WOH/Kids/Feminism: WDYT?

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
WOH/Kids/Feminism: WDYT?
1456
Tue, 02-08-2005 - 9:06am

Okay, let's debate something else. One morning a few months ago, I was crabby to DH about having to get ready for work. DH said, "Well, if you don't want to go to work, quit!"

Later that day, I told him I was just venting, and then I told him some of the reasons I really do like WOH. One reason was something to the effect that I wanted to WOH as part of at-home feminism for our DD's. He said he had no idea what I was talking about.

I thought about it some and decided that although this is a heartfelt idea for me, it's still fuzzy. I suppose I meant that I want to show my DDs how to live independently of a man, in the sense of income, ability to make one's way in the world, and so on, even if they choose marriage & kids. My feelings of pride in my own mom, who was a WOH mom, come into it, too.

Caution: I don't mean in any way to suggest anything the least bit negative about SAH moms. That's not what this is about. Nor do I mean to suggest that anyone has to WOH to teach their kids feminist or gender neutral values. That's not what this is about, either.

Do you think there's any value in WOH as part of raising kids? Please help me clarify my thinking.

Sabina

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-13-2005 - 2:14am

What you are misunderstanding is that it's not an issue of whether having a sahp is *a* priority, but whether having a sahp is the *more important* priority. Whether it is or it isn't isn't a matter of being "good/bad" or "better/worse", it simply is what is more important to you given your situation and circumstances. It was important enough to us that we made certain plans and choices *long before we ever had children* in order to make it happen. Can just anyone up and go the sahp route because they suddenly feel it's important? Probably not. But if one plans and works toward getting into any *other* career field, why should a sahp be any different in that respect? (Apart from the cooperation needed from ones spouse in order to do so that is ;)

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-13-2005 - 2:22am

*Chuckle* It would, but that isn't something that either of us would ever consider. The only reasons that we would divorce ae abuse or infidelity, and that isn't something that either of us would do. I know that sounds idealistic and naieve, but you don't know us :)

But yes, in the event of a divorce, I would woh. With alimony and child support to supplement my income ;)

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Sun, 02-13-2005 - 6:22am

Actually, it's not true, then, if he's really a computer geek. For one thing, the time has long since passed when software computer geeks are completely hirable for hardware computer geek jobs; the computer industry has long since split into hardware/software specialties with knowledge sets and skills that simply are NOT transferrable back and forth....at least not at the higher end of employability. At the entry level, maybe (but not so much there either anymore), but heck my son without a computer degree and 4 years out of high school has long since passed that point.

Second of all, you (as a family could not pick and choose "just anywhere" to go because too many places here on the east coast (and on the west coast as well, but I don't live there) seek people with very specific skills...and often times requiring a clearance as well.

Your post may have been true in the 80s...and even into the mid/late 90s, but hasn't been true for quite some time--at least not in the DC, NYC, Boston, Silicon Valley, LA or San Diego areas.

Karen

"A pocketknife is like a melody;
sharp in some places,
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Sun, 02-13-2005 - 6:40am

Nice try, but unless you're living on one of the coasts, or a big city (an actual big city, not just the biggest city in your county), an hour's commute is NOT considered "reasonable commuting distance" in the majority of middle America.

My parents live in Bloomington/Normal, IL, which is basically a college town surrounded by farms until you hit Peoria or Champaign (depending on your direction of travel). Back in the day when I was a bit more serious about seeking employment in IL, I looked at jobs in Peoria, thinking I could commute easily from Normal (only 35 miles, which is what I travel NOW for the job I have). To me, it seemed reasonable (and honestly, even living in Peoria isn't that expensive; I was seeking to live closer to my folks) but to people FROM those areas, you might as well have said I was planning to commute from Boston...or possibly the moon. It was inconceivable to them that I might work in Peoria or Champaign and commute from B/N. As my realtor said, "If you already had a home in Normal and suddenly found work in Peoria, maybe, but why would you *deliberately* choose Normal if you were planning to work in Peoria."

The whole commuting thing? That's what "big city" people do and it's the quality of life issues that folks in smaller towns and the far out burbs count as happy to give up.

An hour's commute in the midwest and other middle America areas is NOT considered "fairly reasonable"...heck 30 minutes is considered outrageous. You may have actually moved to the small burb like you say, but you're still thinking like you live on one of the big coasts.

Karen

"A pocketknife is like a melody;
sharp in some places,
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Sun, 02-13-2005 - 6:46am

I don't even think Hollie is suggesting 1 hour commutes don't happen (or even *shouldn't* happen), but like her, I'm questioning (strongly) the idea that they are considered "fairly reasonable" commutes in the same areas where a family of 4 can live comfortably on $37K/year.

I believe there ARE areas where families can live comfortably on $37K/year.

I believe there ARE areas where a 1 hour commute is considered "fairly reasonable".

I just don't happen to believe that the two areas EVER co-exist. See what I mean?

If the OP truly DOES live in a place where $37K/year is a comfortable income, she is NOT living in an area where an hour commute is fairly reasonable. Seems to me the OP needs to organize her thoughts and try to remember what it is, exactly, she's really trying to argue because to someone listening, her argument is rapidly losing credibility as she tries to describe a 'typical situation."

Karen

"A pocketknife is like a melody;
sharp in some places,
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Sun, 02-13-2005 - 7:00am

So just how sleep deprived IS your dh?

I live 35 minutes from work and have a 1 hour commute. I work from 7:30 to 4pm. I leave the house at 5:55am to be at work by 7am (if I leave that half hour later, my commute takes an additional 30 minutes, making me a half hour late).

In order to leave by 5:55am, I must be up by 4:30am (shower, feed the cats and fish, pack breakfast and lunch and snacks (I'm diabetic controlled with diet and exercise, so I have to eat regularly all day and it's a bazillion times cheaper to pack my own than buy downtown), tidy up the kitchen, make the bed, change, and whatever makeup I may or may not choose to wear that morning (usually no makeup but it's been known to happen--after the furious debates last week, I broke down and wore some eyeshadow Friday when I had oodles of time left over in the am)). To wake up by 4:30am, I *really* ought to be in bed by 8:30, but I usually push it at least an hour later to 9:30..and by Friday, I can feel the deficit mounting. Now, my morning routine provides a good deal of dawdling time--I like an unrushed prep for the workday--dates back to my night shift days where I was up by 6pm (after 8 hours of undisturbed day sleep, waking naturally without use of an alarm, MAN those were the days) but didn't have to leave for work until 10pm. So I know lots of folks who are a bit more focussed in their morning routines and don't really need the 85 minutes I take.

Let's say 60 minutes, then for a typical morning wake routine of a worker who has no kids to make ready.

If your dh gets home around 4pm and has a 45 min to an hour commute, the EARLIEST possible moment he can leave work is 3:15pm. (or 1515 to make the visual math a bit easier on me). Subtract 8.5 to 9 hours (counting lunch, depending on 30 to 60 minutes) means he has to be AT WORK by 6:15 to 6:30am. And subtract an hour from THAT (commute time) means he has to leave the house around 5:15am. Which means he has to be UP by 4:15/4:30am.

Now, if your child isn't going to bed until 9pm and presuming your dh isn't in b ed the very second your child is in bed.....just how much sleep is your dh getting?

Karen

"A pocketknife is like a melody;
sharp in some places,
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 02-13-2005 - 7:01am

I think it really can depend on the area. In many parts of middle American a one hour commute may not be considered a "reasonable commuting distance" but something that many people do. I grew up in Michigan about an hour from Detroit. Many people work in Detroit/surrounding suburbs because that is where the jobs (especially the higher paying ones) are but do not want to live there. My dad had a one hour commute from 1970 until he retired. Those that live more rurally that have even longer ones. It was almost a status symbol to have that long commute because that means that you got a job at one of the "good" factories that paid well and had great benefits rather then at one of the little factories that paid squat.

An hour commute was also fairly common where I lived in Oklahoma. I loved in a small town of 25,000 people and many commuted to the "big city" about 45 mintutes away. Again those more rural would have a longer commute. Altus Ok, is just the type of town that a family can live on $37,000 as we did on much less.

Edited 2/13/2005 7:05 am ET ET by texigan




Edited 2/13/2005 7:07 am ET ET by texigan
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2004
Sun, 02-13-2005 - 7:10am

Spiritual fulfillment is a need. Maybe not a basic one needed for survival, but a need nonetheless.

Here is Maslov's hierarchy of needs. The problem I have with your argument is that you're basing it on the very bottom of the need pyramid. Some of us have actually progressed to the top levels.

mom_writer

1. Physiological: hunger, thirst, bodily comforts, etc.
2. Safety/security: out of danger.
3. Belonginess and Love: affiliate with others, be accepted.
4. Esteem: to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition.
5. Cognitive: to know, to understand, and explore.
6. Aesthetic: symmetry, order, and beauty.
7. Self-actualization: to find self-fulfillment and realize one's potential.
8. Transcendence: to help others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2004
Sun, 02-13-2005 - 7:13am

Yes, I do think in terms of what is necessary beyond mere survival. Why shouldn't I? It certainly doesn't make me "spoiled."

mom_writer

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Sun, 02-13-2005 - 7:26am

I completely disagree; you are dismissing all education as nothing more than the building in which it is acquired and nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is a "bad education" is no education at all...or possibly worse than no education. someone without an education can still get one. A person with a bad education has been cheated. You might just as well try to suggest that a child fed a diet of slim Jims, Ramen and diet soda has had the need for food met...under the mistaken impression that all that is required of food is that it contain calories, but nutients are a 'want." The only education is a good education. While I would agree that one does not need a formal school in which to acquire the education (which must, by definition be good, otherwise it's nonexistant), the argument that an education that is mediocre is acceptable on a "need" definition is simply ridiculous.

Karen

"A pocketknife is like a melody;
sharp in some places,

Pages