![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fleaWell, the New York Times has been pretty quiet on the issue lately, but then Betty Friedan died. Plus Jesse's post from yesterday about needing to be reminded how recently racial segregation was enforced by public school got me thinking about these issues, again. I'm too stupid lately to claim any coherence to the comments below; I just want to get them out at the moment.
1. Aren't you glad you can't be fired for getting pregnant in most jobs now? Do you realize how recently that was made law? I'm remembering vaguely from a talk I attended over a year ago, but I think it was 1979. It's only since 1993 that you've been allowed to take 12 weeks unpaid leave to have a baby (or a do a variety of other family/medical stuff) and still have a job when you get back, and that's only if you work in a large firm. If your employer employs fewer than 50 people, you have absolutely no legal right to take any leave at all if you have a baby. Betty Friedan was fired when she asked for a leave of absence to have her second child, 5 years after having the first. Job advertisements used to specify that they would only hire a man. And people say feminism never did anything for them.
2. I think too much has been made in the media about the extent to which the choice of stay-at-home parenthood is only available for the wealthy. Yes, if you are a single mother, you cannot stay home with your child unless you have a trust fund. Yes, low-income couples often both have to work to be able to live. Yes, a large percentage of American mothers are either single or low-income or both. But you don't have to be an investment banker making million-dollar annual bonuses to support a stay-at-home spouse, either. Especially if you don't live in a major coastal metropolitan area. You *do* have to make some financial sacrifies as a family, sacrifies I think many middle-class people in the New York Times demographic are loath to make.
3. However, I personally have a strong opinion, based on my life experience, that no able adult should sacrifice her financial independence for the sake of family. Divorce is common. Death, happily less so, but it does occur. In divorce, a woman's standard of living generally (still, even a working woman) declines until/unless she remarries. A man's standard of living stays the same or rises, even if he pays child support, even if he remarries. (Yes, you can probably think of exceptions. I can too. They're exceptions.) I don't want to ever be in the position of being unable to support myself and my children at a basic civilized level all by myself if I have to.
4. Would I stay at home with my child(ren) if I could? Maybe. Part time. Some of this is temperament. I like small children, but I don't find herding them all day to be the most fulfilling thing I have ever done. It's harder work than most jobs I have held, and the fact that nobody hands me a check at the end of the day is grating. (I know, in an agreed-upon partnership, all money being earned belongs to the family as a whole. Emotionally, for me, if I'm working that hard I want cash in my hand.) On the other hand I do wish I had more time with my daughter, and I feel it would be better for her not to be in full-time group day care.
5. Would my husband stay home with his child(ren) if he could? Yes, if. He likes the work of taking care of children much more than I do (even though, to my critical eye, he is less conscientious. Okay, he does make sure Casper's teeth get brushed; I can't even brush my own regularly enough. We are differently conscientious. I certainly clean the house more than he does, though. I digress.) He'd have some obstacles, I think, in the social adjustment to being a full-time stay at home father. He's come a long way since we discovered I was pregnant with Casper and his first reaction was, "Well, I'l leave school and get a job and support you," but what would his father say? Would he really be willing to leave his career and face the incredible hurdles of getting back into it in 5 years if he wanted to go back?
Clearly, I should have been the engineer, and mr. flea should have dabbled in the humanities PhD ocean and then changed to the oh-so-lucrative field of library work. Whoops.
1. Aren't you glad you can't be fired for getting pregnant in most jobs now? Do you realize how recently that was made law? I'm remembering vaguely from a talk I attended over a year ago, but I think it was 1979. It's only since 1993 that you've been allowed to take 12 weeks unpaid leave to have a baby (or a do a variety of other family/medical stuff) and still have a job when you get back, and that's only if you work in a large firm. If your employer employs fewer than 50 people, you have absolutely no legal right to take any leave at all if you have a baby. Betty Friedan was fired when she asked for a leave of absence to have her second child, 5 years after having the first. Job advertisements used to specify that they would only hire a man. And people say feminism never did anything for them.
2. I think too much has been made in the media about the extent to which the choice of stay-at-home parenthood is only available for the wealthy. Yes, if you are a single mother, you cannot stay home with your child unless you have a trust fund. Yes, low-income couples often both have to work to be able to live. Yes, a large percentage of American mothers are either single or low-income or both. But you don't have to be an investment banker making million-dollar annual bonuses to support a stay-at-home spouse, either. Especially if you don't live in a major coastal metropolitan area. You *do* have to make some financial sacrifies as a family, sacrifies I think many middle-class people in the New York Times demographic are loath to make.
3. However, I personally have a strong opinion, based on my life experience, that no able adult should sacrifice her financial independence for the sake of family. Divorce is common. Death, happily less so, but it does occur. In divorce, a woman's standard of living generally (still, even a working woman) declines until/unless she remarries. A man's standard of living stays the same or rises, even if he pays child support, even if he remarries. (Yes, you can probably think of exceptions. I can too. They're exceptions.) I don't want to ever be in the position of being unable to support myself and my children at a basic civilized level all by myself if I have to.
4. Would I stay at home with my child(ren) if I could? Maybe. Part time. Some of this is temperament. I like small children, but I don't find herding them all day to be the most fulfilling thing I have ever done. It's harder work than most jobs I have held, and the fact that nobody hands me a check at the end of the day is grating. (I know, in an agreed-upon partnership, all money being earned belongs to the family as a whole. Emotionally, for me, if I'm working that hard I want cash in my hand.) On the other hand I do wish I had more time with my daughter, and I feel it would be better for her not to be in full-time group day care.
5. Would my husband stay home with his child(ren) if he could? Yes, if. He likes the work of taking care of children much more than I do (even though, to my critical eye, he is less conscientious. Okay, he does make sure Casper's teeth get brushed; I can't even brush my own regularly enough. We are differently conscientious. I certainly clean the house more than he does, though. I digress.) He'd have some obstacles, I think, in the social adjustment to being a full-time stay at home father. He's come a long way since we discovered I was pregnant with Casper and his first reaction was, "Well, I'l leave school and get a job and support you," but what would his father say? Would he really be willing to leave his career and face the incredible hurdles of getting back into it in 5 years if he wanted to go back?
Clearly, I should have been the engineer, and mr. flea should have dabbled in the humanities PhD ocean and then changed to the oh-so-lucrative field of library work. Whoops.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-07 11:33 pm (UTC)I think more people than we know are working for health insurance. If we had universal health insurance I bet we'd see folks quitting right and left--not just to stay home with kids but to start their own businesses. Even now, although I have pretty decent health insurance, I worry about what would happen if I lost my job -- DH is a consultant with no health insurance at all.
DH likes being a SAHD, but he doesn't really care what folks think about him, ever. He did feel sad that he got shut out of some playgroup stuff, but now there are more SAHDs that I don't think that would be an issue.
As for sacrifices, if we never went out to dinner again (and I mean no takeout pizza, even), didn't save ANYTHING for retirement, didn't send LB to any enrichment programs (like summer art camp), and bought one pair of shoes each every 6 months, DH wouldn't have to work at all. But the retirement saving is a kicker.
I wish I knew what's going to happen when the boomers retire. There's going to be a big hole! Think of all the people in their late fifties where you work now. Now picture them gone, or lobbying for part-time work, or whatever. We may all have to work just because the jobs have to be done! But then who is going to watch the kids? I guess if grandma retires and picks up light childcare it will work out, but who knows ...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-07 11:56 pm (UTC)Since we've always been (one or both) with a university, and future jobs for both us as are likely either academic or public sector, the idea of jobs without health insurance is kind of alien to me.