Working for Lifestyle/Extras
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 11-20-2006 - 11:13am |
Hi Ladies :)
This is my first time on this debate board and I have been dying to jump into some of the topics, but I feel as though they are sooooo long (one in particular is over 1000 replies, yikes!) that starting my own specific one might work out better.
Anyhow, a recurring theme here seems to be what Moms should and shouldn't be going to work for. It seems some are of the opinion that is OK for Mom to work if she must to pay her bills but NOT if its to afford a nice car, house, good neighborhood. This is considered keeping up with the Johnses (who are they???) and thats bad.
Well, I want to know what in the heck is wrong with a women working to have nice things? I don't mean working and leaving baby in child care 16 hours a day, everyday...thats pretty extreme.
I enjoyed a certain lifestyle before having a child, should I have downsized that lifestyle once baby came so I didn't have to work? What about me *wanting* to maintain a certain lifestyle for myself, my husband, and my child makes me a (a) workaholic or (b) striving to keep up with the Joneses?
Don't some people (like myself) simply enjoy living in a nice place with nice things and want their children to have the same experience?
So please, anyone who thinks a women is wrong for WOH if she is not doing so to financially survive but does it to maintain a certain lifestyle...whats wrong with this?
Thanks all :)

Pages
Huh? We are having some kind of communications breakdown here. It is not deeply important, but I would like to understand your POV. You seem to contrast a tax credit for childcare costs with government-run daycare system. How do you figure that the DCP does not necessarily get paid in either of those?
In the first scenario, the parents pay the DCP and receive a tax credit towards those costs. In the second scenario, the government pays the DCP directly. Either way the DCP gets paid. Are you against both, or just one of those?
<>
I'm simply saying that you are not a mind reader. You can't look at the fact that most mothers work in Scandanavia to conclude most women *prefer* to work. A lot of people work and don't want to. You cannot look only at the # of mothers working and simply conclude what is in their heads. Especially when you have economies where the dual income really and truly benefits the family.
You referenced a Poll to support your conclusion, I asked for the link, but you did not provide it. Could you provide the link?
I think it comes down to a question of finances. Even in Europe, if you don't work, you are going to have a very hard time financially. That's why the 1950's (and the 1930's before the crash btw) in the US are so helpful in trying to see what's in the minds of mothers - women in the US in the 1950s had opportunities to work and go to school...if they wanted.
When times are such that one can live well on just 1 income, then you can infer what is in the heads of many mothers. Look at wealthy moms these days - they don't work.
<> I disagree. It's extremely common throughout the US.
<> No, we did not.
<> They're trying to break the cycle of poverty among inner city dwellers and those otherwise impoverished in the US.
"Look at wealthy moms these days - they don't work."
Not at all true.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I love it, what can I say? Keep in mind that these recipes are for feeding Jim-Bob, Michelle and their 16 li'l Duggars, who all have names starting with 'J', in honor of Jesus and the family's leader, Jim-Bob.
Last year, when dd was still in the nasty habit of complaining about her rations, I made her read that site. I owe the Duggars, big and small, a profound debt of gratitude. They plain turned that little bugger right around ;). Dd now seems genuinely thankful for her lot in life, rations included.
<>
I'm having trouble with the link today. Mine opens to a page on herring! Regardless, you specifically agreed that your gov. encourages the dual-wohp family. From # 389:
<>
Even if I could get into that link (or wanted to), it wouldn't matter. You live there. You know what policies your gov. publishes. You are quite familiar with this particular public policy. You and I are in agreement - your gov. wants both parents working (after the maternity/paternity leave.)
<<"I think 75% is a little high. Do you have a source for that? I couldn't find one, just a source that 71-73% of women work, and I didn't notice if that included all women or just mothers."
Here you go:....>>
Me: I guess I'm confused now. The link you provided says that a lot less than 75% of mothers with young children in the US work. Only 58% work. Even then, only a portion of that 58% of mothers work full-time = just 40.6%
Here you go, pasted from my post #56:
"From a different article http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1573/Women_and_work.html :
"A survey carried out in EU countries in 1998, which examined the work preferences of couples with small children, found that only one in ten couples supported the traditional male-only breadwinner model. There were a few exceptions. Yet, despite this finding, the survey also found that four out of ten couples depended on one breadwinner, usually with the man going to work.""
I did not rely on mind reading at all. The above is just one poll certainly, but I am sure you could find others if you looked. As far as your argument about wealth and economics, it has now been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that in Scandinavia EVERYONE gets healthcare, all kids get full dental care, all higher education is tuition free and comes with a living grant, so if anything Scandinavian women are economically ahead of American women before they even start working.
You may try to counter that the high taxation in Europe makes it necessary for both spouses to work, but that does not necessarily hold. The higher taxation is in most cases more than outweighed by the various social benefits (as per above). In contrast, Americans pay fairly high taxes, yet get much less for them in terms of direct benefits.
As far as well-off, American women SAH, I can only say that this depends greatly on where you are and the circles in which you move.
The point of mentioning Headstart was exactly to show that preschool is not anywhere near being universal in the US. If it were, Headstart would obviously not be needed.
Pages