Are (American) women materialistic or simply realistic?...

Publish or perish, yup. My husband just got an assistant professor position that he'll start in the fall, then we hold our breaths for tenure, then can finally relax a bit.

Is there any possibility of your husband being the full-time parent? It sounds like the situation you describe is not just about how you first framed it -- money, benefits. Working in academe has its own specific challenges. It's very difficult to drop out of the academic world and then get back in. I've been a single parent in a lot of ways, to be hyperbolic -- my husband works 70-hour weeks and travels a ton to give talks all over the world. It would have been impossible for him to be a full-time parent and achieve what he has.

So, maybe your husband is the one who can do it, if you want to have kids.

Overall, I very much agree that as long as you have time biologically, wait. Plan. Save. I had my daughter when I was 30, after I had created my own agency, directed it for a few years, cemented a professional reputation, and made a high enough (though not so high) salary that I could live on half of it and squirrel the rest away for later. That is what worked best for me.

0 Replies

As I stated before you have to make compromises. We moved when we had children so that our commute would be within what we considered a reasonable amount of time and also be closer to my parents so that we could have proper care for my children. As a result, we own a condo instead of a house. Home prices being more expensive the closer you are to the city. We decided it made more sense than commuting over an hour considering we want to spend time with our children and like now, once in school, you need to pick them up by 6:00. Would I love to have a 3 or 4 bedroom home, yes, but it was more important to have the time with my children-that was my compromise.

Sozobe has a great thought for compromise. It really is a matter of what you are willing to give up. You have to sacrifice when you have children, even if you have a spouse making a good wage with benefits. Children take lots of patience, attention and completely change your life in ways you can only imagine after you have them. But in my opinion, the rewards which you cannot put a price on far outweigh all those compromises and sacrifices.

By the way, I had my children at 35 and 39. I had no difficulty getting pregnant, being pregnant or giving birth. And I have no choice now but to remain active as one is a toddler and the other pre school age. I do not feel or look even close to my age - I actually get carded on a rare occasion - so the stress and my children have only helped in keeping me young.

0 Replies

Syracusa ...... actually when I was telling about the German girl, It was more of a comment on "her". I am absolutely sure the majority of European women are not like that. Smile

I find European men/women quite charming.

I think with her it has more to do with the way she was raised by her parents cause quite frankly.....she's pretty darn' spoiled :wink:

0 Replies

Geez Syracusa, you assume to much about American woman. Shocked

I won't lie to you and say having enough money for more comforts isn't preferable. It is. But having more money isn't about a wealthy spouse for the gals I know who have worked their butts off, sacrificed their youth being focused in pursuit of financial freedom. If financial freedom is what you want, then you can have it, (you don't need a spouse to give it to you) BUT THERE IS A BIG PRICE. (If it were EASY, then I'm sure EVERYBODY would do it.)
I struggled for 10 long years, through robbery, lags in the industry, bad debt, high risk, tax changes and STRESS!! (Sometimes I thought it would be the END of me.)
Yes, it may appear on the surface, some people seem to have it easy, but if you knew the intimate details of their financial life, I think you would be amazed. Not everything is how it seems. NOT by a LONG SHOT. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I am what most here think of as older, but myself think of as a few minutes older than most posters. My experiences do encompass women here only having few places to work after college, those being as teachers, nurses, wait, I can't remember the third. A lot of careers were essentially closed to women when I was in college, in the early sixties.

I speak up to address my old self in retrospect. I never cared about money. I was used to having some and then none for a long time, because of my father's career. Possibly rather too used to it, as I have had in adulthood a certain elasticity re security, which might have been a financial fault of mine.

As I said, I never cared about money, I was way more tuned to knowing interesting people and falling in love with an interesting person, the definition of which varied, of course, as I grew up. I did marry a writer, who made spectacularly little money as I worked, but whom I say of even now, long after the divorce, that his writing was superb.

Now I am galloping to older and have no retirement, much less investments, so I see some savvy in your consideration of the long term.

Still, even now, knowing what I know, I'd select for love.

0 Replies

OK: I need to clarify the issue with "generalizing".
I AM very aware that a noticed "trend" does not mean that the behavior in question applies to ALL people in a given group (as in "All American women are concerned with marrying guys with money").
This would be a very simplistic/infantile view.

As a matter of fact, in my home country right now women are more likely to act like this compared to American women. They didn't use to - but they are acquiring the "gold-digging" mentality at an incredible speed.

However, I will maintain the following: the more "free-market" a society is and the more emphasis is placed on individual responsibility as opposed to state interventionism, the higher the number of women who will exhibit the "gold-digging" behavior in their relationships with men.

The negative connotation of the "gold-digging" expression aside, I find this tendency to be completely natural. Women bear, give birth to, and are expected to "mother" children. BOTTOM LINE. (...and I remind you that this "bottom line" is drawn by someone who has been indoctrinated for years with the idea that women can be/do whatever men are /do because they are more "alike" than they are "different").

Today I am convinced that women have an additional and very significant BURDEN which makes them more VULNERABLE than men, by the very nature of things. They are simply in need of some sort of support from SOMEONE, whether that SOMEONE is a husband, her own family or an interventionist state (who would pass laws to give the stay-at-home mom a stipend, or secure her job until she comes back from "mothering the infant", or guarantee her maternity leaves, or pay an amount of money when the father is gone - SOME SORT OF HELP).

Yet, women today are ALSO expected to be "self-sufficient" and that boils down to competing in the "free-market" economy side by side with men and pretending that the "burden" is not there. That "it doesn't mater" all that much. ("YOU CAN DO IT!!!").

Few today want to call the "spade a spade" and admit that women are simply more VULNERABLE than men because of their biology and the ideology of "mothering".
Although I consider myself a feminist, I believe that the kind of "free-market" feminism that has been promoted in western countries such as US and England since the 1960's is not doing women any favors.
Women and men are NOT the same, I would even get so "politically incorrect" to say that they are not even EQUAL - simply because women carry the burden of children; and this is not an insignificant burden.
What kind of "EQUALITY" is that?
They may have equal "WORTH" as human beings (well...I would even go so far to say that women are worth more because they GIVE LIFE whereas men have been the ones who TAKE lives...but that's just my own little philosophy and "another story").

But for their daily living - women ARE in need of more help than men; and NO, the "free-market" capitalist society does not suit women as well as it suits men - unless they agree that their goal in life should be to catch a man who wil do well in the "free-market"/"survival-of-the-fittest" economy (...which in turn leads to the "survival-of-the-prettiest" among women...and the acompanying cat-claws).

To simply assume that as a woman I will be able (or even interested) to rotten in an office from morning to evening just like my male colleagues do and put all my time and energy into all sort of dry projects when I know my kid is home on his/her own and my house is a mess - is not only WRONG but is giving women the insane idea that they can "do it all" because in America - man or woman - you can be "whatever you want to be" and can always make it "on your own".

This type of thinking only ends up assigning me - as a woman - two jobs instead of one! I must play by "men's rules" when I compete with them at work and I also must do the mom thing and do it darn well..(because I WANT TO do it well!!!) ...and all the enormous work that comes with it - all during the little time that is left in the day.
I have no desire to work twice as much and exhaust myself my entire life just to prove that I can be "self-sufficient" and that I do not need to marry "for money".

I am just using a rhetorical example to illustrate why so many women prefer to be mothers and just be married to a "good provider".
They may not "state" that this was their marriage criteria - but they show it in deeds. I personally know at least 4-5 women who have done just that.

They are now stay-at-home moms (not a worry in the world!), doing what they obviosuly like to do, while I am going frantic over how I am going to "make it" in this society without daring to want things "handed down to me on a silver platter".

0 Replies

syracusa, you have lots of good points, but you keep up with the generalizations. You may not mean them -- you may mean something more specific -- but why not just be a bit more careful with your phrasing and not have to keep coming back and saying, "That's not what I meant"?

For example, I, as a stay-at-home mom, most emphatically do have worries in the world. It is an incredibly challenging job. I was a professional, a career woman, before becoming a mother, and gained a lot of my identity and self-worth from that. I wasn't "rotting" in an office; I was the director of a bustling, successful agency that I created, with 8 employees and 50 clients at any given time. It was extremely stressful, and also extremely rewarding.

To go from that to being stuck in the house with a newborn who needed me 24/7, to being grateful for two consecutive hours of sleep, to having no time to converse with other adults, to managing to shower being a major accomplishment -- THAT was difficult. And it has remained hugely difficult. Again, I am not married to some high-roller. He's a postdoc! You're in academics, you know what that means. We have to watch every single penny. I never buy something without doing careful calculations and tradeoffs. ("Hmm, OK, I'll spend the $10 here but that means I won't be able to get _____.")

While it is a fantastic opportunity, and I am grateful, and I love my daughter dearly, it is also in many ways one of the most difficult stretches of my life. "Not a worry in the world?" Bah!

That's just one point.

My second point is that while, yes, I know what you mean, and there are several new books on the subject, "The Mommy Myth" comes to mind, you are again generalizing. I mentioned before that I have a friend who is a stay-at-home dad. His wife is a doctor. She supports the family, he makes no money at all. Everyone -- dad, mom, kids -- is fine with that.

Again, is there a possibility of your husband staying home? If not, why not?

0 Replies

I'm a male, socialize in the same educational level/environment in the northeast US as syracusa and have run into exactly the same attitude she describes. I think it is useful to keep in mind that in a culture economy that emphasizes education/consumerism/and a capital intensive economy, children are a liability. They have to be supported and educated by their parents with no expected return. This is the revers of more traditional cultures where children are expected to contribute to the household they are members of. As a result adults in the US have fewer children, the native born population in this country is below the replacement level demographically, and females tend to place a greater emphasis on the earning capacity of males. As one women told me directly (and she was in her forties) she would not date me because she was looking for a "rich white male" (I'm white and male but definitely not rich) and that I had better get used to it because that was reality.

0 Replies

syracusa,

I've been watching this thread from the middle ground - the UK is more socially supportive than the USA: unemployment benefit, child benefits, family tax credits and (last but not least, despite its shortcomings) a functioning National Health Service, funded by taxes.

Other European countries and your country of origin (I don't know which one but I can be confident about this point) are more Socialist than the UK, and place child (and parental?) care in the domain of public interest, thereby making life easier for those who choose to take time out of careers to raise their children.

This depends on the society agreeing to the principle that everyone pays taxes in order to benefit those who need the help, at any given point in time. It's a contract between "the state" and "the individual" which does not seem to be politically acceptable in the USA.

I therefore understand why you cry out against the environment in which you find yourself. It's not the society in which you expected to live when you grew up. Some of the counter arguments are based in experience of "free markets" since youth and are therefore more accepting of its disadvantages.

Like you (I'm about to be 33, so we're of the same generation), I grew up to believe that men and women should be given equal opportunities. I would love to say that men were equally willing/socially able to take the burden of child care. We can't do the pregnancy or breast feeding bit but surely (most!) fathers are likely to be more interested in (therefore better at) caring for their own child than AN Other.

I am becoming increasingly aware, in my adult life, that being the provider is more likely to be my role than the child care giver. I hope I have enough time to experience the young lives of the children I hope to have though I accept the probability of the matter is that the mother of my (hypothetical) child is more likely to be the one who stays at home for some time.

Given that I tend to be attracted to women who are highly intelligent and professional (i.e. those I consider my "equal" - don't like gold diggers!) I know how these issues can play out in reality... and how difficult many of my female friends/colleagues find this balance to manage.

sozobe asks "is there a possibility of your husband staying home?". I think that more should be made of the rights/equality issues of men being child carers and women being providers - otherwise, how can we rank equally? It may not be for the majority but it should not be just women who have to accept the "burden" of parenting.

In summary - I feel real solidarity with you on this and hope you can work out a solution that makes you feel comfortable. soz seems to have managed it.

"No one ever said life was easy" - as we're beginning to discover!

KP

0 Replies

kitchenpete wrote:

I am becoming increasingly aware, in my adult life, that being the provider is more likely to be my role than the child care giver. I hope I have enough time to experience the young lives of the children I hope to have though I accept the probability of the matter is that the mother of my (hypothetical) child is more likely to be the one who stays at home for some time.

IMO, this is much more the issue than where any particular nation sits on the capitalist-socialist scale.

The role of women has changed drastically over the last two or so generations yet the "norms" of expectations for mothers and fathers roles haven't really changed with it. Women are still generally expected to be the primary care provider for the children and men are expected to work outside of the home.

I haven't read the book Soz mentioned ("The Mommy Myth") but I suspect the crux of the book is that woimen have been sold a bill of goods and in many ways they have. They've been told "You are equeal to any man!" and we've changed laws and social institutions to reflect that. Many women have stepped into those new roles and yet we haven't changed our basic outlook on child-rearing. Women are still expected (by default on account of their gender) to raise the children and courts lag behind and still give automatic preferences to women when it comes to issues like divorce and child custody (something which is finally slowly changing).

But "equeal" implies a balance and while women have assumed more roles in society men haven't (both the fault of men and a reluctance on the the part of some women to relinquish things) been allowed to move into the roles traditionally filled by women.

0 Replies

Acquiunk

Thanks for helping me out here - I KNOW there is something along "those lines" going on in society - generalization or not. A TREND does exist.

Sozobe,

Not really. Even if my husband would make a good stay-at-home parent
(though I am not sure he would be able to do the kind of job that I would like to do with my kids) - this would not be a good idea. As "little" as he makes - he is still 8 years older than I am, has more work experience, so he IS THE ONE who makes more money in the family; plus I will never have a really lucrative profession. I can see how the female physician would be able to support a stay-at-home dad - but I am not a "physician". I'll just be a "doctor" - with all the "glory" and none of the "goodies". So no, this is not an option for us either. He's going to be the main provider in the family regardless.

kitchenpete wrote:

This depends on the society agreeing to the principle that everyone pays taxes in order to benefit those who need the help, at any given point in time. It's a contract between "the state" and "the individual" which does not seem to be politically acceptable in the USA.I therefore understand why you cry out against the environment in which you find yourself. It's not the society in which you expected to live when you grew up.

Kitchenpete,
You are right. It is obvious that I am frustrated, I am yet to get over the "bitching" stage. :wink: I guess many American women (the "do-it-alls") were born into this and like you said, they just know (gut level) that THIS IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. ("It's a contract between "the state" and "the individual" which does not seem to be politically acceptable in the USA").

But you know...in Europe people believe in "smelling the roses" too as they pass through life, at least here and there. The fact that now I am suddenly faced with a life where "rose-smelling" is not part of the picture (only "making it") makes me mad. Hence the rants. Smile

On the other hand...I DID grow up with a professional working mother who "did it all" and then some. Like most women under state socialism, she had to work full-time her entire life. However, unlike many women then, she happened to have a high-stress, high-responsibility job, just like my father's; they had the same job title in the same industry.
Most women could take advantage of all those "socialist goodies" (leaves of absence, etc) but she could not.
Then she came home and - WITHOUT all the fancy domestic appliances and store-bought ingredients that western housewives enjoyed - she had to keep the house, cook from scratch for an unbelievably demanding husband who would not move a finger to help, and mind 3 kids.

What became of her? She is a wreck now in retirement - she LOOKS like a wreck...but more than anything (what scares me to death) she is emotionally destroyed because of her son (my brother) who failed completely in life. That includes delinquency, drugs, high-school drop out, etc. He is the direct result of none of the parents being around, a spoilt, difficult father and an overworked mother with a stressful full-time job and a heavy household to keep.

So my mom had to do what I see is required of the "do-it-all" American women today; and this is exactly what I want to avoid. Only that most of the American women do not have to deal with the kind of husband my mom had to deal with.
That's the only part where the feminist vociferations helped!! It reminded men that they are not "NATURALLY" entitled to use and abuse. And THAT'S good.
I once read a line on a forum saying that all in all, "American men are probably the best men in the world". And all in all, I have to agree. (They have become that thanks to feminism -...which Eastern Europe has never seen).

Thanks everyone for your posts. Smile

0 Replies

Syracusa - I also do not see this as a trend. How do you come by your analysis? Only by personal experience I suspect. If anything the trend is otherwise, as any stats show that more women are going onto higher education, more women are seeking careers, more women are self-sufficient, etc.

I do not understand your thoughts on a burden that makes women more vulnerable than men. What is this burden? A similar maternity leave is also available to men, called paternity leave. Also, at my place of business, the primary care giver is the one who gets three months paid, so this can be the father or the mother depending on who is classified as a primary care giver. In addition, several dads are staying home. Depending on each spouse's income, the type of work and the benefits, many couples have found out that it is more advantageous for the dad to stay home. In my case, and the majority of families I know that both parents work, they share in all duties, so I still cannot understand the burden you speak of.

You keep saying vulnerable. I do not feel vulnerable at all and do not understand about being more vulnerable than men. The only difference I experienced is the pregnant stage and for me it was really only being tired toward the end as I had no morning sickness and I did not miss one day of work for either of my pregnancies. Second the actual giving of birth and lastly if you nurse, the additional burden of nursing and pumping at work-which is a small burden for a year or less.

There is also nothing that says staying at home or working is preferred, just different. There is no push for either way. It is a choice that parents can make. There are no rules or laws saying you have to do one or the other. I know stay at home moms, stay at home dads and dual working families. Other than a few individuals who feel adamantly one way or another, most are respectful of whatever position you take.

I am not in any more need of help than my husband. Actually my husband is in need of more help than me, but that is another issue. What help do I need? Please explain, because I must be missing out of something.

Why is working in an office rotting? Office jobs can be fulfilling. If an office job is not for you then get another job. And why would you child be home on his own? Wouldn't you get proper care for your child? You would be charged with neglect leaving a child alone. And why is your home a mess? You do not clean it? And why is the woman doing it all? The husband helps in today's society. All the women I work with that have children and the men too - both spouses clean. Women do not do it all (unless they are single parents), but couples do it all. And if your kids are older so they can be home alone, why aren't they chipping in and helping clean up? My 18-month-old even puts her own clothes away in the hamper after I change her.

There are no men's rules, couples do this together, if your husband would be unwilling to pull his share then it is an issue in your marriage, nothing to do with society. By the way, the men in my company with families also take advantage of flex time including flexible working hours, shorten work weeks, etc. We compete as women on an even playing field. They want to be at home and see their children as much as us women do.

Well, the way you sound, I suggest you divorce your husband and marry a wealthy man. It seems this is the only way you will be happy. Good Luck.

And by the way, it is not true that stay at home moms have not a worry in the world. Please ask some. They worry about money, they worry about their children, they worry about having an adult conversation, they worry about not being interesting to their husbands, but I see sozobe is a better source for these worries. I truly believe it is more difficult to be home 24/7 with a small child than working full time. At least I can go to the bathroom by myself when I am at work without having some one scream that they need something.

Funny acquiunk I am a woman working in the northeast - full time professional and a mom of two and I do not get that type of attitude.

0 Replies

I'm an anthropologist and Syracusa is having what we might call a "field experience" She is have to learn a new culture, a new set of rules and assumption. She like an ethnographer, is acutely aware that there are rules and assumption that most of us, who having grown up in the culture, have internalized and do not question and therefore are not aware of them. They form the background to how we assume the world works. Therefore I take her observations seriously because having to learn a new culture she has a ask the meaning and purpose of things where as we do not. Her observations also agree with some of my own. I do not think they can be generalized to all social classes or to all individual within a social class but I think she has put her finger on a phenomena that has a real existence. In a related subject there is a Harvard Sociologist named Putnam who Fishin has discussed on another thread. He has a book out, "Bowling Alone", that you might want to read.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

If anything the trend is otherwise, as any stats show that more women are going onto higher education, more women are seeking careers, more women are self-sufficient, etc..

By "trend' I simply meant that a "significant" number of women tend to behave like this, not that the MAJORITY of women behaves like this. After all, how could "the majority" of women set such a goal for themselves when the majority of men today could not support them at home even if they wanted to!! There are only so many men out there who have high incomes.

Linkat wrote:

A similar maternity leave is also available to men, called paternity leave. Also, at my place of business, the primary care giver is the one who gets three months paid, so this can be the father or the mother depending on who is classified as a primary care giver. In addition, several dads are staying home. Depending on each spouse’s income, the type of work and the benefits, many couples have found out that it is more advantageous for the dad to stay home. In my case, and the majority of families I know that both parents work, they share in all duties, so I still cannot understand the burden you speak of.

Check the stats to see what percentage of men takes advanatge of parental leaves when this is available? And how many say that they would want to be stay-at-home dads? There's one thing what the policy of a government or company is - it's another thing what's actually happening in the culture (see the explanations of Mr. Acquiunk, the anthropolgist).

Linkat wrote:

You keep saying vulnerable. I do not feel vulnerable at all and do not understand about being more vulnerable than men.

I do.

Linkat wrote:

There is also nothing that says staying at home or working is preferred, just different. There is no push for either way. It is a choice that parents can make.

I'd like to have the choice of staying at home while children are young. I do not have thins choice.

Linkat wrote:

There are no rules or laws saying you have to do one or the other. I know stay at home moms, stay at home dads and dual working families. Other than a few individuals who feel adamantly one way or another, most are respectful of whatever position you take.

I agree - all these forms of work are equally worthy of respect.

Linkat wrote:

I am not in any more need of help than my husband. Actually my husband is in need of more help than me, but that is another issue. What help do I need? Please explain, because I must be missing out of something.

I already did. But you don't seem to experience those things as a "burden". Minor exmaple: I do not look forward to commuting 3 hours every day to work while pregnant, heavy, bloated, sick and bitchy; and this is just a minor example.
I also happen to be one of those people who believe that children need step by step supervision and education every day(done not just by schools but also by a parent). If you want them to come out "right". And it is usually the mother who is better at this. The father would most probably end up watching TV with the kids while I would perhaps use that time to teach them to speak freakin' French or something. Just 'cause I think French is better than TV.

Linkat wrote:

Why is working in an office rotting? Office jobs can be fulfilling. If an office job is not for you then get another job.

Doing all I can but like I mentioned in my earlier posts there is a vicious cycle in academia: Office job sucks --> get another type job.
Academic job = publications. Publications = time. Time = money. Money = time. No time available. No publications. No tenure. No benefits. Back to adjunct teaching. Horrible pay, no benefits. Back to office job.

Linkat wrote:

And why would you child be home on his own? Wouldn’t you get proper care for your child? You would be charged with neglect leaving a child alone.

Day-care staff does not qualify as "proper care" for a child in my book. Plus, as I said, I would be spending my life away from my kids and in the company of some bureaucrats instead. Not good.

Linkat wrote:

And why is your home a mess? You do not clean it?

Sure I do. But after a week of getting home at 7 exhausted - you should see how the week-end house looks like. You spend your entire week-end putting things away. This is exactly the point I was trying to make.
You never get a break!!!
And I LOVE breaks! Crying or Very sad

Linkat wrote:

And why is the woman doing it all? The husband helps in today’s society. All the women I work with that have children and the men too – both spouses clean. Women do not do it all (unless they are single parents), but couples do it all.

In an ideal world. Most working married women do the largest share of housework even when they work the same amount of hours as their husbands. If you ask me how I gor this info - check the studies available oput there.
My husband for example has the best intentions about cleaning - but somehow not the skills and not "the eye". I still end up doing the bulk if I want the house to look like it should.

Linkat wrote:

There are no men’s rules... couples do this together, if your husband would be unwilling to pull his share then it is an issue in your marriage, nothing to do with society. By the way, the men in my company with families also take advantage of flex time including flexible working hours, shorten work weeks, etc. We compete as women on an even playing field. They want to be at home and see their children as much as us women do.

When I mentioned "men's rules" I referred to the rules of the workplace.
The work-world - everything that is outside of the domestic sphere.
And if you say the work world is not built on men's rules...then you gotta be kidding me!!!
As for the last part of your statement above...I just do not believe it.
Men feel more comfortable staying longer at the office because they know they are fulfilling their "provider" duties and this makes them feel better even if they get to see little Johnny later in the day. Women are still expected to have a ear, half the brain and all the heart at home even when they are in the office; and even if I were not "expected to", I would still have them there!!

Linkat wrote:

Well, the way you sound, I suggest you divorce your husband and marry a wealthy man. It seems this is the only way you will be happy. Good Luck.

Nahhh...we do love each other and get along great. We are stressed as hell nowadays but no, I won't look for the wealthy man. Smile

Too late anyway. Smile

Plus my butt has gotten from size 6 to size 10-12 in the past few years (see the stress) and wealthy men don't stomach size 10-12 butts. They prefer the 4-6. :wink:

Linkat wrote:

And by the way, it is not true that stay at home moms have not a worry in the world. Please ask some. They worry about money, they worry about their children, they worry about having an adult conversation, they worry about not being interesting to their husbands, but I see sozobe is a better source for these worries. I truly believe it is more difficult to be home 24/7 with a small child than working full time. At least I can go to the bathroom by myself when I am at work without having some one scream that they need something.

I stand corrected here. It was a very poor choice of words when I said that "stay-at-home moms don't have a worry in the world".
What I meant is that they do not have to worry about not "being there".
They are in control over what happens to their child because they are THE ONES doing it. Easy - of course it is not!
But what is more satisfaying than working hard to raise your own offspring as opposed to someone else's petty project?
Imagine the worry that I would have from my office praying that the child was OK today in the hands of that day-care worker, baby-sitter, relative or whoever else other than myself. It would be bigger than stay-at-home mom's wouldn't it?...

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

Her observations also agree with some of my own. I do not think they can be generalized to all social classes or to all individual within a social class but I think she has put her finger on a phenomena that has a real existence.

Again, one of my generalizations - thank you for bringing up this detail. Unfortunately, it would take many web pages to discuss men-women relationships by social class, race or even age, etc.

Absolutely. This tendency is more visible among women of upper-middle class background...or physically attractive (or very attractive) women of any kind. I have noticed with my own eyes "preppy" moms that have tailored their daughters' minds in such ways that they never fail to land the 100,000+ income man! Absolutely never.
Darn Cupid and his "random" arrows...

But thanks Acquiunk for lending some support to the point I was trying to make. I sense too many women around here - raised in the liberal feminist tradition - uncomfortable with challenging any of those basic assumptions and thus constantly on the defensive.

"Women and men compete on even fields..." ...

And I am Princess Diana.

0 Replies

Syracusa, I appreciate your most recent post. It is nice and nuanced and I can focus on the stuff I agree with without being distracted by "but but but that's not true at all!!"

Again, I very much agree with aspects of what you say, especially as you say them now as opposed to the hyperbole of your first post. I think you have identified one of the central aspects -- feminism did all kinds of wonderful things, and some of those things had unintended/ unforseen consequences, and those consequences are still being figured out...

(Was interrupted, didn't finish my thought but will just submit and come back to it later...)

0 Replies

Oh, see, was sitting there half-finished on the screen so long that it's out of date. I composed it when the last response was Aquiunk's.

0 Replies

syracusa wrote:

And it is usually the mother who is better at this. The father would most probably end up watching TV with the kids while I would perhaps use that time to teach them to speak freakin' French or something.

Er... my reaction to this is probably predictable by now. :-) I very much agree with Fishin's point that part of what feminists need to do with the follow-through is to accept that men CAN be very good primary caregivers.

syracusa wrote:

Day-care staff does not qualify as "proper care" for a child in my book. Plus, as I said, I would be spending my life away from my kids and in the company of some bureaucrats instead. Not good.

The quality of daycare varies, of course, but there is some great stuff out there, and numerous studies showing that children not only survive but sometimes benefit from a daycare setting. "In the company of some bureaucrats"?

syracusa wrote:

Sure I do. But after a week of getting home at 7 exhausted - you should see how the week-end house looks like. You spend your entire week-end putting things away. This is exactly the point I was trying to make.
You never get a break!!!
And I LOVE breaks!

Linkat has said this before, I'll say it too, where's your HUSBAND in this? My husband does a big chunk of the housecleaning. This is another feminism follow-up IMO -- either make do with what your husband is satisfied with, or only be satisfied with a man who is willing to help you get a house as clean as you want it.

As for the worries, there would be worries in either situation. Stay-at-home mom or working mom. I'm sure both Linkat (working) and I (stay-at-home) can attest to that.

And in terms of being defensive, I think this is an interesting issue, have discussed it at length right here on this forum, and have explicitly agreed with many of the major points. There are blatant overstatements and internal logical contradictions that I am taking issue with, though. Like Aquiunk, I have many friends who are in the academe, who are from and/ or who currently live all over the world. The women who are ambitious, even if they can financially, do not take time off of work to raise their kids. It is too dangerous in terms of achievement. This is not unique to the United States, and IS especially true of academic disciplines.

So, while you are blaming the US environment -- which certainly has major, major problems -- the more specific problem is your field. Publish or perish is a unique kind of 24-hour stressor.

Finally, what both Linkat and I are reacting to most strongly I think, is your vision of motherhood and what it should be like. No matter what, it is tough. Period. From what you say, you would find the notion of having a nanny do the day-to-day stuff while you swan around drinking cocktails abhorrent, right? So that means you're going to be in the trenches one way or the other, and I think Linkat and I are both a bit bemused at the expectations you seem to have of how things should be.

Argh, I've been interrupted 35 times as I try to write -- my arm is being grabbed right this minute -- so not as coherent as I'd like. With more time I'd come back with more studies and more specifics.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Er... my reaction to this is probably predictable by now. :-) I very much agree with Fishin's point that part of what feminists need to do with the follow-through is to accept that men CAN be very good primary caregivers.

Feminists have not only accepted this but they have also advocated it. (Many) men have not. As long as child rearing remains an occupation that does not beget a paycheck, men will not take it. Not as a "serious" occupation. Helping - maybe. Serious occupation as in "life vocation" - NOT.

sozobe wrote:

I said this before, I'll say it too, where's your HUSBAND in this? My husband does a big chunk of the housecleaning. This is another feminism follow-up IMO -- either make do with what your husband is satisfied with, or only be satisfied with a man who is willing to help you get a house as clean as you want it.

If only life were as perfect as an economics class model - we would all be perfectly rational beings and would all have clearly cut choices that we would make with no negative consequences.
My husband has tons of great qualities and I fell for him as he is. Unfortunately, he is not as good as keeping the house as I am. He is trying but evidently his "trying" is not good enough. I can only hope he will get better at "housework".

sozobe wrote:

The women who are ambitious, even if they can financially, do not take time off of work to raise their kids. It is too dangerous in terms of achievement. This is not unique to the United States, and IS especially true of academic disciplines.

This is true.
But what about women who are NOT "ambitious"? Or those whose "ambition" is to raise the best darn kids a family can possibly raise? Thos who would like to take time off from work to raise their children but cannot do so because the family needs a second income? This is where the US environment (England, Australia, New Zealand too - to some extent) is harsher than the rest.

sozobe wrote:

From what you say, you would find the notion of having a nanny do the day-to-day stuff while you swan around drinking cocktails abhorrent, right?

Nope. Honestly I am not sure how you managed to infer this from my posts.
I believe a family's duty - rich or not - is to have at least one parent present at home with the child, as a full-time job, until they are at least 7 (if not longer). [Boy, do I sound like Dr. Laura or what... Shocked

]

Not the nanny, not somebody else. A parent! And this is usually the mom. Nurture or nature, I really don't care - most women are better at this than most men.
I would not enjoy that cocktail terribly, knowing that my kid is with the nanny instead of learning things from me. I would worry that they would end up loving the nanny more than their own mom.
I am my own perfect example. My mom was not around when I was young. Again she was the "professional woman".
The one who watched my every step and was THERE WITH ME all the time was my grandmother. There is nobody in this world that I loved or will ever love more than my grandmother. She passed away 3 years ago but I will never be able to stop worshipping the ground she walked on.
See...I did not grow in a place where women leave their children with the nanny and just go have cocktails - if their financial situation allows it.

Finally, I did not say that my argument was simple. There are contradictions - but only on the surface.
I said it before and I'll say it again: the more "free-market"/"laissez-faire" the economic system, the higher the number of female gold-diggers in society.
Clean and simple. No contradiction here.

And after all...why not ask the men to see how they feel? We already had a poster here who stated it happened to him.
In my classes all I hear from my male students is how women seem to always look for the "wallet" quality in them. It's a complaint I hear quite often.

0 Replies

Hi syracusa,

Hmmm, did you miss the word "abhorrent" in my nanny statement, or maybe you don't know what it means? I was saying, "I assume you would really NOT like the idea of having a nanny take care of the day-to-day stuff while you swanned around drinking cocktails." Your response was that no, I'm wrong, you really don't like the idea of having a nanny take care of the day-to-day stuff while you swan around drinking cocktails. Question

My points about feminism follow-up are that women -- us feminists -- need to do our parts in having men do their part. You mentioned earlier that your mother put up with things that women in more feminist societies wouldn't have to put up with. And that that is a good thing. Why do women put up with men who refuse to do their share of housework?

Meanwhile, if we are going to be demanding things of men -- like doing housework -- we have to be granting things to men -- like respecting their ability to care for children well. My husband is great with my daughter. I trust him implicitly. My friend the stay-at-home dad is great with his kids. I know many women who are much less great than they are. This is part of what fishin' said, I think, about giving up some power -- "the power behind the throne" and all that. The fallacy that only women can parent well. It's true that women can give birth a lot better than men -- and can breastfeed a whole lot better, too. But there is a whole lot more to parenting than those two things.

Again, again, again, I DO agree with many of your overriding points, and have said so from the beginning. What I disagree with is the stay-at-home moms have no worries, if the men took care of the kids they'd just watch TV all day, you probably wouldn't want a nanny right/ no you're wrong I wouldn't want a nanny stuff. It's sloppy and inaccurate. So I say so. I completely agree that while the current state of affairs in America makes sense given recent history, it needs a lot of work.

0 Replies

Are (American) women materialistic or simply realistic?...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know