Working for Lifestyle/Extras

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-22-2005
Working for Lifestyle/Extras
3621
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Wed, 11-29-2006 - 11:54am

"Regardless, you specifically agreed that your gov. encourages the dual-wohp family. From # 389:
<>"

Um, well, perhaps you weren't aware of this little known fact but...not all women are part of dual-wohp families. Some women don't have children, some women aren't married, some women may have grown-up children. I was specifically referring to policies that encourage women (regardless of their marital status or whether they have children). The government would like as many people working as possible (a goal that, incidently, the U.S. government would happily aim for as well). It's pretty straight-forward: with more people working, there is a larger tax base, an important consideration in countries with the problem of an aging population. There are also policies in place to encourage people to work until age 70.

Two of the most important policies that have provided the most incentive have absolutely nothing to do with dc or parental leave: 1) individual taxation and 2) individual pension schemes. In other words, each person is taxed as an individual, which makes it more advantageous for a couple to have two decent incomes rather than one very high income. In addition, there is no such thing as a "widow's pension", each person has to earn his/her own pension (unlike social security in the US, which a spouse can collect regardless of whether he/she ever paid a dime into the system). Many would argue that those two policies are actually rather more fair to all than the joint taxation/widow's pension policies that are currently in place in the US and some European countries.

"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%"

Well, if you look very carefully at the graph you'll notice that there are actually two lines on the graph: one representing mothers with children under the age of 6 (62.8% of whom are in the labor force) and one representing mothers with children ages 6-17 (77.8% of whom are in the labor force). Quite a number do work part time. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Quite a number of mothers in Sweden work part time as well (about 20-25%, if I recall correctly).

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 11-29-2006 - 11:55am

Congratulations on your project.

I agree that vanity or the need for recognition/ambition are things that may not be easily satisfied without a job (or a significant volunteer position). I just don't think that vanity or the need for recognition/ambition = intellectual curiosity or stimulation.

I've sah and I've woh, and I've been happy and stimulated doing both. I've had an interesting career, but for me, no job I've ever had has been as stimulating as school. That's probably why I ended up working at a university and why I would always seek out other things that interest me outside of work, even if I didn't.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2003
Wed, 11-29-2006 - 11:57am
I am ashamed to admit that the hearts of all the males in my household leap up at the prospect of Tater Tots.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2003
Wed, 11-29-2006 - 12:03pm

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 11-29-2006 - 12:04pm
I did not claim that ambition=intellectual stimulation. My point was that quite apart from the intellectual stimulation, ambition was also a factor for some of us in the decision to WOH.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 11-29-2006 - 12:09pm
ROFL, well, then they might appreciate these wonderful new recipes. Bon Appetit! ;)
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-24-2006
Wed, 11-29-2006 - 12:21pm

"I think this is the only country in the world where both parents feel like they "have to work". I don't think this SAHM vs WOH debate would ever come up anywhere else cuz it's not even an issue. Most women stay home with their kids in every part of the world but here. It's just a given."

I was trying to find who posted this statement, but the thread is too long! So I´ll post my response here if you don´t mind. This person obviously hasn´t left America in a long time. Come to Spain, and then you´ll see how many moms WOH. Very few stay at home, but not because we love to work. Sure, there are women with careers who love their jobs, but we have cleaning ladies, shop keepers, factory workers, etc... that work out of NEED. Not everyone has a great economy so they can choose whether to work or not. Someone in another board told me a long time ago that if you can´t SAH you shouldn´t have kids; if that was the case here, Spain wouldn´t have any citizens left in about 60 more years, cuz NO ONE practically would have kids.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-13-2006
Wed, 11-29-2006 - 12:24pm
Didn't you mention in another post that you were a secretary in a hospital?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2000
Wed, 11-29-2006 - 1:15pm

Actually, we don't have to pay for our crabs - we go crabbing off our neighbor's pier every summer and have a feast for free! LOL You are definitely correct about the tuition though, and if what the Crapitol articles say are true, I'm very glad we have our kids there rather than the public school pipeline where AMS is rated as the most violent in the county and AHS isn't getting much good publicity these days either!

Yes, love Lights on the Bay! We try to go every year - I don't think you are ever too old!

We actually won dinner at a waterside table at Carrol's Creek for the Eastport Parade of Lights - we bid on it at the St. M's auction with another couple. We usually take the kids to that, but this year, it will be a nice evening out with friends instead!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2000
Wed, 11-29-2006 - 1:20pm

It was a compliment :)

I think I stated though "if your kids were in school" in my post so I would imagine in that case, the parenting type interruptions would be pretty minimal!

I'm planning to go back to work close to full time (if not full time) once the kids are all in school, but I'm thinking it sure would be nice to have at least a few months of SAHM/kids all in school just to accomplish some projects that have been put off way too long for the same reason - I can't get anything done when I'm constantly being interrupted!

Pages