The CC Mommy Wars: was "Culture shock "

FountainSiren · October 17, 2006, 3:13pm

Honestly, Wis, this is becoming insufferable.

Your loaded question assumes as fact your own dogmatic prejudice against a good part of the population: well educated SAHM’s.

People, including women, quite often do what they do for unique and profound reasons. These things make them who they are…no matter their income, job title or executive status.

Perhaps a well-educated and well-cultured woman is a well-educated and well-cultured mother, neighbor, community activist/volunteer, friend etc, etc; or, horror of horrors, a profound well educated woman who does what-she-damn-well-pleases because it pleases her, get it?..and she couldn’t give two terds about other women or men’s job titles, incomes, med-schedules or, more to the point, opinion of her life…she’s liberated from their dogma, which is of course your dogma, you see.

Edvest stated–as categorical–a belief that being a SAHM is preferred to its alternative. Later, Edvest amended that view to say, preferred for someone like him/her self. Still, Edvest was barbequed for it…the whole herd of individualists offended (a sensitive herd, to be sure)…or more apropos to a particular loose bull in the herd, put to the burning timber of truth for the old fashioned sin of apostasy.

You, Wis, seem to get a pass by these torch-bearers.
I suppose, they believe you are right.
But you are wrong and so are they…now back to you huddle, the hays still in the loft.

CountingDown · October 17, 2006, 3:23pm

StickerShock – Your post about the Halloween decorations reminds me that it’s time to take down the “Happy Spring” wreath from my front door! (no, I’m not kidding…) :*)

MotherOfTwo · October 17, 2006, 3:25pm

Did any of you ever accidentally cut your strings of electric Christmas lights with your electric hedge trimmer while you were trimming your bushes in July? My husband’s idea that year was that we were already more than half way to the next Christmas and hadn’t yettaken down our lights, so why bother when we would be putting them up again so soon !!!

katliamom · October 17, 2006, 3:28pm

"Perhaps a well-educated and well-cultured woman is a well-educated and well-cultured mother, neighbor, community activist/volunteer, friend etc, etc; or, horror of horrors, a profound well educated woman who does what-she-damn-well-pleases because it pleases her, get it?..and she couldn’t give two terds about other women or men’s job titles, incomes, med-schedules or, more to the point, opinion of her life…she’s liberated from their dogma, which is of course your dogma, you see. "

To FountainSiren, From Always-Worked-Full-Time-Outside-the-Home-Mom:
AMEN, SISTER.

sjmom2329 · October 17, 2006, 3:33pm

EK, you may say that you lack a formal education, but you are one of the smartest people who posts on CC. Your life experiences have brought you wisdom.

FountainSiren – you go, girl! :)

(From one “woman who does what-she-damn-well-pleases” to another!)

JHS · October 17, 2006, 4:41pm

Love the rock-n-rolling rhetoric here, but I would like to make a plea for a little charity on both sides. In my experience, this is an area where EVERYONE feels anxiety and guilt. SAHMs are the backbone of every functioning community I know, especially school communities, and the intelligent, organized ones do hundreds of intelligent, organized, valuable things on a regular basis. But all of them feel sometimes like they have sold themselves short. Sometimes they admit that, sometimes they are just a little more aggressive in justifying the choices they have made. And, of course, on the other side 100% of working women I know worry about whether they are shortchanging their children, and feel put down by the SAHMs, and respond defensively to that, too.

Kids have no mercy on this. For years, my daughter insisted that most of her classmates’ mothers didn’t work, until one day we sat her down and went through her class family by family (about 25% of the mothers were SAHMs, and another 10% worked part-time). The SAHMs were much more visible to the kids, though.

sjmom2329 · October 17, 2006, 5:04pm

You don’t see this as patronizing and passive aggressive? I don’t feel that you can speak categorically for all SAHMs. From your comments, it doesn’t sound like this is a choice you’ve made – I don’t feel you should be speaking for anyone other than yourself. I could just as easily remark about the guilt working mothers seem to feel and their need to rationalize their choice, but the truth is that I think a variety of options work for different families. I’ve worked full time, part time and no time, and each has its benefits and drawbacks – both for the kids and for me

Most posters seem to have a “live and let live” approach to this – that seems to be a more reasonable approach. Actually, it’s only on CC that the “mommy wars” seem to live – I don’t run into these debates in real life. Most people are just too preoccupied with their own choices to care what anyone else does.

calmom · October 17, 2006, 6:50pm

I have a question – it is sure to be greeted with flames and anger by SAHMs - but I honestly mean it as a question, only.

Here is the question: I would like to know how many SAHM’s have daughters who are attending expensive, elite colleges and have plans for graduate or professional school. What do you hope/expect your daughters will do with those degrees? How much are you willing to invest in laying the foundation for education in a profession that your daughter may not actively pursue?

I have a law degree from a highly regarded law school. My parents paid my way through college and law school.

I personally would not have been comfortable with the message I was sending to my daughter if I did not use my education as the foundation for a rewarding career. For me the rewards are more in the sense of intellectual stimulation and sense of “doing good” I get from a career that I see as socially beneficial, but I have no problem with those who are looking for financial rewards as well – the point is that I have a lot more flexibility and options because of my education than I would without it. Now that my daughter has tried her hand doing clerical work and retail sales, I think she definitely has gotten the message.

I did care enough about spending time with my kids to opt for a career track that afforded flexible hours; and I did happen to change careers when my daughter was young – but even when I was no longer “using” my law degree, I was doing work that was intellectually demanding and clearly using my legal knowledge and experience in ways that were beneficial to my work. And one thing I really, really like about that law degree is that I can always work part time and still make more money than most women with full time jobs in unskilled or support positions.

I have never discussed this with my daughter, but I think there is a tacit understanding that we both expect her to use her education to support professional goals. She will major in something that is reasonably related to career goals or providing a foundation to future professional training.

At the moment I am paying for my daughter’s college education and not for my son’s, though both kids are in college. The rationale for this is essentially that son had his chance and blew it. (I paid for 2 years of college; then he dropped out – I told him at the time that he could not expect financial support from me for college after age 23).

This is simply a matter of allocation of resources - I can’t afford to pay for both at the same time. My daughter has the same “deal” – she also will be on her own at age 23.

But I don’t see how I could quite justify this “same to each” approach if I thought my son would someday have the responsibility to support a non-income-producing wife and children, or that my daughter aspired to be a no-income-producing parent and homemaker. I mean, shouldn’t my limited dollars go to the kid who “needs” them the most? If both will be working for a living, then both have equivalent need; if only one will be working, it would seem more logical to invest the education dollars into the income-producer.

That is the same rationale that has lead many families in past generations to overtly favor sons over daughters. I went to college with women who had to work their way through school without any parental support whatsoever, while their parents paid for their their brother’s schooling. I would not want to see that repeated.

I do think that women should have a choice, and it doesn’t bother me at all that some women choose to stay at home. It is that word “ought” that rankles me, because implicit in that “ought” is a revival of every justification for sex-based discrimination that was thrust in my face when I was growing up in the 50’s and 60’s.

Allmusic · October 17, 2006, 7:00pm

I agree completely with Calmom.

I have always worked, and am fortunate that I can set my own hours, so am mostly available for my children (after school, for meetings, or field trips, or whatever). It is unfathomable to me that I spent as many years in grad school as I did, and not to use that degree. When they were small, I worked part-time, and don’t think they suffered in the slightest from this arrangement.

Also, like Marite, I am a better mother when doing something other than simply mothering, much as I love mothering. I like having my own interests, my own goals, making my own money. I would hate to be dependent on my husband for every financial need. It is because I work that one child can attend private school, and that college costs are not out of reach for us. Could our children attend State U if I didn’t work? Sure. We just happen to want more for them (than our particular, not very intellectually stimulating State U).

And I want my daughter to know that women have opportunities as well. I am not interested in being June Cleaver, but I will love and accept her decision if she chooses that route. I just wouldn’t want her pidgeonholed into that role because there were no other options or because that was the only expectation.

MomOFour · October 17, 2006, 7:13pm

Calmom, I would be thrilled if my daughter’s had the financial freedom to be SAHMs. I don’t consider there to be a necessary vocational expectation to education, as long as someone (not me) is paying the bills. My mother has a philosophy degree from a woman’s college, she married and had babies without working one day. She may not have brought in a paycheck, but she was well read and quite intellectual. You would not have found her making wreaths out of plastic flowers.
When we were older, in the age of women’s lib, she went to work, reclaiming her maiden name, filled with the spirit of the women’s movement. When I had my own children, she told me the best, most-fulfilling years of her life were the ones staying home with her babies. Not to plan my daughter’s lives, but I’d prefer for them to work for some time and have enough money to choose to stay home if they wish. I’m more concerned with their ability to enjoy their lives than whether they’ve fulfilled the expectations of their education. Being a mostly at home mom, I consider it to be a luxury to be home with children. I don’t give much thought to what other women choose, but I’ll admit that I’d love to see my daughters enjoying motherhood as much as I and my mother did before them.

shedevil · October 17, 2006, 7:14pm

“What do you hope/expect your daughters will do with those degrees?”

I don’t have a daughter in an elite expensive school…however…I think that we all only hope for our childrens’ happiness. If someday your daughter chooses to stay home and is truly happy at home, I would be very surprised if you regretted your tuition payments.

mootmom · October 17, 2006, 7:15pm

Heck, I was explicitly aware that I would be uncomfortable with the message I was sending to my SONS if I did not use my education as the foundation for a rewarding career!

sjmom2329 · October 17, 2006, 7:22pm

Calmom, you raise a reasonable question, but it has a somewhat false premise. You seem to assume that it’s an all-or-nothing choice whether to be a working mom or a stay at home mom. Most women I know, including myself, combine a variety of options. Some stay home with kids while they are young, and return to work or grad school when the kids are in elementary school. Some delay child bearing until careers are well enough established so that they can take a leave or work part time for a few years. Some own their own businesses or are private contractors. The women I know tend to sequence things rather than try to do everything concurrently.

I have sons, but I frequently remind them that they aren’t likely to marry girls who want to wait on them hand and foot. I think they are in for a little bit of a shock, but each marriage has to work through the household chore issues in its own way. Being home with kids doesn’t mean that they are the center of the universe – I’ve always maintained my own interests and activities. I’m not dependent on my husband financially – we were married very young, and have never kept separate accounts. Actually, I manage our finances and investments, and he’s the one I worry about if something should happen to me.

As far as education goes, I don’t view undergrad or graduate work as a trade school. Education is never wasted, and I certainly use it in my daily life. As I’ve said before, I’ve usually worked at least part time, although I consider myself a SAHM. I currently work in a non profit organization where I handle the finances, marketing, public relations etc. I wear a lot of hats in my life, and my education has made that possible.

As far as daughters are concerned, I’d expect to provide the same opportunities that I would to a son. Everyone should be able to support themselves. But I’d add that there’s no guarantee that a son will make a financial profit from his education any more than a daughter would. Jobs change, people get laid off, people become disabled.

I don’t know any SAHMs who “aspired to be no-income-producing parent and homemaker” as you put it. What if your son wanted to be an artist? That’s not likely to pay off financially, but I’m sure you’d support his goals.

The funny thing is that I don’t hear about girls today who are worried about role models of working moms. Our children’s generation has been raised with the notion that girls can do anything boys can do. I don’t really get the concern.

Finally, maybe we could all agree to put the June Cleaver analogy to rest. Even in the 50’s there were working moms. It certainly is not applicable to today’s world.

hereshoping · October 17, 2006, 7:25pm

Okay, I wasn’t going to touch this thread with a ten foot pole (having had prior experience with a mommy war thread) but the last two sort of rankled me.
a) SAHMs can have their own interests and goals, yes?
b) Sad, if you are a married woman with children and feel you are “dependent” on your husband, when you are making a home for him and caring for his children.
c) <could our=“” children=“” attend=“” state=“” u=“” if=“” i=“” didn’t=“” work?=“” sure.=“” we=“” just=“” happen=“” to=“” want=“” more=“” for=“” them=“” than=“” particular,=“” not=“” very=“” intellectually=“” stimulating=“” u.=“”> This from a “liberal” – too bad all those poor kids are getting such a cut-rate, low-class education in your state, huh? How will they ever be productive citizens?
d) “Simply mothering” - well, I guess that about says it all!</could>

But, not to worry. I realize that non-stay-at-home-moms have ALL the balls in their court. It is obvious to any of us who have spent years at home. And don’t you dare challenge the wisdom of leaving your kid at daycare as an infant, no matter how many studies you may offer to prove that this may not be in the best interests of children! Not done. Not pc. We have no idea why all those little kindergarten kids are so out of control, do we. Can’t imagine why.
P.S. Poor June Cleaver–such condescension and pity toward her. Putting her family before herself. Nothing to admire there.

sjmom2329 · October 17, 2006, 8:07pm

I think the problem is that what’s in the best interests of a child are not always in the best interests of the mother. Nature arranged it so that kids need a lot of nurturing, and will suck up all the energy that a parent has to offer. It’s in the best interests of the species for the offspring to use up all the resources, including mom’s time and interest.

But parenting is a demanding job. Most mothers have interests of their own, including work. The question – in my mind – is how much risk are you willing to take.

There is the risk of leaving the work force. I don’t think anyone can deny that it can be tough to re-enter the professional world once one has taken the mommy track.

There is the risk of not providing the best care for a child. It’s fine to say that happy moms, who are fulfilled in the workplace, make for happy children. The reality, I think, is that unless mom is impaired emotionally or through drugs or alcohol, most kids would rather be cared for by her.

So we are left with evaluating which risks we can live with. For families with good support systems, stable environments (no relocation, for example) and excellent child care, the risks of a negative outcome for the child are negligible. For the SAHM who is in a stable relationship, is financially secure, and comfortable enough not to need validation by the working world, the risk of staying home is minimal. But few choices are so clear. Most of us just wing it, and hope for the best.

We never really know the consequences of our choices until well after those decisions have been made. Do moms who have given up a career regret that loss? Sometimes. Do working moms wonder if their children would have been better of if they had been home with them more? Again, sometimes.

But I’d like to think that we all just do the best we can, in our own unique circumstances. I don’t hold anything against full time working mothers, but I do wish you’d cut the SAHMs a little slack. I think we all just do what we think is best for our families.

marite · October 17, 2006, 8:11pm

I’m going to wade in one more time.

Making a home for one’s spouse and children is great if you can afford it and enjoy doing it. It is also very risky. My own H, as I’ve mentioned before, was laid off several times, every single time because his company was bought out. He was able to take his time looking for new jobs that suited him because I made enough to tide us over without worrying about losing our home. But the end result of his several changes of jobs is that having started at a lower salary than he, I now make significantly more. Through no planning on our part, I am now the main breadwinner.

I am lucky as well that we experienced neither ill health (except my own on a couple of occasions), divorce or death that would have left me financially vulnerable had I not been working. It is risky for women not to have their own source of income. This is not to say that working is the most desirable option for women, but that it is a prudent one.

I really don’t care that studies show that day care “may not be in the best interests of children.” My kids went to daycare when very young and came out fine. It worked very well for us, though it may not work for all children or all parents.

I did my share of volunteering in school. But I also recognize that some parents played a huge role in the life of the school and our community. Some were SAHMs, some had flexible schedules, as I did. Most of the SAHMs returned to work once their children were older, which may be one reason why parents are less involved in high school activities than in k-6.

calmom · October 17, 2006, 8:17pm

When I was a little girl, from the time I was 8, all I ever wanted to do was to grow up to be a veterinarian. Then, as now, spots in vet schools were limited - there were only about 20 schools nationwide, and competition is very high. When I was 15, looking at colleges, we went to a college campus and met with the dean of admissions for the vet school – even though I had not yet started colleges, I wanted to be sure to make the right choices for a pre-vet program.

The dean told me, to my face, that it was very rare for them to accept women, and that they did not like to accept women precisely because after a few years women would stop working in order to marry and raise children. He said it was not a fair allocation of resources to give a spot that could be taken by a man to a woman.

The same biases prevailed in for medical school and law school admissions. Just about every woman I know who received a professional degree before the mid-70s also knew that they had to be at the very top of their class, outperforming all of the men, to even have a chance at admissions.

I changed my career goals, but entered law school at a time when the vast majority of my classmates were men. When I started practicing law, discrimination against women was overt – judges and lawyers made rude comments and told sexist jokes in court (even on the record); and women lawyers for the most part had supportive or low level roles – not too many women who were partners in major firms.

So I am not going to take my equality for granted, nor raise my daughter to take it lightly. Somehow, that Equal Rights Amendment never did get ratified, so what is customary now could easily change in the future.

To SJmom, yes, I also wanted to impart the message to my son – but I don’t know how he could have gotten the message any stronger than from observing me as the family breadwinner, and knowing during his teenage years that he needed to do his fair share of laundry and vacuuming if he wanted to live in a clean house.

sjmom2329 · October 17, 2006, 8:39pm

Calmom, I just don’t see this country returning to the time when spaces in med school, law school or vet school were limited to males. In fact, there have been a number of articles and CC threads about how girls are doing so much better than boys these days.

Marite has some good points about the flexibility of two incomes. But I don’t think that life is very predictable. Any number of events can occur which shake up the financial picture for any family. The key is flexibility. As an academic, I’m sure you had a more flexible schedule than I did when my first son was born. In fact, my sister who works for the same corporation I worked for is able to work from home most of the time. Businesses are much more flexible about telecommuting, and as long as one has access to a broadband connection, a laptop and a phone, business can be handled from almost any location. It wasn’t that way for me, but I think our kids’ generation will find both moms and dads who work flexible schedules as needed.

The one thing that continues to bug me is the implication that the only “good” option is to be a working mother. I don’t object to women who prefer to work full time, but it doesn’t seem that the sentiment is reciprocated.

FountainSiren · October 17, 2006, 9:01pm

This is likely, and I believe few would dispute it, not even those who adamantly believe that SAHM’s are somehow superior parents in some factual or ephemeral way.

…well, maybe where you work, but not here on cc; I haven’t heard a hint of doubt from the “I’m a career woman and SAHM’s are unmotivated slackers” crowd…not even a moment of self-reflection or worry in any hard charging careerist here. I have read, throughout, nothing but ideological ‘commitment to the cause’ and righteous indignation from those who are undone by the idea that there are women out there that believe a child is better raised, on balance, by a parent than by hired help.

I believe the above distinction cuts to the core of the debate here on cc: for the ‘SHAM-is-beneath-me’ ideologue to even consider the possibility that their children might have benefited from more of them is not even worth passing consideration–it’s ridiculous even to consider–their children would laugh at the prospect. Neither is it worth considering in general for the children of people in general. That someone would hold the opposite view is not only shortsighted, but for those committed to the cause, “offensive.”

The SAHM’s, on the other hand, tend to acknowledge that they may have had something else to offer society–other talents and skills–if it were not for the fact that their children got in the way of their careers. The ideologues on the other side harbor no such misgivings about whether or not they may have had more to offer their children…maybe they are right; how would I know.

Sorry…no guitar or drums this time around (though I do here cow bells off in the distance…getting closer…getting louder–look out below…).

Allmusic · October 17, 2006, 9:40pm

HH, I didn’t happen to leave my children at daycare as infants. I basically wore my children for a full year.

And nope, I absolutely wouldn’t want to be June Cleaver, because martyrdom is not for me, and nope, don’t want to be dependent on my husband financially either. Like Marite’s, mine has lost his job twice in the past ten years, and it is only because I work as well that we survived those two periods. We are a team, and during the time he was unemployed he relied on me financially, as I had on him when our children were babies.

A woman can be an excellent mother, and also have interests outside her home. This doesn’t mean she is neglecting or ignoring her children, or G-d forbid ;), putting herself before her family (or that American society has broken down as a result of women working…).

The CC Mommy Wars: was "Culture shock "

CONNECT WITH US