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

I have been reading here silently, trying like hell to have an open mind, but now I'll admit, I'm a wee bit miffed. Which is weird. I'm such a mellow person. Here's my stance on this issue...(stated in a somewhat impassioned tone I'm afraid!)

syracusa wrote:

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.

Now let me educate you. A "free-market" society gives individuals the OPPORTUNITY to acquire wealth in this country, whether you are black or white, whether you are male or female, whether you are plain or a model in training, the list IS ENDLESS. You have the freedom of choice in this country to achieve great things and there are programs especially designed for business owners WHO are female, ethnic and of a certain financial level. Our country encourages people think "out of the box" and it rewards creativity, invention, social change in the "pursuit of happiness." Are you actually saying that IF I were in a socialist country, that I would be more likely to personally reap the benefits of my idea, invention, or successful business? Or perhaps, that somehow I will be a DEEPER more thoughtful person and ONLY MARRY FOR TRUE LOVE?? Give me a break.

Some professional woman I know personally in business. My Accountant is a Woman, My Bookkeeper is a Woman, My Attorney is a Woman, and My Customer Service Manager is a Woman. I'm sure they ALL want some comfort, BUT SOMETHING FROM NOTHING EQUALS NOTHING, that is why they are smart, problem solving AND INDEPENDENT - that doesn't make AMERICAN woman MORE LIKELY to WANT a MAN WHO IS WEALTHY.

Failure is a state of mind. So is WINNING.

syracusa wrote:

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.

Bullshit. The ONLY reason you are STUCK is because you THINK you are STUCK. What? You think financial OPPORTUNITY only falls on the head of white men? Tell Oprah Winfrey that. An African American, overweight, average looking female who after 20 or so years happens to be a BILLIONAIRE. Who by the way grew up DIRT POOR. If WHAT you are DOING for INCOME isn't suited for your taste - MAKE A CHANGE. Nothing ventured, NOTHING GAINED.

syracusa wrote:

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.

Whatever! We in America come from all socio economic backgrounds. The problem I have with your statement is your assumption that the American women are BORN to their choices AND NOT capable of MAKING their OWN CHOICES, come on. EVEN YOU chose your lifestyle. You could have OPENED a school rather than TAUGHT at one, but maybe that's to COMPLEX an idea for you. Yep, that's me, a do-it-all American woman who can't "smell the roses" because MY country prohibits my earning ability. BOO HOO! When I'm on the BEACH in MAUI I'll ponder that idea for half a second, then return to REALITY!

syracusa wrote:

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.

Help! In America, if you save $5 or $10 a day, invest it in even the securest fund, after 20 or 30 years you will have amassed a savings of between $1,000,000 and $3,000,000 dollars for retirement with compound interest. You don't even need to think about this here in America. You can have it pulled out of your paycheck BEFORE it even hits your hand. I will not dispute that your mom is probably an emotional wreck BUT her finances could be in excellent shape, perhaps easing the emotional burdens of her life's challenges.

syracusa wrote:

I am soo excruciatingly tired when I come back from work that I honestly do not believe that I, persoanlly, would be able to offer a child what they trully need to be offered to grow up right - under the circumstances.
As it stands now, I never make it home earlier than 6:00-6:30pm. Many times at 7:00pm. I am having a hard time accepting that you can be a really good mother between 7:00pm-10:pm in the evening - when your energy and resources are already drained.
I get home very grumpy.

I think you said it here. It takes a hell of a lot of effort to do what you want to do in life. You sound more like a woman who wants it given to her, by her government, than a woman who wants to work for it. Why don't you think about working SMART? Forget the bloody labels. DOCTOR, PRESIDENT, CFO those labels crack me up! Sounds to me like those labels lead you to believe that something was there at the end of your journey that really WASN'T there. Before you pursued your current occupation, did you EVER BOTHER to LOOK AROUND and see if OTHER professionals in your chosen field had, what you want? OOPS!
That is NOT the GOVERNMENTS FAULT! That is YOUR FAULT!
Going about about making a better plan, executing that plan, working long hours under stress, saving money for retirement, cooking, cleaning, being a lover to your husband, maintaining a sense of self, being able to look past being grumpy, raising a family, in pursuit of financial independence is the PRICE TAG. You want it? Then I suggest you get busy and stop making excuses about AMERICA.

syracusa wrote:

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.

PLLLEASSSE! There so MANY PROFESSIONS that pay decently that allow you to work from home. With the avent of the INTERNET HOW can you THINK SO SMALL? Am I to infer from your comment that YOU FLAT OUT DO NOT WANT TO WORK AT ALL? This again and AGAIN and AGAIN is your bloody choice. Let me get this straight, you DON'T WANT to WORK at ALL because you want to RAISE your children to be MORE PERFECT, MORE LOVED, AND MORE INTELLIGENT than other children whose PARENTS WORK. FURTHERMORE, you expect the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT through the TAXES of WORKING AMERICANS to PAY FOR IT. Oh my gosh! What a great idea! Eureka!
MOREOVER -- IF the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PAY THIS THEN IT PERPETUATES A WOMENS SUBMISSIVE ROLE IN SOCIETY. Alrighty then.
If you want to LIVE in AMERICA, we have this little thing called a VOTE in our government. Get the signatures and put it on a BALLOT. Again, YOUR CHOICE.

syracusa wrote:

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.

If ALL you can SEE from WHERE YOU STAND NOW is that our GOVERNMENT perpetuates WOMEN to think like a GOLD DIGGER or BECOME ONE, then I feel sorry for our future daughters. I was kind of hoping I'd see a FEMALE PRESIDENT of the US in my lifetime. Better forget about that one. Our poor female youth will be TOO darn busy trying to LAND a WEALTHY husband, or give up altogether because financial INDEPENDENCE AND OPPORTUNITY ONLY HAPPEN TO MEN. In your scenario, IF they should happen to marry for LOVE, want to SMELL the roses or be a stay at home MOM - guess it would be useless to tell them to, make a plan, save their money BEFORE they NEED IT, keep debt low, avoid BAD debt and "think out of the box" when a challenge arises. They will ONLY be ALL USED UP and WORTHLESS at retirement, God forbid they go for it.

Look Syracusa, I respect your choice to stay at home and raise your children. However, I do not want to pay you to do this. I do not owe that to you. Being a PARENT to YOUR children does not provide any economic benefit to me. It will not enrich my life. It will enrich yours and those of your children. If I never choose to have children, should I expect to be paid there too? Why not? Because IT IS A PERSONAL CHOICE!!!
The best thing I can hope a government could PROVIDE is OPPORTUNITY AND FREEDOM TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. There is a multitude of programs (however flawed) which provide assistance in some form or another. Let's start THERE.
I do not believe ALL children with parents who work in some form become disadvantaged delinquents whose only future is poverty and crime. Do you REALLY believe that THIS would happen to YOUR children, if you changed your profession and worked at home? Why is it ALL or NOTHING? (No need to answer me here, YOU do NOT OWE me an answer, and I do not expect one.)

Your knowledge of the world should make you an example of what is POSSIBLE. Not what is NOT POSSIBLE. But hey, that's up to you.

0 Replies

jacquie wrote:

. Here's my stance on this issue...(stated in a somewhat impassioned tone I'm afraid!)

Dear jaquie,

Your stance on the issue IS impassioned. You are right. Maybe a little too impassioned. It is the reason why I will choose not to respond to the stance by "babying" every line you wrote.

I am well familiar with this type of "passion" about "limitless opportunities".
"Unless you agree that it is normal for your life (and for most people's lives) to be a frantic hell all the time until you retire - then you're wrong and stupid because we've got the "truth" in our hands and you don't."
Got ya' .

Propaganda like this I've heard before countless times. I guess I am just stupid and cannot figure out how to start that "awsome business" on the Internet while I am trying to finish a dissertation and work a full-time job so we can survive (until our "awsome Internet business" takes off to make us millionaires). Yeap...that's just me..."petty little mind, unable to think outside my petty little box".

Such grandiose, sweeping arguments are not only naive and unfounded but they sound much more like patriotic rhetoric than truth to me.
I will take dry statistics and science any time over this kind of "impassioned stance".

"If I don't end up with vacations in Hawaii it is all my fault because God knows in this country everybody has the same opportunity to do that."

At this point, I will just re-post Mr. Anthropologist's observation (a tad less "impassioned") and just leave it at that.

"She like an ethnographer, is acutely aware that there are rules and assumptions that most of us, who having grown up in the culture, have internalized and do not question and therefore are not aware of them."

Thanks.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Hmmm, did you miss the word "abhorrent" in my nanny statement, or maybe you don't know what it means?

I missed the word "abhorrent". Sorry.

0 Replies

Jacquie has just given more evidence for my point (put in a rather more grand perspective by Aquiuunk - thanks!) that the American, free-market, "if you want it you better earn it first" attitude is rather different from the attitude of many European nations.

Here we have the gulf in expectation shown up - Jacquie sees others' children as the responsibility of their parents ALONE. syracusa and I think that it is possible to view the next generation as the collective responsibility of society - thereby making possible extended leaves of absence from the workplace...because good child care is seen as being a benefit to all...mabye not in the next 20 years but thereafter, when a more educated and emotionally resilient workforce comes of age.

I'm quite sure that syracusa knows she's unlikely to get everything she wants. I've known enough women to understand that (often, not always) when they complain about something, it isn't always because they think the problem can be solved straight away - but because they have the need to share their concern and (in this instance) "grumpiness".

I think a little understanding is all that is asked for...especially as syracusa has already explained why she's so concerned that her children get what she considers best for them.

No need to SHOUT BACK IN CAPITALS - this isn't a "Commie" consipiracy to bring down the USA!

I'm fascinated by this thread - it touches on so many of the issues which really make me care: from the individual to the family to the local/ethnic/religious communtiy to society at large in our own countries to the population of the world...we are all after roughly the same ends - to make our own lives, and those of our offspring, more comfortable, fulfilling and rich in opportunity.

How we achieve this, and with how many others we cooperate in doing so, is dependent upon our own attitudes and the societal norms in which we operate. Sometimes, the long term benefits of society are worth everyone paying for - I think - one of the reasons I'd be reluctant to move to America, even though my job would allow me to do so.

As an affluent single man, I have no problem paying taxes to help others raise their families. It's not taking away my freedom, it's giving freedom to others (who, incidentally, may be less likely to steal from me).

Without quoting, I'll just say that it is still true that most businesses are run in a male-orchestrated way. One of my best friends is a female (American) Vice President at one of the "bulge bracket" banks...she says it's starting to get lonely because so few women have trodden that path before, or with her. She's as capable as any man but is well aware that she can't stop doing that job for 3 years and return to the same role, after having children. Something that wouldn't cross the minds of most of her male colleagues...

Similarly, I have a real problem with anyone telling me (as a man) that I can't do the cleaining/child care as well as a woman. That's sexism, in my book, and it makes my blood boil, as much as any man's comment which degrades women. I just know that it's unlikely to make sense for me to be the one who stays at home!

OK - a few points which may not form a coherent posting. Looking forward to more debate.

KP

0 Replies

kitchenpete wrote:

Syracusa and I think that it is possible to view the next generation as the collective responsibility of society - thereby making possible extended leaves of absence from the workplace...because good child care is seen as being a benefit to all...mabye not in the next 20 years but thereafter, when a more educated and emotionally resilient workforce comes of age.

Waow. I was expecting further bashing and hostility and suddenly...kitchenpete lands here like a butterfly and restores my faith in humanity. Smile

I did not want to go back to arguing and explaining because it is obviously about a difference in philosophy and world views. I am definitely not here to ask for direct solutions to my particular situation or to change the US culture. I was here to debate (mega-waste of time from an utilitarian perspective yet...a "feel-good" activity at times).

kitchenpete wrote:

I'm quite sure that syracusa knows she's unlikely to get everything she wants.

Yeap.

kitchenpete wrote:

I've known enough women to understand that (often, not always) when they complain about something, it isn't always because they think the problem can be solved straight away - but because they have the need to share their concern and (in this instance) "grumpiness".
[quote/].

Exactly. That's me - grumpy lady.

kitchenpete wrote:

No need to SHOUT BACK IN CAPITALS - this isn't a "Commie" consipiracy to bring down the USA!

kitchenpete wrote:

How we achieve this, and with how many others we cooperate in doing so, is dependent upon our own attitudes and the societal norms in which we operate. Sometimes, the long term benefits of society are worth everyone paying for - I think - one of the reasons I'd be reluctant to move to America, even though my job would allow me to do so.

By the risk of sounding terribly arrogant, I must confess that this is the one thing that a lot of Americans I met seem to be literally incapable of grasping: the fact that in the long run, at the end of the day, after all is said and done - THERE IS a larger good - one that touches and benefits all of us in myriad ways, perhaps even more than our immediate personal economic gains.
This thought always crosses my mind when I sit in traffic like a sucker, surrounded by thousands of other suckers who prefer to luxuriate in their own fancy automobiles (one per modern/industrialized human being!!) and just spend 2 hours on the road rather than give public transportation a chance so that EVERYBODY can add an hour or two to their already frantic lives.
But then again...who wants to sit in the bus with all those poor smelly black people...who missed all those "limitless opportunities" to start their ventures and have those vacations in Hawaii?? Huh?
(For "race-related" outrage - notice the irony).

And then look at jacuie's statements. She just doesn't want to pay taxes so that I'll raise my children!!! DARN IT!!
And..."where is her immediate economic gain in me raising my children?".
Notice words such as "mine", "immediate" and "economic".
Everything is about "personal" "immediate" and "economic". These are the only things that make life great.

kitchenpete wrote:

As an affluent single man, I have no problem paying taxes to help others raise their families. It's not taking away my freedom, it's giving freedom to others (who, incidentally, may be less likely to steal from me).

You freaky, twisted, weird thing!
Reallllly? You really don't mind?

kitchenpete wrote:

Without quoting, I'll just say that it is still true that most businesses are run in a male-orchestrated way. One of my best friends is a female (American) Vice President at one of the "bulge bracket" banks...she says it's starting to get lonely because so few women have trodden that path before, or with her. She's as capable as any man but is well aware that she can't stop doing that job for 3 years and return to the same role, after having children. Something that wouldn't cross the minds of most of her male colleagues...\

Nothing to add.

kitchenpete wrote:

Similarly, I have a real problem with anyone telling me (as a man) that I can't do the cleaining/child care as well as a woman. That's sexism, in my book, and it makes my blood boil, as much as any man's comment which degrades women. I just know that it's unlikely to make sense for me to be the one who stays at home!

I do owe an apology here because I sounded as if "men are really incapable of things women do".
I KNOW there are many men out there who would make waay better parents or "housekeepers" than a lot of women would.
There is nothing "biological" about being able to clean the house well or watch and educate your child carefully.

That being said, rigid gender roles - as unfortunate as it is - are still with us in many respects and I do not expect them to get all blended during my lifetime.
All I can say is that I would probably be able to have a more rigurous daily parenting plan in place than my husband would. I think he would be more lax, I would read to the kids more, sing with them, discuss things with them, teach them "stuff" ...you name it. I also have better verbal skills than my husband and I tend to read more than he does. He would be great with math homework but for the rest, I KNOW I would do a better parenting job.

Congratulations though for being the affluent single man that you are AND for thinking the way you think at the same time. I am quite impressed.

0 Replies

Of the American women I know...

Me: I like my cd's, dvd's, and books, but I donate as much money as I can to the animal shelter... and I can't tell you the last time I bought clothes or make-up.

My sister: Spends most of her money on make-up and clothes, instead of food for her kids. Doesn't even understand how to manage her checkbook.

My mom: She has been frugal in the past, but now at her age, she spends money because she can. She buys a lot of things, but mostly for other people.

One friend: A stripper for the money. Pushed herself on a guy she called "the man lottery" because he makes a ton of money and is tolerant of her.

One friend: A doctor, who owns practically nothing. She grew up on a commune in TN, and she is extremely frugal, but is not a liberal as one might expect.

I see a lot of women driving SUV's with expensive hair coloring, make-up, and clothes...

I would say a lot of American women are materialistic, but not all.

0 Replies

Thanks for the apology, syracusa. No problem.

I've been mostly reacting on this thread so far, I'll go ahead and say some things I DO think:

1.) From my personal perspective, I would love the idea of getting 80-90% of my salary for three years to help me take care of my kid.

2.) Given that is not the baseline now, I highly doubt that the government would get into the game at this point -- political suicide for whomever attempted it.

3.) I am undecided whether, on the balance, this is a good or a bad thing. (I know what I personally would prefer, talking about society.) Of the countries discussed I know England's system the best, and it seems to have plenty of problems that have been criticized from within.

4.) (#2 reprise) -- I think that it would be such an enormous overhaul and would have such a hugely detrimental effect on the economy as it is set up now that it would have to be done so gradually that the effects would not be seen in our lifetime.

5.) However, I think that the free market principles are starting to kick in for the good; the correction is starting to happen. Individual companies are offering more and more to parents, not because they are so compelled (except for things like the FMLA) but because it's a benefit. It's a way to get skilled workers. If company A and company B are virtually identical, except that company B (boogie woogie bugle girl) offers fantastic parental leave benefits, Ms. Skilledworker is more likely to go to company B. Company B has the edge. Company A sees all these people going to company B, figures out the edge, and offers their OWN fantastic parental leave package. Maybe even a little better -- take that, company B. And on and on it goes. (This works MUCH better in a healthy economy where there is heavy competition for jobs. The dotcommers were great about this sort of thing.)

6.) I think we have to do our part in all of this, rather than just waiting for it to happen, in myriad ways. Like:

a) Raise feminist men. The previous generation did a good job of that. I'm pretty happy with how my husband turned out. :-) KP seems like another shining example.

b) Reward feminist men. I just read an article in Elle (yes Elle but whatever) about how the guy felt about the newly sexually assertive women out there. They leave after sex. Not want big emotional entanglements, etc. So the men are trying harder and harder. Being more accommodating. The men who don't clean and sit on the couch and watch TV all day or whatever do it because they can. If there was no way in hell they could expect to keep a girlfriend if they were that boorish, they'd change. That is all well along, I think things have made a lot of progress. I can't personally think of a single man who would fit that kind of boorishness, but I believe they exist. (Even my ultra-traditional, conservative Republican father-in-law does his share of the cleaning and a significant chunk of the care of his two grandchildren who live nearby.)

c) Don't expect to get something for nothing. If we're asking for concessions, we have to grant concessions. Guys may not be better parents out of the gate but I was an awful parent out of the gate too. ("They let us take her home!! Now what??") They need a chance, and everyone benefits -- the dads, the moms, the kids, society -- when they are given that chance.

d) If we're in positions of power, create those benefits packages.

e) If we're in Ms. Skilledworker's position (IF), choose the job with better benefits, even if other concessions are made. Reward the companies that offer these packages.

f) Standard activism. Elect congresspeople who seem likely to do something. Write to said congresspeople. Build a movement.

(P.S., I usually skip over long posts riddled with capitals.)

0 Replies

syracusa wrote:

All I can say is that I would probably be able to have a more rigurous daily parenting plan in place than my husband would. I think he would be more lax, I would read to the kids more, sing with them, discuss things with them, teach them "stuff" ...you name it. I also have better verbal skills than my husband and I tend to read more than he does. He would be great with math homework but for the rest, I KNOW I would do a better parenting job.

And what does your husband think on the issue? Or have you just decided that his view/thoughts are irrelevant and made these choices on your own and, as a result, added to the continuation of the myth?

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

And what does your husband think on the issue? Or have you just decided that his view/thoughts are irrelevant and made these choices on your own and, as a result, added to the continuation of the myth?

They are not irrelevant. We both agree that I would probably make a more "thorough" parent. Plus, like I said, he makes more money than I make anyway. He'd have to be the "provider". It is always like this...if only because of the typical age difference between husbands and wives.

In labor market terms, older age (usually the husband) means more human capital - hence HE makes more money and it makes sense for HER to stay at home or "cut back" on paid work hours. This leads to the further reinforcement of stereotypes and rigid gender roles in society.

0 Replies

Trend means the way things are moving. It doesn't have anything to do with majority or significant, it is in which direction things are moving so I misunderstood what you meant. Actually every man in my company has taken advantage of paternity leave. Why wouldn't you? Most men want to be home with their children also.

But you do have the choice you do not have to have children. You can sacrifice visiting your family to save money, you can have one car, you can move to a smaller apartment. I have a friend who has four children. She stays at home, her husband works. He does not make much money. The children share their rooms, they had to convert another room into a bedroom to accommodate the boys when they grew to old to share with their sisters. They have one bathroom. They live further from the city, where prices are lower and own a town home - not an actual home. The dad has to commute further and has less time to spend with the children. They only go camping or visit friends/family within driving distance to vacation. She is from Japan and does not visit her family. They purchase clothes that they can afford and use hand me downs. That is their choice so mom can stay home.

You do not need to commute 3 hours. Either move closer to where you work or look for a job that is closer to your home. You choose to work there. You choose to live where you live. As I said before I compromised having a large home because I did not want to commute a long distance. You can do the same. If you live closer to where your husband works, look for something between the two. You also do not know if you are going to feel that way when you are pregnant. Each woman is different and each pregnancy is different.

I disagree that the mother is automatically better at caring for a child than the dad. It depends on the individual situation. In my situation, I do believe I am better - not because I am the mom or a woman, but because I have much more patience than the husband. I do know many men who would make excellent child care givers.

It completely depends on the day-care. A high quality day care can provides many benefits to a child. It allows them to develop skills being at home my not allow. It teaches them at a young age how to share, how to socialize, etc. I attended in college a presentation by a psychologist who studied the pros and cons of having children in day care. Basically she concluded that a high quality daycare in the long run provides greater benefits for children than those staying at home until kindergarten. However, anything less than high quality can result in terrible consequences in the long term. The key is high quality care. I sent my daughter once she was four to Pre-K in a daycare facility. I checked tons of them out. I checked with the OCC and spoke with the woman personally responsible for providing the license for the particular daycare centers I was considering. It was not easy, but my daughter thrives in this environment. It has helped her become less shy and more confident. I am not saying this is a replacement or better than mom, but if you find high quality daycare, they do give proper care.

0 Replies

If you have a house that is large enough it takes all weekend for you and your husband to clean, then maybe you can afford you downsize. My husband and I will tackle the house together. It never takes more than half a day. I also having two young children, have tons of clothes to wash. I throw them in the wash after the kids go to bed and do my wash during the week. Also, keep up with the cleaning. With only you and your husband, I cannot imagine your place could get so dirty that it would take all weekend to clean. After showering, rinse out your shower, after using the sink, wipe every down, after eating or making something in the kitchen, wipe everything down. It saves lots of time if you take five or ten minutes and clean up immediately after. What would you need to put away during the weekend? If you put things away immediately after using, there is no putting away during the weekend. I have two children and I teach them this with their toys (even an 18 month old knows what clean up is). Believe me we all love breaks and all deserve them.

Well you need to work on your husband. If you feel the workload is not fair, talk with him. It is your own fault if you do more work than he does. And you also may have to let go a little. Leave a little dust once in a while, leave a bed unmade. I once heard a very smart woman say that leaving a bed unmade is just airing it out. I typically attend a women's leadership conference annually. It is this huge conference that has many very influential, well known and respected women speaking and giving workshops. In one, they discussed this fact about women doing more work than men. Basically, we do it to ourselves. You said it yourself, I still end up doing the bulk if I want the house to look at it should. You need to talk with your husband about this. You may need to lighten up a little and not have the perfect home, if you want a break. You may have to point out or teach (in a nice way) your husband how to clean. I wish I could remember this particular speaker as she has many books out that address this stuff, but maybe if you go to a bookstore you can find some. It isn't easy, to let go and not have the perfect house, but it is better on your sanity. If no one is going to be seeing your house this weekend, why do you need to clean the windows, for example.

As far as the workplace, another speaker comes to mind, she is the CEO of Hewlett Packard. Incredible woman with a husband and family. She spoke about how women complain of a glass ceiling and other types of bias against women. She stated it didn't hold her back. All you have to do you prove your capabilities. Do you know that in my company, we have a woman CEO? Other women do and succeed. I think you statements about men being the provider is a load of crap. You are allowing it, so you believe it bottom line. I stay later when I need to because I feel a strong responsibility to my job. Obviously if my husband and I have a conflict, we work it out who should pick up the children. We also have a backup if there is some sort of emergency. I have a man who reports to me. He has a small child and has flex hours so he can leave at 4:00 to pick up his daughter. Another man does the same thing. There are Two other men (a supervisor and AVP) work shorten work weeks so they can spend extra time with their children. Every man in my department that have children work some sort of flex time or shorten work weeks to care for their children. I did not see this ten or even five years ago, but this is the trend. Like it or not men are more involved in the raising of their children. I think its great. Children will get the benefit of their dad being more involved in their lives.

Of course by working full time there are disadvantages. There are also disadvantages to being at home too. But you can be involved and have control over you child if you have proper care. That means occasionally leaving work early (you and your husband) or go in late or during the middle of the day to check in on your child at daycare. Researching the daycare facility thoroughly, having close contact with your daycare provider and let them know any issues or concerns or just chit chat so you get to know her well. You do have a lot of say. I do not feel my mom or my daycare provider are raising my children, I think they are helping me raise my children. My children know our values. We talk a lot. I never worry about the care for my children because I have done all this and I feel confident that they are getting excellent care. Funny story, this morning as I am driving my 5 year old to daycare. I say lets just drive straight to Florida and go to Disney World. She says, "No mommy. I need to go to school. I love school." Now what child would choose school over Disney World?

You have so many choices, but it appears as if you want to have pie and eat it too. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but in your situation you are going to have to decide, what is most important to you. Is having more comforts, visiting family, leaving in your current home, staying at your current job, even having children - which are things you are willing to compromise and what things are you willing not to give up. There is no right answer, just a right answer for you and your husband. Instead of complaining as that is not going to get you anywhere, look seriously at your options and make an educated decision.

I would worry that they would end up loving the nanny more than their own mom. I know many moms feel this way, but I can tell you if you spend time with children when you are home, they definitely love mommy and not some one else more. My children always run to me with a big hug whenever I first see them. Obviously if you do not spend time any or little time with them, you will have problems.

0 Replies

Sozobe,

I appreciate your post too. Hopefully things in the work world will get better to acommodate the fact that people have families and lives too, not just a desire to advance at work.

Linkat wrote:

But you do have the choice you do not have to have children.

It is unfortunate that I do not perceive these options to be "choices" that I would make as a rational and free-standing individual. I am not big on the overuse of the ideology of "choice". I also see the constraints.
If we are honest with ourselves, we realize that these are not "choices" but a desperate opting for a lesser of two or several evils.
(It's like those people who want to vote, dislike both parties yet have to vote for one to prevent the bigger of the two evils from coming to power).

None of these "choices" would be acceptable to me because they would drag way too many negative consequences after them for us to find our peace. For example, not flying back to see my family once a year (like the Japanese woman in your example) is not an option for me.
If that makes the Japanese woman virtuous and me - a spoilt sinner, then let it be so.

Living close to where I work is not an option either. I work in a downtown area. You do not want to settle there. Period. I won't go into why.
Anything in the metro area that is not "downtown" is expensive as a "Mother F...".

I could go on - but I won't.
Of course, in the end - like Mr. Anthropologist said - syracusa won't get what she wants. She will have to opt for a lesser of several evils. But let's just not pretend that those are "happy choices". An "evil" is still an "evil" even if it is lesser. This is what bothers me. The pretense that those are "happy choices" when they are not.

0 Replies

Linkat,

Thank you for the tips, I trully appreciate the time you took to write them. Some of those I am trying to get better at - such as cleaning right away etc. I don't always make it because I feel very tired when I get home...plus the dissertation waits for me after a full-time job during the day.

I will not deny that some women love the "super-woman" role. Your story is about that. You are evidently one of them and I hold you in respect.

I am not. Some people burn out quicker than others. Some enjoy being in a constabt state of alert, frantic all the time, running all the time. I am not good at that and I do not think that a life lived like this would be a happy life.

I am already burnt-out. At the same time I would like a kid...but who knows?
Who knows how life will unfold...?

Thanks again.

0 Replies

If you read my post thoroughly you will note that there are many other choices aside from not having children. But that is a choice. I know many couples who haven chosen this route. Well unfortunately there are so many choices and you have to make one. There is no other way. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

As I said there is no right or wrong answer, but what is right for you (I was not stating that the Japanese woman was more virtuous than you only that was her choice). So as I said choose those items which you will not compromise on. Those items are -
To have children
Visiting your family

Things that can change -
I still look at moving closer to work as an option because you do not have to move to the downtown area, just within an acceptable distance. It seems that 3 hours is huge to have to commute. Also I said you can compromise on distance, say cut it in half. That would not make you live in downtown, it would be a suburb of a city. Similar to my situation. I work in downtown Boston. I live in a suburb of Boston. It takes me a half hour to 45 minutes to get to work. Also as I said it was more expensive for me to live closer. I compromised and bought a condo vs a house that I could have had if I moved with a 3 hour commute.
Sharing cleaning
Leaving the house messing
Buying a smaller house (if you own) or finding a place with cheaper rent
Also budgeting, consider your buying habits. Do you buy a cup of coffee a day, that can add up especially if you go to Starbucks. Do you need cable? Are their cheaper phone services? Where do you buy clothes - at a discount store? Etc. After adding up what you currently spend and what you could do without, and how you could save, maybe you could cut things so you could afford to stay home.

I am not pretending that the choices are easy and pretending they are going to make you happy, but they need to be made. Am I happy that I have a condo vs a house. No. But I am not going to dwell on it. I make the best of it. I see what is important for example my children and see the happiness in that. I also see the advantages of my condo. No yard work, not as much to clean, etc.

Believe me I am no super woman. I do what I do because I have to in order to have a good family life. I am happy because I accept those things I may not have and enjoy those things I do. I leave the house a mess sometimes when I really need a break. My husband cleans the bathrooms. I love him for that. I do not do it all and that is what I was trying to direct you to. You do not have to be super-woman. You do not need to have a perfect or keep a perfect house. Those are the books I am telling you about - not trying to be super-woman. Accepting the limitations.

Sorry syracusa, but you will have to make choices. You have to live you reality. It does suck that having children and a pretty reasonable lifestyle does not go hand and hand. You should be able to go on a trip a year and have children. You should be able to stay home with your children and there should be peace in the world. That is not reality that is utopia. Not all the choices you make are going to be what you want 100% as if you lived in Europe everything is not going to be 100% satisfactory. Basically many of us gave you suggestions. Instead of trying to make the best of things, you seem to want to gripe. It is o-k to vent, but you already did. Stop crying and deal with the situation. Life is not fair. Being rich is not a way to be 100% happy. Being in Europe is not a way to be 100% happy or otherwise you would be there. Deal with the situation and make the best of it or else be miserable your whole life. I am not trying to be mean or vindictive about this, but snap out of and enjoy life. There are things that are not going to be perfect. If you stop beating yourself up about it, you may find yourself happy. I do wish you luck and hope you can balance that is important to you.

0 Replies

Linkat,

Thanks - I appreciate it. There are always ways to make things a little better within constraints.

0 Replies

This is a no brainer.
Yes, you did the right thing.
Why

Because people who trade time for money are employees
And people who trade sex for money are Prostitutes.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know