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

[heidi_storage]

Going back to the original question, “He says it isn’t meant to imply that the woman would be choosing to only have either a great career or a great marriage. Just that only one would be guaranteed. So basically it isn’t a matter of only choosing one or the other, but of determining which is a higher priority.”

This is a realistic question to ponder. Which is your highest priority, and what actions are you taking to achieve it?

 

[Xantippe]

I think we need to talk in more detail about the working conditions of SAHMs (stay at home) and WFHMs (work from home) versus WOTHs (work outside the home), as there are actually a lot of situations where WOTHs have better working conditions.

If you look at Proverbs 31’s description of the ideal virtuous woman, she has a) home and children b) multiple servants c) various home industries/small business ventures that bring her in contact with the larger community outside her home and d) charitable endeavors. It’s a portrait of a rich, balanced life with lots of resources and lots of contact with the world outside her home. Yes, it’s just one chapter of the Bible, but it’s the most thorough portrait we have of the biblical ideal for women–nowhere else in the Bible do we get such a full picture of what women were expected to do with their time.

Fast forward to the present, and traditional productive crafts are no longer as economically feasible, and have in many cases been replaced with scammy multilevel marketing, where women sell each other overpriced stuff and go into debt trying to make money. Also, when we have real opportunities to work from home, the working conditions can be very poor. I have friend, for example, who homeschools, is pregnant with her third child, and also gets up at 4:30 in the morning to do online teaching for overseas students. She makes what is actually a very good hourly wage (especially considering not having to have paid childcare). I briefly considered doing it myself, but realized that the hours are wrong for us–the working hours are either when I am currently asleep or getting kids to school or evening family time, not when I need it, which is during the school day. So with regard to this particular case, working outside the home during school hours would actually have less of an impact on our family than doing the online teaching job from home. The same goes for a lot of multilevel marketing–aside from it being a money suck, it’s supposed to be mom-friendly, but the hours often cut into evening or weekend family time. Here’s an explanation of how this works with Mary Kay, the cosmetics company:

http://www.pinktruth.com/2016/11/17/the-time-commitment-in-mary-kay/

 

[Xantippe]

For a mom of school age kids, evening is prime time. That’s dinner, evening school events, music practice, music lessons, homework, baths, CCD, confirmation prep, church youth group, kid bedtime, and husband time. Any evening work is potentially robbing my family and burdening my husband.

I have done some editing work from home in the past and am about to start again soon. I actually feel a lot more dread about doing this than working outside the home next year, because although it’s not a lot of hours, it’s very finicky and requires total concentration and there are deadlines. I find this much more stressful than the idea of doing hourly work outside the home during school hours.

There are some real concerns about whether work-from-home is bad for mental health:

Is working from home making you miserable?

If you work at home, take these daily precautions to avoid the creeping threat of loneliness.

www.nbcnews.com

“Across multiple studies, controlling for factors like income, geographic regions and even genetics, the single most important ingredient for long-term happiness appears to be how and how often we connect with other people. Loneliness, especially on a chronic basis, can subject you to depression, frustration and career burnout.”

If you google, you’ll find a lot about work-at-home workers and their struggles with depression and isolation. Coincidentally, SAHMs have poorer mental health than WOTH moms. Look at the table here with higher rates of worry, sadness, anger and depression for SAHMs (and slightly more stress) than for WOTHs:

Stay-at-Home Moms Report More Depression, Sadness, Anger

Stay-at-home moms in the U.S. are more likely than employed moms to report experiencing sadness and anger and having ever been diagnosed with depression. However, low-income stay-at-home moms report even more emotional issues.

news.gallup.com

WOTH moms at 9-5 jobs get lunch breaks and other breaks. Also, both SAHMs and WFHMs may have problems getting enough positive contact with the adult world at certain stages. I’m a 15+ year veteran of being a SAHM (with occasional WFHM stints) and I know that when my oldest and when my youngest were infants, I was high as a kite on BABY and had a great year. However, once my youngest was in the 1.5-2 zone and one of my two friends moved, my quality of life tanked from being in charge of a dangerously active and clingy (!) toddler, still needing to do home stuff and big kid stuff, having virtually no free time, and also frequently going weeks at a time without speaking to any adults aside from my husband except from a sentence or two at grocery checkout or at the Starbucks drive thru–and my husband wasn’t being very nice to me at the time, and as you may imagine, I wasn’t all that nice, either. I was melting down from anxiety. At that point in my life, it would have been a great improvement for my mental health to be a 9-5 WOTH with friendly colleagues and lunch breaks What saved me was putting Baby Girl in parents’ day out for one 5-hour day a week and getting just a little peace and quiet.

What I’m getting at is that it’s very important to examine the actual conditions that women are working under, rather than making the assumption that a SAHM, WFHM or WOTH situation will automatically be better for all women everywhere.

 

[Xantippe]

This was interesting from the linked piece:

“I have been unmarried for a very, very long time. (Not because I valued career over marriage. I always wanted marriage—just, apparently, not with any of the men who offered it. Which is a topic for another time—and, I’m sure, a lot of armchair psychologizing in the mean time.) During those years, I have had not one but two fabulous careers. I gave talks about God’s plan for love and marriage—all over the world, to audiences as large as tens of thousands of people.”

“But were it not for that belief in a Divine appointment, I can honestly say that I would trade every last minute of every rewarding career experience I have had, to instead have a wonderful marriage and children.”

But there is no genie, is there? You don’t get to choose between the fabulous husband and the fabulous career, because nobody gets that exact choice–in practice we have to choose without knowing for sure what we’re getting, and some women get both and many women get neither.

And yes, when she criticized the young woman for saying that she needs to “get her career established," that is not at all a frivolity in the modern world. The young woman’s future husband and her future children may need that from her, and it may be an important ingredient in her being able to give her children a good life.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

My girlfriend and I have talked about marriage and what that looked like.

She is not a very home savy person, and what I mean by that is she is not very domestic. She doesn’t like cleaning the home, doing the dishes, etc… Most days she doesn’t have the energy to do so, even when she isn’t working.

I was a stay at home dad for many years and a caregiver to an ex-wife for several years as well. I don’t mind staying home and doing things in and around the home. Causes me less stress for one, and two would probably be much healthier and less hours than my current job is (EMT). I actually love staying home and being domestic.

So, my girlfriend said that if she could support the both of us on what she made I could stay home when we got married and she would work.

I don’t think gender roles are necessarily concrete and can be switched on a per relationship basis.

 

[Clementine14]

But there is no genie, is there? You don’t get to choose between the fabulous husband and the fabulous career, because nobody gets that exact choice–in practice we have to choose without knowing for sure what we’re getting, and some women get both and many women get neither.

I think this is what is wrong with this article. The idea that there is some kind of either-or choice, and that marriage and career have nothing to do with one another. I get that it is a theoretical question to ask, “which is more important to you”, but I also think it’s a rather stupid question with few practical implications. Also, nobody would ask this same question of a man.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

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.

Last post on the quote. You are severely missing the point of the time, culture and place at which it was offered. Just bolding one sentence out of context dosn’t make you correct.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xantippe:

But there is no genie, is there? You don’t get to choose between the fabulous husband and the fabulous career, because nobody gets that exact choice–in practice we have to choose without knowing for sure what we’re getting, and some women get both and many women get neither.

I think this is what is wrong with this article. The idea that there is some kind of either-or choice, and that marriage and career have nothing to do with one another. I get that it is a theoretical question to ask, “which is more important to you”, but I also think it’s a rather stupid question with few practical implications. Also, nobody would ask this same question of a man.

EXACTLY!!!

My friend’s husband chose a well-paid but completely unsuited for family life career. Yeah, his work is 90% travel, all of it overnight and most of it international but no one would dare say he somehow choose his career over family…I’m guessing mostly because he’s really well paid.

 

[Xantippe]

Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity.

(Xanthippe_Voorhees was quoting Arkansan quoting the encyclical.)

I just noticed the word “primarily” in that sentence. A lot of full-time working mothers do a lot of work at home.

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

Also, nobody would ask this same question of a man.

“You lose money chasing women, never lose women chasing money” -Nas

If a man wishes to get to find a wife he has to show that he is a capable provider. There is no decision to be made so there is no reason to ask a man if he’d prefer to be a SAHD. He may end up being a SAHD if it’s right for his family but there is no way he can date planning on that happening.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Also, nobody would ask this same question of a man.

Really? My friend (male) from college did. He planned a good career but he wanted to be the one that stayed at home if possible. He married someone who had similar thoughts. She didn’t want to be a sahm

Granted it’s rarer but not impossible.

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

But your friend did at least plan on being the provider initially. The number of women who are attracted to men with no career plans beyond being a SAHD is right up there with the number of women who enjoy pre-shaken sodas and getting their seatbacks kicked on planes.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

But your friend did at least plan on being the provider initially. The number of women who are attracted to men with no career plans beyond being a SAHD is right up there with the number of women who enjoy pre-shaken sodas and getting their seatbacks kicked on planes.

No, no he didn’t. He had a career to support himself. Ya know, just incase he never got married.

I think you underestimate the number of women who wish to have childen and stay in the workforce, especally since you demean their choice by comparing it to sadistic “pleasures”

 

[Xantippe]

“You lose money chasing women, never lose women chasing money” -Nas

An occasional guy works his way right out of his marriage.

I believe this is a British site, but you can probably find an American version somewhere:

Can a workaholic change and work less? Marriage on the rocks | Mumsnet

I have realised I am married to a workaholic. He cannot stop working and it is as real addiction as any other like alcohol or drugs. He is addicted to...

www.mumsnet.com

It’s people talking about workaholic spouses (mostly husbands) and how close they have come to divorce over it.

 

[JetteZ]

My friend’s husband chose a well-paid but completely unsuited for family life career. Yeah, his work is 90% travel, all of it overnight and most of it international but no one would dare say he somehow choose his career over family…I’m guessing mostly because he’s really well paid.

I want to EXACTLY!! right back at you.

 

[Arkansan]

the quote lacked complete societal context

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.

out of context

‘Snowball often won over the majority by his brilliant speeches, but Napoleon was better at canvassing support for himself in between times. He was especially successful with the sheep. Of late the sheep had taken to bleating “Four legs good, two legs bad” both in and out of season, and they often interrupted the Meeting with this. It was noticed that they were especially liable to break into “Four legs good, two legs bad” at crucial moments in Snowball’s speeches.’
-George Orwell, Animal Farm

 

[Clementine14]

If a man wishes to get to find a wife he has to show that he is a capable provider. There is no decision to be made so there is no reason to ask a man if he’d prefer to be a SAHD. He may end up being a SAHD if it’s right for his family but there is no way he can date planning on that happening.

But the question was, if you had to choose that one or the other was guaranteed, which would you choose. So it’s okay for men to say “I’d prefer the guarantee of a good career over a good marriage” but not a woman? (Note that I think the question is ridiculous to begin with.)

Also, women can’t exactly plan on being a SAHM these days either. Some women don’t marry and need to support themselves, and many women marry but also need to financially support their families.

 

[Allegra]

Following that logic, no one is really a SAHM unless they have a team of domestics running their household for them while they spend 24/7 playing finger puppets and peek-a-boo. After all, how can you give your children 100% of your attention if you keep running down to change over the laundry or put them in a “gasp” pack-n-play so you can safely slice up carrots. I submit that even when there are other children in the room, kids are getting more attention from their mom when she is supervising the in a playroom than if there are no other kids, but she is folding sock and watering the tomatoes. If I am paying for a childcare provider, it is my expectation that she would be in the room with the children, supervising and interacting with them and not doing chores around the house.

 

[Allegra]

Even in marriages that don’t actually end, it can quickly become a “more roommates than spouses” situation.

 

[Xantippe]

I submit that even when there are other children in the room, kids are getting more attention from their mom when she is supervising the in a playroom than if there are no other kids, but she is folding sock and watering the tomatoes. If I am paying for a childcare provider, it is my expectation that she would be in the room with the children, supervising and interacting with them and not doing chores around the house.

I think this is where the number of kids kicks in.

If it’s mom at home with one kid (maybe two), housework can be interactive (especially 3+), but you’re quite right that the more children there are, the less it’s going to be feasible for a woman to do real housework while doing real childcare.

When I babysat another 1 or 2-year-old in addition to my own, there was definitely no other housework going on, and I was very busy the whole time (except for naps). It was just referee-diapers-feed–read books-referee-diapers-feed all day (except for the naps). At the time, it felt like diapers the whole time.

I only did that a couple days a week (the mom I was sitting for was a grad student) and when it was just me and my one kid, it was SO quiet.