"Having it all sucks" (weight, fertility, generation, childhood)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I appreciate your post, I don't think it relates to my post.
My post is coming from someone who is fed up with the guilt tripping from some women and the castigation by some men because a women chooses to work outside the home. There are many women who work outside of the home not because they want to live like royalty but because they have to. Or there are some women who work because they don't want their skills to diminish. There are others who work because they want the flexibility that a dual earning household provides. Some are all of the above. This is probably like the tenth topic I've seen on C-D about the age old "working parent v. stay at home parent". In real life, I don't really care about a woman's choice that she makes for her family. I feel the same way about that online. But I don't want to hear any lectures about being such a bad parent because my children attended daycare for ten hours. My husband shouldn't feel bad because he's not singly making the same amount of income as a dual earner household like that poster. In fact, no one should feel anything about other people if the kids aren't being abused and they're happy.
The primal need for my need to work IS to take care of my kids' needs.
Although my wife and I are childless and don't plan to change this, I agree with everything above and I think that far too many people in general believe their opinions about women's work choices are the rule to be followed. Since I first began reading newspapers and periodicals on a regular basis as a youth, I took in countless iterations of the the working woman vs. stay at home wife debate, a topic that has been covered in immense detail, and seems to always make headlines...but nearly without fail, this debate's portrayed as a lifestyle decision and nothing else. This is disappointing. It builds a national narrative that those women who leave the workforce do so because they love their children more than other women (or, if childless, love taking care of the home, the chores and errands, or their spouse's needs more) and certainly, more than their careers. Years of rigorously controlled studies exist suggesting that women are increasingly opting out, but not for the reasons cited by popular mythology. In the majority of cases where the woman is opting out of a white collar profession, their leaving the workforce is often not entirely of their own volition.
Entire job categories have been disappearing permanently, and many unfortunate souls who lost their job in the recent recession haven't returned to work even now. And for those lucky enough to have kept their jobs, many hold positions that make it near impossible to lead some kind of life outside of work. This disproportionately impacts workers who are responsible for taking care of family members, or workers with chronic illnesses who aren't ill enough for disability but reliably become sicker under long hours and high stress conditions. My wife is in the second group and I have been in the past also. In many families, what looks like a wife/mother opting out is really further evidence of a workforce that can't accommodate everyone who wants to remain in it. The same applies to men/fathers, too, especially if they are in a skilled trade or factory type job. That narrative reads more like "we have examined the masculinity and work ethics of today's men and found them wanting," or "today's men are soft and would rather lounge around on SSI than take a job they feel is beneath them" but it's just as false for most men and is the opposite side of the ideologies that always blame the individual woman rather than examining how well our culture is working for us as a country. My wife and I don't deal with some of the issues parents do, but many childless couples have run into a lot of unwarranted criticism and uninvited advice concerning the female partner's working situation. When the wife is the higher earner of the two, the insults and assumptions about priorities and values can border on the ridiculous, at least in most places I have lived. To the point where I have been asked if I lost my balls somewhere, and my wife's most rude and hostile colleagues made a point to refer to me as "the wife/your wife."
16 years into the 21st century it still blows my mind that when a man gets his degree in STEM and takes a programming job, he is a responsible adult, but a woman who tries to better her earnings through college (especially if the subject is liberal art-type stuff but women get criticized for taking on any professional/white collar occupation) is selfish, wants to be a man, isn't a real woman, is selfishly denying the country the "right type of children", and has misplaced priorities, often involving houses that resemble mansions or multiple vehicles and expensive furnishings. Ultimately, it's no one's business but the individual's (with the spouse's wants and needs normally also taken into account) if he or she wants to work or stay home or go to school or switch to part time/self employment. But in a country where the COL in every city is out of control, most jobs are in the service sector and do not offer benefits, and the real-dollar value of salaries is flat or dropping, the assumption that a woman who works does so because her values, priorities, and personality/basic nature are severely out of wack is beyond rude or impolite. It is hateful and misogynist.
Last edited by Mr.BadGuy; 02-18-2016 at 11:03 PM..
It doesn't hurt to be introspective and to re evaluate our own positions. Factors change. For instance, there's a difference between a "job" and a "career." Not all jobs - or even careers - make sense in all situations. There simply ARE pros and cons to staying at home with kids, or working outside the home with kids - or even working from home.
Here's just one example - I had a good career going. Now, as much as I liked it, my husband's the one with the much higher paying job. When three of our four elderly parents became sick and needed constant care (one or the other, and sometimes two or three at once), there was no job or mid level career out there that could accommodate all the time off I had to take and all the time I had to invest in this situation. Well - it was either me or my husband, and it only made logical sense for it to be me.
Now - I know this is involving elderly parents but you could also substitute kids into that scenario. Babies, child care issues, disabilities, breastfeeding, you name it - or how 'bout, "Every hormone in my body is screaming for me to stay home with this child!" You know - that's a valid argument too - not simply the hormonal thing, but giving credibility to what our body is trying to tell us.
Every situation is so different that generalities just don't work.
Not everyone lives in a high COL urban area. Not everyone has a college degree or good job opportunities where they live. Not everyone has children who do well in school. Not everyone has healthy children. Everyone doesn't NEED to work outside the home every week or year that they are raising children. And some families specifically plan things out so that the mother (or father) can take several years off in order to stay at home, because they firmly and devoutly believe that is the best overall plan for their children and their family.
So yes, two income families are here to stay and are not of the devil. Many two income families have very balanced, happy home lives and children. It's absolutely possible. And it's also absolutely possible for a family to have one wage earner who consistently provides well enough for the family for the other adult to stay home and invest that luxury of time into the needs of their children.
I can only speak for myself, but sorry, I don't want (or expect) a man to take care of us. Our marriage is a partnership in every conceivable way. We both earn. We both handle affairs in the house. Whoever has the more flexible schedule takes care of the things that come up with parenting. This whole "dual income earners are killing America" is a bunch of horse****. I make no apologies for putting on my pants and going to work. I work because I want to. I work because I have an identity besides just being a mother. I work because having two salaries affords us a bit more security than one. I work because even though I've been married almost 13 years to the love of my life, I don't know what the future holds and I don't want my life (and my kids' lives) jeopardized because I was putting all of my eggs into one basket. If anything were to happen to my husband, I can sleep at night knowing that I can support us. I'll sell the house, take the proceeds and buy a less expensive house, and support my family. I make enough where we'd be fine. Maybe not as many extravagances, but we'd be fine. My kids are thriving and are very well adjusted. If anything, I want my girls to see that mommy can work if she wants to. She can do whatever her little heart desires. If she wants to get married and become a homemaker, that's great. If she wants to work, THAT'S GREAT TOO.
Women have many choices today and I am grateful for them. No, can't have it all, but I do the best that I can.
Not every woman (or man) out there is in a high paying, in-demand field that could support a household. And I don't even mean blue-collar or those lacking an education. Lots of traditional 'pink collar' professions like teachers, social workers, administrative workers, writers, all sorts of creative and artistic professions pay miserably, and there's little incentive for a woman in one of those fields to return to work and pay everything she makes to childcare. Not everyone even HAS a career, much less a good paying career, even less one that pays enough to make it worth it to pay for childcare. What if a woman was a clerk in Walmart and married a doctor and had four kids? Should she keep working at Walmart just so, if something happens to her husband, she'd have A job - even though there's no way she'd support a household on that salary?
Just curious, something that always nagged me about that reasoning..
Not every woman (or man) out there is in a high paying, in-demand field that could support a household. And I don't even mean blue-collar or those lacking an education. Lots of traditional 'pink collar' professions like teachers, social workers, administrative workers, writers, all sorts of creative and artistic professions pay miserably, and there's little incentive for a woman in one of those fields to return to work and pay everything she makes to childcare. Not everyone even HAS a career, much less a good paying career, even less one that pays enough to make it worth it to pay for childcare. What if a woman was a clerk in Walmart and married a doctor and had four kids? Should she keep working at Walmart just so, if something happens to her husband, she'd have A job - even though there's no way she'd support a household on that salary?
Just curious, something that always nagged me about that reasoning..
I agree that families have different financial situations. Perhaps that is why riaelise prefaced her post with "I can only speak for myself"...
I agree that families have different financial situations. Perhaps that is why riaelise prefaced her post with "I can only speak for myself"...
Reading is important.
well, okay, I admit I sort of picked on her post as an example to make my point; it's just an argument I've seen a LOT in the sahm vs wahm debate - describing, often in gory detail, just what kind of horrors await her in the very likely event her husband disappears into thin air.
The assumption always seems to be that the sahm has some fantastic lucrative career she'd just gone and threw away. It's an argument typically used by successful, career driven, high earning women.
In reality, not many women have that. If they marry a man who earns enough for them to stay home, are they being irresponsible and jeopardizing their kids' future if they do? Should they keep trudging on in a low-paying job they don't particularly enjoy, only so they have something, anything to fall back on should anything happen? Or just stay home, raise kids and hope for the best?
I'm not asking to argue, I'm genuinely curious. As a woman in one such very low paying, low demand, yet extremely competitive field (and an introverted homebody with zero career ambition or drive). That I chose based on interest, not earning potential, and was lucky enough to marry a man with a much better paying profession.
The vast majority of the women writing the "housewives vs. corporate career" pieces are not a good sampling of the country as a whole. Half of the U.S. is low income, the number will only grow if current conditions continue. Most WOMEN aren't debating if it's ethical to drop six figures on a Wharton MBA and then "throw away your degree" by leaving a cushy corporate gig. They are, like most men, getting through the week and dealing with life on its own terms. The point of these articles is to entice fights among commenters, ideally fights about what constitutes proper behavior for each gender. The Atlantic in particular excels at this, and their traffic and ad revenue figures prove it, For years, they have been running an entire section devoted to "gender issues," their shorthand code for any article that will invite Trigger Warning Tumblrinas (the best one I ever saw was "Trigger Warning: Picture of dog with its front teeth showing") and the Men Going Their Own Way (who, somehow, never manage to, well, go) to duke it out to the death in the comments.
Something I just learned and found interesting is that over 60% Americans over 30 do not have a college degree. You'd never know it if you read a paper like the New York Times...of course, you'll never read anything there about any New Yorker with a sub-$200K household income. By that standard, the 4 and a half boroughs that aren't Manhattan below 96th St., despite being loaded with regular working class families worrying about bills and dealing with dumb/abusive/clueless bosses at jobs (not careers, but jobs), and clipping coupons and shopping only on sales days, don't actually exist. Which, we may as well not exist, given how many individuals vacillate between the idea of NYC as a cockroach-riddled s--thole and an island of hedge fund managers. That very image is created by the same authors of the Mommy Wars greatest hits. At least our job dissatisfaction unites the nation. Most of us don't have careers and most of us don't like what we do that terribly much, but not because of boredom, so much as low pay and poor treatment. Of course, you will seldom see mention of this in any piece written for the purpose of waging gender wars -- to get your fill of discussions about economic stratification, you have to settle for video footage of senators yelling at Wall Street tycoons on YouTube.
That's because the posts are filled with back handed compliments and passive aggressive nastiness. Don't sweat it, some people can't be genuine even if their lives genuinely depended on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird
See this, and the next post is why I think you all (in your club) are foaming at the mouths to attack. Just read things at face value and stop reading so much into them. I am very clear when I am insulting someone. You don't know me, I get that. You have preconceived notions about me. I get that too. But I am a straight shooter...which sometimes gets me in trouble. I am rarely passive aggressive (and if I am its with my husband) and never backhanded...unless I am thanking you for telling me I am an idiot. Its pretty obvious.
Anyways, best of luck to you on your parenting adventures.
This is your problem, you claim that you don't insult anyone because you don't say someone's name when you give your bs about attachment or whatever crap you think is so insightful but it is clear never the less who you are talking about. The post of mine above doesn't name you, it doesn't even quote you, but you think its about you. And I was trying to illustrate the point, which worked quite well, that even you will infer a post written in generalities is about you and feel insulted/attacked/whatever when it doesn't reference you particularly.
You do this over and over again, quote a poster, state your opinion as if it were fact and then when someone tells you how offensive you are you backpedal so hard it's painful to watch. When this happens thread after thread it's because of YOU.
well, okay, I admit I sort of picked on her post as an example to make my point; it's just an argument I've seen a LOT in the sahm vs wahm debate - describing, often in gory detail, just what kind of horrors await her in the very likely event her husband disappears into thin air.
The assumption always seems to be that the sahm has some fantastic lucrative career she'd just gone and threw away. It's an argument typically used by successful, career driven, high earning women.
In reality, not many women have that. If they marry a man who earns enough for them to stay home, are they being irresponsible and jeopardizing their kids' future if they do? Should they keep trudging on in a low-paying job they don't particularly enjoy, only so they have something, anything to fall back on should anything happen? Or just stay home, raise kids and hope for the best?
I'm not asking to argue, I'm genuinely curious. As a woman in one such very low paying, low demand, yet extremely competitive field (and an introverted homebody with zero career ambition or drive). That I chose based on interest, not earning potential, and was lucky enough to marry a man with a much better paying profession.
1. I don't agree with the concept of "not many" at all. While varying by race (subject for another thread) somewhere between 26-63% of women aged 29-40 have a college degree or beyond. Not all of those will translate to high paying careers, but it is a rare field where you won't make more money if you stay in it and work for 18 years.
2. Should is a loaded word. I don't know what any individual should do. I do hope that all people have a plan for the worst case scenario, including how they would support themselves and their children. I also know at life happens while plans are being made.
3. I appreciate your honesty about the fact that you choose to not work because you don't like working. Often the SAHM position is portrayed as always being about their endless sacrifice. Well sometimes mothers work because they love what they do, sometimes they stay home because they prefer that as well. And while I honestly, cannot relate to that position, if it works out for you and yours more power to you.
My husband and I share responsibilities. We both work full time. I couldn't ask for more from him as he does everything he can with the kids, housework, paying bills, etc.
That said, it still sucks. We are rarely together as a family. Our opposite shifts mean we never see each other anymore. Yeah, we are financially better off but I can't say I believe its better all around. Its certainly not better for having a quality home life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
