What is the Real Issue Here?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-24-2003
What is the Real Issue Here?
72
Sun, 06-01-2003 - 8:56pm
What is the real issue about women working outside the home?? I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of people in society are angry and upset that women are working at jobs and "competing with men". And that is the REAL source of the anger. It actually has nothing at all to do with people worried about children not having a mom at home, or being in daycare. I feel the real issue is people are upset (especially in these hard economic times) that there are some women out there getting the jobs "that men are supposed to get". But who really wants to admit it? I mean, no one wants to admit to having such bigoted attitudes. So, they claim their concern is really for "the children".

By the way, lots of women HAVE to work and its not a choice. Anyways, not all jobs are that great. Do you really think that a woman working the night shift as a security guard, or working at Wal-Mart checking groceries is just doing so to fulfill her ego or something? come on! Its called SURVIVAL.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 06-02-2003 - 9:59am
That, and jealousy of women who want to work and who make a lot more than just enough to cover child care. Where there are choices, there will always be jealousy!

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

Avatar for outside_the_box_mom
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 06-02-2003 - 10:26am
No bigotry or jealousy here. I simply did not like having my child in daycare 50 hours a week. Do you have a problem with mothers who want to be home? nt
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 06-02-2003 - 1:55pm
Noone complains about dual income families "working for survival". And everyone is big hearted enough to define "survival on dual income" as "up to as much as we have on one income, but not a thread more".

The issue is that a second income can now garner a family alot more than survival. It can move a dual income family passed the socio/economic standing of another family who is functionning on only one income. Thats all it is. Noone complains about women working for survival. Never did, never will.

People who can afford SUVS on one income don't complain about people who can afford SUVs on two incomes. People who can't afford SUVs on one income do that.

The answer is all in who exactly complains about what. You are correct though, it has nothing to do with the kids.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 06-02-2003 - 6:47pm
I don't think that's the issue at all. I could care less whether it's a woman working, or a man, I just think that a PARENT should be home with the children. I don't think it's in a child's best interests to be out of their home in a large group with non familial caregivers for the better part of their waking hours each week.

IMO it's a matter of what is better. In the case of a single parent, obviously it's better for the child if the parent has a decent job and can afford housing, clothing, food, etc. SAH in poverty is not in the best interests of the child. In the case of two parents who have to work there are many creative ways to schedule in order to have both parents working lesser hours and being home as much as they can. In these cases obviously 10 to 15 hours of daycare a week is much preferable to over 40. In the case where both parents feel that they are not capable of sah with their children then a nanny, grandparent or in-home daycare with a low ratio would be preferable to a larger group or to a parent who wouldn't be happy sah.

While most of what I wrote above is applicable to older children as well as younger children, the older the child gets the better able he is to handle large group situations and multiple caregivers.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-24-2003
Mon, 06-02-2003 - 6:55pm
Poverty is definitely not in anyone's best interest.

I'm just confused about why people get outraged about women w/children, who hold down jobs. Its really not so "terrible" for a child to have a working mom. It is not necessarily true that "back in the good ol' days", moms always stayed home. In fact, less than a hundred years ago, not only moms, but CHILDREN worked - 8 hours a day, in factories. So I think we've come a long way.

I think its a terrible form of emotional manipulation to tell women "you are neglecting your kids because you work". To me, this is such a cruel thing to tell someone.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 06-02-2003 - 7:01pm
I think that's rather arrogant. Money isn't everything and not everyone cares about how much you earn. Frankly, we earn enough to live quite comfortably off of *one* income and I have absolutely no desire to spend time away from home in order to make even more money. No thanks.

We were making an even larger income just a few months ago and decided that dh's time at home was far more important than the luxuries of a large income so we took a HUGE cut in salary in order to move to a family friendly town and have dh work at a place where he could enjoy a challenging career plus have weekends off and evenings with his children. It was fairly easy to make that decision because even with the pay cut we're still pretty comfortable, but our experience showed us how little money actually matters.

I'm thankful for the fact that my dh is home for dinner nearly every night. I'm thankful that we can spend weekends together as a family. I'm thankful for my days with my children, for the opportunity to play with them, read with them, and explore the world with them. I wouldn't trade the hours I spend with my children each week for any amount of money. Why? Because we don't need it. If we needed the money because we couldn't pay the mortgage or buy food, or pay for the extras that I think are important for my kids (like piano lessons, a French tutor, etc) then I'd go to work in a second. But why on earth would I trade time with my kids for a career at this point in my children's life when it's so unneccessary?

Maybe it's because I'm still going to be relatively young when all of my kids are grown? I feel incredibly peaceful about my decision to sah and focus these years on my children. I have dreams that don't include my kids and I'm working on those slowly, while they sleep. In time I'll be able to focus more on those things, but they won't be little forever and I want to spend these years raising them. There will be time for a career later, when they're grown. Right now there is no need for me to woh and no way I'd trade these years for a million dollars.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 06-02-2003 - 7:08pm
I don't think it's 'terrible' that a woman works at all, but I do think that the decision needs to be weighed according to what's best for the children at their particular ages. If working means being able to provide the necessities and leave some extra room for breating then obviously working would be better for the children than having their parent sah. It's a matter of what is going to benefit the children more and I truly believe that money only benefits a child up to a point. We experienced that ourselves.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-03-2003 - 8:57am
It's just as important that I have a good marriage as that the kids are cared for by people who love them. DH and I want to spend as much time together as possible, and so we both work roughly regular office hours, so all 4 of us can spend time together. We are lucky that neither of us is a "second" income, but both contribute significantly to the household financially. We don't find limiting the number of hours our children are with their nanny to be of value to us.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-03-2003 - 8:58am
I think part of it is the novelty. For how many generations have women been able to work and actually support themselves fully on what they make? Obviously that's not true of all working women, but more true today than ever before.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-03-2003 - 9:00am
Well, I had my kids relatively late in life, when I had already invested almost 10 years in a professional career. I am proud of my career as well as my kids. But you're right - we do need more than my DH's income to pay our mortgage on a 2400 square foot, 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath house (not a mansion), so we are in different situations.

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

Pages