SAHMing as default huring society's work/life balance? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 08:38 AM - Thread Starter
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
One of my friends was recently asserting the following --

That SAHM-ing is still the default expectation for the wives of professionals (doctor, lawyer, etc.) and the "executive" worker.

That SAHM-ing is contributing to and reinforcing the total work/life in-balance of many of those workers (as the hours requirements for those jobs are extremely high and just getting higher) -- since the expectation is that those workers have someone at home managing all other aspects of their lives (grocery shopping, bill paying, appointment making, childcare, etc., etc.) so that they can focus 100% on their career.

She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is. She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.

I thought this was an interesting idea, though perhaps overstated. Thoughts?
bczmama is offline  
#2 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 09:46 AM
 
BetsyS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: world of craziness
Posts: 5,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My dh is an outside salesman. He travels 2-3 nights a week. In similar positions, almost all of his colleagues have wives that SAH. It is expected and somewhat rewarded. (When I had the baby and word got out that I SAH, he somehow was rewarded with a raise shortly thereafter)

Part of the decision for me to SAH was sheer logistics. I had a job where I worked 1-2 twenty-four hour shifts during the week. WIth his travel, that was hard enough to balance with just a puppy. Our dog spent a few nights a month at the kennel because of it. With a baby, we knew that it would mean lots more juggling.

All that juggling, we felt, would cause my dh to not be able to be as devoted to his career (he'd have to leave for work in the morning after daycare opened, instead of early; he'd have to make sure he was home certain afternoons, etc) One of our jobs had to go. Because his job has much greater salary potential, it was a no brainer for us to focus on that job.

But, yes, I think that companies expect a certain level of devotion to really succeed in certain jobs. And, having a partner at home makes that devotion lots easier. My dh has never had to leave work early or go in late for childcare, his clothes are magically washed weekly, he doesn't do the household errands, he never leaves work for a sick baby, and on and on. That job gets 100% of him while he is there.
BetsyS is offline  
#3 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 09:52 AM
 
marybethorama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western MD
Posts: 3,564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post

She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is. She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.
I'm a very cynical person but my belief is that if the wives worked they would be expected to work part-time or "only" 40 hours a week so that they could still support their husband's careers.
marybethorama is offline  
#4 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 09:59 AM
 
lisalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There was actually a very good article recently in The Economist about aging populations and birthrates. Italy and Japan are actually having a lot problems with birthrates. While France was able to turn theirs around by giving women more options in the work place and having more family friendly policies. Italy sort of has family friendly policies but your career as a woman can't really go anywhere if you decide to have kids same with Japan where it's even worse women don't get high powered jobs to begin with. Basically it boiled down to the more options women have and the more support they get for those options, the more kids they have which I find interesting. You sort of go from an agrarian society where you have to have a lot of kids, to a more industrialized society where job opportunities make you need less kids to an enlightened industrial society that sees the importance in work/life balance and birth rates go up.

I don't think sahm'ing per se actually hurts women, everyone should have the choice. But when the patriarchy that sets the agenda feels it should be the default for women who have kids, that's where it hurts women. When I just become a lactating uterus, then I have problems with society.
lisalou is offline  
#5 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 10:13 AM
 
GuildJenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well my issue is with the expectations of the long hours for everyone, regardless of marital/SAH-partner status.

But yes, I do think the expectations are over the top for certain jobs - not just the high level or traditional lawyer/doctor ones either; a lot of social workers work long hours, and my husband is in IT and the expectations there are ludicrous - still the "nerd who lives here" kind of view. In order to find a family balance there may be pressure on the lower-earner to stay home, usually the woman (I am a classic example, me and my liberal arts)

Even in my field (publishing) there is a new expectation that one is available more around the clock - most of the higher-level people answer email one last time after dinner.

~ Mum to Emily, March 12-16 2004, Noah, born Aug 2005, Liam, born January 2011, and wife to Carl since 1994. ~
GuildJenn is offline  
#6 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 10:33 AM
 
pumpkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Stepford
Posts: 2,898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think your friend is right. There is a certain level of career where there is an expectation that you are available 24-7. I know because I've done it. People who are single are expected to not have pets or houseplants because they must be available to travel for weeks at a time on one hours notice. Children would be completely unacceptable. If you do have home responsibilities then you must either have a spouse who takes care of everything or an ex-spouse who takes care of the kids and then you maintain the pet and houseplant free lifestyle.

I was horrified to be a part of this system. I had zero respect for the men (and 1 woman who reached the upper levels at a huge firm) who could be so detached from their children. I gave up a ton of money to get away from that world.

I left with the belief that the best way to achieve work/life balance is not to focus on making it easier for women to manage the day to day of a career and children, but to fundamentally change the expectation that men can ignore the home sector. If men are expected to be more than breadwinners, then everyone would benefit and the work/life balance would simply fall into place.

Thankfully I now work in an environment where both genders are expected to leave early for the school play, or to have the kids in the office during Spring Break. The type of environment I have found is the exception not the rule, and everyone in it chose this particular path over other options so we have a unique group of people.

And just to be clear, I don't think the solution is that women should not be SAHM. The solution is a change in expectations for people who are in the paid workforce.

Mom to Kira March 2009
pumpkin is offline  
#7 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 11:12 AM
 
dallaschildren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Moving to SAHM forum.
dallaschildren is offline  
#8 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 11:33 AM
 
Momma Aimee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: deep in South Texas and ready to go home
Posts: 9,439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i agree -- i would have stayed home no matter whaty Dh did -- as it is a prority for us, and we waited until $ possible to have kids.

but

It is really a necessaity with DH's career. his hours are long adn unpredicatble and subject to change constantly on a moments notice -- the ringing of a phone He is on call 24 / 7 even on vaction. I don't even leave DS with him to go shopping, for like an all day thing, cuz of it. The most i leave DS wiht him is 2 or 3 hours, then we both have a car seat and i keep my cell phone on my body at all times in case i have to go meet DH and get DS from him.

But that is not to say DH's job or office is anti-family or anti-kid. the work is just unpredicatable at times. Dh takes off for well baby check and OB appt all the time. we wives (and one SAHD) bring in teh kids for family lunches a lot, and we all stop by the office when we run errands and the whole office stops to talk and play with the kids. DH has stayed home with a sick baby, and a sick momma and everyone in the office is totally supportive of each other and their families. BUT there are times, be it court, or a Grand Jury or whatever -- when THAT can't be adjusted. and he is expected to be reaschane and "go-able" 24 hours a day 7 days a week .....

IF I worked at all it would have to be PT, and no responiblity -- no getting off late no odd hours and so on ..... asnd for THAT money it would not cover daycare.

We do know familes in DH's profession with two working parents and the mom has a high profile demanding job and the 2 younger than school aged kids are in daycare and it is a NIGHTMARE, of constant phone calls to see who can go get the kids when the center is closeing, to fight about who is going to go to work "late" that day and take them to the center as soon as it opens, and at least 2x a week a grandparent has to step in and go get teh girls, or take them in the morning cuz neither parent was able to make to the center before it closed. Juggling thier mutal trips and late night dinners and meetings and events and so on ... and with the DH being on call ... : : : : : it is amazingly complex, scarey and no one seems happy. and BOTH parents feel the other parent is not pulling their part and both feel stressed and fustrated at work due to the constant juggleing and worry.

Dh and I see our sitaution as divide and conquor -- looking at what is best for the kids. However me being home allows him more success at work, which in turn is good for the family too

That being said DH doesn't get a pass on child care or home care when he is here ... jsut cuz of the job (ok a little on the night time stuff)..... but there is an acceptance of when he is not here.

So yes i do think some preofession and some career necsate a stay at home partner -- or a full time nanny and house keeper.

Is the IDEAL .. no in the greater picture it is not a perfect thing... but i do think it is REALITY and not going to change even with we are the grandparents talking about how our kids manager careers and kids ..... i think it is tooooo biiiiiig a change to expect over all ......... because any one person or company that tires to make that change, falls risk the the others that don't.

Aimee + Scott = Theodore Roosevelt (11/05) and 23 months later Charles Abraham (10/07)....praying for a little sister; the search starts May 2014
Momma Aimee is offline  
#9 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 11:48 AM
 
cmom80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In a perpetual state of disarray
Posts: 484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that my husband is where he is in his career because I stay home. And our family, as a result, is benefiting from it. It's a win-win situation.
cmom80 is offline  
#10 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 11:52 AM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post

I thought this was an interesting idea, though perhaps overstated. Thoughts?
Oh, interesting topic!

I think you said it best in your last line..."interesting idea, though perhaps overstated."

While it's never good to generalize or stereotype people's lives, I think there is a lot of truth in your friend's theory.

Has anyone read the last few articles the New York Times did on the new wave of stay at home mothers? The thrust of the articles was that stay at home mothering had a lot to do with economic class; that stay at home mothering was becoming a luxury and a wife of white collar worker phenomenon. Again, this is dangerous territory to generalize, because I know many many families who sacrifice in order to have a parent stay home.

The articles made the point, however, that women who had advanced degrees themselves from Ivy League schools and who had worked in lucrative careers before having children, were now staying at home with children, and lending a supporting role to their husbands career arch.

Anecdotally, of the few doctors, lawyers, MBAs, etc that I know in real life, one of the parents stays home (male or female) and they lend a supporting role to the long work hours, infrequent vacation time, inflexible schedules.

I know that day care is often not a very good option for these families if they had two jobs because it would always fall on one parent to pick up and drop off and do all household tasks, just due to the work commitment of the other.

So, yes, I think your friend makes a very valid point!
That Is Nice is offline  
#11 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 11:55 AM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma Aimee View Post
i agree -- i would have stayed home no matter whaty Dh did -- as it is a prority for us, and we waited until $ possible to have kids.

but

It is really a necessaity with DH's career. his hours are long adn unpredicatble and subject to change constantly on a moments notice...


IF I worked at all it would have to be PT, and no responiblity -- no getting off late no odd hours and so on ..... asnd for THAT money it would not cover daycare.

We do know familes in DH's profession with two working parents and the mom has a high profile demanding job and the 2 younger than school aged kids are in daycare and it is a NIGHTMARE, of constant phone calls to see who can go get the kids when the center is closeing, to fight about who is going to go to work "late" that day and take them to the center as soon as it opens, and at least 2x a week a grandparent has to step in and go get teh girls.
I think you illustrate exactly what I was trying to say in my post! If you have two demanding careers, it makes it nearly impossible to juggle the responsibilities of parenting, even with day care. Many day care hours simply do not align with the extended hours of a demanding career.
That Is Nice is offline  
#12 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 12:08 PM
 
Amys1st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would agree. When dd1 was born 5 plus years ago, we wanted me to stay home which I have done since then. FF to now. I NEED to be home for my family. MY dh's clinic is owned by himself and 3 other partners. ITs demanding and he works half days a lot- meaning which 12 hours do you want to work??
The upside, he has been able to focus on his career, make more money and this keeps us out of debt etc but also better himself too. If both of us were WOH, it would be like the pp said about the juggling act and neither of us would devote what is needed in our career. I know a few sahmoms who were lawyers in their previous life, one ped who delivered premature twins last year and decided it was time to focus on her babies for now. And many others who also had a demanding career or job like I did and said- not worth it, I can always go back or do something else some day.

Good thread btw.

"The true joy of life is the trip. The station is only a dream. It constantly out distances us."
Amys1st is offline  
#13 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 12:14 PM
 
hotmamacita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
One of my friends was recently asserting the following --

That SAHM-ing is still the default expectation for the wives of professionals (doctor, lawyer, etc.) and the "executive" worker.

That SAHM-ing is contributing to and reinforcing the total work/life in-balance of many of those workers (as the hours requirements for those jobs are extremely high and just getting higher) -- since the expectation is that those workers have someone at home managing all other aspects of their lives (grocery shopping, bill paying, appointment making, childcare, etc., etc.) so that they can focus 100% on their career.

She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is. She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.

I thought this was an interesting idea, though perhaps overstated. Thoughts?
I think your friend has come up with a simplistic way to deal with the evils of capitalism and sexism among other things.
hotmamacita is offline  
#14 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 12:14 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A demanding career doesn't necessarily mean a career that is well paid! My husband has a very demanding career, but we still have the same struggles that many one paycheck households have.

While it would make a lot of financial sense in our household for me to work (as I also had a fairly demanding, fairly well-paying job), the logistics of two demanding careers AND raising children were just too challenging (not impossible and not that we didn't think about it, it was just not very easily managed).

My husband's hours at work, inflexible schedule, and travel make it nearly impossible for me to rely on him to ever pick up or drop off a child at daycare on time and within their scheduled hours, even for many in-home options. The amount and the hours he works make it difficult for me to even have a part time job.

If I had stayed working in my job, my schedule would not have jived very well with day care hours either.

So, it was a tough choice, and one my husband didn't completely agree with or support, but I felt like in order to be the type of parent I wanted to be, I needed to stay home, at least until my children were school aged.
That Is Nice is offline  
#15 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 12:16 PM
 
hotmamacita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Women who are nurturing and caring for children are not to blame!
hotmamacita is offline  
#16 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 12:22 PM
 
prothyraia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Borean Tundra
Posts: 2,317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is. She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.
I think it would be more accurate to say that if the general social understanding was that family was an important priority for all workers, THEN the situation would improve. Or that we should expect partners of SAHPs to *still* participate in parenting.

I *am* a stay at home mom. My husband *still* lost his job shortly after our son was born, essentially because he would no longer put work above everything else. Someone else who still works there is desperately seeking a new job because they won't arrange his on-call hours to not include the two weekends a month when he gets his six year old son (who lives out of state); they literally told him that he "had to put the program first, because we need you". It's completely unreasonable
prothyraia is offline  
#17 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 12:40 PM
 
Ellien C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: in the middle ages
Posts: 5,582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
First, I'm a little disappointed to see this moved to the SAHM forum because I think it's a reasonable topic that anyone could weigh-in on. These sorts of philospophical discussions with the AMAZING intelligent women on MDC are why I keep coming back.

But that aside, I agree a lot with GuildJenn, Lisalou and especially pumpkin below:

[QUOTE=pumpkin;9283871

to fundamentally change the expectation that men can ignore the home sector. If men are expected to be more than breadwinners, then everyone would benefit and the work/life balance would simply fall into place.

And just to be clear, I don't think the solution is that women should not be SAHM. The solution is a change in expectations for people who are in the paid workforce.[/QUOTE]

I'm totally on with this. As an employed mother, I see many more men taking responsibilities for the children than I think ocurred in generations past. My mother worked, but also kept the house, did all the laundry, all the cooking, all the shopping and all the cleaning. Today, I see men who are totally or partially responsible for grocery shopping, cooking, laundry etc. I was thrilled earlier this year when my roofer cancelled his appointment with me because of his sick child. I was thrilled to see him sharing in that kind of responsibility. I bet his father never cancelled on a client due to sick kid illness. Yes, I'd arranged to take off work and meet the roofer and he couldn't tell me until that morning, but really, it was fine with me. I think those sorts of things will bring about the societal change we desperately need - men being expected to take on more household resposibilities, singles who must care for aging parents or grand-parents. The expectation that our jobs don't own us 24/7.

Third generation WOHM. I work by choice.
Ellien C is offline  
#18 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 12:43 PM
 
hotmamacita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellien C View Post
First, I'm a little disappointed to see this moved to the SAHM forum because I think it's a reasonable topic that anyone could weigh-in on. These sorts of philospophical discussions with the AMAZING intelligent women on MDC are why I keep coming back.
And we are too busy eating bon bons, painting our toes and wathing soaps to weigh-in.

I know you didn't intend it to come off as such but that just made me .
hotmamacita is offline  
#19 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 01:45 PM
 
Peony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 25,329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
All the people in high demand jobs that I know, do have a SAHM partner.

My DH has a very demanding career and this was one of his issues when we talked about having DC, I had to be a SAHM when we had DC. I completely agreed and had always planned on it anyway so it was a moot point for us. I take care of everything in the house and everything to do with the children, DH does not have the time nor the energy to handle it. I can't imagine would happen if at 5pm when a crisis was occuring, he looked at his watch and said he had to left because the daycare was closing and he had to pick up his children. It is not going to happen in his line of work, not if he wants a jobs, someone else has to handle all of that, million dollar companies do not care about 5-6pm daycare pickups. Sick days don't exist for him, even when DD2 was in the hospital, I had to arrange care for DD1 because I was with DD2, and DH had to be at work. Clients are understanding to a point, once here and there rarely, but when you have an ill child for many months, they lose patience very quickly.

To be fair, I could be making good money if I was still working, my profession isn't as demanding, RN, but DH makes far more then I ever could...

There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way.
Peony is offline  
#20 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 01:52 PM
 
kittywitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Room of Requirement
Posts: 13,493
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
I don't think that at least IME, SAHMs are a default. In fact, I have found almost everyone expects the women to work full time from birth and be available at the drop of a hat to take time off for a child, but men are not expected/allowed to.

My being a SAHM tends to get some strange looks like noone even knew you could do that.

AP Mom to 5 knit.gifhomeschool.giftoddler.gif
 
  

kittywitty is offline  
#21 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 02:09 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peony View Post
All the people in high demand jobs that I know, do have a SAHM partner.

My DH has a very demanding career and this was one of his issues when we talked about having DC, I had to be a SAHM when we had DC. I completely agreed and had always planned on it anyway so it was a moot point for us. I take care of everything in the house and everything to do with the children, DH does not have the time nor the energy to handle it. I can't imagine would happen if at 5pm when a crisis was occuring, he looked at his watch and said he had to left because the daycare was closing and he had to pick up his children. It is not going to happen in his line of work, not if he wants a jobs, someone else has to handle all of that, million dollar companies do not care about 5-6pm daycare pickups. Sick days don't exist for him, even when DD2 was in the hospital, I had to arrange care for DD1 because I was with DD2, and DH had to be at work. Clients are understanding to a point, once here and there rarely, but when you have an ill child for many months, they lose patience very quickly.

To be fair, I could be making good money if I was still working, my profession isn't as demanding, RN, but DH makes far more then I ever could...
:

This sounds similar to our situation. I could make good money, but the inflexibility of my husband's career makes it very difficult to juggle TWO careers AND still parent the way we need to. Maybe someday that will change. Ideally, I'd love to job share and child care share with my husband in a more balanced scenario...but opportunities for that seem few and far between in the real world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnw826 View Post
I don't think that at least IME, SAHMs are a default. In fact, I have found almost everyone expects the women to work full time from birth and be available at the drop of a hat to take time off for a child, but men are not expected/allowed to.

My being a SAHM tends to get some strange looks like noone even knew you could do that.
That is true, too! It seems so unfair, though! I mean, many people EXPECT me to work and there are all kinds of other expectations on top of that. I've not encountered any attitudes where staying at home was the default or expected. Not at all. Quite the contrary. But, the reality is that juggling two careers while raising young kids would be hard on the parents, hard on the careers, and most importantly hard on the kids.

And, yes, I do feel that working moms are expected to pick up the bulk of the child care and household tasks, even while working. I know I would have been and that played very much into my decision to stay at home. Division of household tasks are generally more fair than they were in say the 1950s and it is getting better with modern husbands/hands-on dads, but it's far from ideal and far from equal!!!
That Is Nice is offline  
#22 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 02:17 PM
 
GuildJenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellien C View Post
First, I'm a little disappointed to see this moved to the SAHM forum because I think it's a reasonable topic that anyone could weigh-in on. These sorts of philospophical discussions with the AMAZING intelligent women on MDC are why I keep coming back.
Me too, but more because it seems kind of incendiary over here, like it is questioning the SAHM choice rather than being just a general discussion on expectations around work and family. Maybe it's 'cause it had SAHM in the title.

~ Mum to Emily, March 12-16 2004, Noah, born Aug 2005, Liam, born January 2011, and wife to Carl since 1994. ~
GuildJenn is offline  
#23 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 02:29 PM
 
hotmamacita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuildJenn View Post
Me too, but more because it seems kind of incendiary over here, like it is questioning the SAHM choice rather than being just a general discussion on expectations around work and family. Maybe it's 'cause it had SAHM in the title.
Now we are incendiary?!

I'd love for this to me moved out into the calm, intelligent realms out there.



But if it MUST be here....then my thoughts remain the same. Its a simplistic view, it ignores and overlooks capitalism, sexism, economics and that failure of the women's movement if you will.
hotmamacita is offline  
#24 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 02:33 PM
 
Iris' Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I used to work as a lawyer in a big firm and my ex-h stayed home. My female friends had stay-at-home husbands/partners or teachers, etc., and we used to joke that "everyone needs a wife." Virtually the only exceptions were two high powered super high income couples who had the nanny, the night-shift nanny and the weekend nanny. Women whose husbands couldn't/wouldn't stay home or cut their hours way back almost invariably left after having kids.

I think it's a bit of a chicken/egg conundrum, bu I wouldn't really say SAHM-ing "causes" the imbalance. I think it's like a pressure valve, that let's some of the steam escape so the whole thing doesn't explode. In other words, if both partners worked, pressure would build up more quickly for things to change, bu the fault is with the system, not the SAHMers.
Iris' Mom is offline  
#25 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 02:49 PM
 
Momma Aimee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: deep in South Texas and ready to go home
Posts: 9,439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I think it's a bit of a chicken/egg conundrum, bu I wouldn't really say SAHM-ing "causes" the imbalance. I think it's like a pressure valve, that let's some of the steam escape so the whole thing doesn't explode. In other words, if both partners worked, pressure would build up more quickly for things to change, bu the fault is with the system, not the SAHMers.
for us .. beyond our conmitment to me being home no matter what DH did ... it is a way to cope.

I do not have the emotional ablity to hanlde the stress that woud come from both of us working demanding careers and juggling the house and the kids and the child care and the errands and the flux i see some couple living in where it is a constant ? "who is going to be able to pick the kids up at 6 or even 7 pm" "who can wait till 6:30 whent he center opens to head to work" "who can make dinner" "who can go to the store for the milk we are out of" ........ Hats offs the moms who i know who DO do it all day every day -- but you know, honestly, none of them SEEM happy

Aimee + Scott = Theodore Roosevelt (11/05) and 23 months later Charles Abraham (10/07)....praying for a little sister; the search starts May 2014
Momma Aimee is offline  
#26 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 02:52 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is.
And how would it become the "general social understanding" that women married to men in high-power jobs were going to keep working after kids, other than by more women actually deciding to do it?" It sounds like your friend is saying that more wives should forfeit staying home, in order to improve things for those wives who don't want to stay home.

Quote:
She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.
That's probably true -- but she seems to be assuming that no woman would choose to stay home if her husband's "work/life balance was more reasonable." My husband generally works 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. He's usually home every night and all weekend. We still choose for me to be home.

I could just as easily say that if it became the "general social understanding" that all women quit work after marriage, it would be possible for more men to secure jobs that paid well enough to support a family on one income -- but I don't think it would be fair for me to say all women should stay home, just because I love staying home, have no desire to return to the workforce, and think it'd be cool if my hubby had less competition for wages.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#27 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 03:06 PM
 
zinemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: from the fire roads to the interstate
Posts: 6,568
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think it's that there *isn't* the "general social understanding" that wives continue to work. Most women *do* work and society expects them to. The problem is, society's attitude toward family/work balance is "So what?"

A lot of the professional jobs women have moved into over the last 30+ years were originally done by upper-class men who had the luxury of being able to support a sahw who could take care of everything else while he was at the office.

The problem is that the work set-up has not changed since that situation ceased to become the norm. Thus we have a situation in which both professional men *and* women would have it a lot easier with a "wife" at home.

And of course, there's the fact that, at home or not, women still do a disproportionate amount of housework and childcare. No one really wins (except financially).

The whole workplace system needs to be radically overhauled so that everyone can lead a more decent life.
zinemama is offline  
#28 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 03:28 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinemama View Post
I don't think it's that there *isn't* the "general social understanding" that wives continue to work. Most women *do* work and society expects them to. The problem is, society's attitude toward family/work balance is "So what?"

A lot of the professional jobs women have moved into over the last 30+ years were originally done by upper-class men who had the luxury of being able to support a sahw who could take care of everything else while he was at the office.

The problem is that the work set-up has not changed since that situation ceased to become the norm. Thus we have a situation in which both professional men *and* women would have it a lot easier with a "wife" at home.

And of course, there's the fact that, at home or not, women still do a disproportionate amount of housework and childcare. No one really wins (except financially).

The whole workplace system needs to be radically overhauled so that everyone can lead a more decent life.


Well said.
That Is Nice is offline  
#29 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 03:35 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post

I could just as easily say that if it became the "general social understanding" that all women quit work after marriage, it would be possible for more men to secure jobs that paid well enough to support a family on one income -- but I don't think it would be fair for me to say all women should stay home, just because I love staying home, have no desire to return to the workforce, and think it'd be cool if my hubby had less competition for wages.


I see what you are saying, and I see the reasoning behind it. And I think you are saying this for the sake of argument, no?

I did have a person once tell me, and in a serious way, that if I (and other women) didn't hold or compete for professional jobs, then men would have less competition and would be able to find good paying jobs more easily and provide for themselves and their families.

I don't know about that. I was shocked when the person told me this. I went to college and trained for a specific field, and it is because I trained for that field that I got a job in that field. Any man or woman who also trained for that field could just as easily get the very same job.

I think better jobs are able to be found (generally) through education and training, not less competition.

Still, I do see your point. But as a stay at home mom who might one day have to support my family, a stay at home dad, or even myself and my children as a widow, divorcee, or single mom (life happens and you just never know...) well, I am glad I can go into the workforce and earn as much as any man and provide for my family. That would not have been the case had I been born 50 or 100 years ago.
That Is Nice is offline  
#30 of 185 Old 09-27-2007, 03:46 PM
 
Iris' Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There's definitely a supply-and-demand aspect of it, true. More workers means more competition which suppresses wages. But, it's not a zero-sum game. More workers means more demand for goods which means more need for workers (albeit many of whom live in China, but that's another debate . . .)
Iris' Mom is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off