Why does some people think women at home

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Why does some people think women at home
1494
Sat, 06-07-2003 - 1:02am
should do it all? I hear this and think why should a woman at home do every thing? Shouldn't it be whatever works? Shouldn't it be whatever floats the boat of the married couple? Confused on this thinking.

If you are home do you do it all? How does your DH or SO feel?

WOH do you do it all or do you split it? Do you do more or less since you WOH?

IQM

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-17-2003 - 3:19pm
So the only way to be equal in a marriage is to have the same earning potential?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-17-2003 - 3:20pm
But that's a pretty high price to pay as a by-product of wanting to work only 24 hours a week instead of 40. If your DH would always make significantly more money than you regardless of how many hours you work, it's a different story.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-17-2003 - 3:23pm
I'd say if each partner could competently financially support him- and herself as well as take care of the children and household and other necessary "life activities," they are equals.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-17-2003 - 3:24pm
>>>>But if one person SAH and has no income and the other one is providing all the money - what happens when both want to buy something and there is only enough money to afford one? Who wins? Wouldn't the WOH parent have the upper hand in the discussion simply because he/she is the "owner" of the income? If the SAH parent wins, don't you think there might be a little resentment on the part of the WOH parent?

---------

Perhaps it is cultural (you mentioned how things work in your "country & culture"), but in my relationship we don't fight over purchasing things, and we don't consider compromise to be "winning". The decisions for purchasing larger items are joint decisions...each of our input is equal, regardless of the fact that I make 1/4 of my husband's salary. As for smaller purchases (a lunch out, a CD, a sweater, pair of shoes, etc.), if we need something we buy it. We both have access to our checking account, know the balance, know what bills are to be paid, and know what the flex money is.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-17-2003 - 3:26pm
we don't consider compromise to be "winning".

You and your DH are obviously not lawyers.


(JOKE people!)

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-17-2003 - 3:28pm
>>>>we don't consider compromise to be "winning".

You and your DH are obviously not lawyers.

(JOKE people!)

-------------------------

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, we're both Libras. :-)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-17-2003 - 3:29pm
When my DH was in the Air Force I could never positively depend on him being there to take care of the kids if I had plans. But I never looked at it as having anything to do with equality.

If I wanted him to watch the kids and he refused becuased he thought that his time was more important then whatever I wanted to do then it would be an equality issue.

But work taking precedence over free time is not about equality it is just about how jobs are.




Edited 6/17/2003 3:37:01 PM ET by texigan

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-17-2003 - 3:30pm
Oh no, my baby's a Libra....I need to brush up on Libras....

Does his part Italian ethnicity counterbalance the Libra traits?

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Tue, 06-17-2003 - 3:34pm
My FIL has always earned more money than my MIL so he has felt that he had the right to dictate how money can be spent in their household. She didn't even have the right to write checks -- he'd give her an "allowance" to buy groceries, clothes for the children. She's have to "ask" him if she wanted to buy something for herself so instead of going through the hassle of asking, she'd just try to save and save from the "grocery allowance" so that she can get a haircut, buy an outfit,etc. I KNOW that this isn't the scenario for MANY women out there but this CAN and DOES happen.

To my FIL, money meant power. So I used to wonder why my MIL didn't just work FT (She was working PT) so that she can earn more and have more power in their relationship. Hmm... my FIL thought that she should be PT because he felt a SAHM would be good for the kids.... did he really believe that or was he trying to keep her from having more earning power?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-17-2003 - 3:36pm
You know the answer to that.

It's also an ego thing for some men, particularly of an older generation. My dad wouldn't have been able to stand having a wife acknowledged by the world to be an intelligent, competent individual.

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

Pages