Re: You mean there are costs to stay-at-home mothering, too?
- From: Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:27:25 -0800
In article <1185884598.840273.123560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
patrick.barnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Jul 28, 5:09 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <marek1-1AE687.12011228072...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mar...@xxxxxxx says...
<<SNIP>>
But this is untrue: While the feminists like to point to a nebulous
"world economy" for wage deflation, flooding the workplace with millions
of women probably didn't help matters either.
Also, there's the cost of college. I know men with daughters who cried:
"Now I have to worry about college!" I laughed and said that money for
college for daughters is like washing a rental car.
So who do you suppose should support the increasing number of women
who, if they marry at all, do so in their thirties? Should they
stay out of the labor market and remain dependent on family support,
or do you want to increase the welfare budget?
The late marriage goes hand in hand with the career thing. It is
because they are going to college and then want to focus on their jobs
that women are getting married later in life. If they chose to focus
on family instead, they wouldn't be putting off marriage.
And of course, what has happened due to faux equality is that with wages
deflated and fewer men for career women to marry up to, most of them
wind up as single parents anyway.
MOST of what group? Women? Career women? The US Census says that only
32% of births in the US are to single women. It also says that there
were only 10.4 million single mothers living with their children
in 2005. There is no way that is MOST of women or even the subset
you might consider 'career women'.
"Only" 10 million single mothers?!
Well, that IS about one of every fifteen women in the US. The
qualifier "living with their children" does exclude single mothers
whose children have moved out of the house.
http://www.census.gov/Press-
Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/007285
.html
One step forward, two steps back!
A one-earner family can easily become a no-earner family in the
event of death, disability, or just job loss. The break up of the
marriage can mean an economic crash for a homemaker.
And we all know the news stories about two parent middle class families
often living paycheck to paycheck must mean that they're better off, yes?
This is more of an economic planning problem than one of whether both
parents work or not. It's amazing how these families seem to be
stretched for money when the women run around with 4 carat rings... Oh,
wait...
The stay-at-home parent can feel left in the lurch by divorce
regardless of gender. I saw a segment on the Oprah Winfrey Show about
the problems of husbands in the midst of divorces. One guest was a man
who had been in a role-reversal situation with his wife, taking care
of the children and the house. He was distressed because he said she
was now trying to paint him as a "gigolo" who had lived off her
parasitically during their marriage. He firmly said that he was not a
gigolo but had cared for the children and performed household chores
throughout the time he had not been in the paid workforce.
Indeed! But most WOMEN and especially career women that gripe about
their "lazy" husband who works 60+ hours a week who doesn't help do the
dishes wouldn't marry such a man.
So what's your point? The FEW women don't respect men who SAH even when
they're actually supporting them while most men treat their wives with
respect? Hmmm, that says a lot doesn't it?
Being a fulltime homemaker can also be isolating and psychologically
stressful as a result because it often means being without adult
company most of the day.
I work at home all day and do find being without adult company all
day annoying at times. It is not annoying enough to make me want
to go back to work in a noisy office or lab.
And working to pay the bills for the whole family is one big playtime.
Well, it can be if you really enjoy your job---as I do!
That's great. Tell you what, since you enjoy it so much, why not do a
few extra hours and pay my mortgage too while you're at it? Because I
don't consider work fun times, I do it because it's my job and my
responsibility to pay the bills. I wonder which one of us is closer
to the average working man.
If I'm going to do any extra hours, I'll probably pay off my own
mortgage first. ;-) As for who is closer to the average, it
may depend on whether you use the mean or median! ;-) It probably
also depends a lot on educational level. The 'happy-to-go-to work
factor may depend a lot on whether you've spent the money and
taken the time to get educated enough to work in a field that
you find interesting and enjoyable.
I didn't know that you were differentiating duties based on who was owed
Granted, what Denise says is true but nobody says that the woman has to
have a gun to her head not to talk to other mothers in the area.
Most working class families had the mother work part-time to get by and
for the reasons she mentioned.
Finally, although many observers overlook this truth, the male
breadwinner-female homemaker family can cause special problems for men
who can feel terribly pressured by having the full financial burden
resting on their shoulders.
And lord knows how concerned you are by justifying the courts force him
to pay alimony and child-support even after his wife leaves him without
any duties of her own.
If she's getting child support, doesn't she retain the duty of raising
the children?
That's a duty to the children. That's not a duty to him. And it says
nothing about alimony.
the effort.
They may work very long hours in order to
support their families and, in the process, become alienated from the
very wives and children for whom they are working.
Indeed. And the compensation men get for this sacrifice is... nill.
Do these truths mean that all stay-at-home moms should instantly
stampede into the nearest employment office? Of course not. Many will
find that the advantages of staying home outweigh the costs.
Hence, maybe men don't need to compensate women for something they
wanted anyway...
And if the husband choses to go to work rather than stay at home
with the kids, what compensation does he deserve for doing what
he wanted to do? Saying that each is doing "something they
wanted anyway" ignores the pressures that influenced the choice.
It still makes a good point, though. A lot of women want to be the
primary caregivers. They want a husband who is a good provider. And
then they divorce him and claim how they had to "sacrifice" their
careers.
Staying at home is not a sacrifice when that's what you wanted to do
in the first place.
It does involve what is known as an "opportunity cost" if, by staying in
the home you fall behind in your professional career. You are
sacrificing one goal to pursue another. There's also the fact that
many people have goals that change with time. What's most important
this year may be less so in another 5 years. Changes in the relative
importance of this kind make it difficult to measure sacrifice against
choices.
Mark Borgerson
.
- References:
- You mean there are costs to stay-at-home mothering, too?
- From: ddnoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: You mean there are costs to stay-at-home mothering, too?
- From: PolishKnight
- Re: You mean there are costs to stay-at-home mothering, too?
- From: Mark Borgerson
- Re: You mean there are costs to stay-at-home mothering, too?
- From: patrick . barnes
- You mean there are costs to stay-at-home mothering, too?
- Prev by Date: Re: You mean there are costs to stay-at-home mothering, too?
- Next by Date: This is a pretty powerful program
- Previous by thread: Re: You mean there are costs to stay-at-home mothering, too?
- Next by thread: Re: You mean there are costs to stay-at-home mothering, too?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
