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: 11-08-2006
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 5:01am

<>

You mean sort of like the false stereotype presented by another poster of "i believe all mothers belong at home", LOL!

<>

I think I said that it was only "some" sahms -- I never even implied that it was any more than that.

<>

and some choose to continue working -- many staggering their hours to maximize time with kids.....for example, I worked 6-4; their dad worked 7:30-6.....

Carole

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-08-2006
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 5:20am

<>

As a wohm, what childcare responsibilities have I abdicated??? NONE. I'm STILL the one raising my kids. Even when my kids were small and in dc or preschool, I was still the one raising them. All GOOD parents are dedicated to raising their kids. And yet, some of us consider PART of our duty to provide a nice house (no, not fancy or huge), nice neighborhood, good schools.

I'm still trying to figure out how I'm working for the "nicest things" when I've lived in the same house for 16 years and have an 11-year old Honda accord (with 166+ thousand miles)...We live in a good neighborhood with decent schools. Why is it "bad" because it had to be done on two incomes?

<>

I find that statement a crock. Sure there are some women who don't have to work, however, in many places it does take 2 wage earners to pay all of the bills. Additionally there are women (like me, LOL!) who WANT to work. Who find lots of joy and satisfaction in doing what I do AND bringing home a paycheck for it.

<>

Actually, i think statistics bear out that 70% of mothers woh. I would bet the VAST majority of those are HAVE to wohms in order to make ends meet.

<>

How can it NOT? It had everything to do with our decision to have two wage earners because the cost of living here was higher than average (in CT). OUR goal was to raise our kids near our parents and siblings so that they would grow up with extended family close by. What's WRONG with that goal? In order to do that, we needed to stay HERE.

<>

and some people NEED two incomes to make that goal of "good education" a reality. I'm not sure why mom is NEEDED home 24/7 in order to nurture her children. I managed just fine -- all the while working 40 hours per week.

<>

I'm going to guess that you've never been the primary wage-earner. I have. I was a single parent for almost 2 years. It sucked having to barely survive on one income in an area where it takes two.

<>

from everything that you've posted it absolutely does sound like you disagree with any woman's right to work and believe that all moms should sah. I think that each family can figure out what's best for that home and that family. I know that we were quite capable of making those decisions. We just chose a different path.

Carole

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-08-2006
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 5:24am

Just an FYI - many of us felt NO guilt whatsoever that our kids went/go to dc. WHY should we feel guilty? I'll never get that. I know they had a great time during the day/work-week and they spent the rest of the time with us.

what's to feel guilty about?

Carole

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 5:42am

I was wondering the same thing. If I ever felt guilty leaving my child with a caregiver, it would mean that I had to find a different caregiver. As far as I am concerned, guilt should not be a constant in that equation at all.

The first two years of dd's life, we had a grandmotherly housekeeper/sitter for dd. As the child grew, it became obvious that "grandma" was not up to the task, so we switched. For the next 3 years, we had a combination of preschool and a lady next door who watched dd 1-2 days a week. Each of those caregiver situations offered dd something I could not offer her, thus enriching her life. I see no reason to feel guilty about that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 6:02am

" . . . the OP go to the point that some people are not as dedicated to the raising of their children themselves as others are in that they are willing to abdicate that responsibility to someone else in order to provide nice or nicer or the nicest things."

That is, of course, one way of reading OP's statement, but the reading shows your prejudice.

I am quite dedicated to raising my child. Involving other people in my child's care is not an "abdication of responsibility" on my part. I can assure you that the responsibility involved in choosing good caregivers and the right schools is quite great. Also, to me, it is an integral part of my dedication to raising my child in the best way possible to have other people participate in the project. It never occurred to me to see myself as the sole or supreme caregiver for my child. I am vain, but not that vain.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 6:36am
You made the claim. Not me. If you do not want what you write up for debate, than do not pody it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 6:47am

Your original statement was the following:

"All in all, I fully believe a mom belongs in the home. I believe mother is the primary caretaker of the children. I believe motherhood is a divine calling and none other on this earth is of more import."

The context of the divine calling in that statement strongly implies that SAH is a natural and integral part of that calling. Also, the above statement is not personal and specific, it is explicitly general and sweepingly so, " a mom," "mother."

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2006
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 6:59am

Thanks for the link.

Let me ask you this. If most women in Scandanavian countries want to work instead of sah with their children, why do they stay at-home during the one and two year paid maternity leaves? Clearly, they can return to work if they wish...but not surprisingly they prefer to stay at-home with their children.

Anyway, back to the article. You are correct that a gov. providing pensions, universal healthcare, universal childcare, etc., does have <>

But you are wrong that the US has anywhere near as high an income tax rate. During the Reagan years, yes, some of the highest earners were in the 70% tax bracket! That was quickly "rectified" by the Republicans and now most of our highest earners - and everyone generally - are taxed at a much, much lower tax bracket.

That is huge. It is incumbent upon countries providing all of these things: pensions, universal healthcare, childcare, etc., to make the employment arena favorable to both parents. In fact, your article mentions governmental penalties if both parents don't work:

<>

If a gov. makes conditions extremely favorable for employment (childcare, flexible hours) and taxes the single income earner highly for these things, more mothers are likely to work. It still does not tell you what is in their heads. It can't be said that most women don't want to sah when they have young children. Maybe most mothers in Scandanavian countries prefer to eat rather than to sah. Maybe the all don't want to lose traction in their careers, something no gov. can legislate away. Who knows? You certainly can't tell from that article.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2006
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 7:05am

<> No, there are huge diffences between the two governments. Your gov. has made an environment much more conducive to mothers working, but that might not even "work" in the US where we do have many intense jobs requiring much longer hours and jobs that can't wait 1 or 2 years for the trained employee to return from paid maternity leave.

<> Not in my opinion. I'd prefer my gov. address much more important things, such as stem cell research. I prefer living here and the way our democracy and economy runs.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2006
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 7:12am

<> I don't know how many times more I can tell you before it sinks in. The unemployment rate has not been a problem here for a while. Last time I checked (about a year ago), it was about 4 - 5 %.

Percentage of mothers working went toward my argument that you can't look at Sild's numbers and conclusion about women working to determine that mothers of young children prefer to work.

Even in the US where 2 incomes are very helpful, we have more mothers at-home than Sweden. 58% (or your 63%) is still substantially less. And in the 1950s and '60s when one could live well on 1 income, we had more SAHMs than ever in this country. (Except for the 1930s).

Pages