In which I stick my foot in my mouth
posted by bitchphd
Bellatrys left a comment to this post that I wanted to respond to on the main page. Now, before I jump in: this is "mommy wars" territory, and I am philosophically opposed to the "mommy wars" and to any argument over feminism that pits women against each other over difficult "choices" that are dictated by the larger system, and it is very clear to me that the reason women think they have to "choose" between work and family is because (1) men don't; (2) employers expect employees to have no other major committments in their lives; (3) we've developed a nice healthy backlash culture against educated white women in which we now allow them the right to work, but hold them to ridiculous parenting standards that were heretofore unknown.
Also, let me say that what I'm about to say here is in no way directed at the individual choices individual women make in the face of those issues: as i've said before and will say again, we all make our compromises with the world we live in, and we all do the best we can, and I'm not especially exercised about hassling people over those decisions.
But. Here is my issue with the idea that women-who-stay-at-home-with-their-kids-because-their-husbands-are-making-good-money are benefitting from, well, anything: they aren't. As Ann Crittenden points out in The Price of Motherhood (which, if you haven't read it, you should; it's excellent), women who stay home with kids are taking an enormous financial risk--one that second-wave feminists were well aware of, and that somehow we seem to have mostly forgotten about. Staying home means you earn less social security; it means you have no income of "your own"; it means that god forbid you end up divorced, or your husband drops dead, or even once your kids grow up and you're ready to move back into the work force, you. are. fucked. It means you likely have little or no retirement income--even though you are probably going to live longer than your husband. It means you have no "work history," no wage history, no "marketable skills." Now, this is bullshit, of course, and there's good work out there (including Crittenden's own book If You've Raised Kids, You Can Manage Anything) pointing out that running a home does indeed involve marketable skills, but basically, yes, you are going to have to overcome that issue in the minds of future employers, and you are going to be way, way behind on the life wages scale. Which means, again, less social security, less money to retire on.
Now, I've looked at the little forms the government sends out telling us what our social security expectations are. And mine are, basically, jack shit--because I spent most of my adulthood to date in school, earning at most about $10K/year. Mr. B., who supported me through all that education? He's gonna get plenty of money from social security (assuming it's still around, of course). This is one of the reasons why, when we started IRAs, we started mine first, and contributed more money to it. Then, of course, we cashed them in to buy the house, so I'm back with jack shit for retirement money. One of the reasons I'm working now, and he's not, is because I'm well aware of what that means.
And what about divorce? No one gets married wanting to divorce, and very few of us have kids thinking that we won't be together forever, so saying "we're never going to divorce" doesn't count. The fact is, about half of marriages split up. And if you are so unlucky that some unforseen circumstance down the road means that that's you, and you've been staying at home raising kids, the court is *not* going to consider that "his" income was half yours. The paychecks have his name on them, they're "his" money, and if you're lucky you'll get some kind of "child support," and that is it. And you and the kids will be fucked.
For all I love Mr. B., and I do, and for all I feel sure (like everyone else who loves their partner) that we're not splitting up, I am hard-headed about this money shit. When we get back on our financial feet, my retirement savings will come first; we make sure that assets (like the house) are in both our names regardless of whose income is paying for it; we have always split income 50/50 after paying bills (including my student loan bills--he has none) regardless of who was "earning" it. And yet, even so: if we divorce, or if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow, financially, I am much, much worse off, now, and in the future.
So, one of the main reasons people often give for why it's the wife--and not the husband--who stays home is that her job pays less money. To me, that's precisely why women oughta keep working. And the other issue--that kids are "naturally" more attached to mama--well, if that's true, or if it's just because of breastfeeding or socialization (I actually, personally, think it's a bit of all three), then that, too, is a reason to have dad stay home instead. I don't know what people's individual decisions are based on, nor what they're doing in their lives to manage those decisions, and I don't want to know. But I do wish that, as a culture, we could look beyond easy simple arguments like "choice" and talk about what the consequences and effects of different "choices" are.
Also, let me say that what I'm about to say here is in no way directed at the individual choices individual women make in the face of those issues: as i've said before and will say again, we all make our compromises with the world we live in, and we all do the best we can, and I'm not especially exercised about hassling people over those decisions.
But. Here is my issue with the idea that women-who-stay-at-home-with-their-kids-because-their-husbands-are-making-good-money are benefitting from, well, anything: they aren't. As Ann Crittenden points out in The Price of Motherhood (which, if you haven't read it, you should; it's excellent), women who stay home with kids are taking an enormous financial risk--one that second-wave feminists were well aware of, and that somehow we seem to have mostly forgotten about. Staying home means you earn less social security; it means you have no income of "your own"; it means that god forbid you end up divorced, or your husband drops dead, or even once your kids grow up and you're ready to move back into the work force, you. are. fucked. It means you likely have little or no retirement income--even though you are probably going to live longer than your husband. It means you have no "work history," no wage history, no "marketable skills." Now, this is bullshit, of course, and there's good work out there (including Crittenden's own book If You've Raised Kids, You Can Manage Anything) pointing out that running a home does indeed involve marketable skills, but basically, yes, you are going to have to overcome that issue in the minds of future employers, and you are going to be way, way behind on the life wages scale. Which means, again, less social security, less money to retire on.
Now, I've looked at the little forms the government sends out telling us what our social security expectations are. And mine are, basically, jack shit--because I spent most of my adulthood to date in school, earning at most about $10K/year. Mr. B., who supported me through all that education? He's gonna get plenty of money from social security (assuming it's still around, of course). This is one of the reasons why, when we started IRAs, we started mine first, and contributed more money to it. Then, of course, we cashed them in to buy the house, so I'm back with jack shit for retirement money. One of the reasons I'm working now, and he's not, is because I'm well aware of what that means.
And what about divorce? No one gets married wanting to divorce, and very few of us have kids thinking that we won't be together forever, so saying "we're never going to divorce" doesn't count. The fact is, about half of marriages split up. And if you are so unlucky that some unforseen circumstance down the road means that that's you, and you've been staying at home raising kids, the court is *not* going to consider that "his" income was half yours. The paychecks have his name on them, they're "his" money, and if you're lucky you'll get some kind of "child support," and that is it. And you and the kids will be fucked.
For all I love Mr. B., and I do, and for all I feel sure (like everyone else who loves their partner) that we're not splitting up, I am hard-headed about this money shit. When we get back on our financial feet, my retirement savings will come first; we make sure that assets (like the house) are in both our names regardless of whose income is paying for it; we have always split income 50/50 after paying bills (including my student loan bills--he has none) regardless of who was "earning" it. And yet, even so: if we divorce, or if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow, financially, I am much, much worse off, now, and in the future.
So, one of the main reasons people often give for why it's the wife--and not the husband--who stays home is that her job pays less money. To me, that's precisely why women oughta keep working. And the other issue--that kids are "naturally" more attached to mama--well, if that's true, or if it's just because of breastfeeding or socialization (I actually, personally, think it's a bit of all three), then that, too, is a reason to have dad stay home instead. I don't know what people's individual decisions are based on, nor what they're doing in their lives to manage those decisions, and I don't want to know. But I do wish that, as a culture, we could look beyond easy simple arguments like "choice" and talk about what the consequences and effects of different "choices" are.
Posted at 9:36 AM
|
