[quote=CA renter]I appreciate your story, UCGal, and agree with everything you’ve said. My problem isn’t with you nor with your version of feminism. My problem is with BG’s version of feminism…where choice is NOT AT ALL on their agenda. Not only that, but they have pushed the message that women are no more than men with breasts; that childbearing, child-rearing, and homemaking are not valuable or worthy of any sort of recognition, credit, or respect. They are perpetuating the myth that only “men’s work” (paid labor) is valuable, and that women contribute little to nothing in their traditional roles. That is the antithesis of genuine feminism that would seek to improve women’s lot in life.
Some of us do NOT have the same choices that you and your husband have had, for a variety of reasons; but we have other options that work best for us. As a fellow numbers person, we have run the numbers, and it was very obvious which option would work best for us, just from a financial perspective. We also considered what we wanted for our family in the short, medium, and long term. We discussed all of these things at great length before and during our engagement. Mr. CAR was the one who chose the SAHP option, as I told him I would either be childless and work outside of the home, or have children and work inside the home…the choice was 100% his. This discussion happened **before** we were even engaged.
In our case, I could have gone part-time, but there was no way my DH would have been able to do this, not that he wanted this option in the first place. But my pay would have been so low, we would have been one of those families who would be *paying* in order for me to work outside of the home (the negative income thing). We also knew we didn’t want to send our kids to public school (just our personal choice, not judging people who choose other options…I know BG is going to spout off about this), and private school is too expensive, so we opted to homeschool, which is a nice compromise that has worked exceedingly well for our family.
We also have very complex scheduling issues, and my being home, and homeschooling — having a completely flexible schedule — is the only way we could get any reasonable family time together. All of our decisions were calculated after a lot of thought, running the numbers, and taking many other variables into consideration. And in addition to giving up my job, I had to move to a different city/county in order to be with my husband, so gave up all of my long-term friends and my professional networks in order to accommodate his work and lifestyle. And San Diego has a horrible job market for those outside of telephony or biotech (I was not in either).
To say that people like myself are getting a “free ride” is absurd and incredibly offensive. SAHPs do a tremendous amount of work, and this work is incredibly valuable to society, even though it is unpaid labor. To suggest otherwise is totally ignorant of the facts, and it perpetuates the denigration of women. I’ve bitten my tongue on many occasions while BG goes off on one of her anti-woman diatribes, but her posts here were the straw that broke the camel’s back. I will no longer stay silent when she makes these attacks.[/quote]
Firstly, CAR, I do apologize if you personalized my posts to yourself. They really weren’t about you, in particular, but about how the “system” perceives the value of household work and childcare. It doesn’t matter what I think … the “system” is reality and we all must accept it. (For the record, I’ve always been okay with the idea of SAHP’s IF the family can afford it and they are not using EBT/TANF while the SAHP is NOT seriously disabled and simultaneously attempting to skirt paid work). If you will recall this earlier post of mine:
[quote=bearishgurl]. . . I feel that the arguments about why a parent can’t work FT or work at all to support their kids are smokescreens. I suspect that those making this argument are in one of these 3 situations: a) they simply have enough household income to live on indefinitely and so their contribution to their family’s monthly income is not needed; b) they currently have enough household income to live on for the near, foreseeable future and if additional income should later be needed, they’ll cross that bridge when they get there; and/or c) they ARE making money every month, but it is passive income and doesn’t require them to leave home or placate an employer (i.e. investment mgmt).[/quote]
All I was saying in this post is that the SAHP’s described in the above paragraph may tell everyone in their sphere that they would only make .30 on the dollar (or come out negative after being paid for work outside the home) and that is why they didn’t have any choice but to be a SAHP. But the reality is that they don’t need to work outside the home. There is enough money within the household (at least for the time being) to support the home and everyone in it and their income contribution is not needed (or whatever the SAHP makes from work-at-home endeavors or passive investments is sufficent income). If there was NOT enough monthly income in the home for the family to survive, they would likely be employed or there would be a lot of strain in their relationship with the other (employed) parent if they were not.
Those that are SAHP’s by choice should just own the fact that their monthly income is not presently needed for their household to function instead of use the excuse that child care would be too costly for them as the reason why have chosen to be SAHP’s.
CAR, you must know that I (above probably everyone on this forum) am “fully cognizant” of a firefighter’s 24/48 hrs on/off schedule and otherwise extremely wacky work/call-in schedules. My understanding from your previous posts over the years is that your spouse (your kids’ dad) is a FT firefighter (sworn staff) of a fire dept located in San Diego County. I could see why you would make the deal regarding having/raising children (which you described in a recent post above) prior to marriage to a sworn employee whose wacky schedule was already in place at that time.
I also fully understand that where you are from (San Fernando Valley area?) is the business, finance and insurance capitol of SoCal and therefore has many thousands more jobs which are NOT in the tech/biotech fields just as Sacramento and suburbs and, more recently, Lodi and Chico is for NorCal. Due to this phenonemon, I have counseled my kids over the years (who did/are majoring in business fields) to get the h@ll out of dodge and stay there in order to obtain and keep a job with a career ladder. And they have and will do so. You are correct that there is virtually NOTHING in SD County paying more than $50K in business fields in SD County, and in 80% of the job openings, fluent Spanish (with technical terms) is required for the position. ($50K is actually about a mid-career business salary in SD County, NOT an “entry level” salary.) Many/most? of those “mid-career” business employees holding those ~$50K jobs in SD County are now 45-65 yrs old and bought their current residences in SD County for between $45K and $275K (a portion of them have paid their residences off) and therefore can afford to work for ~$50K (esp if it just involves a short drive from their homes w/o fwys). Younger Gen X, Gen Y and incoming new and newer skilled-worker-residents from counties/states with cheaper residential RE than SD County cannot afford to work for $50K and still pay their rent/mtgs. So, I get why you can’t make the salary you once did in the SF Valley here in SD County. Part of the reason why I am considering moving out-of-county or out-of-state is because I have a few years left where I can make a FT contribution to a company/firm and feel my chances for hire would be up to 1000% better elsewhere than SD County. I will soon finally be in a position to do so.
As for homeschooling, I feel that this is each family’s personal choice if they want to put out the SAHP’s time and the money for it. ($1-$2K per yr for each kid, with books and grading? … not sure how much it costs) But the “free” public schools are always there and if the kid(s) attended them, it would free up that parent-instructor or facilitator (not sure what it’s called) from about 7:30 am to 2:30 pm while their kid(s) were in class. Even if the SAHP didn’t “need” to bring in income from a PT job during these hours, they would have more time for themselves to do errands and even hang out at the gym! There wouldn’t be any daycare or afterschool care expense for the family during those hrs.
Sorry, but the “feminist stereotype” depicted by a small faction of the MSM as “man-hating,” men’s watch-wearing, 200 lb+ lesbians (no offense intended here to any readers) is NOT REPRESENTATIVE WHATSOEVER of the pioneers of the US women’s movement. That depiction is an example of the many slam-tactics used by the SAHP supporters and in SAHP forums in attempt to garner support for the participants’ choices in life (or make SAHP’s “feel better” about the choices they have made). If they felt confident about their personal choices, they wouldn’t feel a need to be making these false assertions.
Contrary to popular belief, many well-known “feminists” (those that started the movement are now aged 65-75 yrs old and I am a little younger than that) married young and had their kids in their 20’s. If you study their biographies and wiki pages, you will find that some worked FT while their kids were young and some worked PT or not at all. CA’s female judiciary is about 50% comprised of this age group of glass-ceiling-breaking women attorneys. Thus, the overwhelming support of CA’s 50/50 child custody preference (several other states have followed suit in recent years).
I for one am grateful for the inroads that the feminism movement and the NOW has made for equal pay for equal work among the genders. But I feel the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction in recent years and that the (mostly female) current crop of (Gen Y) FT workers’ demands re: flextime, job-sharing, time off, work from home, etc are wa-a-a-ay over the top.
For the most part, I feel this group is a bunch of whiners and many their blog posts, from what I’ve seen, are extremely disrespectful and ungrateful to their baby-boomer and early Gen-X parents (incl mom) for working FT and thus making the sacrifices such to be able to send them to good pre-K’s, daycare, afterschool care, summer camp and pay for all their extra-curricular activities, nice clothing and electronics and some or all of their college educations. This bunch of immature whiners are adults now and need to suck it up and go to work every day without complaint, just like their parents did, most of whom made it possible for them to have the life/job they have today. ESPecially those many whiners with looming student loan debt.
In the ’70’s and most of the ’80’s, if a female accepted a FT gubment position and gave birth within 6-7 months of accepting that position (not able to serve out a six month to one year probationary period without seeking the inevitable “disability” time off), the employer considered them as being hired under “false pretenses,” all the while well knowing that they did not intend to keep working but only wanted to be eligible to be paid for “maternity leave.” Once they started “showing” at work, their training all but ceased and they were questioned by supervisors as to their due date. Since these new employees couldn’t serve out their probationary periods in one continuous time block, it was cause for termination. I do not know if this practice is still public law.
CAR, I’ve wanted to run the numbers on your $45K parent-worker subject on this thread but have been a little swamped and I have to finish preparing/sending service of process items today before COB so will endeavor to work on this tonight or tomorrow afternoon.
Please don’t personalize this very interesting subject and fruitful discussion. It’s not about “mommy wars.”
