Extra Money and Extra Time

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Extra Money and Extra Time
452
Fri, 03-28-2003 - 2:31pm
A couple of boards back I asked, and cobaltblue2002 answered, this. I'd like input from everyone.

Why do some people think WOHMs are greedy and materialistic if the WOHMS want to work or work FT, partly to have a financial cushion (I know this does not apply to all WOHMS' financial situations), but the same people think nothing of SAHMs staying home, partly because the SAHMs like more time at home, with children, with hobbies, etc. than other people?

In other words, is more or "extra" time an honorable reason to SAH, but working to earn more than the basic necessities somehow not honorable?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-21-2003 - 12:19pm
I agree, with some clarification. I wasn't talking about something that requried a little tolerance. I was talking about the price being too high. Just like a relationship, if what you're getting out of it isn't even close to what you're putting in, its not a healthy relationship. If a relationship forced your self-worth to decrease; if the other partner in the relationship treated you poorly; if the relationship was one that was heavily unbalanced, it would be unhealthy.

And I agree the salary does make a difference. But it would take more than 3-4 times what I'm making now to make it worth it for me to put up with a situation like I was describing. I've been there, and although my salary in both of those jobs was small, I know without a doubt, I woudln't have stayed in either of those jobs if they'd tripled my pay.

But its not a matter of commitmene to working. I can be just as committed to working and still want to walk if I'm not treated the way I think I should be, as someone who puts up with crap all day. Its not a level of commitment; its a level of choice.

I think your last line hit the nail on the head. I don't want to work in that environment because its not worth it to me (especially mentally). But that doesn't make you wrong to survive in that environment. It doesnt' mean I think you're stupid or crazy; just that your goals and objectives are different than mine, as are your options and standards.

Hollie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-21-2003 - 11:43am
I guess I view a job as a valuable thing, much like a relationship. If it requires a little tolerance and putting up with things, I do it. Maybe it's because I work with lawyers, who are apparently much worse managers than the average professional, but my tolerance for inferior bosses is pretty high. If you were deeply committed to working, and you made 3 or 4 times what you currently do now, I bet it would take a lot more for you to start looking for a new job. But you said that having a six figure job is not something you want in order to have it all, so your standards and mine are bound to be different.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Avatar for mygriffin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Fri, 04-18-2003 - 5:27pm
And if she's new, that must mean that she was HIRED at 4 days a week. Why would her boss hire someone who can't pull their weight? I hate to say it, but it sounds like jealousy to me.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-18-2003 - 2:13pm
I wouldn't work in an environment that fostered an atmosphere of gossip taking precedence over actual work performance. If I worked for a boss that couldn't/wouldn't see past the fiction to the reality, I would look for another job. I've been there. And I've left. I wouldn't walk out the door in an instant; I'd probably stay put until I had another job. But I'd start looking the first time I had an inkling that my boss didn't appreciate me for ME.

And I do have a choice. We ALL have choices. For many, maybe the butthead boss environment is the Best Choice. But for me, it wouldn't be. And I have the flexibility of a husband with a great salary, as well as not *having* to work. So I *can* walk if I feel I need to.

Hollie

Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 04-18-2003 - 2:04pm
Because one particular situation does not work out does not mean it can't work out. To say your child "NEEDS" something is to say it cannot be done any other way and that is just not true here. SAH was only one option among many, not a need of your dd. That you find SAH the easiest way to deal with her condition is her choice but it doesn't make your SAH HER need. It makes it YOUR CHOICE in light of your particular situation. Her need is for a particular type of environment and there are many ways to accomplish that besides SAH. That you choose not to see any other alternative it your personal choice, however, I have seen time and time again that it can be done other ways so it is not correct to say your dd has a need for a SAHM. Why wouldn't a SAHD work? Why does she have to have just mom? What about her condition dictates that MOM must be there 24 x 7 (minus the two days in dc). Why wouldn't you and your dh working opposite shifts work for your dd? Does her condition dictate that dad can't care for her? Your assertion that your dd's condition means you MUST SAH isn't correct. Her condition means she needs a particular environment. How you choose to make sure she has that environment is your personal choice but your chosen way does not become her need.




Edited 4/18/2003 4:01:21 PM ET by cyndiluwho

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-18-2003 - 1:59pm
You would really leave just because the boss took your co-workers' views of you into account in yoru review?

You'd consider leaving if you had a choice. That's what I guess I think you, mygriffin, OTBM, etc. forget. Great jobs don't fall off trees. I was actually offered one today, but that's pretty rare. In this economy, most people have to put up with jobs that are not ideal.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 04-18-2003 - 1:55pm
What NEEDS to be done and how you choose to do it, for whatever reason, are two totally different things. Something doesn't become the child's need simply because you find it difficult to do it another way. My objection is to calling SAH the child's need. The child doesn't need a SAHM, she needs an environment structured in a particular way. THAT can be accomplished in a myraid of ways. Yes, a nanny would be one way. You can't afford a nanny? Then use a different way. Saying an ADHD child NEEDS a SAHM is just as silly as saying an ADHD child NEEDS a nanny. NO, the child's needs are different from how you meet them. I'll give you an example from my own life. My cousin has an austistic son who needs particular care. She can't afford the kind of care he needs as a WOHM so she SAH but this doesn't mean her child needs a SAHM. It means that the most reasonable way to meet her child's needs, given her circumstances is to SAH but her son's needs could be met a different way so her SAH is not his need. His need is for the type of care NOT a particular caregiver. She can't afford the care if she works so she educated herself in how to handle him and SAH but that isn't the only way it could have been done. She could have gone after a higher paying job and paid for the care. The child's need is for care. How you administer that is the parents choice. Mitigating circumstances that determine reasonable choices are what they are but they can and do change. The child's condition nesessitates the type of care but does not dictate who you accomplish administering the care. That is your personal choice based on resources available in your particular situation. My cousin could get a higher paying job and pay someone else to do what she does but chooses not to as she sees that route as being the more difficult of the two but her choice does not make her SAH her child's need. Her son's need is for the care and only for the care.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-18-2003 - 1:45pm
And if she's not pulling her weight, she should be fired or demoted or have her pay reduced. That's appropriate for ANY employee not doing their job to the satisfaction of the company.

But we're not talking about people not pulling their weight. We're talking about people who are pulling their weight but are perceived not to be by their colleagues. If that perception is wrong, then the boss shouldn't take it into effect. If you write a formal review on a coworker, and its just plain wrong, does your boss still consider it in his evaluation? God, I hope not.

And you mentioned problems with coworkers. Yes, obvisouly that is a serious consideration in an employee's performance review. But we weren't talking about a person who had "problems" with coworkers. We were talking about Jane being perceived to be less committed by her coworkers. If the coworker mistakenly believes that and has a "problem" because of it, why should Jane be punished? Its not her that's causing the problem. Instead the coworker should be told "Jane does a damn fine job. And you need to get your head out of your ass and look beyond the fact that she's a mother."

I just don't get it that a coworker's mistaken belief, or preconceived notion, or discriminatory attitude about a working mother could really be a basis in that mother's performance evaluation. Sounds like a crock. And a place I'd be leaving.

Hollie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-18-2003 - 1:29pm
Yes, every boss I've ever had takes into account collegiality and respect/problems with co-workers into promotion decisions. I give supervisors feedback, formally in writing, on colleagues. Is that rare? I'm not saying that's the deciding factor, or even how heavily it weighs, but why give anyone in the workplace a reason to say anything negative about your work ethic?

And if you're not salaried, presumably you get paid extra for nights/weekends/travel time. That's your compensation right there. A salaried person is already compensated for that, and if she doesn't want to do it, for homelife or other reasons, she's not pulling her weight.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-18-2003 - 1:25pm
I guess cyndi's saying that theoretically, if isobug could afford an au pair or nanny to keep her adhd child in her home, isobug wouldn't need to stay home. It doesn't have to be a SAHM, just a caregiver at home. Cyndi doesn't address the cost aspect, though.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages