Article: "What Do Women Really Want - A Husband Or A Career?"

[Xantippe]

There’s also such a false idea of what a SAHM is. We’ve had atleast one poster on here of late who wished to be a SAHM and grossly overcompensated for it–to the point where her 15 and 18yo were not allowed to boil water, wash their own laundry and could not make themselves a sandwich. Her view was that she could work full time + and still do “SAHM things” but SAHM have a duty to raise responsible, self-sufficient children. Everyone does. The full-time WOHM often over-compensates based on what she thinks a SAHM does.

That sort of thinking is why we have major burnout and college students who now need an extra day to learn how to do their laundry and cook ez-mac in the microwave.

There is that.

But it’s also true that it is more work to teach kids to do things, and when you don’t have a lot of time with them, they have a lot of homework, etc., doing everything yourself can be the path of least resistance.

I’m a SAHM and while it’s true that my big kids have been cooking since around 10 or 11 and got handed a lot of chores during my last pregnancy, we only got around to teaching them to load the dishwasher this last month (and the kids are 15 and 12). It did actually require a pretty big time and energy investment to walk each of them through the process a couple of times.

Neither of the kids has ever run a load of laundry, but I give my word of honor we’ll get around to it before college time.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

There’s also such a false idea of what a SAHM is. We’ve had atleast one poster on here of late who wished to be a SAHM and grossly overcompensated for it–to the point where her 15 and 18yo were not allowed to boil water, wash their own laundry and could not make themselves a sandwich. Her view was that she could work full time + and still do “SAHM things” but SAHM have a duty to raise responsible, self-sufficient children. Everyone does. The full-time WOHM often over-compensates based on what she thinks a SAHM does.

That sort of thinking is why we have major burnout and college students who now need an extra day to learn how to do their laundry and cook ez-mac in the microwave.

There is that.

But it’s also true that it is more work to teach kids to do things, and when you don’t have a lot of time with them, they have a lot of homework, etc., doing everything yourself can be the path of least resistance.

I’m a SAHM and while it’s true that my big kids have been cooking since around 10 or 11 and got handed a lot of chores during my last pregnancy, we only got around to teaching them to load the dishwasher this last month (and the kids are 15 and 12). It did actually require a pretty big time and energy investment to walk each of them through the process a couple of times.

Neither of the kids has ever run a load of laundry, but I give my word of honor we’ll get around to it before college time.

I think there is the path of least resistance…but if you ask MANY WOHM what they think kids of SAHM’s get, it’s almost never about life skills but about having their kids want for nothing around the home.

My point is in the polling of WOHM’s as to their desire to be SAHM’s there’s a considerable amount of misunderstanding as to what a SAHM does for her children. Whereas many “pure” SAHM can have some idea of what a WOHM mom of their same socio-economic status deals with…and those like me who are WFHM and other moms who balance their job outside of the home job with their husband’s job for child care. I know what things would shift if my hours became out of the home or I was working 40+ rather than 20-30. So my reality is more complete than that of someone who dosn’t have their feet in both worlds.

Not to mention those who are strongly FOR SAHM aren’t women but evangelical Prot men and Hispanic men…by nearly 20%. People who wouldn’t even be doing the work.

 

[Xantippe]

but if you ask MANY WOHM what they think kids of SAHM’s get, it’s almost never about life skills but about having their kids want for nothing around the home.

My point is in the polling of WOHM’s as to their desire to be SAHM’s there’s a considerable amount of misunderstanding as to what a SAHM does for her children. Whereas many “pure” SAHM can have some idea of what a WOHM mom of their same socio-economic status deals with…and those like me who are WFHM and other moms who balance their job outside of the home job with their husband’s job for child care. I know what things would shift if my hours became out of the home or I was working 40+ rather than 20-30. So my reality is more complete than that of someone who dosn’t have their feet in both worlds.

Not to mention those who are strongly FOR SAHM aren’t women but evangelical Prot men and Hispanic men…by nearly 20%. People who wouldn’t even be doing the work.

–That’s interesting. I don’t see how that’s possible with 3+, and there are a lot of times when it’s not doable with 2.
–That’s interesting that Evangelical Protestant men and Hispanic men are so much more pro-SAHM.
–I think there can be a honeymoon phase after a transition–so even just a year in is not a fair test.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

–That’s interesting. I don’t see how that’s possible with 3+, and there are a lot of times when it’s not doable with 2.
–That’s interesting that Evangelical Protestant men and Hispanic men are so much more pro-SAHM.
–I think there can be a honeymoon phase after a transition–so even just a year in is not a fair test.

• Unfortunately, many moms all but kill themselves to make it happen. Although, having 3 kids is above average anyway. I think most of the students that I hand-held through orientation had none, one or two siblings- veeeeeeery rarely more.
• I think it’s reflective of an adherence to old-time values. And also gender roles. Without SAHM men have to do more of the hands-on child-rearing, cooking and cleaning. Naturally, I don’t think they want to do it.
• Yes! I was a full-time tutor for my niece during my first’s first year. Parenting was the easiest part! Small, portable and generally easy going! (My niece was autistic so her behavior was another story). Life is TOTALLY different with my own at different ages and stages. Granted, they are still very young but one kid under 1? I’d do that a million times over!

 

[Xantippe]

I think the stress levels are probably very different at different stages of SAHM/WOTH, especially at different income levels. I had extremely high stress levels as an SAHM when Baby Girl was 1.5-2 (and pretty high stress until 4.5). It was hard keeping Baby Girl safe all day, and even when she was older, she was very high-need. (Like, she’d demand that I draw a kitty and a kitty and a kitty and another kitty and then another kitty–until I discovered that she’d taped 9 kitty pictures to our back door.)

My stress level is way down since she started 3-day pre-k. I have lots of free time and I’m not stressed, except a little bit about money, because our emergency fund has eroded down to almost nothing, and our disposable income is very small right now (there was much rejoicing when Big Girl didn’t get asked to Homecoming). But I have a lot of free time and I’m staying on top of school and home stuff (which I really struggled with when Baby Girl was a small toddler). Not that anybody wants to put my home in House Beautiful or make me PTA president, but it’s OK.

I’m going to need to do some WFHM stuff really soon, and I anticipate that my stress level is going to go way up (since it’s piece work) and my free time is going to be at least halved for a very modest increase in income. But we seriously need the money.

On the other hand (and I realize this is something of an exercise in imagination), I expect to be doing WOTH in a year. I expect my stress level will be similar or less than the WFHM stuff (since it’s hourly, not piece work), my free time will virtually vanish part of the year, but the income increase should be good enough that we won’t just be treading water at best.

This is largely guesswork, but these are educated guesses.

 

[ThePCWife]

Hispanic men come from Latin cultures where being able to have your wife at home is extremely important. There’s also more extended (female) family living with the couple and their children among Latin-culture households. It is not at all unusual for there to be something like seven kids and three women home during the day for them.

As for evangelical Protestant men, it’s hippies and frontier-descendants all the way down.

 

[Xantippe]

Granted, they are still very young but one kid under 1? I’d do that a million times over!

We moved into our current house when Baby Girl was 7 months old.

It blows my mind now (having spent a couple memorable years crossing the burning sands of Toddlerland) how easy it was to unpack an entire house with an infant I could just plunk into a Pack N Play.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

levels as an SAHM when Baby Girl was 1.5-2 (and pretty high stress until 4.5). It was hard keeping Baby Girl safe all day, and even when she was older, she was very high-need. (Like, she’d demand that I draw a kitty and a kitty and a kitty and another kitty and then another kitty–until I discovered that she’d taped 9 kitty pictures to our back door.)

My stress level is way down since she started 3-day pre-k. I have lots of free time and I’m not stressed, except a little bit about money, because our emergency fund has eroded down to almost nothing, and our disposable income is very small right now (there was much rejoicing when Big Girl didn’t get asked to Homecoming). But I have a lot of free time and I’m staying on top of school and home stuff (which I really struggled with when Baby Girl was a small toddler). Not that anybody wants to put my home in House Beautiful or make me PTA president, but it’s OK.

I’m going to need to do some WFHM stuff really soon, and I anticipate that my stress level is going to go way up (since it’s piece work) and my free time is going to be at least halved for a very modest increase in income. But we seriously need the money.

You mean like a 45 minute battle of the wills to pick up the 10 duplos?

Yep.

Toddler land is a whooooooooole 'nother world from babyhood.

Once it was done being a bed, the pack’n’play became “baby jail”.

 

[Xantippe]

Once it was done being a bed, the pack’n’play became “baby jail”.

I used to be able to plunk Baby Girl in the Pack N Play and take a shower. It was a very sad day when she got big enough to escape from the Pack N Play, so my morning hygiene time needed to be negotiated with my husband.

We had a similar setback when I went from being able to pen Baby Girl in her safe playroom and do a little laundry to Baby Girl learning how to vault over the gate onto the adjoining hardwood floor, or when Baby Girl learned to get out of her crib. (Husband sawed off the legs of the crib for safety to shorten the fall.)

 

[Arkansan]

That (and the original article) assumes that motherhood is something that automatically happens when you get married.

It generally tends to. Automatically defaulting to weird edge cases evinces an inability or unwillingness to reason objectively.

Also, I can pull quotes out of context too

Please, provide the context I was missing.

And this quote is addressing a completely different time and place . . .

Yes, I’ve heard the “the Church’s teaching is too old-fashioned” argument before.

 

[JetteZ]

Quadragesimo Anno is about the working conditions that should happen in order for a traditional family unit to be able to exist.

Yes, the Pope makes that traditional model the ideal; but, the whole point of the encyclical is that he sees the ability to create that traditional life slipping away.

Do you favor a mandated living wage?

 

[jlc2k2]

It’s not really edge cases though. The NIH shows about 7% of men and 11% women are infertile. Even if there’s overlap for couples, that means that noire than 1 in every 10th couple of fertile age in your parish is struggling with infertility. That’s hardly edge cases. In addition, many couples that struggle worth carrying to term won’t be given a label of infertility. Unfortunately, I don’t have statistics to show how frequently that happens.

For the quote out of context, the only context you provided was the title of what I’m guessing is an encyclical. A previous poster covered the historical context that was missing. My point was that I can pull quotes from the Vatican, from Popes that support the idea of women working. So we can sit here and trade quotes back and forth or we can actually discuss things

 

[jlc2k2]

Here’s the link for the infertility statistic.

How common is infertility?

About 9% of men and about 11% of women of reproductive age in the United States have experienced fertility problems.1

www.nichd.nih.gov

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’d tell Jean Genie I’d rather hit Powerball jackpot instead and take my chances on both the career and marriage.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Men are not asked this question because men do not have a choice in the matter. For us, it’s make a living or else.

Given how many men in this world either run out on the family or become disabled or dead before their time, women should be thinking in these terms as well.

I grew up with a chronically ill father and we were just darn lucky he was able to keep steadily employed all those years in between four serious illnesses with lengthy hospitalizations. Mom had had a good secretarial career and several other jobs before marriage, so I know if it had been necessary, she would have been able to go out and work again, although like I said we were lucky and it didn’t become necessary.

However, from that I learned that you don’t depend on a man to pay your bills, because even the best, most responsible man in the world (which my father was) might get hit by circumstances beyond his and your control.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

jlc2k2:

That (and the original article) assumes that motherhood is something that automatically happens when you get married.

It generally tends to. Automatically defaulting to weird edge cases evinces an inability or unwillingness to reason objectively.

Also, I can pull quotes out of context too

Please, provide the context I was missing.

And this quote is addressing a completely different time and place . . .

Yes, I’ve heard the “the Church’s teaching is too old-fashioned” argument before.

I didn’t say that the church was “old fashioned” I said the quote lacked complete societal context as to child rearing at the time. It is by far more a commentary on how children should be treated than one on what women should do. It is imploring women to ensure that their children have a childhood. This quote comes from a time when child labor was seen as acceptable. It’s about 15 years removed from some of the biggest factory tragedies that killed children and only a few after some pretty major other child-at-work tragedies that claimed working children as young as 5. It was a dozen years after WWI in which it was less than secret that teen boys as young as 13 went off to war.

You are reading it as a commentary on how mothers should be parenting. Yet, it’s not meant to be that at all. It’s meant to be an exhortation on how children should be parented and imploring mothers to do all they can to ensure their children were cared for, educated and loved…and not sold off to the highest corporate bidder for pennies.

 

[Xantippe]

Automatically defaulting to weird edge cases evinces an inability or unwillingness to reason objectively.

Infertility is not a weird edge case. It’s all over the Old Testament, for example. In fact, many of the women you hear much about in the Bible have problems with fertility.

Also, come to think of it, small families are not unusual. Again, you can see them in the Bible. If a woman has a small family, she may have a lot of free time once her kids are big.

Yes, I’ve heard the “the Church’s teaching is too old-fashioned” argument before.

a) The encyclical is not primarily aimed at women, but at employers who don’t provide a family wage and who employ mothers and children.
b) Yes, a 19th/early 20th century mine or factory is a very different working environment than a 21st century office, school or hospital that provides a good wage, safe working conditions, reasonable hours, and good benefits. The working conditions in the 19th century were completely different than in the US today. You can find analogous conditions overseas, but again, the encyclical is not about condemning working people.

 

[Arkansan]

Quadragesimo Anno is about the working conditions that should happen in order for a traditional family unit to be able to exist.

Yes, the Pope makes that traditional model the ideal; but, the whole point of the encyclical is that he sees the ability to create that traditional life slipping away.

Yes, he specifically states that the conditions created by the current economy are an “intolerable abuse” and “to be abolished at all costs”.

Do you favor a mandated living wage?

Yes. All workers are owed, in justice, a wage sufficient to support themselves. And steps should be taken to ensure that all fathers can earn a wage sufficient to support their families.

For the quote out of context, the only context you provided was the title of what I’m guessing is an encyclical. A previous poster covered the historical context that was missing. My point was that I can pull quotes from the Vatican, from Popes that support the idea of women working. So we can sit here and trade quotes back and forth or we can actually discuss things

Generally, the allegation that a quote is “out of context” indicates that the context changes the meaning or significance of it. That it was written at the beginning of the trend of working mothers being a thing enhances rather than detracts from its relevance.

No Pope has ever said that it’s a good thing for mothers to be forced by economic circumstance to work outside the home. Praising someone for doing the best they can while suffering injustice does not constitute an endorsement of injustice.

 

[Arkansan]

I didn’t say that the church was “old fashioned” I said the quote lacked complete societal context as to child rearing at the time. It is by far more a commentary on how children should be treated than one on what women should do.

I’m not sure what the point is in misrepresenting something posted earlier in the same thread. Here is the Church’s teaching that mothers should work in the home or its immediate vicinity (bolding mine):

“In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father’s low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman. It will not be out of place here to render merited praise to all, who with a wise and useful purpose, have tried and tested various ways of adjusting the pay for work to family burdens in such a way that, as these increase, the former may be raised and indeed, if the contingency arises, there may be enough to meet extraordinary needs.” - Quadragesimo Anno #71

The encyclical is not primarily aimed at women, but at employers who don’t provide a family wage and who employ mothers and children.

Yes. Employing mothers (or rather, not paying fathers enough to allow their wives to stay home) is bad because it requires mothers to work. The point being that men and women are not in the same condition with regard to the duty to work.

Yes, a 19th/early 20th century mine or factory is a very different working environment than a 21st century office, school or hospital that . . .

None of that is relevant to the point. Notice the bolded portion above.

Of course, the point is condemning unjust employment practices, not their victims. But that doesn’t change the fact that it speaks clearly as to what the Church regards as good.

 

[JetteZ]

No Pope has ever said that it’s a good thing for mothers to be forced by economic circumstance to work outside the home. Praising someone for doing the best they can while suffering injustice does not constitute an endorsement of injustice.

Pope John Paul II praised women simply for working.

“Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of “mystery”, to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.”

He also spoke about the economic difficulties that families face and the need to better understand how we can support a balance between life’s many demands. That commentary is far different from that of suggesting women “belong” at home or acting like we need to choose between marriage and career.

The decision to delay marriage is in no small part to delay having children. Once established in a field they are better able to financially support a family, it is easier to move to a part-time position, or re-enter the workforce (although this is no easy task if a woman leaves for any significant length of time). Women are making these sacrifices so that the family is better off and articles like this penalize and dismiss that effort. That dismissal of the role women play in the world is also spoke about in the Pope’s letter I quoted above.

The Church certianly supports a traditional family dynamic but it’s out of love for the family not out of a belief that “at home” is the only appropriate place for a woman to be once she’s had a child.