posted
I'm not usually one for controversy or instigating debate, but today's Theory of Knowledge seminar was intriguing enough that I'm going to "break character" and... well, actually post for a change.
The focus of the presentation was on the major shifts in women's roles throughout history, with an emphasis on pre-Christian times, the 1950s, and the present. Essentially, they marked the changes from women as essential components of spirituality to bringers of original sin to housewives to their mass incorporation into the workforce. They actually did an excellent job and mentioned both the positive and the negative effects of each of these roles. What struck me as curious, however, was that these young women simply could not comprehend how the feminist movement has negatively affected womens rights.
Yes, women in the United States now have the right to work as (mostly) equals to their male counterparts. And yet the obligation to do so - whether because the two-parent income is needed or there is a need to "prove one's self" - has largely negated most women's right to not work outisde the home. Tax cuts for children are a third of what they were in the 1950s and it is now illegal for a man's wage to be higher than a woman's of the same position and, thus, it is far more difficult for him to provide enough income for his wife to stay home.
It is simply dismaying to me because, while I would like to work professionally for a few years, I would also like to be a stay-at-home mom until my children are in school and then take up a part-time job or volunteer work during school-hours. But the prospects of that are so slim. Yes, it is doable and I know my fiance will put every effort into making it so when the time comes, but I don't believe it should be so difficult for a mother or a wife to be "only that" if she and her husband so choose (Or why a woman cannot easilly provide for the family while her husband stays home if that is what they desire).
I'm not that saying women's wages should be cut and that all women should stay home and be housewives, but I am saying that it should be far less "impossible" than it seems to be. The tax breaks once given to married couples and parents of the 1950s should be restored. Wages should be proportionally increased for those who are the sole providers for their families. I understand that this latter change would greatly muddle tax returns and probably increase both fraud and the number of audits conducted, etc. I also understand that it would seem "unfair" to those who are not the sole providers for their families and yet... What else is to be done? My husband should not have to work overtime and for more than the average number of years simply because I choose to be a wife and mother first and a working professional last.
(Some of what prompted this discussion may also be found here, in a Newsweek article that also sparked a two-page article in the Washington Post.)
Another angle you might consider is how American lifestyles have changed since the 1950's. You say that it's seemingly impossible for a two-parent household to afford a stay-at-home parent nowadays, but what exactly does that mean? Does such a family feel a need to buy a brand new car every two years? Did they buy a house that was more than they could really afford, because mortgage rates were low? Do they spend $200 a month to get every possible TV channel, and give their kids debit cards and cell phones?
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My husband should not have to work overtime and for more than the average number of years simply because I choose to be a wife and mother first and a working professional last."
posted
The only real reason I see for NEEDING two incomes for one household is if the family is not living at or below the means of a one income household.
In other words, my husband works outside the home and I stay home with our children. We drive older vehicles (but we have three), live in a nice but not exceptional, big but not huge home, eat out less often than we could, etc. so that we don't NEED the extra income.
He doesn't make that much money either. Yes, it's well above minimum wage, but it's not so high that we don't get a fair amount of EIC on our tax return either.
I think it's more a matter of priorities than necessity. At least where I live, in my own mind. JMO.
IP: Logged |
there is an inequality that is still very present - it just remains a bit touchy to say it, I think -
When I was a rather sarcastic younger person, I remember remarking to mom that "women's lib" was "just great" - imagine eye-rolling teen - that "now women not only got to do all the housework, all the childcare, all the shopping, cooking, cleaning, mending, etc., they also all got to work 40 hours or more a week outside the home, too."
I think - for as sarcastic as I was at that age - time has borne that teen observation out. The theory behind equal rights for both genders is lovely - the reality needs a bit more work in many cases.
I'm not saying that one gender should stay at home and work, as being more suited or fit by virtue of what sex they are. But we have sadly undervalued the crucial importance of "homemaking" - and all the value that solid, healthy homes bring to individuals, and communities.
Society has changed - and individuals struggle with how to make that work.
posted
I'm a stay-at-home mom, and several people have made some excellant points. Yes, my husband earns a very nice salary, which makes it possible for me to stay home. However, we make extremely responsible financial decisions, and I can definately see us making less money but still affording me to be at home.
Society tells you that you have to have things that you don't need. It's up to each family to decide. What's more important - new cars, vacations, and lots of material items, or having a parent home for the children? When people tell me they can't afford to stay home, I assume (unless the husband makes minimum wage) that decisions have put them in that position. Maybe that's past decisions, like racking up a lot of credit card debt, or maybe that's current decisions, like being unwilling to cut out things. However, that's just my opinion.
Good topic, Pixie. I'll be interested to see what comes out of this.
quote: I'm not saying that one gender should stay at home and work, as being more suited or fit by virtue of what sex they are. But we have sadly undervalued the crucial importance of "homemaking" - and all the value that solid, healthy homes bring to individuals, and communities.
It's not that we undervalue it. It's that, at the end of the day, homemaking won't help you pay for your DSL connection or your big-screen TV. So unless you factor in those intangible benefits, and unless those intangible benefits are worth something to you, you'll feel deprived compared to your neighbors.
In Christy's case, she works primarily because she would go absolutely bat-s**t crazy not working. It's not that she doesn't like spending time with Sophie; it's that she needs other forms of structure and meaning in her day, in addition to motherhood. (It took a little while for her to find a good balance, though; she's pared down to four days a week at the lab.) Of course, it helps that we otherwise divvy up the chores equally.
posted
TM - Impossible was in quotation marks for a reason.
dkw - The main idea was that the feminist movement not only allowed women to enter to workforce but compelled them to do so. They weren't "fulfilling their potential" or didn't hold themselves as equal to men if they didn't work in a professional setting. I didn't so much mean that women today have lost the right to stay at home as that there is an increasing sense of obligations to themselves and their families not to.
zeugma - what you mentioned is the main bulk of the article I linked to. And why Trevor is right in saying that many women here do make it work because they have choices along the way that have allowed them to do so.
The main idea, I think, is that the stay-at-home parent or spouse is now in the vast minority of people and faces difficulties that are peculiar to their situation and, in my eyes, unnecessary?
Edit to say my computer's being slow and that I grealy agree with both Opera's and Tom's last posts.
posted
"I didn't so much mean that women today have lost the right to stay at home as that there is an increasing sense of obligations to themselves and their families not to."
You may as well ask why more men aren't deciding to stay at home, Pix. I'd do it in a heartbeat if I could afford it. Why should you have more of a right to make that choice?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I said "...Or why a woman cannot easilly provide for the family while her husband stays home if that is what they desire" in my first post .
Posts: 1548 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only read the first post so forgive me...
There are two solutions, either stay at home motherhood will become an artifact of the priviledged and professional classes. Or some will trim back on lifestyle extras in order to make it happen. But working mothers have always been a fact of life for the working poor.
I work part time. We haven't done a good job of trimming the extras and avoiding debt. I wish I could go back and undo that, but wishes ain't fishes.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tax cuts for children are a third of what they were in the 1950s and it is now illegal for a man's wage to be higher than a woman's of the same position and, thus, it is far more difficult for him to provide enough income for his wife to stay home.
You lost me here. How has this forced wages to be lower? The point was that someone doing the same job should get the same wage, it shouldn't have impacted the amount of the wage across the board. Are you saying that men's salaries have come down? Can you back that up?
You also have to factor in the difference in family structure that has evolved over the last 100 years. We've also moved away from the farm, moved away from extended families and grandparents living in the home, helping with kids. Divorce is more common, and so are single parent homes. Feminism is not the only social change to affect the family.
[ March 09, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I still don’t buy it. Couples have the right to have one partner stay home. Or have both partners work. It’s up to each couple to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each option and make a decision. The idea that you should be able to have the advantages of both and the disadvantages of neither, and the fact that you can't is somehow “the feminists” fault is just silly.
posted
As other posters have noted, it only becomes impossible if you desire things outside your financial reality.
There are very real and tangible benefits from staying at home versus working - these benefits don't, however, come in the form of a DSL connection or tax breaks.
As a break from the status quo, the feminists needed to create a sense of pull in the other direction.
As the void begins to fill, the pull will stop and may even see a swing the other way - in fact, contemporary American society may begin to accept the notion of "Mr. Moms" as normal and routine. Particularly with the increase of information and knowledge workers making it a fairly level playing field, possibly giving the edge to women in some respects.
-Trevor
Edit: Or I'm still missing the point completely and you can disregard the entire monologue above.
Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point, Pix, is that feminism isn't to blame if you aren't seeing a corresponding number of fathers staying home. Since fewer and fewer people are staying home, period, the problem is likely one of increasing lifestyle costs, not a devaluation of "women's work."
Now, whether paying the typical lifestyle cost is necessary is of course an entirely separate discussion. I'd wager that this board is full of contrary examples, but also that those examples are minorities in the world at large.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do find it ridiculous that my husband has to work more than full-time to make ends meet and wants to see his family, and so can afford neither the time nor the money to finish his degree right now, and yet barely makes enough for us to live off-- in fact had to switch to a career he doesn't really enjoy, with very little security, because he couldn't make it work any other way-- without a degree. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bizarre necessity of a college degree in the modern workplace is indeed one of my greatest frustrations, insofar as it means abso-frickin-lutely nothing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, just to point out: "feminists" in this day and age have largely moved on to lesbian rights and stuff like that, while statistically, women still make less than men do in comparable jobs in many fields. I think true women's rights should have more to do with a woman's right to choose to work or to stay home, and options to make either easier.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dkw, it's nobody's "fault" in my opinion, I just think certain changes were taken to the extreme and that that particular movement - or the radical side thereof if you will - was a bit of a catalyst for that.
That and I'd like to apologize for all the confusion - I tend to simplify my thoughts to only the very essentials and that doesn't really seem to work for others very well. One main concept was that it should not be so financially difficult or socially "out of the norm" or even irresponsible of a spouse of either gender to stay at home should they choose to do so. The other, as I mentioned above, was just that any social change can and will have negative when taken to extremes. ... And that's all, folks.
Edit: kq said it better: "I think true women's rights should have more to do with a woman's right to choose to work or to stay home, and options to make either easier." exactly =).
posted
The cry for degrees is the reason you have so many diploma mills cropping up all over the bloody place.
And it's not because the degree makes you a better person - it's people with degrees trying to justify their positions by valuing other people with degrees.
Although I will grant, there are a few exceptions here and there.
posted
"One main concept was that it should not be so financially difficult or socially 'out of the norm' or even irresponsible of a spouse of either gender to stay at home should they choose to do so."
The larger issue, then, is whether it should be possible for someone making an average income to support a spouse and, say, two children. And in what lifestyle.
But the instant you ask that question, you realize it's unanswerable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
It took me a long time to realize that 'equal rights' weren't the panecea we were promised. Yes, I can be anything I want to be, but we HAVE sacrificed along the way.
Millions of children are being raised by strangers because women feel they can't stay at home for all the reasons mentioned by others above.
Those of us without children pay a price as well. Who does the cooking, cleaning, shopping, and laundry when we come home from our 45+ hour work week? By and large it's us. Women (in general) have a higher standard of cleanliness, diet and hygene than the (average) man and if we don't clean it, cook it or launder it, it will stay filthy, raw or smelly.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't buy this either. Every couple has a choice. And for some couples, maybe the choice should have been to put off having children until they were more financially stable.
"Yet as mothers many women face "choices" on the order of: You can continue to pursue your professional dreams at the cost of abandoning your children to long hours of inadequate child care. Or: You can stay at home with your baby and live in a state of virtual, crazy-making isolation because you can't afford a nanny, because there is no such thing as part-time day care, and because your husband doesn't come home until 8:30 at night."
See, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. They make either option sound just terrible. Let's see, if you work your child is in inadequate child care. If you stay home you go crazy because your husband works till late in the evening. Wow, we should all just give up and stop having kids!
posted
I suggest a cantract of cohabitation with another couple who both want to work, you raise both sets of children and everbody pools income. Of course you will need to pull the blinds!
posted
I'd also like to point out that minimum wage has not been raised to match the inflation index, and the inflation index is faulty anyway because it's still tied to food prices even though food prices haven't risen nearly as drastically as housing prices.
I'd also appreciate it if we could refer to the women-must-have-a-career-or-they're-oppressed feminists as feminist extremists or just whackos. They do not and never did represent all feminists. Many feminists just wanted equal treatment (gasp!) along with the possibility of choosing their own lives, including the choice to stay home.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:One main concept was that it should not be so financially difficult or socially "out of the norm" or even irresponsible of a spouse of either gender to stay at home should they choose to do so.
Well, if all you care about is whether or not you're "in the norm" of society, then sure, bucking the trend of consumerism and choosing to prioritize a stay-at-home parent rather than a new boat and a timeshare in Tahoe is going to seem unappealing to you. In reality, though, it's up to the individual family to decide what they want, not society, and it's certainly not "impossible" either way.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
quote: In Christy's case, she works primarily because she would go absolutely bat-s**t crazy not working.
And I think that's an absolutely valid reason for working outside the home. Again, it's about priorities. If working outside the home for (however much time per week) simply makes for a better parent, great!
It's when I hear people whine "We can't afford for one of us to stay home" while they eat out every other day, live in exclusive communities, and dress themselves and their kids in expensive designer clothes that I get just a tad befuddled.
IP: Logged |
posted
Bean Counter, we've actually talked about that...
quote: And for some couples, maybe the choice should have been to put off having children until they were more financially stable.
This felt like a slap in the face to me. We decided to get married when we did and to not put off having children because we believe in the right to personal revelation from God and believe we have recieved it in this matter. Insurance refusing to cover my pregnancy deepened our financial problems. I can't judge others so quickly, having been in this position myself.
posted
kq, I am certain that Space Opera was not intending to offend you. This is a touchy topic of conversation, and it's going to hit on people's nerves one way or another. If we can all try to remain objective and simply discuss this like the academic topic it is, rather than a personal attack on someone, it might not degrade into an inevitable flame war quite so quickly.
I, for one, would like to see where this train of thought leads.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know she wasn't. I just felt I needed to respond, and hope I wasn't offensive in my response.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kq, my thought was certainly not intended to offend you. In fact, due to being busy reading the article, I hadn't even seen your previous post. I think your family made the choices you made because they're right for you, and it sounds like you're choices were well thought-out.
But I do feel that some couples need to put off having children. Heck, I would put myself in that category. My first child came with no planning whatsoever, and my ex and I were certainly not in a financial position to start a family. Things got better over time, but it was certainly a struggle that I wouldn't want to re-live.
On the other hand, when I remarried, I married a man who had put education and financial responsibility before having a family. As a result, our lives have been much easier (not that they're a total piece of cake!) We put off adding to our family (we started with 2 kiddos) until we were certain we were in a good financial place. Does that make more sense?
posted
Kq, If you were in debt up to your eyeballs because you had purchased a flat screen TV, and then decided to have a kid, and then whined about your finances, I'd be inclined to be judgemental. As I judged a friend of mine who bought his fiance a really crappy engagement ring, (the side gems were so loose they wobbled...) a week after he'd bought himself a big screen TV. But I don't think you were that irresponsible. Financial problems happen to responsible people too, unfortunately.
posted
Tom, do you think that there are some jobs that do require a college degree? For example, should a degree in physics be required or at least strongly encouraged to do research at a particle accelerator? I agree that for many careers, on-the-job training is perfectly fine, but I guess I think that the things I am learning now are important enough that I would be a little worried about someone trying to do bioengineering without a degree in engineering.
I can sympathize with your frustration, Pixie. I'd love to split income-earning and child-raising with my hypothetical husband, but the way work is generally structured, doing part-time means fewer benefits such as health insurance. And I think the feminist movement, which is one of the reasons I can be a female engineer without being criticized or looked down upon, was mostly beneficial. Feminism does have its downsides (I am bothered by the anti-male sentiments I occasionally encounter) but I don't think that forcing women into the workplace was one of them. I certainly feel like the bias is still towards the stay-at-home-mom rather than the career woman.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I certainly feel like the bias is still towards the stay-at-home-mom rather than the career woman." May I ask why and in what context? I'm not entirely sure I understood your meaning.
That and I'm just plain curious. Posts: 1548 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an interesting topic to weigh in on.
My wife stays home with our daughters, and to do so we removed about $75K income from our yearly budget. This means that we are forced to assign the appropriate value to everything that we want from a material point of view. Not to say that we do without, but I would almost argue that having less money in our over-materialistic society is a blessing. The additional assessment of "Do I want this enough to sacrifice something else?" eliminates what easily could become blatant excess.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixie it is because Engineering is one of the last bastions of ultra conservative male domination in a professional setting. Engineers are all by their nature conservative, because to take risks means something could go wrong that could hurt people.
It isn't so much in academia, but out in the professional world it is only beginning to change. And compared to most other professions it has changed far less with regards to gender attitudes, because there are so many fewer women. Even now, an engineering class with 33% women is a rarity, though more common in certain engineering disciplines than others. There are more women in environmental and chemical engineering than proportionally in other fields.
posted
"Tom, do you think that there are some jobs that do require a college degree? For example, should a degree in physics be required or at least strongly encouraged to do research at a particle accelerator? I agree that for many careers, on-the-job training is perfectly fine, but I guess I think that the things I am learning now are important enough that I would be a little worried about someone trying to do bioengineering without a degree in engineering."
No, not really. That said, there are some jobs that might require so much training to be qualified for certification that they might as well require college -- or an equivalent certification.
The use of college to replace apprenticeship is one of the most troubling elements of modern education.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I certainly feel like the bias is still towards the stay-at-home-mom rather than the career woman." May I ask why and in what context? I'm not entirely sure I understood your meaning.
What I mean is that it's still considered normal for the woman to stay home and the man to work, particularly when there are children. If my hypothetical husband stays home with the hypothetical kids while I work, people would at least think it somewhat odd, even if they don't disapprove. Additionally, it is still the woman's place to do the housework. I have gotten the impression from people that they think if the house is messy, then it is the woman who is at fault, even if both the man and woman work.
Granted, girls get the same sort of career guidance as boys do these days, which I suppose might push them into the workforce rather than encouraging them to stay home with their children. But honestly, I don't see this as any different than not really exposing boys to the idea of staying at home. Maybe it would be best to remind both sexes of this possibility when talking about what they want to do when they grow up.
Edit to add: The problem I see with apprenticeship is that it forces people to choose a career earlier. Maybe that's beneficial in some cases, but frequently people discover in college that they are not good at something or don't like it as much as they originally thought. I suppose you could have a more flexible system that allows people to change apprenticeships easily, or have a few years where the apprentice dabbles in a broader field to get an idea of what they want to do. Also, I'm not sure that apprenticeships are a good way to transmit theoretical knowledge, even if they're a better way to transmit techniques.
posted
I realize that the conversation has moved on, but I have to comment on this:
quote: I also understand that it would seem "unfair" to those who are not the sole providers for their families and yet...
As a single, working person, it would not seem "unfair" to me to be paid less than my co-workers who happened to have a family to support. It would seem unfair. No quotation marks. Perhaps even unfair. Particularly if those co-workers were also choosing to purchase flat screen TVs and spend $100 a month on cable. And since there is no way to legislate what people do with their money, there can also be no way of saying one person or group of people needs more of it than another for doing the same work.
As it happens, I am lucky enough to have a job that would allow me to support a stay-at-home spouse and a child if I wanted to. I would have to live a lot differently than I do now, as far as eating out and buying "toys," but if I had a family I would be happy to do that to allow my spouse to stay at home and raise children, if that is something he would find fulfilling and we agreed together would be the best choice for our family.
I do not have a husband and do not intend to have children, so the point is moot. But I agree with the people who have been saying that it's a lot more realistic than you seem to think, and a lot of it depends on the choices your family makes.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(It would be more realistic if our income hit the $30,000 a year mark. Or even $25,000. For us, it's not financially feasable for me to work with a child, even if I wanted to.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm only 21, still in college, and have no prospects of getting married and starting a family anytime soon. So any opinion I have on this subject isn't coming from any kind of experience, just so you know.
It seems to me that balancing a career and a family while making ends meet is about choices, priorities, and sacrifices (as many people have brought up.) (The Incredibles, anyone?) You can't have it all - a huge house, designer clothes, electronic gizmos, ten children, and time to play with all of them. You have to decide what's most important to you, and give up the things that aren't as important.
This subject has reminded me that choices I make now will affect the choices I will have later in life. I hope someday I do get married and have kids, but in the meantime, I can prepare for it by becoming as financially stable as I can.
I'm also reminded of another movie. (Yes, everything reminds me of movies.) Mona Lisa Smile, which I thought was an incredibly boring movie, but relates somewhat to this topic. Remember when Julia Stiles applied and got into college? Harvard, was it? I can't remember. Anyway, she doesn't go, and instead marries that guy and becomes a housewife. Julia Roberts is all mad because she is in the mindset that a woman who settles down to raise a family isn't living up to her potential. But Julia Stiles tells her that it was her choice. Getting married was of greater value to her than going to college. So Julia Roberts shouldn't be mad about it.
Posts: 486 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a single mother and sole breadwinner for my family, I need to echo ElJay's comments about fairness. Yes, I "need" more money than my single, childless, (or married, two income household) co-workers, but I do not believe for a minute that I should get any more than they.
I actually have both perspectives on this issue, since I was a SAHM for nearly 20 years in my past life. We absolutely had to make sacrifices that many of our family members and neighbors didn't choose to make. In 18 years, we went on one real "vacation". My children wore a lot of hand-me-downs and off brand clothing. We never had cable TV, went to first run movies or took the family out to dinner.
But we were very cognizant of the fact that, although we were never "poor" (at least after we got out of the military), we had less "things" than others because of the choices that we willingly made. Our children understood that too, and never really gave us much grief about it. They recognized, even at an early age, what an advantage it was for me to be home and available to them all day.
Of course, when I was divorced and had to enter the work force for the first time at nearly 40, it was a big adjustment for all of us. And for the first time in my life, I started to doubt the wisdom of staying home for all of those years (although that was mostly selfishness rearing its ugly head).
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear the selfishness; I go through that sometimes, too. As much as I love my daughter and wouldn't trade her for anything in the world, or the time I have with her, for that matter, I look at my brother- and sister-in-law, who each have a Bachelor's (my brother-in-law is actually in the process of going for his Master's), and each also have a $40,000+ a year income (each! That combines to more than $80,000 a year before taxes, which is a staggering amount to us), they have two cars, one paid off and the other mostly paid off, they have a house with a beautiful kitchen and 5 bedrooms (most of which are not actually used as bedrooms) and a huge backyard in a nice area, eat out a lot and Amy never has to choose between new clothes or a toy for the dog and something she needs-- and all this because they prioritized degrees and work over kids, at least for now. It's kind of a look at what our life could have been if we'd decided not to have kids right away.
But whenever I start to get jealous, I think of what we have, and I'm content. We have enough to eat, my family has been exceedingly generous and our daughter has more than enough clothes and toys and books, we have a place to live that is actually very nice, we have a car that works, and a very, very small amount of wiggle room in our budget-- enough to pay for Netflix and DSL. We have a beautiful, bright, sunny little girl in our lives, we have more love for her than we could ever have imagined, and so I'm okay with our choices. We never want for things we really need. But yes, it's hard sometimes when I can't do something I really want because it's just not something we can afford.
Again, all priorities. We've chosen the worry and joy of parenthood over material things, and that's okay for us. I just always hope I'm not widowed with three young children at an early age, like my mother-in-law was. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit to say I really liked both of the last two posts .
I'd also like to add that I don't in any way support having uneven wages for the same positions. I do still think that changes need to be made, but I also know that I have no bloody idea what they should be. The ones I mentioned are simply what my teacher mentioned as possible, though clearly not at all practical.
That and I'm rather glad the focus here has become that of choices. During the seminar emphasis was given to the idea that being a SAHM or SAHD was somehow incomprehensible socially. I played devil's advocate over that one but the excuse that financial difficulties made staying at home impossible particularly intrigued me and I thought the people here would run with the idea.
And this is a bit of a tangent but, on a whole, I think too few people today realize that a lifestyle is a series of choices and that the elimination of any options because they are "impossible" is what makes them so. I'm glad that that is not the case here so much as it is elsewhere.
posted
Blaming feminism for providing options is a red herring. Staying home with the kids has always been a luxury, and as someone above pointed out, two spouses working has always been part of the life of the working poor.
I agree with Eljay and dkw absolutely. It is defnitley possible to live on one income, depending on the choices you make. It would be grossly unfair to pay me, as a single woman, less than a man simply because he chosen to take on dependents. I think it'd be nice to get married and have kids someday, and when I do, I think I'd like to do what Christy is doing. Not only do I need something outside to work on, but I don't like being vulnerable, and there's nothing more vulnerable than being unable to take care of yourself and those that depend on you.
I don't think the world owes anyone a comfortable life. I agree that minimum wage should be tied more closely with true inflation, but choosing to stay home with the kids doesn't earn anyone extra life points. Do you see what I mean? If you want to stay at home with your kids, or if you want to work, or do both, or chuck it all, whatever you choose, it has to be worth it instrinsictly, because the world won't give out a reward and will probably not notice. You have to create the life that you want.
[ March 09, 2005, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm something along those lines. The "working poor" used to have to have their children work too right along with the adults. Now we have child labor laws that prevent it of course. But it many 2nd-3rd world countries it is still a reality.
posted
I would like to point out again what I said above: for many people, both parents working doesn't make sense financially. I couldn't afford childcare with what I would make if I worked outside the home. Was that addressed in your seminar?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Wow, we should all just give up and stop having kids!![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I think your family made the choices you made because they're right for you, and it sounds like you're choices were well thought-out.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
