Stop Socializing Men to be Breadwinners

[ThisIsTheDay]

 Someone has to bring in money, but if he has more desire and talent for being the primary caregiver, she better start providing. It isn't his job because he's a man, it's someone's job because they are both parents.

 

Based on your statement, you are leaving the choice to one person.  Is the **only** priority the care of the child?  What about a decision that both mutually agree upon?  Do you think that there is only ONE person who is best suited to care for the child?  What if she decided to learn to be a better mom, or is it only a privilege granted to someone who is talented? What is he has the desire and talent to stay home, but she does not have the desire or talent to work?

 

What if the mother does have the desire and talent for being the primary breadwinner? Does that mean the father "better start" staying home?

 

I can't believe you really mean what you have said here. It's a comment that is incredibly short-sighted.

[SKL]

Well, let's not pretend that singing midday lullabies is as important as enabling the family to buy food.

 

Personally I think the default should be that everyone is ready and willing to work for pay, regardless of gender.  Everyone should prepare to be a "breadwinner."  Then for that (usually short) season of life when someone needs a caregiver at home, the family weighs the pros and cons and makes a joint decision.  The ability of both parents to contribute economically should actually make the decision easier, in the sense that there really are two valid options to choose from.  It should also enable couples to plan better by setting aside more earnings before and after the one-parent-at-home season.  It should help single moms as well if they spend their younger years building an education / career with a view to being a breadwinner.

[Χά�ων]

Wow. Just wow.

 

To your first paragraph, there are many examples I could point out. In traditional agrarian cultures, it's the mom who strapped the baby on her back and spent the day in the fields cultivating enough food for herself and her kids to eat. Another example is the crisis that is often discussed in modern black families where there is a big question of how to get black men to act like fathers to their children. I've never heard of any population where moms needed to be somehow socialized differently so they would care about their children.

 

To your second paragraph, that is an extremely tiny number in the grand scheme of things, and men as well as women commit filicide. The fact that there are crazy and evil people in the world does not seem relevant to the conversation.

 

To your third paragraph, planned parenthood did not even cross my mind. My point was that sometimes society encourages people to act against their biological tendencies. People's natural tendency is to have sex early and often, but society doesn't want that because it causes problems. I didn't say society was entirely successful in delaying sex (or pregnancy), but the social pressure does make some difference for sure. There are many young people who reach adulthood without being sexually active. Another example of society encouraging people to go against their biological tendencies is the expectation of complete monogamy. I'm sure a little thought could produce a significant list of other examples.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is. If you want to talk about data, then why not show me the "data" that proves men are as predisposed to care for kids as women are.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, let's not pretend that singing midday lullabies is as important as enabling the family to buy food.

 

How incredibly rude and dismissive of all of the SAH parents on this board. As if that is all we do? How absurd.

 

Personally I think the default should be that everyone is ready and willing to work for pay, regardless of gender. Everyone should prepare to be a "breadwinner." Then for that (usually short) season of life when someone needs a caregiver at home, the family weighs the pros and cons and makes a joint decision. The ability of both parents to contribute economically should actually make the decision easier, in the sense that there really are two valid options to choose from. It should also enable couples to plan better by setting aside more earnings before and after the one-parent-at-home season. It should help single moms as well if they spend their younger years building an education / career with a view to being a breadwinner.

This *frequently* isn't possible. A woman can get a degree, fine, good idea. She may even work in her early years. But, unless she keeps working, it won't matter much.

 

Really only one parent at a time can focus on their career. Someone has to be able to take kids to soccer and pick them up at school and take them home when they are sick.

 

Well paying jobs frequently require moving to get to the next pay grade or to check the next block. So, one person (usually the one who brings in less money) sacrifices. Maybe they move to an area where the second person can't find work or the job market is tight in their field. You just *can't* both have it all. Life doesn't usually work out that way.

 

I know a handful of power couples, but *all* of those I know have one person with a highly mobile career and have one or more of their own parents living with them to help with the house, cooking, kids and errands.

[LucyStoner]

Well, let's not pretend that singing midday lullabies is as important as enabling the family to buy food.

 

 

Uh, I don't have to pretend. Childcare (physical, emotional, educational etc) is absolutely as important as bringing in the means to buy (or raise/grow) food.

 

Someone (paid or unpaid) has to fry the proverbial bacon. Making or shopping for bread at the best price and assembling the sandwich is every bit as important as bringing in the resources for the raw materials. And I feel the same way now that I am making most all of the sandwiches as when I was earning most all of or even all of the money to buy the darn peanut butter.

[Χά�ων]

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/16/3175831/myth-absent-black-father/

To your first paragraph, there are many examples I could point out. In traditional agrarian cultures, it's the mom who strapped the baby on her back and spent the day in the fields cultivating enough food for herself and her kids to eat. Another example is the crisis that is often discussed in modern black families where there is a big question of how to get black men to act like fathers to their children. I've never heard of any population where moms needed to be somehow socialized differently so they would care about their children.

 

To your second paragraph, that is an extremely tiny number in the grand scheme of things, and men as well as women commit filicide. The fact that there are crazy and evil people in the world does not seem relevant to the conversation.

 

To your third paragraph, planned parenthood did not even cross my mind. My point was that sometimes society encourages people to act against their biological tendencies. People's natural tendency is to have sex early and often, but society doesn't want that because it causes problems. I didn't say society was entirely successful in delaying sex (or pregnancy), but the social pressure does make some difference for sure. There are many young people who reach adulthood without being sexually active. Another example of society encouraging people to go against their biological tendencies is the expectation of complete monogamy. I'm sure a little thought could produce a significant list of other examples.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is. If you want to talk about data, then why not show me the "data" that proves men are as predisposed to care for kids as women are.

 

[Rosie_0801]

Well that was a huge thing with the feminist movement when it began.  It was of the mindset that if you didn't work outside the home you were doing the wrong/patriarchal thing. My mother has talked to me about this a lot recently because she has watched her 3 daughters all choose to be SAHMs and regrets that as a feminist from her era that was not an option for her. She says the only thing in her life she would change if she could was to actually consider if working full time was what was most important for her and our family rather then be told/believing that working was her only option in order not to be oppressed. 

 

Feminism began long before the second wave that you are talking about.

[Aelwydd]

LOL... That's why I said "born" in the 40s. Then it would be the mid to late 50s by the time I was ready to marry. ;)

Yeah, but your mom would have been working, and your dad probably at war. That's what I meant.

[Melinda in VT]

How incredibly rude and dismissive of all of the SAH parents on this board. As if that is all we do? How absurd.

 

This *frequently* isn't possible. A woman can get a degree, fine, good idea. She may even work in her early years. But, unless she keeps working, it won't matter much.

 

Really only one parent at a time can focus on their career. Someone has to be able to take kids to soccer and pick them up at school and take them home when they are sick.

 

Well paying jobs frequently require moving to get to the next pay grade or to check the next block. So, one person (usually the one who brings in less money) sacrifices. Maybe they move to an area where the second person can't find work or the job market is tight in their field. You just *can't* both have it all. Life doesn't usually work out that way.

 

I know a handful of power couples, but *all* of those I know have one person with a highly mobile career and have one or more of their own parents living with them to help with the house, cooking, kids and errands.

 

I didn't think this thread (or the TED talk) was about power couples. There is a difference between a financially and intellectually rewarding career and a high-power career.

 

I took 2.5 years off. I worked part-time for 7 years, most of it exclusively from home. I now work full-time, exclusively from home. During my 20 years in the workforce, I have seen my industry change from "everyone in the office all the time with little flexibility" to "most people work from home 2 days a week or more." Earlier in my career, if I had to adjust my schedule because of a family issue, I wouldn't talk about it. Now, I notice both men and women co-workers saying they are leaving early to go pick up kids, staying home with sick kids, etc. One manager regularly works from the sidelines of his son's swimming practices. No one cares as long as the work gets done and you stay in touch. I think that's a good change.

 

I understood the TED talk to be saying that we need to value care giving to such an extent that men do not feel a loss of value if they choose to be SAHDs. I didn't think the TED talk was promoting a world in which both spouses have high-powered careers.

 

[Danestress]

Based on your statement, you are leaving the choice to one person.  Is the **only** priority the care of the child?  What about a decision that both mutually agree upon?  Do you think that there is only ONE person who is best suited to care for the child?  What if she decided to learn to be a better mom, or is it only a privilege granted to someone who is talented? What is he has the desire and talent to stay home, but she does not have the desire or talent to work?

 

What if the mother does have the desire and talent for being the primary breadwinner? Does that mean the father "better start" staying home?

 

I can't believe you really mean what you have said here. It's a comment that is incredibly short-sighted.

 

Mutually agreed upon is always a great plan:)  I think the problem is that we teach out daughters about their "choices,"  but we often teach our sons about their duties and the realities of the world.  I think a lot of men reach adulthood unprepared to really make choices the same kinds of choices women believe they should be able to make by nature.   And of course, everyone's choices are confined by prior choices and the realities of life.  American fathers and mothers can't always make the same choices to stay home as they could in a nation like Sweden.  But within the financial, biological, and other realities that any couple raises a family in, I think women tend to talk and think a lot about their choices to stay home, work, work part time, have more kids or fewer, etc.  I think a lot of men don't really perceive themselves as having the same choices, even correcting for the biological realities of nursing. 

[Indian summer]

 

 

To your third paragraph, planned parenthood did not even cross my mind. My point was that sometimes society encourages people to act against their biological tendencies. People's natural tendency is to have sex early and often, but society doesn't want that because it causes problems. I didn't say society was entirely successful in delaying sex (or pregnancy), but the social pressure does make some difference for sure. There are many young people who reach adulthood without being sexually active. Another example of society encouraging people to go against their biological tendencies is the expectation of complete monogamy. I'm sure a little thought could produce a significant list of other examples.

 

Not arguing here. Just pointing out that I don't think our society wants us to delay sex, just reproduction. Parents want their kids to delay both, but society really seems to want us to have lots of sex of all kinds, with lots of partners, but absolutely no babies!! At least that's the messages I see almost everywhere.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/feminism-capitalist-handmaiden-neoliberal

 

How neoliberal feminism became a capitalist handmaiden. Pertinent to the discussion at hand.

 

Indeed. One tidbit near the end echoed a main point in the TED vid:

 

"we might break the spurious link between our critique of the family wage and flexible capitalism by militating for a form of life that de-centres waged work and valorises unwaged activities, including – but not only – carework"

 

I was struck by the idea of societal importance, or what value a people puts on an occupation. I don't know just how you get a population to value the home parent's work as much as that of the salaried parent, but once again, we'd have to ask Finland.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I understood the TED talk to be saying that we need to value care giving to such an extent that men do not feel a loss of value if they choose to be SAHDs. I didn't think the TED talk was promoting a world in which both spouses have high-powered careers.

 

That was my takeaway as well. A society will change, in part, brcause of what it values, and values have always changed over time.

 

One scary experiment going on now is our increasing tribalism, which, I would think, is counterproductive to developing cohesive, large scale values strong enough to prompt change.

[SKL]

Not arguing here. Just pointing out that I don't think our society wants us to delay sex, just reproduction. Parents want their kids to delay both, but society really seems to want us to have lots of sex of all kinds, with lots of partners, but absolutely no babies!! At least that's the messages I see almost everywhere.

 

I was talking about traditionally, not just during our lifetimes.

 

And, why do most parents want kids to delay sex?  It is still ingrained in our culture that this is generally a good thing.

[SKL]

Being a single mom and a career woman probably gives me a very different outlook than the majority/average here.  I doubt that I will ever be convinced that families (in general) "need" someone at home all day - or even that they are better off that way.  Some are, sure, but others are quite successful without a SAHP (or part-time SAHP).  Although I am the financial provider, I still prepare 4-5 meals/snacks for my kids each and every day.  I still do the cleaning and the laundry and look after the family's health and education.  I still get my kids to sports and stay home with them when they are sick.  It isn't easy, but who said life was supposed to be easy?

 

And I don't think the TED talk was saying kids need a full-time or part-time SAHP.  I think she was saying that being an absent parent takes a toll, and it's OK to say "the benefits of this job aren't worth the cost."  Both women and men need to be able to say this when families' wellbeing is at stake.  When I say "absent parent" I mean someone who isn't there during the kids' waking hours much of the time.  But, being there in the evening is just as good as being there at 3:30 or 10am.

[Mrs Mungo]

I didn't think this thread (or the TED talk) was about power couples. There is a difference between a financially and intellectually rewarding career and a high-power career.

 

I wasn't arguing the the TED talk, I was disagreeing with SKL.

 

I took 2.5 years off. I worked part-time for 7 years, most of it exclusively from home. I now work full-time, exclusively from home. During my 20 years in the workforce, I have seen my industry change from "everyone in the office all the time with little flexibility" to "most people work from home 2 days a week or more." Earlier in my career, if I had to adjust my schedule because of a family issue, I wouldn't talk about it. Now, I notice both men and women co-workers saying they are leaving early to go pick up kids, staying home with sick kids, etc. One manager regularly works from the sidelines of his son's swimming practices. No one cares as long as the work gets done and you stay in touch. I think that's a good change.

I don't disagree. But, it is only happening in some sectors.

 

I understood the TED talk to be saying that we need to value care giving to such an extent that men do not feel a loss of value if they choose to be SAHDs. I didn't think the TED talk was promoting a world in which both spouses have high-powered careers.

 

I didn't either. Again, I quoted and was disagreeing with SKL's argument that all women should work.

[Melinda in VT]

I didn't either. Again, I quoted and was disagreeing with SKL's argument that all women should work.

 

Was she saying that all women should work? I thought she was saying all women (and all men) should be prepared to work.

 

I could be wrong though. I read the thread in fits and starts and probably wasn't paying close enough attention. :-)

[Mrs Mungo]

Being a single mom and a career woman probably gives me a very different outlook than the majority/average here.

Being a single career woman means that you have never had to make decisions about your career, education, etc in order to further anyone else's career. That was my point. What you were saying *should* happen isn't possible for everyone.

 

I doubt that I will ever be convinced that families (in general) "need" someone at home all day - or even that they are better off that way. Some are, sure, but others are quite successful without a SAHP (or part-time SAHP).

Nowhere did I imply that families need someone home all day. Some families do and some don't. Most of us here homeschool. Most of us have good reasons for homeschooling; it isn't something we decided on a whim. Someone has to be home all day in order to do that.

 

Although I am the financial provider, I still prepare 4-5 meals/snacks for my kids each and every day. I still do the cleaning and the laundry and look after the family's health and education. I still get my kids to sports and stay home with them when they are sick. It isn't easy, but who said life was supposed to be easy?

And that's great. But, not every industry or type of job is going to allow for that. Most of the people I know aren't in jobs that would allow for any of that. Unless or until every job does allow it, your argument is sort of moot point. Right now, most jobs don't allow for that kind of flexibility. You know my dh is military. He just finished an exercise in which he was leaving for work at 2 am and coming home around 5:30 or 6 in the evening. He couldn't really do anything except eat dinner and go to bed. He leaves for months at a time. Bad things happen that require him to leave home in the middle of the night.

 

I know female officers whose husbands sacrifice their careers and stay home or work lesser jobs. I know female officers whose husbands have an equally demanding job and have a parent living with them. It doesn't matter that *you* have the sort of hours and of flexibility that you describe. You were saying that *all* women (and I assume you would naturally extend that to a SAHD) should leave their options open, but it is not possible for couples in all career fields to do so. That was my point.

[Mrs Mungo]

Was she saying that all women should work? I thought she was saying all women (and all men) should be prepared to work.

 

I could be wrong though. I read the thread in fits and starts and probably wasn't paying close enough attention. :-)

My first post argued that being "prepared to work" is useless after a certain point. You can't be prepared to walk into most industries after taking 20 years off to take care of your kids and homeschool. You have to make a choice, and it isn't always (or even usually) possible for both the husband and wife to have a solid career. I am fine with it being the husband *or* wife. I just understand that most of the time, one member of the couple makes a lot of sacrifices for the career of the other.

[SKL]

My first post argued that being "prepared to work" is useless after a certain point. You can't be prepared to walk into most industries after taking 20 years off to take care of your kids and homeschool. You have to make a choice, and it isn't always (or even usually) possible for both the husband and wife to have a solid career. I am fine with it being the husband *or* wife. I just understand that most of the time, one member of the couple makes a lot of sacrifices for the career of the other.

 

I completely disagree with you.  It is no more "useless" for a woman to be "prepared to work" than for a man to be.  Of course "stuff happens," but being prepared to adapt is a lot better than planning for only one option.

 

Just as my ideal doesn't apply to all families, neither do your restrictions.  Most people are not in the military.  Most civilian, non-immigrant Americans I know have always lived within easy driving distance of their birthplace.  I know very few people who actually *had* to move in order to remain successful in their job/career.  Obviously there are some exceptions, but the implication that a woman shouldn't bother to be prepared for a career because she is almost certain to need to move for her husband's career is misguided.  Even if a career-ready woman is faced with such a situation, it does not hurt to know that there are multiple options available.  I would think it would be a source of strength for men, too, to know that their wives could keep the boat afloat if anything happened to their jobs.

 

As for work flexibility, there is a lot more of it nowadays if one looks for it.  In addition, there are options such as having another adult available to care for a sick kid on an emergency basis or to drive kids around during business hours.  This too can be planned for.  There are businesses that provide these services for parents who don't have a good network of their own.  Of course you can also opt out of stuff like afternoon soccer in favor of evening TKD etc.

 

Homeschoolers are a small minority, and my comments were obviously not about that small minority.  I would note, however, that there are homeschoolers who have careers too.

[Mrs Mungo]

I completely disagree with you. It is no more "useless" for a woman to be "prepared to work" than for a man to be. Of course "stuff happens," but being prepared to adapt is a lot better than planning for only one option.

By useless, I mean that it won't mean anything after a certain point. Unless one consistently works, then you have to be re-trained, re-degreed, re-certified in many professional fields.

 

Just as my ideal doesn't apply to all families, neither do your restrictions. Most people are not in the military.

I am not the one claiming that I believe a certain thing needs to happen in all families, you are.

 

Most civilian, non-immigrant Americans I know have always lived within easy driving distance of their birthplace.

Really? Even most of the civilian friends I have had over the years don't live near their birthplace. Among my closest friends:

 

One was born in Colorado, her dh works for a civilian company in Seattle, they moved there after the company he worked for in Chicago closed. Her parents still live in Colorado. His live in Virginia. She has a Master's degree, but hasn't been able to establish a solid career due to the frequent moves from his job. At this point, she would have to go back to school before she could be competitive/viable in the workplace again.

 

Another close friend was born in Kansas and (coincidentally) also lives in Washington. Her mom lives in Kansas, as do his parents. Her dad lives in Portland. Her dh formerly worked a job that transferred a lot, so they moved a TON. He finally managed to secure a solid position in the airline industry (working on planes), so they have now lived there several years. It looks like they will be able to stay.

 

My second born sister's husband is from Kansas (I am from Oklahoma). They moved to SC a few years ago so that her dh could take a promotion.

 

This is exceedingly common among the people that I know.

 

I know very few people who actually *had* to move in order to remain successful in their job/career. Obviously there are some exceptions, but the implication that a woman shouldn't bother to be prepared for a career because she is almost certain to need to move for her husband's career is misguided.

That isn't my argument at all. My argument is that in my experience moves are commonplace in corporate/management jobs. In those cases, one person will end up sacrificing their career for the sake of the other. It isn't always possible for two people to manage careers. I am NOT saying that it is never possible. Preparing for career HAS to mean that you actually HAVE a career. You can't "prepare for a career" and not work for 20 years. You *aren't* prepared for a career, if you haven't worked outside the home in 20 years. Are you understanding that part of my point?

 

Even if a career-ready woman is faced with such a situation, it does not hurt to know that there are multiple options available. I would think it would be a source of strength for men, too, to know that their wives could keep the boat afloat if anything happened to their jobs.

Explain how one could would be a stay at home mom for 20 years *and* stay competitive/licensed in most career fields.

 

As for work flexibility, there is a lot more of it nowadays if one looks for it.

This depends strictly upon your career field. It is *not* universally true at all.

 

In addition, there are options such as having another adult available to care for a sick kid on an emergency basis or to drive kids around during business hours. This too can be planned for. There are businesses that provide these services for parents who don't have a good network of their own.

Not everyone makes the sort of salary that would make that viable. It would cost more than some people are able to bring in with the sort of jobs they can work while moving, etc.

 

Homeschoolers are a small minority, and my comments were obviously not about that small minority. I would note, however, that there are homeschoolers who have careers too.

LOL, we aren't a small minority on this board. Certainly some have careers, but it isn't a viable option for *everyone*. You are the one making universal statements, not me.

[SKL]

By useless, I mean that it won't mean anything after a certain point. Unless one consistently works, then you have to be re-trained, re-degreed, re-certified in many professional fields.

 

I am not the one claiming that I believe a certain thing needs to happen in all families, you are.

 

Really? Even most of the civilian friends I have had over the years don't live near their birthplace. Among my closest friends:

 

One was born in Colorado, her dh works for a civilian company in Seattle, they moved there after the company he worked for in Chicago closed. Her parents still live in Colorado. His live in Virginia. She has a Master's degree, but hasn't been able to establish a solid career due to the frequent moves from his job. At this point, she would have to go back to school before she could be competitive/viable in the workplace again.

 

Another close friend was born in Kansas and (coincidentally) also lives in Washington. Her mom lives in Kansas, as do his parents. Her dad lives in Portland. Her dh formerly worked a job that transferred a lot, so they moved a TON. He finally managed to secure a solid position in the airline industry (working on planes), so they have now lived there several years. It looks like they will be able to stay.

 

My second born sister's husband is from Kansas (I am from Oklahoma). They moved to SC a few years ago so that her dh could take a promotion.

 

This is exceedingly common among the people that I know.

 

That isn't my argument at all. My argument is that in my experience moves are commonplace in corporate/management jobs. In those cases, one person will end up sacrificing their career for the sake of the other. It isn't always possible for two people to manage careers. I am NOT saying that it is never possible. Preparing for career HAS to mean that you actually HAVE a career. You can't "prepare for a career" and not work for 20 years. You *aren't* prepared for a career, if you haven't worked outside the home in 20 years. Are you understanding that part of my point?

 

Explain how one could would be a stay at home mom for 20 years *and* stay competitive/licensed in most career fields.

 

This depends strictly upon your career field. It is *not* universally true at all.

 

Not everyone makes the sort of salary that would make that viable. It would cost more than some people are able to bring in with the sort of jobs they can work while moving, etc.

 

LOL, we aren't a small minority on this board. Certainly some have careers, but it isn't a viable option for *everyone*. You are the one making universal statements, not me.

 

You've gotten way off the point of the TED talk and the title of this thread.  The question raised was why do we socialize men to be the breadwinners.  My comment was that not only men, not only women, but young people of both sexes should prepare to be a breadwinner.  When we talk about "socializing" men/women, we're not talking about adults who are already parents.  We're talking about children, youths, and young adults who are thinking about their futures.

 

The majority of US women today do not take off 20 years to be SAHMs.  The majority of moms have a job, or are trying to get one, while their kids are in school full time.  And many, many moms never leave the workforce in the first place.  Also there are many people who start a new career without having specific experience in that career.  And not every breadwinner is pursuing the kind of career that requires a lot of experience.  These are not rare situations, they are pretty common.

 

As for me implying that anything is universal, please re-read, because I am constantly qualifying my statements with disclaimers or carefully choosing words like "most."  The exception being that when we are talking about "socializing" young people, yes, I think they all should be prepared for the possibility that they may need to go to work.  I think it is irresponsible to do otherwise.  Being a SAHM is not ever going to be an option for some people.

[Mrs Mungo]

You've gotten way off the point of the TED talk and the title of this thread.  The question raised was why do we socialize men to be the breadwinners.  My comment was that not only men, not only women, but young people of both sexes should prepare to be a breadwinner.  When we talk about "socializing" men/women, we're not talking about adults who are already parents.  We're talking about children, youths, and young adults who are thinking about their futures.

I'm not disagreeing with anything from the TED talk. I am specifically disagreeing with a statement you made.

 

The majority of US women today do not take off 20 years to be SAHMs.  The majority of moms have a job, or are trying to get one, while their kids are in school full time.  And many, many moms never leave the workforce in the first place.  Also there are many people who start a new career without having specific experience in that career.  And not every breadwinner is pursuing the kind of career that requires a lot of experience.  These are not rare situations, they are pretty common.

There is a HUGE difference between having a job and working in a career that supports a family. You said, "Everyone should prepare to be a 'breadwinner.'" I have the misfortune to know several widows (not all of them military) or women or men who got divorced after sacrificing their careers for their spouse's over a long period. Most of them had to go back to school or receive some training before they could get a "breadwinning" type of job. You are a lawyer, yes? You didn't just walk into that career. You couldn't take off many years, then walk back in, correct? You couldn't take off of law because your husband or wife had a job that caused you to move (changing states) every few years, then walk back into it without some beefing up of your resume, this is likely true, yes?

 

As for me implying that anything is universal, please re-read, because I am constantly qualifying my statements with disclaimers or carefully choosing words like "most."  The exception being that when we are talking about "socializing" young people, yes, I think they all should be prepared for the possibility that they may need to go to work.  I think it is irresponsible to do otherwise.  Being a SAHM is not ever going to be an option for some people.

You said everyone should prepare to be a breadwinner, not everyone should prepare for the fact that they may need to hold a job. Those are not equivalent statements, IMO.

[SKL]

Mrs. Mungo, when you respond to my comments like this, it suggests to me that you have some emotional involvement which I have no desire to aggravate.  I will not respond to you any further on this issue.

[Dory]

I might be teaching my dd that she needs to be prepared to be a breadwinner, but I have also taught her that when she is ready to have kids, she needs to be home for them at least until they are in school. Once they are in school, who knows, she might take a job or decide to stay home. I have taught my boys that they need to do whatever is necessary to try to support their family emotionally and physically. Yes I am teaching my boys to be primary breadwinners, although they have also seen the few times where SAHD is an option that is healthiest for the family. I think those times are the rarity though, not the norm. I do think that women are better at home when the children are small. I know that many, many people don't agree with me, but the female mind is different and we are better equipped at dealing with the chaos that small children bring. One the kids are school age, a SAHD would probably do as good a job as most mom's .

 

I do NOT think that being the primary breadwinner means that they don't input emotionally into the family. I think that it is tragic seeing how many dad's are uninvolved in their kids lives.

 

We do try to follow scripture here though and there is a scripture that says that if a man doesn't provide for his family he has denied the faith. Being a provider is more than being a breadwinner though.

[Mrs Mungo]

nm

Edited March 24, 2014 by Moderator
That's name-calling. Quit.

[SKL]

It occurs to me that the term "breadwinner" may mean different things to different people.  When I said "a breadwinner" I used "a" because I was specifically NOT implying "THE" breadwinner.  In many families, breadwinning is a joint effort, whether by choice or necessity.  Being "a" breadwinner may not mean netting enough money to singlehandedly finance all the needs and wants of an average family.  But maybe that is how it was taken by some readers.

 

ETA:  looks like different dictionaries define it differently, and it goes back to the early 1800s when it actually meant "the" person who financially supported the family.  It has evolved over time as society has evolved.

[fraidycat]

I might be teaching my dd that she needs to be prepared to be a breadwinner, but I have also taught her that when she is ready to have kids, she needs to be home for them at least until they are in school. Once they are in school, who knows, she might take a job or decide to stay home. I have taught my boys that they need to do whatever is necessary to try to support their family emotionally and physically. Yes I am teaching my boys to be primary breadwinners, although they have also seen the few times where SAHD is an option that is healthiest for the family. I think those times are the rarity though, not the norm. I do think that women are better at home when the children are small. I know that many, many people don't agree with me, but the female mind is different and we are better equipped at dealing with the chaos that small children bring. One the kids are school age, a SAHD would probably do as good a job as most mom's .

 

I do NOT think that being the primary breadwinner means that they don't input emotionally into the family. I think that it is tragic seeing how many dad's are uninvolved in their kids lives.

 

We do try to follow scripture here though and there is a scripture that says that if a man doesn't provide for his family he has denied the faith. Being a provider is more than being a breadwinner though.

Maybe it's morr than a few times that the father as primary caregiver would actually BE healthier, though. We, as a society don't know because we've not "allowed" that option.

 

"Whatever it takes", physically often removes any option for emotionally due to hours and stress from the job. So sometimes it's one or the other.

 

Some Dads are VERY involved in their kids lives...

 

 

 

When they can be. But if they're carrying the whole load, sometimes there isn't enough of him left to be anything other than the breadwinner. With the option of being less breadwinner, more caregiver, things could be different. I'm Not talking at a macro level, though. How we function today, as a society as a whole, is not set up to support the social constructs required to accomplish what the speaker is promoting. Allowing the Dads to be more emotionally supportive, too.

[Dana]

. I know that many, many people don't agree with me, but the female mind is different and we are better equipped at dealing with the chaos that small children bring. One the kids are school age, a SAHD would probably do as good a job as most mom's .

.

I'll strongly disagree.

I guarantee that my husband is much better able to deal with the chaos of a small child than I am.

I think he would have done better staying at home than I have, but he had the job with health insurance at the time.

 

It's this type of generalization that is exactly what is being argued against.

[Audrey]

It occurs to me that the term "breadwinner" may mean different things to different people.  When I said "a breadwinner" I used "a" because I was specifically NOT implying "THE" breadwinner.  In many families, breadwinning is a joint effort, whether by choice or necessity.  Being "a" breadwinner may not mean netting enough money to singlehandedly finance all the needs and wants of an average family.  But maybe that is how it was taken by some readers.

 

That might be part of the problem.  Again, it is an issue of defining terms.  FWIW, I read to you to be saying that women should be ready, willing and prepared to pursue paid work to support or partly support their families when and if needed.   I think others are jumping to assumption that "breadwinner" means well-paying career in a field of satisfying choice." 

 

Not arguing with you, but to further expound.... Reality is that most people aren't supporting their families these days on nice, well-paying, career-of-choice salaries.  There are many "jobs" that are simply paid work that pays the bills. Some are careers.  Some are not.  Sure, one may have given up the window of opportunity to pursue their own career possibilities in lieu of supporting a spouse, but re-entry into paid work does not necessarily mean jumping back into said career field.  It simply means, IMO, getting a job that pays money -- money that the family might need the female parent to provide.  A female parent should be ready, willing and prepared to take whatever legitimate work necessary to provide for (or be a breadwinner for) her family.  

 

Kind of goes along with that other thread on "never say never."

[fraidycat]

I'll strongly disagree.

I guarantee that my husband is much better able to deal with the chaos of a small child than I am.

I think he would have done better staying at home than I have, but he had the job with health insurance at the time.

 

It's this type of generalization that is exactly what is being argued against.

I agree. I was better at baby care, and even then DH was no slouch. But toddler and up, DH is WAY better. I'm not, and have never been, a "kid" person. DH is. He does not require as much adult interaction as I do. In hindsight, we probably would have been better off reversing primary roles. Definitely food for thought for raising my kids and directing their thought processes as they grow.

[SKL]

I will say that as a kid, both of my parents worked.  My dad was older and had more years of experience - and let's be honest, he was earning wages as a man - so he always brought in more money.  But it was never enough to pay all the bills, so my mom worked too.  She worked outside the home once we were all in school at least part-time.  She liked working outside the home.

 

I will say that having my mom contribute financially helped my dad to contribute more emotionally.  And my dad was (and is) a truly great dad as far as that goes.  Though he always worked full-time, he was there for us in the important ways, and there are results to show for it.

 

Just some additional food for thought.

[Χά�ων]

Mrs. Mungo, when you respond to my comments like this, it suggests to me that you have some emotional involvement which I have no desire to aggravate.  I will not respond to you any further on this issue.

There are those of us without emotional involvement who are interested in the answers to the questions she asked.

 

 

I am not in the same field as you are so I cannot give input on your field. But I will answer from my experience. I am another single mother by choice. 3 years ago my son was DX with a disease that will slowly cripple him and could result in his death. At the time it was fast progressing and he went from athletic and active to unable to walk. I walked away from a career that would have not only been satisfying but allowed me the freedom to work from home travel some and I would be making well over six figures a year. I was being ask to expand into a 4th state and I was discussing taking my business and making it into a franchise. 

 

It has only been 3 years, I have stayed involved in my field but not like I was. I still am one of the leading experts in my area and on very rare occasions I offer my services at no charge as a consultant for friends. If I were to decide to pick up where I left off I would not be able to. Everything moves fast and it was a full time job just to keep up on everything while working. I take that back. It was more than a full time job. I actually hired someone part time to help me keep up. 

 

3 years and I am already obsolete. 20 and I would be better off switching careers.

[Catwoman]

It occurs to me that the term "breadwinner" may mean different things to different people. When I said "a breadwinner" I used "a" because I was specifically NOT implying "THE" breadwinner. In many families, breadwinning is a joint effort, whether by choice or necessity. Being "a" breadwinner may not mean netting enough money to singlehandedly finance all the needs and wants of an average family. But maybe that is how it was taken by some readers.

 

ETA: looks like different dictionaries define it differently, and it goes back to the early 1800s when it actually meant "the" person who financially supported the family. It has evolved over time as society has evolved.

I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't interpret your posts as saying that everyone should be prepared to have a professional career and be able to fully support their families, but that you were saying that if the situation warrants it, either or both parents should be willing to get off their butts and get some kind of a job to bring some money into the household.

[SKL]

I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't interpret your posts as saying that everyone should be prepared to have a professional career and be able to fully support their families, but that you were saying that if the situation warrants it, either or both parents should be willing to get off their butts and get some kind of a job to bring some money into the household.

 

Right.

[Mrs Mungo]

How we function today, as a society as a whole, is not set up to support the social constructs required to accomplish what the speaker is promoting. Allowing the Dads to be more emotionally supportive, too.

I agree. It would be nice if US society was set up this way, but it isn't.

[Mrs Mungo]

FWIW, I read to you to be saying that women should be ready, willing and prepared to pursue paid work to support or partly support their families when and if needed.

Let me try to rephrase. If my dh disappeared and the army decided he had gone AWOL, so they refused to declare him dead or retire him, then I would not be *able* right away (willing is a moot point) to get a job that would support my family, make a mortgage payment, put my kids through college, etc. Keeping the ability intact over the course of a lifetime for *both* spouses to do that at any given time is impossible for many families. That is the point I was making.

 

ETA: This is evidenced by the large number of women here who had to go back to school when their husbands were disabled, laid off, underemployed or they divorced. Those women were emotionally ready to re-enter the work-force, that wasn't the problem. The problem was the actual mechanics of it

 

E(A)TA: What SKL seemed to be saying was that women (and I assume she means any SAHP) should maintain their readiness to fully support their family at any time. I was pointing out the many difficulties with that stand.

[Soror]

nm 

 

[Χά�ων]

nm 

I understand why you edited because I had been debating saying the exact same thing. I agree with you 100% but I doubt the words would be heard or understood. 

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I'll strongly disagree.

I guarantee that my husband is much better able to deal with the chaos of a small child than I am.

I think he would have done better staying at home than I have, but he had the job with health insurance at the time.

 

It's this type of generalization that is exactly what is being argued against.

You beat me to it. However, I will add to your reply with a genuine question for the previous post. How do you differentiate stress in some measurable way? I'm sure there's a way - measuring cortisol levels and whatnot.

 

How would we compare stress from parenting small kids to stress of....let me pick the most macho thing I can....armed combat. No, how about carrier landings. Working a trading floor? Well, shoot. Women now do those jobs too.

 

If there's genuine imperical data showing men just can't handle that certain little kid stress, I'm listening. If true, then we do need to socialize boys differently, if only for, their own health! Of course, I am indeed calling BS on the premise, but I could be swayed by real research.

[Guest inoubliable]

I walked away from a career that would have not only been satisfying but allowed me the freedom to work from home travel some and I would be making well over six figures a year. I was being ask to expand into a 4th state and I was discussing taking my business and making it into a franchise. 

 

It has only been 3 years, I have stayed involved in my field but not like I was. I still am one of the leading experts in my area and on very rare occasions I offer my services at no charge as a consultant for friends. If I were to decide to pick up where I left off I would not be able to. Everything moves fast and it was a full time job just to keep up on everything while working. I take that back. It was more than a full time job. I actually hired someone part time to help me keep up. 

 

 

 

 

:svengo:

[Scarlett]

I will admit to skimming the thread.....I have always wanted a traditional family......SAHM/working dad. Any man who wanted something different wouldn't have been interested in me. I also am enough of a realist to know that life happens and I might have to go to work someday.

 

I encourage my son to think in terms of being able to support himself, someday a wife, someday children. I don't think it is a bad model....but have no problem with people who choose to do it differently.

[Alice]

I didn't watch the TED talk yet, so this is more in response to the thread than what was said in the talk. Dh and I both work part-time and stay home part-time. He works about 30 hours a week, I work about 15-25 (it varies a bit week to week). I think in many ways our situation is ideal, yet it's not without problems. The good is that we both get to be home with the kids, we both get to be involved with homeschooling, and we both get to stay in our career. 

 

The biggest issue with this is the opportunity cost of working part time in a knowledge based field. We've taken a financial hit when each of us was doing a little bit of work since it's not true that part timers earn proportionally less- ultimately they earn less per hour than they would if they were full time. And part time is usually more like 30-40 hours anyways (as opposed to 50-70+) Also our employer based health care system carries serious disincentives for that to change since each healthcare plan participant is the same high cost so it's better for the company if they pay per employee for as many hours as possible from as few employees as possible instead of paying for producive work hours completed.

 

This is one of the main downsides to our arrangement. From a purely financial standpoint it would make the most sense for me to work full-time and dh to stay home. If I was working full-time I make about 2-3x what he would FT and we would make probably 30% more than we do now with our combined salaries. I'm not sure how healthy-insurance would change but it would be significant. Right now, dh's work pays for 80% of his insurance if he works 30 hours a week. They do not pay for me or the kids. We can't have health insurance through my job unless I worked at least 30 hours. We spend about $8K-$10K out of pocket a year on insurance and I believe if dh or I were full-time we would all be covered.  However, we're lucky to be in jobs where we can make enough part-time to live well enough. We've made a conscious choice to make less than we could and live differently than we could if we earned more. I'm well aware though that for many people they simply don't have the ability to work part-time and have it be a viable option financially.

 

Mutually agreed upon is always a great plan:)  I think the problem is that we teach out daughters about their "choices,"  but we often teach our sons about their duties and the realities of the world.  I think a lot of men reach adulthood unprepared to really make choices the same kinds of choices women believe they should be able to make by nature.   And of course, everyone's choices are confined by prior choices and the realities of life.  American fathers and mothers can't always make the same choices to stay home as they could in a nation like Sweden.  But within the financial, biological, and other realities that any couple raises a family in, I think women tend to talk and think a lot about their choices to stay home, work, work part time, have more kids or fewer, etc.  I think a lot of men don't really perceive themselves as having the same choices, even correcting for the biological realities of nursing. 

 

I think this is absolutely true. The biggest downside to our working arrangement has been a loss of career advancement for both of us. I will never be a partner in my practice, dh will never advance further at his firm (so he'll never be at the management level). This effects us financially and it also effects us somewhat emotionally. I think for dh it is a bigger issue. Many pediatricians work part-time and stay home part-time so I'm not that unusual (except for the weird homeschooling thing). However, very very few men choose to work part-time and stay home part-time. So dh is viewed differently by his employers for this choice. Again, we're lucky that where he works even allows it as an option. I know many men who are friends of ours who say they would love to do what he does but just don't work at jobs that would allow it. But it's also hasn't been without sacrifice. 

 

The flip side is that I think our sons and our daughter are both seeing that there are a lot of ways to arrange your work and your life. They are used to days when I go to work and he is home. There are things I'm better at and things he's better at. They are used to both of us doing the laundry, vacuuming, making dinners, working outside the house, tucking them in at night, singing lullabies, taking them to sports practices, etc. I think that's a good thing for them all. 

[fraidycat]

I didn't watch the TED talk yet, so this is more in response to the thread than what was said in the talk. Dh and I both work part-time and stay home part-time. He works about 30 hours a week, I work about 15-25 (it varies a bit week to week). I think in many ways our situation is ideal, yet it's not without problems. The good is that we both get to be home with the kids, we both get to be involved with homeschooling, and we both get to stay in our career.

 

 

This is one of the main downsides to our arrangement. From a purely financial standpoint it would make the most sense for me to work full-time and dh to stay home. If I was working full-time I make about 2-3x what he would FT and we would make probably 30% more than we do now with our combined salaries. I'm not sure how healthy-insurance would change but it would be significant. Right now, dh's work pays for 80% of his insurance if he works 30 hours a week. They do not pay for me or the kids. We can't have health insurance through my job unless I worked at least 30 hours. We spend about $8K-$10K out of pocket a year on insurance and I believe if dh or I were full-time we would all be covered. However, we're lucky to be in jobs where we can make enough part-time to live well enough. We've made a conscious choice to make less than we could and live differently than we could if we earned more. I'm well aware though that for many people they simply don't have the ability to work part-time and have it be a viable option financially.

 

 

I think this is absolutely true. The biggest downside to our working arrangement has been a loss of career advancement for both of us. I will never be a partner in my practice, dh will never advance further at his firm (so he'll never be at the management level). This effects us financially and it also effects us somewhat emotionally. I think for dh it is a bigger issue. Many pediatricians work part-time and stay home part-time so I'm not that unusual (except for the weird homeschooling thing). However, very very few men choose to work part-time and stay home part-time. So dh is viewed differently by his employers for this choice. Again, we're lucky that where he works even allows it as an option. I know many men who are friends of ours who say they would love to do what he does but just don't work at jobs that would allow it. But it's also hasn't been without sacrifice.

 

The flip side is that I think our sons and our daughter are both seeing that there are a lot of ways to arrange your work and your life. They are used to days when I go to work and he is home. There are things I'm better at and things he's better at. They are used to both of us doing the laundry, vacuuming, making dinners, working outside the house, tucking them in at night, singing lullabies, taking them to sports practices, etc. I think that's a good thing for them all.

I think this arrangement is wonderful! Kudos to you guys.

 

I have comments/questions that are more philosophical in nature and do not require your reply. Rather I think it speaks directly to the heart of this TED talk and subject.

 

You mention that this arrangement affects you both emotionally, but probably your DH a little more. Of course, he's probably currently viewed as the "weird" one, working part-time so he can actively raise his family with you.

 

How GREAT would it be if he wasn't viewed as "weird", or "lucky", or (insert any descriptors of your choice here)? What if this was the NORMAL arrangement widely accepted by everybody? What if a person didn't have to devote every little part of themselves to the job to be considered "successful" or "promotable"? What if our society valued this balance of person vs. drone? How great would our lives be if both men AND women had *choices* and were not viewed as weird, less than, not dedicated enough, etc. What if this type of arrangement didn't affect anyone in a negative emotional OR financial way? What if "success" was defined differently and nobody had to stay at a job for medical benefits?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I want those choices for my DS and my DD.

[LucyStoner]

SKL, if all parents work, someone is caring for the kids directly during those work hours. It is not better or worse to use childcare, school, nannies, family, activities or stay at home parents (PT or FT). Parents do what they need to do and what works best for them. That is a good thing. But it is absolutely NOT INFERIOR for a family to opt to not outsource those things either by necessity or preference. You seem to be elevating money above and beyond all of the other factors that go into sustaining and nurturing a family.

 

When I worked long days with a spouse and family support and a small family we outsourced a lot of food and housework. I believe you have made many posts describing having family and babysitter help while working constantly. I am sure you respect the work that your teachers and babysitters do. Why less respect for moms and dads who do that work themselves? I am not saying one is better or worse. I've done a whole mix of things myself. Respecting the work, paid or unpaid, that comes with children is at the core of this speaker's message. We should not culturally devalue children by devaluing those that directly care for them during the work and non-work day.

 

I am enrolling soon to become a CPA and specialize in non-profit accounting and financial management. That is my return to work when the kids are older plan. But there is nothing better or worse about any of the myriad things I have done during the day as alternately both a working and stay at home parent. For us, for now, a stay at home parent is in fact an imperative and we are fortunate that we can swing it. I am also fortunate to be married to a man who values me fully regardless of how I use my time and talents.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

You mention that this arrangement affects you both emotionally, but probably your DH a little more. Of course, he's probably currently viewed as the "weird" one, working part-time so he can actively raise his family with you.

 

How GREAT would it be if he wasn't viewed as "weird", or "lucky", or (insert any descriptors of your choice here).

Thank you for this. My guess is that it takes a somewhat advanced level of extroversion and confidence to be the SAHD that can maintain a network of accepting friends. I am not that guy, but then, I never was.

 

So is my career perfect for the introverted dad? Perhaps. Compared to the hyper-networked back-slappers I used to see on the NYC train, yeah. But I'm in a demographic bubble of a town.

 

I've heard the lucky thing, or its variants : "Oh, I could never do that," and my fav, "But you only have one kid."

 

The best is when someone assumes DW teaches middle school fulltime AND homeschools DD every day. You can see the gears spinning before they ask "how does that work?"

[elegantlion]

Thank you for this. My guess is that it takes a somewhat advanced level of extroversion and confidence to be the SAHD that can maintain a network of accepting friends. I am not that guy, but then, I never was.

 

So is my career perfect for the introverted dad? Perhaps. Compared to the hyper-networked back-slappers I used to see on the NYC train, yeah. But I'm in a demographic bubble of a town.

 

I've heard the lucky thing, or its variants : "Oh, I could never do that," and my fav, "But you only have one kid."

 

The best is when someone assumes DW teaches middle school fulltime AND homeschools DD every day. You can see the gears spinning before they ask "how does that work?"

 

Kudos to you, you are paving the way for the next generation to feel differently. 

[Soror]

SKL, if all parents work, someone is caring for the kids directly during those work hours. It is not better or worse to use childcare, school, nannies, family, activities or stay at home parents (PT or FT). Parents do what they need to do and what works best for them. That is a good thing. But it is absolutely NOT INFERIOR for a family to opt to not outsource those things either by necessity or preference. You seem to be elevating money above and beyond all of the other factors that go into sustaining and nurturing a family.

 

When I worked long days with a spouse and family support and a small family we outsourced a lot of food and housework. I believe you have made many posts describing having family and babysitter help while working constantly. I am sure you respect the work that your teachers and babysitters do. Why less respect for moms and dads who do that work themselves? I am not saying one is better or worse. I've done a whole mix of things myself. Respecting the work, paid or unpaid, that comes with children is at the core of this speaker's message. We should not culturally devalue children by devaluing those that directly care for them during the work and non-work day.

 

I am enrolling soon to become a CPA and specialize in non-profit accounting and financial management. That is my return to work when the kids are older plan. But there is nothing better or worse about any of the myriad things I have done during the day as alternately both a working and stay at home parent. For us, for now, a stay at home parent is in fact an imperative and we are fortunate that we can swing it. I am also fortunate to be married to a man who values me fully regardless of how I use my time and talents.

Yes, you said this very succinctly. I was thinking of this overnight and I think part of this is the American attitude that "I can do it all, without any help." So, we don't want to admit we need help or use help then we devalue that work as a way to fit into this view. Needing help is not bad, using help is not bad.  I wish our society was more accepting and women could be more honest about this.  Of course this view leads to lower pay for these fields. If we start actually valuing our teachers, nannies, etc then we will have to pay them more as well and most don't want to do this. 

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Kudos to you, you are paving the way for the next generation to feel differently. 

 

Thanks.

 

I do admit to having evil daydreams that follow a certain theme, and involve DD, maybe 20 years hence, saying to her significant other something like "Whadayamean you can't sew on a button?  My DAD could do that!"

 

Patrick Stewart was asked in an old interview why in the world would there be a bald character in the distant future.  Certainly by that time, we will have found a cure.

 

Sir Stewart's reply -- "No, certainly by that time, no one will care."

 

'Nuff said.

[DawnM]

I have not read all of the responses, so forgive me if this has already been said.

I believe men and women should BOTH be "socialized" to be both breadwinners AND caregivers.  There will be different times in life where each may be necessary.  

 

Why does it have to be either/or?