OT: How much baggage will you accept?

[bearishgurl]

Good post by CAR in response to scaredy’s idea.

One thing, though, which I think would happen when the childbearer (woman) “frontloads” her prices for the tasks they won’t be able to do later in life (mainly childbearing) is that the women would end up seeking out only partner-parents (dads) who could pay them enough (however much “enough” is) for them to bear children for them.

This would encourage “gold-digging” among women, especially those who can bear children but don’t have the skills or experience to support themselves.

BUT …. “gold-digging” (in the context of the business deal that scaredy described) is a two-way street. Both parties go into it with their eyes wide open (barring any problems with pregnancy which could be written into the contract between them) and the prospective dad realizes that if they want their own children, they must pay a certain price to compel a willing woman (with good genes?) to bear them for him.

The men who didn’t make much (or were unemployed) wouldn’t be having any children by women they personally chose to bear them. They would be the ones sued for child support for “accidents” when those moms went on public aid to support their children because they never had any contract for payment for carrying their child(ren) and raising them.

Like Russ said, water seeks its own level.

[scaredyclassic]

Again, why?

So men will appreciate the dollar value they’re getting?

[FlyerInHi]

Legalize prostitution and children making businesses.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]Good post by CAR in response to scaredy’s idea.

One thing, though, which I think would happen when the childbearer (woman) “frontloads” her prices for the tasks they won’t be able to do later in life (mainly childbearing) is that the women would end up seeking out only partner-parents (dads) who could pay them enough (however much “enough” is) for them to bear children for them.

This would encourage “gold-digging” among women, especially those who can bear children but don’t have the skills or experience to support themselves.

BUT …. “gold-digging” (in the context of the business deal that scaredy described) is a two-way street. Both parties go into it with their eyes wide open (barring any problems with pregnancy which could be written into the contract between them) and the prospective dad realizes that if they want their own children, they must pay a certain price to compel a willing woman (with good genes?) to bear them for him.

The men who didn’t make much (or were unemployed) wouldn’t be having any children by women they personally chose to bear them. They would be the ones sued for child support for “accidents” when those moms went on public aid to support their children because they never had any contract for payment for carrying their child(ren) and raising them.

Like Russ said, water seeks its own level.[/quote]

Agreed, but let’s get rid of the extremely sexist “gold digger” moniker. Is a man who seeks to be paid for his services denigrated as a “gold digger”? Women intrinsically understand that they are providing a list of services. That they want to be paid for providing these services should not compel us to look down our noses at them. Men would do it no differently if the roles were reversed.

The men who seek out “gold diggers” know exactly what they’re getting, and why.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]
The WWII Gen and the boomers (+ some early Gen-Xers) paved the way for equality for women in the workplace and did make a lot of headway in being instrumental in getting family friendly labor laws enacted only to result in LESS women of childbearing age in the FT workforce today.

I haven’t investigated the stats on this but based upon recent articles I read, I strongly suspect that the bulk of women in the FT workforce in the US today either do not have children or all their child(ren) are over the age of 16. The rest of the mostly overeducated crowd of mommies are home with their children. The poor women without higher education and with or without spouses and minor kids at home are working in all the service jobs (essentially grunt work)… PT, FT or both part and FT … anything they can get.

After all their sister predecessors have been through, why did the values of the younger generation of parents (mostly moms) change over the last decade-plus? They prefer modern conveniences and technology much more than their older brethren (many of whom retired with their own pensions) and all this stuff costs money (and many are indebted for their educations) but it seems a good portion of them would rather opt out of the workforce, ignore their debts and attempt to live on less.

It doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

It would make all the sense in the world if you would take off the blinders of your preconceived notions. These highly-educated, intelligent women are doing what’s right for their families (what may have been right for you is not necessarily what’s right for them). After realizing that we can’t “have it all,” and after calculating how much it costs to work outside of the home, along with the emotional costs to the family of working outside of the home (more stress, more resentment, etc.), these *families* (not just one spouse) have opted to make a choice that provides the greatest benefits at the lowest cost for themselves.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]Agreed, but let’s get rid of the extremely sexist “gold digger” moniker. Is a man who seeks to be paid for his services denigrated as a “gold digger”? Women intrinsically understand that they are providing a list of services. That they want to be paid for providing these services should not compel us to look down our noses at them. Men would do it no differently if the roles were reversed.

The men who seek out “gold diggers” know exactly what they’re getting, and why.[/quote]

You’re right, CAR. The term is denigrating but I always associated it with women who can’t support themselves or refuse to (at least in the style in which they would like to become accustomed). In short, women who are seeking a “sugar daddy.”

Agree that many men are attracted to the “gold-digger” type but I think some are too dumb or blind to know what they are getting into without an unbiased opinion from a concerned onlooker (friend/relative).

A surrogate mom is usually paid pretty handsomely for their services (as well as getting all their medical bills paid … even if covered by insurance). She is offering a legitimate service and usually she has an agency who takes a cut for her successful pregnancy. It’s not prostitution and it takes a healthy, emotionally strong woman who knows their own mind to successfully pull it off.

Scaredy’s idea doesn’t differ very much from a surrogacy arrangement.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]It would make all the sense in the world if you would take off the blinders of your preconceived notions. These highly-educated, intelligent women are doing what’s right for their families (what may have been right for you is not necessarily what’s right for them). After realizing that we can’t “have it all,” and after calculating how much it costs to work outside of the home, along with the emotional costs to the family of working outside of the home (more stress, more resentment, etc.), these *families* (not just one spouse) have opted to make a choice that provides the greatest benefits at the lowest cost for themselves.[/quote]

That’s all well and good if it truly was a “joint decision.” But why go through the trouble and expense of going to college and graduating, only to drop out of the workforce shortly after graduation … especially with student loan debt looming.

Ballooning student loans in the background don’t mix very well with attempting to raise a family on one salary. Sorry, but that’s not a wise choice to make for the family whose future the SAHP purportedly cares so much about. It actually jeopardizes the family’s financial future so the cost is way too high, imho.

You don’t need an expensive college degree to be a mom, let alone a $200K+ graduate degree that some of them are laying to waste by “choice.”

[scaredyclassic]

You taking notes, kev. You’re gonna increase your income by teaming up with a woman who stays at home and calculates how much all the stuff she does for you would go for retail.

Shell get to decide what work needs to be done, can create work or make you do it if she changes her mind. And she can complain endlessly since it’s not valued in the marketplace.

You’re broke cause you don’t have a disgruntled employee at home working 24 7

[FlyerInHi]

I’m going to be a gold digger. I want to dig deep and get lots of gold.
I’m going to be prospecting for gold. Need to be sure there’s lots of gold, otherwise, I’d be wasting my time.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I’m going to be a gold digger. I want to dig deep and get lots of gold.
I’m going to be prospecting for gold. Need to be sure there’s lots of gold, otherwise, I’d be wasting my time.[/quote]

What will you provide in return?

[njtosd]

I don’t think my husband is getting much value from me. I’m not very domestic – although I like to bake. I work part time, but based on scaredy’s calculus, that probably sets me back because clients get me peeved (so I fall below the “happy 80% of the time” threshold). We just bought and installed shower doors together – but he put in more effort than I did (I don’t have much “hack saw” experience). I keep track of paperwork, insurance, etc.

Would we be calculating this stuff if we were single? And considering it imputed income to ourselves? I don’t think so.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]You taking notes, kev. You’re gonna increase your income by teaming up with a woman who stays at home and calculates how much all the stuff she does for you would go for retail.

Shell get to decide what work needs to be done, can create work or make you do it if she changes her mind. And she can complain endlessly since it’s not valued in the marketplace.

You’re broke cause you don’t have a disgruntled employee at home working 24 7[/quote]

How much do you think you would have to pay a woman of your wife’s caliber to bear and raise your children? If your wife is/was the one responsible for educating them (and I’d still like to hear how you’ve managed to homeschool with both parents working full-time outside of the home), how much would that be worth? How about your child’s character development? Who watches the kids when you have to work? What if you have to travel regularly? And how much would you have to pay a personal assistant to manage all of the daily tasks in your household (bill paying, some maintenance, cleaning, laundry, shopping, etc.)? How much would it cost to have someone to tend to your needs 24/7? Do you think someone should do this for free? If so, why?

I’d also love to hear your wife’s input on this if she’d be willing to participate in this discussion.

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd]I don’t think my husband is getting much value from me. I’m not very domestic – although I like to bake. I work part time, but based on scaredy’s calculus, that probably sets me back because clients get me peeved (so I fall below the “happy 80% of the time” threshold). We just bought and installed shower doors together – but he put in more effort than I did (I don’t have much “hack saw” experience). I keep track of paperwork, insurance, etc.

Would we be calculating this stuff if we were single? And considering it imputed income to ourselves? I don’t think so.[/quote]

If you were single, you wouldn’t be doing it for others. For SAHPs, you’re working for other people, not yourself. There is a LOT more work involved when you’re doing everything for a family vs. just taking care of yourself.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]I’m going to be a gold digger. I want to dig deep and get lots of gold.
I’m going to be prospecting for gold. Need to be sure there’s lots of gold, otherwise, I’d be wasting my time.[/quote]

What will you provide in return?[/quote]

My amazing studliness. I’m willing to take care of all the household responsibilities, as long as there’s enough gold. Too little gold won’t do. At least 5x more gold than I can prospect on my own.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]It would make all the sense in the world if you would take off the blinders of your preconceived notions. These highly-educated, intelligent women are doing what’s right for their families (what may have been right for you is not necessarily what’s right for them). After realizing that we can’t “have it all,” and after calculating how much it costs to work outside of the home, along with the emotional costs to the family of working outside of the home (more stress, more resentment, etc.), these *families* (not just one spouse) have opted to make a choice that provides the greatest benefits at the lowest cost for themselves.[/quote]

That’s all well and good if it truly was a “joint decision.” But why go through the trouble and expense of going to college and graduating, only to drop out of the workforce shortly after graduation … especially with student loan debt looming.

Ballooning student loans in the background don’t mix very well with attempting to raise a family on one salary. Sorry, but that’s not a wise choice to make for the family whose future the SAHP purportedly cares so much about. It actually jeopardizes the family’s financial future so the cost is way too high, imho.

You don’t need an expensive college degree to be a mom, let alone a $200K+ graduate degree that some of them are laying to waste by “choice.”[/quote]

Again, in EVERY case that I know of where one parent is the SAHP, it was a joint decision. I’m sure that *after the divorce* some of the non-SAHPs would like to claim that it was a unilateral decision; but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

Many women (and men who are SAHPs!) plan to re-enter the workforce at a later time. Others got their degrees because they didn’t know for sure if they were going to get married and care for kids, so made plans to be sole providers. Others will work in phases, going from SAHP to part-time to full-time, or some combination of those things. Others are able to help their husbands in their work, even advising them and helping to write research papers, speeches, etc. An education is never a waste, IMO.

And, many of us do NOT have student debt (or non-mortgage debt of any kind), including myself.

[Author]

Posts