Well, I didn’t relate our experience because I didn’t want my personality bleeding over Tom’s nice clean carpets. But if you put it that way …
My wife was in grad school in biology when we got married, but she had already decided she hated it, and didn’t want to get a PhD in something she never wanted to do. When I finished we moved, and we decided that since we were going to have a kid in a year, it was silly for her to start working. (We could afford it, happily.) We found a middle ground. She always liked to write, so as our first child got older she lucked into selling a story, and started selling more. She moved from games reviewing to writing columns for a magazine for nannies, and from there into self-syndicating childcare articles. She does all kinds of freelancing now, and has written a few books. Now both kids are out of the house, but she has no desire to go to work in a traditional job. The best thing is that even when I retire she can keep at it. So, she’s been able to stay home, doing something she likes, and adjust the amount of work she accepts according to circumstances. She can do this since my salary was adequate, and I had good benefits. Today, with good connectivity, her job is much easier, since she no longer had to mail manuscripts or floppy disks around, and she can do a lot of research on the web.
We’ve never worked on the principle of worrying about divorce, since our long and bizarre courtship meant that we’d never have gotten married if there was any alternative to being together. As for being hit by a truck, I’ve always carried a good bit of insurance just in case.
Not everyone can do something they enjoy which pays at home. Not everyone has the luxury of a ramp-up period. Neither of us likes wasting money, so we’ve never carried any debt except mortgage. We know plenty of two income families with bit credit card debt.
One other thing. The NY Times articles on this subject are always about VPs and lawyers and the like. For many people though, childcare and various additional expenses of both partners working makes the incremental income not that high. These people might be the ones who really need it, though. We almost never get takeout or go out to fast food restaurants. I can understand how tempting that is if both of you come home at 6 or 7 pm tired.
Since you say your career is in academia, I wanted to say my wife’s part-time work has been teaching business law at a community college. Of course that type of gig would be a far cry from research or a full professorship. But we found the hours to be excellent for our family. When the kids were younger, she taught evenings and/or weekends. For the last several years she has taught during the day.
And the hourly rate compares pretty well to other part-time alternatives.
I have a somewhat peculiar take on this: I think the fundamental problem is that it is unreasonable to ask two people to raise even one child, much less more than one. I think the thing that places us on the horns of this dillemma is the absence of the extended family (blood or choice, I’m not picky).
The extended family certainly does raise issues of power and of self-determination which is, I think, why we opt en masse for hiring people instead. Paying people relieves the obligation/reciprocation pressure. But it also constricts the bonds between people of course – Bonds being both restricting and stabilizing, depending on how you look at it.
In any event, I don’t see any real hope for a large scale return to the extended family. But I do think it’s where the crux of the problem lies.
You might want to read Sarah Blaffer Hrdy – I liked Mother Nature quite a lot even though I do not share her optimism for day care as a sort of substitute for extended family. I don’t think it works like that as the bonds go in multiple directions.
My girlfriend had 3 kids under 3 years old and her husband was laid off. She is now the sole breadwinner and he stays with the kids because of this same reason. They would have to fork over a fortune to keep three little ones in daycare. Unless you have a shitload of money, it really doesn’t make sense to work when most of your check goes to child care.
Yes and no. Right now, a rather major portion of my paycheck goes to child care. For 3 years, it wasn’t too painful, because I only had one kid, and in a couple of years when she starts school, it will get better again. So for 2 years, it kind of sucks. BUT, I am on a career path where my income is going up fairly steadily (although not in leaps and bounds), and if I stick to it right now, I should be in pretty good shape income-wise once they are both in school. I could even squeak one more kid in there, although that would essentially leave us living on one salary. It’s sort of an investment in my future earnings.
You raise some very good points, Marienee; the way we live now is not really how the human animal was developed to live, and we’re feeling the strain, I think. We can’t go back, and we’re still struggling to figure out how to live. I’ve often felt that raising a child is really a 3-person job, at least!
Anyway, here are a few books to read on this topic:
The price of motherhood by Ann Crittenden. Economic costs and benefits of being a mom. Painfully honest and a must-read. Perfect madness by Jusith Warner. Yet another book on the mommy wars, motherhood myths, all that stuff. There are tons of these, this is one. I didn’t find it very relevant to my life, but there’s certainly plenty to learn about what not to do. The two-income trap by Elizabeth Warren. Economic arguments for having a SAHP (Dinsdale touched on some). She works, he works by Barnett and Rivers. The opposite argument: why both parents should work. I found it unrealistic and fanciful, but there are some good points too. (The trouble with books on working parents is that they tend to assume white-collar jobs, and this one assumes a lot of flexibility too.) Get to work, by Linda Hirshman. Why everyone should hate and despise SAHMs, and women should always work. Just kiss me and tell me you did the laundry by Karen Bouris. Negotiating the murky waters of who does the chores when both partners work.
Hope that helps. There are a zillion books on this; these are just ones that I have read and remember. I also have a good list on children and consumerism, should anyone need it…
Actually, before we even get into the question of extended family members (which is a valid point), I think we need to question the expectations (or lack thereof) for fathers.
It seems like the SAH vs working conundrum is always something that females are expected to wrestle with. It’s treated as a matter of course that men only need to worry about working. Them staying at home to tend to the kids is seen as unmanly. That is “woman’s work”. So dad doesn’t have the dilemma that mom has. It’s a given that he will be the one to work. We leave mom to worry about balancing the family’s needs with her own. And oh yeah, whatever choice she makes is subject to scrutiny and criticism. She’s either a lowly house slave with no life of her own or a heartless adandoner of helpless babies.
And where’s dad? Working 60 hours a week and flying under the radar…
Okay, let’s. Although I have to start with the caveat that I believe that the extreme polarization you describe is a function of the absence of the extended family. And the second caveat that I never experienced it first hand. The whole notion of women not working – the notion of any able bodied person not working – was something that much of my own family of origin hoped to attain, not something they hoped to leave behind.
The question is inevitably ringed around with issues of class and to some extent of race and culture. That being the case I think we have to limit it to what are I think the boundaries laid out in the OP: professional, middle class families. These are I think the only people for whom this issue can be seen as a matter of choice: most of the working and middle class families I am familiar with are making, at best, the choice of continuing to eat, have health care, educate their children. And choosing to do something you don’t want to do in order to keep the wolf from the door impacts my position but not so much yours.
Okay so far?
The division you describe is a division of labor mostly: the role of provider as opposed to the role of nurturer. And it is a mistake to discount the importance to the whole family of having some adult in the household fulfill the role of provider. Where this does not happen, family harmony is unlikely to reign, since you cannot actually eat love.
There was a time when the role of provider was a very important part of our notion of a man as a parent. I think it still is, though less so. Still, a man who is working 60 hours week is not what I call free as a bird.
In other words, if indeed as you say men are expected to provide and women are expected to choose between providing and nurturing, well, at least the girls get a choice. Dad doesn’t have the dilemma in this situation because he hasn’t got the choice.
What I think you are really trying to get at is the fact that women have assumed/are assuming some part of the provider role but men have not assumed an equal proportion of the nurturing role. And I agree with that, though I think this is more true with respect to housework than it is with respect to involvement with children. In general, I think men are more involved with – and are expected to be more involved with – their children than in the past.
If a purely personal anecdote is OK, I’ll just say that up until my twins were 2 I wouldn’t have dreamed of leaving them with anyone for any length of time. Relatives babysat (sometimes frequently, sometimes not) and that was it. I missed my old life terribly, but I also worked hard at raising them (going places, playing, reading, etc.) and it took all of my energy.
Last summer, at around 2.5, they started exerting their independence. They about drove me bananas. I remember sitting at the kitchen table with the yellow pages, in tears, desperate to find SOME kind of reprieve. Working full-time wouldn’t have covered their daycare costs, but part-time preschool and the toyroom at the YWCA are within reach.
The thing is, though, my awful experience with them last year taught me a lot. This summer was wonderful (with a few bad days here & there). They’re older and easier to deal with, plus I had learned better techniques. The way to get better at this job of mothering is to do it, lots of it; books and conversations with friends are wonderful, but your children teach you how to parent them.
And, I’m also THRILLED that school started again this week! Now I can go back to painting. Mommy needs a life. Last year I was so wigged out I couldn’t paint even when I DID have some free time. I can’t imagine having energy for full-time work, for a genuine career, although I know that some mothers do.
I also agree that it’s important for a woman to have a way of earning some money before she has children, if possible. My kids know that I earn money drawing portraits, and that I miss them when I’m off working but that I also love to work.
Interestingly, my husband just said today, “I wonder if I should look for a different job, so I can make more money.” My first reaction was to say that I should look for a part-time job before putting pressure on him to do that. Then I remembered that we’ll have a new baby in February, and I just cannot imagine leaving him/her for work.
My four year old, yes, fine - I am overjoyed that preschool starts next week, as I think four years is my personal limit for being another person’s entire universe. But a small infant, I just can’t see finding other care until they’re older.
What I really need is a part time job where it’s OK to have a baby in a sling with me!
I agree that we’re probably hard-wired to raise kids in a group atmosphere, with extended family and/or close tribe members helping out, and raising kids in isolation in your own home can make you go bonkers right quick. Not sure what the answer is, though, given our culture right now.
I forgot to add that when one income covers all the essentials and then some, sometimes it IS worth it to work for near-break-even wages because, as you said, it is an investment. For many families, they need two incomes to stay above water. When kids come along and it costs too much to put them in daycare, they’re screwed no matter how you slice it. Staggered shifts is sometimes the only way to make ends meet!
Oh, there’s no denying that men have taken on more child-rearing responsibilties in recent years. They definitely have. They just haven’t come as far in that direction as women have come in the other direction. And that’s to be expected as long as nurturing is viewed by society as a “woman thing” and therefore something that no true man should do or want to do.
There are LOTS of kids with no daycare or adequate supervision. They are being watched by grandparents and neighbors too old to do the job, or neighbors and siblings that are too young. So many people have so few choices - poor single moms, married couples making minimum wage or not much more.
In some ways the SAHM/WOHM debate is one about a ridiculous level of luxury. Not everyone can AFFORD to stay home. And not everyone can AFFORD to work either - as contradictory as that sounds.
I will speak up in defense of this book, in that I believe a lot of women don’t have the full story about the economic sacrifices and risks involved in leaving the workforce. Remember, we are Dopers! My mom was one of those women. Although she had a college degree in a marketable field, she was never really able to get her act together once her marriage fell apart when I was 4. She seemed to be just too wedded to the idea that her destiny was to be a mother and homemaker. She clung to this role beyond any level of reason. True, she may be a special case in the other direction. But I expect many women’s calculation of being able to afford to stay home is strictly on the basis of meeting the monthly bills, with no thought or even knowledege of retirement planning and career ladders. I think even if a woman decides to stay home, reading this book will allow her to do it in a better, more informed way that puts her and her children at less risk.
I agree that most women don’t make the decision with a full picture and a total risk assessment. And when women do make the decision off of finances, most of the worksheets have you put in “savings on nylons and drycleaning” and the amount you’ll save on lunches and lattes (all of which can be avoided) - while ignoring the cost of lunch at a McDonalds with a Playland, art supplies not be provided by Daycare. Take out your commuting expenses, but don’t add back in any gas for getting your kids out of the house so they don’t drive you bonkers, apparently when you are a SAHM you stay at home - and completely ignore the long term costs - 401k growth, the salary hit you’ll take if you leave for “a few” years and try to come back. Much less the stuff Bennetts talks about - the risk that your husband loses his job, leaves or dies.
And Elizabeth Warrens point - that most people are going to commit to their income level - is also worthwhile. We have a life structured where we could live off either one of our incomes - the kids might notice we don’t eat out so much or impulse shop Target as often - but we wouldn’t worry about having to choose whether to pay the mortgage, the heat bill or the car payment. We are probably the exception.
But I also think making the decision off a financial spreadsheet isn’t realistic anyway. Its a heart thing - which is why so many women don’t UNDERSTAND the other side at all and thing they must be doing something terribly wrong.
I watched my mom struggle as the main breadwinner for our large family. My dad was an alcoholic and either got fired from or quit most of his jobs. To make extra money, he would repair lawnmowers and continued moving through jobs till he ‘retired’ well before age 65.
I never thought I wanted to depend on any man to support my family. I figured I would have kids and work full-time. I was lucky enough to have great caregivers for my kids - my sister watched them for me, and when she couldn’t my mom (who had since retired) did. I just figured that was how things were going to be.
But then I had my second child. I realized I had missed so much in the baby-hood of my first child and I wanted to have all the moments with both of them. I worked until the second child was two, when my husband’s wages would finally support our family, and then I left my job. Good thing I did, as immediately after I stopped working we discovered that our son had developmental delays, and he was diagnosed with autism the next year.
I tried working full-time for a few months once he was aged 3 and in developmental preschool, but it didn’t work out. He wanted stability and routine, dammit, and mom to be there when he got out of school. So I quit that job and did whatever I could find from home for several years. It worked okay till my husband lost his job. He found another right away but at far less pay, so I found a full-time job. My son was 8 by that time and doing well in school so I wasn’t so worried about how he would handle my being gone, and the family sitting service took over as before.
You never really know what life is going to throw at you. You can make all the plans in the world and it can be different once you actually have that child in your life, with all his quirks and needs. I was lucky to be able to make the choice at the time I really needed to be able to make the choice, and lucky to find a job when I needed it to happen in order to help support our family. I was also lucky to have the extended family network (which is why we live in Podunk, USA) for support. I feel for the parents who don’t have that choice or that support.
First of all, I agree that many of these decisions are not made with a full understanding of the economics involved. But this is hardly the only thing like that, which the subprime mortgage crisis shows us. People don’t make fully rational economic decisions. My daughter and I have actually published in this area, so I can give you some examples.
What is likely happening, though, is that different women weight the factors and risks differently. Someone looking at a job they love and which pays well, will assign a higher cost to staying home than someone who dreads going into work. Someone who feels a new car every two years is very important might feel the loss of income more than someone who likes to get their car to 200K miles. We all assign different different probabilities to divorce also. Some women dread domestic things (we know one) and some women enjoy them. I think those condemning a particular choice - from either side - do so after assigning their weights to these factors.
It would be interesting to see how many women regret their choices 20 years later.
Remember the old saying, no man on his deathbed ever said he wished he spent more time at the office? Do you think that can’t apply to women also?
Sure, but I’ve also heard women say the scariest thing I can think of to say to kids…“I gave everything up for you.”
The trick is to make the decision that isn’t going to have you saying either. And since everyone values different things - its a decision each family is going to have to make on their own.
