- This topic has 264 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 21, 2014 at 8:31 PM #770044January 21, 2014 at 9:12 PM #770045
NotCranky
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Blog star, absolutely, people should have an array of choices to do what makes them happy.
You’re thinking self-fulfillment on an individual and family level. I’m thinking society in general, and policies and laws concerning marriage.
I believe a large number of women (more like a majority) want to be sahp and they want protection. It’s not really about equality in that men can do it too. Men who go about becoming homemakers and seeking provider spouses the same way women do will never make it.[/quote]
Seemed like your personal world view that the options with women are terrible I didn’t really see the policies and law context in your comments so much. Just a lot of naysaying and over exaggeration of how bad women are. I am surprised a progressive liberal doesn’t see all kinds of women they could potentially work with despite a potentially terrible system…almost seems like a hoax.
January 21, 2014 at 9:20 PM #770046ParticipantCaRenter, I don;t no anyone who comes home and is totally off work. Most people work a lot at home when they are not at the wage job. What about two working parents? They just both sit around when they get home? I never see that.
January 21, 2014 at 9:56 PM #770048ParticipantMy wife told me recently that 4 out of 4 volunteers in my kids class that had participated significantly enough to get a sort of thank you Christmas present from the teacher were men! This is first grade, not high school football practice. times have changed quite a bit I would say.
I know two elderly men who have been divorced 3 times each…kids everywhere. I have never heard them generalize in a negative tone about women and they still sincerely appreciate them. Of the six exes I only hear about one being a bad person and the kids from her think it too. Maybe we are getting weak.
January 21, 2014 at 11:18 PM #770050CA renter
Participant[quote=6packscaredy][quote=CA renter][quote=6packscaredy]
in my own personal, admittedly very limited experience,; kids really like to see their parents happy with each other. Not that that’s the only factor obviously. But they enjoy that a lot.so why be miserable. I think there’s always a way to get back to happiness if things don’t get too far off track. Moods change. Accept and tolerate.[/quote]
No doubt about that. Kids love to see their parents being loving toward one another. But I think that the choice outlined by SK is this: unhappily married parents in an intact home, OR divorced parents. Unless there is extreme abuse and/or constant, violent rages happening on a regular basis, I just don’t see how children would choose to live in a divorced family situation in most cases.[/quote]
I dispute that they have v to be unhappy. I refuse to accept the premise.[/quote]
I agree with you. Too many people are unwilling to change, even if just a little bit, to make their marriages not just bearable, but great. IMHO, it usually takes just small shifts in the way people think and act. Not really any major changes.
January 22, 2014 at 12:18 AM #770053Participant[quote=Blogstar]My wife told me recently that 4 out of 4 volunteers in my kids class that had participated significantly enough to get a sort of thank you Christmas present from the teacher were men! This is first grade, not high school football practice. times have changed quite a bit I would say.
I know two elderly men who have been divorced 3 times each…kids everywhere. I have never heard them generalize in a negative tone about women and they still sincerely appreciate them. Of the six exes I only hear about one being a bad person and the kids from her think it too. Maybe we are getting weak.[/quote]
Very true. One of the things that surprised me most when I had kids was going to the park in the middle of the week and seeing that half of the parents there are dads…and they’re not just hanging around drinking beers while “watching” the kids, but really engaging with them. My DH and I often comment on how far men have come in the past decade or two. Very cool.
And yes, I want to protect SAHDs every bit as much as I want to protect SAHMs.
January 22, 2014 at 12:29 AM #770039Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Blog star, absolutely, people should have an array of choices to do what makes them happy.
You’re thinking self-fulfillment on an individual and family level. I’m thinking society in general, and policies and laws concerning marriage.
I believe a large number of women (more like a majority) want to be sahp and they want protection. It’s not really about equality in that men can do it too. Men who go about becoming homemakers and seeking provider spouses the same way women do will never make it.[/quote]
Brian, you’re ignoring the very real biological differences between men and women. Until men can start making and nursing babies, it’s unlikely that you’ll ever see a situation where 50% of the SAHPs are men. It’s just not realistic. That doesn’t mean that we can’t shift more in that direction, but that it’s unlikely to be 50% male SAHPs.
One more thing, (and I have to agree with Russ about the internet expert thing), you have no idea what it’s like to be the primary (or sole) caretaker of children. Caretaking and homemaking are NOTHING AT ALL like being on vacation or “not working” for the single/childless person. It is VERY REAL WORK, and it can be every bit as draining and exhausting as working outside the home. For those of us who have done both, most would agree that it’s far easier to have a job where you can come home and be totally off work. SAHPs don’t get that; it’s 24/7 work that doesn’t ever stop.
In addition to that, for those who enjoyed a career before having children and who’ve spent years getting an education and working their way up the corporate/professional ladder — with all the social status, accolades, and self-identity that go along with it — it can be incredibly difficult to suddenly become a servant (for free, and often working harder than you ever did in your professional life!) without an identity of your own. You become so-and-so’s wife or mother (and don’t even get to keep your own name, in most cases). And then, you get to hear all the ignoramuses out there saying, “Oh, you don’t work.” It can be very frustrating, demoralizing, and depressing. I think this is where a lot of the “complaining” and talk of sacrifices comes from. Many SAHPS make very real sacrifices in order to do what they feel is the right thing for their families, and they are giving up a HUGE piece of themselves in the process.
And before you (logically) suggest that these women then get a job, it is so incredibly difficult for a woman who has the most intense physical, emotional, and mental attachment to this precious, vulnerable baby to hand this child over to a stranger for 8+ hours every day for most of the child’s waking moments. For many of us, it just feels like it’s not worth having kids if you can’t spend the majority of their waking moments with them. Many of us feel extremely conflicted about this, but biology/hormones win that battle in many cases, so you end up being a SAHM. That doesn’t mean she’s getting a “free ride” or that she isn’t working. That is the most ignorant, insulting assumption out there.
January 22, 2014 at 12:40 AM #770056Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]Which brings me to my next question…
If SAH spouses and alimony awards are “relics from days gone by” and no longer appropriate, would you agree that the tradition of a woman taking a man’s name and naming her children after him is equally inappropriate? After all, these traditions are carried forward from times when women and their children were the property of men. There is far less justification for this tradition than for alimony awards for SAHPs.[/quote]
I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if my kids didn’t have my name. That custom is a relic.
If I get married, I will marry up the class ladder, not down, so the mom’s name would probably go farther.I like how the Spanish hyphenate names.
CAr, you like to point to Europe as an example. Did look at their attitudes regarding sex and marriage?
As far as our system here, it is what it is. People go in with their eyes wide open. I don’t have much sympathy if things don’t work out and they feel screwed.[/quote]
It’s easy to say that you don’t care about your kids having your last name because you’re unlikely to ever have kids. Ask most men out there, and they would most likely disagree with you, entirely. And try polling men to see how many would be willing to take the wife’s name so that the whole family can have the same last name and avoid the hyphen drama, altogether. I’d like to see the results of that poll.
January 22, 2014 at 12:42 AM #770055Participant[quote=6packscaredy][quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, whatever schemes you come up to protect stay at home parents, whom you believe to be mostly women who offer youth beauty and fertility, depend on the cooperation of men. The whole thing falls apart with equality of the sexes and when men and women say “screw it, what’s good for the other sex is good for me too.”[/quote]
Brian, marriage and family have always been about the cooperation of both sexes. Ideally, both spouses bring to the marriage things that the other spouse doesn’t have. They are supposed to complement each other.
Of course, everyone can just do their own thing, like I mentioned in this thread already. They can have their “own” children, either by using a sperm donor or for-profit surrogate, and they can hire other people to do all the work that SAH spouses have traditionally done (though most people could not afford it).
Savings are the ultimate form of income (no taxes!), and having a SAH spouse will offer far more savings than most other arrangements. There is a very real economic value to the work they do.[/quote]
I’m kind of persuaded. But kind of not. It has value but it’s also a form of consumption, being with children. While paying someone else costs money getting the opportunity to stay ho me has tremendous value to the SAH too. The work clearly has value but the deferred comp analogy fails in a way because the earning spouse is not some kind of machine or Corp. That necessarily keeps running and earning in the same way but is prone to breakdowns and the reductions in alimony often won’t reflect that because it would demotivate him to work work work work.
Would it seem absurd for the working parent to be compensated for the time lost she were able to spend with children because of work commitments? Since we are monetizing contributions, why not monetize sacrifices?
That said, I’m almost in agreement with you CaR.
It would all seem fairer if a worker could intentionally reduce their income. I mean sometimes people just wanna slow down and a deferred comp scheme you’ve envisioned puts the worker on the rat race treadmill forever! Any reduction is viewed as an effort to spite the ex. But maybe the worker is losing will. Or just can’t take it…
why must he keep going simply because of a past pattern?
Ach. The whole system sucks.[/quote]
Easy solution: stay married (or don’t get married/have children at all).
As for the wage earning spouse getting more time with the kids, I’d say that most modern custody arrangements give the wage earning spouse about equal time with the kids. It only seems fair that the financial interests be split equally, as well.
January 22, 2014 at 12:43 AM #770054Participant[quote=Blogstar]CaRenter, I don;t no anyone who comes home and is totally off work. Most people work a lot at home when they are not at the wage job. What about two working parents? They just both sit around when they get home? I never see that.[/quote]
Maybe we’re seeing different things, and I don’t deny that there are some awesome men out there who are full partners at home (my DH is one of these great gems!), but with most of the couples I’ve seen where both people work, it’s the mom who rushes home to cook, clean, take care of the kids, etc. The dads in these situations seem to think that their workday is done, and it’s up to the wife to do the “woman’s work.” Also, it’s often the men who continue with their hobbies and friendships as if marriage and children never happened, while the women are stuck at home by themselves handing all the kids and chores. Again, not in all cases, but in far too many, which just sucks, IMHO.
January 22, 2014 at 12:57 AM #770057Participant[quote=CDMA ENG]UCgal,
I don’t get it. You home school but they are attending classes as well?
Can you elaborate on the schooling situation?
CE[/quote]
Not UCGal, but based on her posts here, I believe her kids to to public schools.
I’m the one who homeschools (and scaredy, based on what he’s posted here). But since you’ve asked (maybe have an interest in homeschooling your own kids?), many homeschoolers’ kids participate in different sports and attend a variety of classes, both academic and creative.
January 22, 2014 at 1:01 AM #770058ParticipantWhew! 🙂
January 22, 2014 at 5:44 AM #770059scaredyclassic
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=CDMA ENG]UCgal,
I don’t get it. You home school but they are attending classes as well?
Can you elaborate on the schooling situation?
CE[/quote]
Not UCGal, but based on her posts here, I believe her kids to to public schools.
I’m the one who homeschools (and scaredy, based on what he’s posted here). But since you’ve asked (maybe have an interest in homeschooling your own kids?), many homeschoolers’ kids participate in different sports and attend a variety of classes, both academic and creative.[/quote]
the last hyphenate goes part time to a charter school with kids who are home schooled half the week. The others got the full dose of family culture / edu. Jury is still out on the effects. One thing I can say is our adult kid seems really like hanging out and talking with us whereas I had to get far away at that age.
January 22, 2014 at 5:45 AM #770060Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=6packscaredy][quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, whatever schemes you come up to protect stay at home parents, whom you believe to be mostly women who offer youth beauty and fertility, depend on the cooperation of men. The whole thing falls apart with equality of the sexes and when men and women say “screw it, what’s good for the other sex is good for me too.”[/quote]
Brian, marriage and family have always been about the cooperation of both sexes. Ideally, both spouses bring to the marriage things that the other spouse doesn’t have. They are supposed to complement each other.
Of course, everyone can just do their own thing, like I mentioned in this thread already. They can have their “own” children, either by using a sperm donor or for-profit surrogate, and they can hire other people to do all the work that SAH spouses have traditionally done (though most people could not afford it).
Savings are the ultimate form of income (no taxes!), and having a SAH spouse will offer far more savings than most other arrangements. There is a very real economic value to the work they do.[/quote]
I’m kind of persuaded. But kind of not. It has value but it’s also a form of consumption, being with children. While paying someone else costs money getting the opportunity to stay ho me has tremendous value to the SAH too. The work clearly has value but the deferred comp analogy fails in a way because the earning spouse is not some kind of machine or Corp. That necessarily keeps running and earning in the same way but is prone to breakdowns and the reductions in alimony often won’t reflect that because it would demotivate him to work work work work.
Would it seem absurd for the working parent to be compensated for the time lost she were able to spend with children because of work commitments? Since we are monetizing contributions, why not monetize sacrifices?
That said, I’m almost in agreement with you CaR.
It would all seem fairer if a worker could intentionally reduce their income. I mean sometimes people just wanna slow down and a deferred comp scheme you’ve envisioned puts the worker on the rat race treadmill forever! Any reduction is viewed as an effort to spite the ex. But maybe the worker is losing will. Or just can’t take it…
why must he keep going simply because of a past pattern?
Ach. The whole system sucks.[/quote]
Easy solution: stay married (or don’t get married/have children at all).
As for the wage earning spouse getting more time with the kids, I’d say that most modern custody arrangements give the wage earning spouse about equal time with the kids. It only seems fair that the financial interests be split equally, as well.[/quote]
this aren’t easy solutions. Two involves changing the past and one involves changing yourself.
January 22, 2014 at 5:47 AM #770061ParticipantUltimately, it’s not the deferred comp analogy that’s wring;; it’s the living the working spouse in to a compensation number that’s unfair.
As they say in the prospectus past performance doesn’t predict future results.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.