have (multiple) friends whose fiances turned from "Perfect Angel" into "Literally Hitler" the day after marriage, so even if my situation was a proper evaluation of my life partner, it should be noted that many men are defrauded by that particular trap as well.
That's optimistic naïveté speaking. Marrying someone you got pregnant just because it's the right thing to do, is in fact very much the wrong thing.
> The kids believe they are being raised in a warm, loving household
Maybe when they are very young. Kids aren't stupid, and you can't fake a warm, loving relationship accurately enough nor consistently enough to keep them fooled very long. At some point way before they become adults they realize exactly what is going on. At best they'll pity you. At worst they'll resent you for subjecting them to your inability to adult.
My user name itself is a result of my experience working in one of those body shops. Client doesn't care, my employer doesn't care. I see people here talking about 1-1s and promotions and so on. I never had a single one in 5+ years. Clients treat us as outsiders. I am not sure if they even see us as humans. Just keep on dumping work, and then suddenly you are kicked out one fine day. Makes you wonder why did you spent 10-15 hours a lot of days for free. No team activities, no trainings, nothing.
My employer has absolutely no interest in my well being either. No promotions, no salary increments most years. Only time my 'manager' talks to me is when they want me to relocate to some other state or client. If I say no, they will threaten me - 'I will snip you' is what my manager told me once. Now I categorize these so called 'managers' as 'slave traders, parasites or demons'.
Wider variety of technologies and languages may sound good initially, but at least from my experience, the work you do for these clients are basically things you can learn on your own. So if that's your only goal, I would say do some personal projects instead.
Every single one of my colleagues have jumped ship within 2 years working in our company. Only idiots like me stayed. My itinerary for today is this: work from 6am-4pm. Then log out. Prepare for interviews. Get a work in good product company.
Sorry but your issue is not "consulting" vs "product". You work for a shitty company/team/boss and you need to get out. Don't blame consulting in general.
Man I’m so sorry you’ve had such a bad experience. I don’t think this has to be the case in consulting, a supportive team and a policy to only work with clients that treat you respectfully could go a long way in situations like this.
Referring to me as a "resource" immediately destroys any good will I have for that person. I can no longer see them as a human from that point on wards.
I refer to managers as belonging to one or a mix of the "slave trader", "parasitic" or "demonic" classes. In my 10+ years in this profession, I am yet to come across a "manager" who doesn't fall under this categorization.
In my experience, as others pointed out, its a one way street. If we work 6 hours a day instead of 8, we will get fired. But if they make us work 15 hours a day, nothing happens to them.
I am a salaried/exempt employee working for a client. My employer charges the client per hour, and theoretically, I am allowed to get paid for the extra hours I work. But my immediate manager won't allow it because the budget is allocated for the year, and if I bill extra hours, there will be a shortage of budget (or at least that's what he tells me). The client manager pushes so much work on to us, entire team is fed up. Last week, we were asked to work from 7 am to 11:30 pm, pretty much non stop. After lunch at 12:30 pm, the only time I got to eat was at 11:30 pm, nearly 11 hours later. From 5 pm, I didn't even get a chance to get up from my seat. I am pretty sure slaves were given breaks to have food. They treat us lower than slaves. Note that this is in addition to the 8-10 hours I have been working for the last 2 weeks (not counting lunch or other breaks).
I'm sorry for the situation you are in but you allow this to happen. You can vote with your feet and leave. I know its harder for some people, but that's just life. Decisions like this are never easy. If you can't afford to leave then you best be saving all the money you can each month to support you when you do leave. If you can't find another job then you best be training and up skilling to an in demand skill. I'm sorry to be blunt but I hear this same thing all the time, and people just let this happen to them.
For what it's worth, I'm a contractor in the UK. I get paid about twice as much a day then a salaried person. I change clients every 3 months to every 2 years. I have 8 months of living expenses in the bank. If a client wants me to do something then fine, but they pay me. I don't get any holiday or benefits, but the extra money makes up for it. Any time off is unpaid, which I feel is how it should be. I had 3 months off at the start of last year when all temp work dried up due to covid, but apart from that, things have been better then ever.
Maybe I just have the personality type for this kind of working arrangement, but it seems like a no brainer to me. You come in on a much more equal level with any client or employer.
I also think this has the added benefit of forcing interview practice and keeping up to date with marketable skills. I really think it's the anti fragile approach.
Please people, take back some contol. Sell your skills at what they are really worth.
Not sure if the OP is in this situation but workers on work visas are often held captive in such situations and is nearly impossible for them to escape. I know a guy who had to go back to India, he could not take it any longer. So leaving is the only escape but even that is not an option sometimes as they get indebted to obtain such positions and need to pay that back before having the option to leave.
I know that as a fact here in the UK with certain agencies that I will leave Unnamed. I've essentially been told as much by people I've worked with. This is obviously a special case that I don't really have a solution for. I guess this is all part of the greater brain drain from the world to the first movers in the tech space. This will constantly keep home counties from developing when all the skilled workers leave the country.
This is quite a privileged comment. Please realize that not everyone has the luxury to up and leave.
This person might have tons of obligations, such as bills to pay, family to take care of, and depending on their location not much mobility to just "find a new job". It's weird to just discount an entire person's life and pretend there's such an easy solution they're not taking.
What's more, it reeks of survivorship bias. There's likely a good chunk of folks who have done what you did but failed (either due to bad luck, or something else). What's more, the price of failure differs for everyone. Some have family to fall back on, others have friends, and others have a societal safety net.
Empathy is hard, but please try and think about how your situation is likely not the norm. By all means feel free to give advice, but try to leave out anecdotal assumptions. Strive to be aware that not everyone has the same opportunities or outcomes, even with the same inputs. It sucks, but that's just life, as you said.
In my first paragraph I mentioned that if it was not possible to make this situation happen then at least not work towards it. Everyone should be able to put 10% of a salary away into savings to work on getting the freedom to do this.
If we assume a tech skill set, more and more jobs are becoming fully remote, making location not so much of an issue.
As for survivorship bias, I feel like you are somewhat right. I actually got into this type of work due to getting fired, so I was already at a low point with not much to lose.
As for empthay, that's exactly what I have and why I made this comment. I'm for the most part totally anonymous here. I don't have many posts or any kind of reputation. I put the time into making the comment because I truly belive that people can benefit from the change in mindset. I have nothing to gain, all I want to do is help people find the kind of freedom from oppressive working situations that I found.
We have all had struggles in our career, and some more than others, but the ones that succeed over the long term usually have the ability to self evaluate and look internally, rather than give an excuse why they can't do something.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply, I want you to know I'm not trying to attack you, just expand your mindset.
It's very common for others to attribute their own failures to something outside their control, but look at others and attribute those people's failures to things inside their control. They also do the opposite for successes. Which I suppose in my own way, I might be doing to yours. But do know I think your success likely took both hard work and luck, and without the hard work it would have likely not panned out.
I disagree that everyone "should be able to put 10% away". It's simply not possible for everyone, and even if they do emergencies happen (car breaks down, sickness, etc.). Once again, you're speaking from a realm of opinion and not reality.
I don't think anyone would disagree that mindset is important, and continuing to try and persevere is important as well. But I do think folks disagree on it always panning out in the end.
Even you, at one point in the future, either due to illness or misfortune, might end up needing more than a shift in mindset to survive or dig yourself out.
Empathy is about more than advice or optimistic mindsets, it's about realizing we should help each other, because sometimes things really are out of our control.
It's about listening to this person, really listening, and understanding their situation before offering platitudes.
Same picture here, I would find it very hard to go back to being an employee now. The money is great, but the comparative freedom and respect for my autonomy are better.
I enjoy starting something new every so often, and have got good at rapid onboarding, and contributing from day 1.
Your immediate manager is supposed to be protect your from that. They're the ones who are hosed when everyone burns out and quits.
On the flip side, if people don't quit and you succeed in delivering the project, your client manager will claim the credit. And that level of output becomes the new expectation for your team.
In my experience, as others pointed out, its a one way street. If we work 6 hours a day instead of 8, we will get fired. But if they make us work 15 hours a day, nothing happens to them.
The parallel action is quitting. I can understand not wanting to quit without an alternative, but I assume you’re looking?!?
> But my immediate manager won't allow it because the budget is allocated for the year, and if I bill extra hours, there will be a shortage of budget (or at least that's what he tells me). The client manager pushes so much work on to us, entire team is fed up. Last week, we were asked to work from 7 am to 11:30 pm, pretty much non stop.
At this point you send email to both managers and ask, "so do you want me to limit myself to 8 hours, or should I work overtime" and have them come to a decision.
(A decision might be: "work overtime but lie on your timesheet", in which case you save this email in case you need it for the future wrongful termination lawsuit.)
> But my immediate manager won't allow it because the budget is allocated for the year, and if I bill extra hours, there will be a shortage of budget (or at least that's what he tells me).
I didn't understand this. Are you talking about budget at your employer, or at your client?
If the company is paying me for 40 hours, why would they expect me to work more? If the 'outcome of my work' is my personal responsibility, I should also be paid based on the outcome-I should also get a cut from whatever profit the company makes with my work.
If the company thinks they have the right to my personal life because they pay me for 40 hours, then its slavery. Also, threatening me with firing because I refuse slavery is threatening my livelihood, and it's mafia mentality. If a manager thinks they have the right my personal time, I should have right to their personal time too. Traffic should go both way in a bridge.
I don't hire automatons that turn on at 9h and off at 17h. I don't pay by the hour for intelligent work. I pay for results, defined to be achievable on a regular schedule.
I hire intelligent people, treat them as such, and expect intelligent behaviour in return. Part of the expectation is that everyone manages their own time responsibly. If they fail that management and have to work after hours, I do expect them to take the fall. There's no slavery and no mafia involved here; much to the contrary, it's a healthy work environment with historically excellent work/life balance.
Who defines those schedules? If it's the employees, its fine. If it's the management who sets the timelines, management should take the fall. Otherwise, its forced labor no matter how management tries to spin it. A bunch of parasites and leeches sucking other people dry. If the paycheck says 'num of hours x per hour rate", that's what the company should expect.
