Women's Lib, Rights, Kids, Etc.

Remove all ads!

Before I start, I must state that my post is not intended to insult or degrade anyone (which almost invariably means that it will). I realize that most members of these boards are younger than me, and will likely have views that I held when I was younger, which I do not now. Also, I expect that I will find my views (most unexpectedly) closer aligned to Chevalier's and Grey Magistrate's than with the more liberal members.

*flame suit on*

I have reached a point in my life in which I'm starting to consider having children. It's a big step, and it has caused me to start thinking about issues in a light that I have never thought of them before. This has brought me to thinking about the women's liberation movement (believe it or not). My preliminary conclusion is that the movement was a fine idea, but so poorly executed and with so many unanticipated side effects, that it has become as much a bane of modern day society as it is a boon.

Some background is in order. I got to thinking about this when a friend of mine said to me, "I am proud to say that this country has reached a point where a woman can have children and a career." But have we really? Can this be truly done without making some concessions to either the family or the career or both? I decided to analyze these further.

I'll take the children aspect first. I am going on the following premises: 1. I'm considering the typical, middle-class American family. 2. That children can be taught to be responsible enough that they eventually can have a key to the house, let themselves in after school, and be unsupervised untiil the parents arrive home from work. The first problem, is how long a period "eventually" is.

Most children begin school at about 5 or 6 years of age, and that IMO, is not an age where that responsibility can be expected. They may be able to use the key to let themseslves in the house, but they certainly aren't at an age where they can be unsupervised. Furthermore, children typically get far more time off from school for holidays and summer vacation than parents get off from work. This doesn't even consider things like snow days, and when the kids are sick.

Typically, our society has the following solutions to this: use daycare, have one of the parents (but almost always the mother) stay home with the kids, or have a guardian (either in the form of a family member or close friend) look after your kids when they aren't at school, and you are at work (what is commonly called "the grandmother solution"). And this is where I hit the impasse. First, I am greatly opposed to the use of daycare, especially with very young children (meaning infants and toddlers). I'm not OK with it for older kids either, I'm just not as adamantly opposed to it. Being a parent is a demanding job, and should I have children, it will be the job of my wife and I to care for them - not someone else who is not able to give the time and attention needed, because of the demands of the other children. Secondly, I do not have any family or friends who live reasonably close to us that I would trust leaving my children with. Lastly, (and this is where I will transverse to the women's liberation movement) neither my wife or I can stay home as we require both our incomes for the household to function.

Before I continue, I should state that even if it was financially feasible, I would not demand or expect my wife to stop working for a decade or more in order for us to have children. I'm not a chuvanist pig who thinks women should be kept bare-foot and pregnant. I'm going to make a point here - I just haven't reached it yet, so bear with me.

Pre-1970, the typical middle-class family had the structure of the man working, and the woman staying at home with the kids. If there were no kids, or the kids were old enough, occassionally the woman had some low-paying job with no real opportunity for advancement or betterment. Women were tied to the home, and had very little chance of being financially independent. Enter the women's liberation movement. At its heart, the movement was the model of a good, fair, logical and reasonable position: That women should be able to enjoy the same employment, economic and financial opportunities as men. In the 30 years or so since the movement started, it still hasn't acheived that, and even worse, there were some unanticipated side effects that have been to the detriment of society.

Fast forward 30 years. Now the typical middle-class household has both parents working, and one of the three above options is being used with the kids, if they have any. But they are still middle class, and that's the first problem I have here. It is now common for the typical household to have two full-time working members instead of one. Assuming an average 40 hour work week, the typical family now has to work 80 hours per week to enjoy the same standard of living that working 40 hours per week accomplished in the past. The age of a one-income household in America is gone, and probably for good (remember we're assuming middle class, as wealthy families often times still have only one member of the family working). A necessary result of this is when a woman has children, she has to go back to work almost immediately (even if she wouldn't mind staying home for at least a year or two) or the bills don't get paid.

OK, so it's not a perfect system, but it still accomplished the goal it set out to accomplish, right? No, not really. The playing field still isn't level. Women today still earn only 60%-80% of what men earn for doing the same work. In this regard, the movement has only met with marginal success. While the opportunities for women have unquestionably improved, the goal was to be equal, not just no-longer-terrible, and that hasn't been achieved. Another effect was that single men have seen their standard of living decrease as well. Now that society is conditioned to the two-income standard, men who earn a single income have a lower standard of living than they used to as well.

I don't think many people saw society evolving into what it is today. I think people thought they could have their cake and eat it too. I do not think people really thought that society would evolve into a two-income standard. To paraphrase, I think society felt that women would be able to enjoy the same opportunities as men (and I must stress again I agree with this principle), but that by doing so they were not going to have to sacrifice their option, if they so chose, to have one parent (again, usually the woman) stay home to raise children. That society still would (or at least could) function in most cases as a one-income per household system. What was supposed to give a choice has not - women essentially still have only one option, we've just changed what that option is.

Before women had to stay home and have kids. Now, they must have careers, whether they want them or not, whether they choose to have kids or not, whether they would prefer to stay home with the kids or not. Ironically, in this societal transformation, it is the modern woman that ends up taking it on the chin. We still expect women to do all the stuff they did 30 years ago. (Yes, modern men do more household and child rearing duties than they did in the past, but in most families it is still the woman who bears the heaviest burden.) And in addition to that, we now expect them to also work 40 hours a week and provide 50% of the financial support to the household. What was supposed to make things better for women has instead made them all the harder.

So I ask, is this progress? On a recent abortion thread, it was stated that it is a sad statement of society that the best women's rights have given to the modern woman is the right to abort a fetus. I say it is a sad statement of society that we have to work twice as much to enjoy the same quality of life, be away from our kids more, expect women who always had it relatively harder than men to do more than we've ever asked them to in the past, and then turn around and paste the label "progress" on all of this. I argue that society probably deserved better, and women definitely deserved better.

*puts 2nd flame suit on*

Your thoughts?

 

I think we have been screwed, simple as that. Back in the days a family had two jobs, the man worked outside the home and brought in the money and the woman worked in the home fixing all that needs to be done there. Now, both men and women work full time while there still is a full time job to do at home. That means that now people have one and a half full time job each (in an equal family, the reality is that a woman most often has 1,9 jobs and a man 1,1 jobs).

Somewhere something went horrible wrong. How come you cant support a family on one full time salary anymore?

 

Well, I’m not going to make this about the women’s movement, but rather a comment about standards of living.

*commence “back in my day” commentary *

Back in my day ( ), being “middle class” was much different than it is today. I came from such a family. If we ate out a couple of times a month, we were happy; now, a couple of times a week is not unusual. Same with other forms of entertainment. And “stuff” - Two car households. Multiple T.V. sets. Kitchen gadgets. Electronics. Designer clothes. Bigger houses (needed in part to hold all the extra stuff we’re buying). The list goes on and on. There is just so much more to spend your money on these days than there was 30 years ago. And if you want to “keep up with the Jones’ ”, it gets tougher and tougher. Yes, progress gives us more ways to spend our hard-earned dollars, but it also gives us more incentive to earn more of those dollars.

I haven’t actually studied this, but I suspect that if you chose to go back to a standard of living from 30 years ago (as I’ve described above), it would probably be doable on one income. But of course nobody (myself included) wants to do that, since it would be a step backwards. So we have the situation we have today - the need for two-income families.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying it was better 30 years ago, but it was different, and it wasn’t bad either. It boils down to a question of where our priorities lie, and what we want out of life.

 

I think you're data is little skewed. That is, we do not have to have two wage earners to maintain the standard that was maintained on one wage before. Rather, we have "upped" the standard, so that we are no longer content to live the way our parents and grandparents did. Two wages are often required to keep up with the Joneses, but not to keep up with Mom and Dad.

If we lived by reduced standards -- one car (or two cheap ones), no cable or dish, no DVD collection, etc. -- we could easily get by on one salary. I know because my wife and I have 4 kids, and I'm the only one who works. And before you assume I must make a boatload of money, I don't. I make little enough that I'm exempt from income tax. I own a house, but I don't live around the yuppies.

My wife and I have made a sacrifice that many others are not willing to make. When we had our first child, she quit her job. Our family is the better for it. Time with your children is worth more than a second income. Raising your children rather than leaving it to a school or a daycare or a babysitter or even a grandma is worth more than a bigger house, a fancy car, and bragging rights at the clubhouse.

I don't particularly like women's lib; it was largely a movement that de-feminized women by trying to create a genderless society. Yes, there were inequities and unfairness that it addressed, but the root of the movement was misguided. It had the wrong fix for a real problem.

But I do respect a lot of feminism. Not the new kind, mind you, but the old kind: the kind that was worried about suffrage and life, the kind you find in the writings of feminists like Elizabeth Barrett Browning and Susan B. Anthony. I can't imagine any old-school feminist arguing that women should work instead of raise children. Children are a joy, and it is not a hindrance to spend your life caring for them. It's a privilege and an honor, and the source of more happiness than you can ever buy. That's true for men as well, mind you. Ever since men started working outside the home as a general rule, we've been depriving ourselves of a great blessing that many of our wives have continued to enjoy. When women want to work outside the home, they are not getting something good that men have. Rather, they are giving up a blessing that men lost long ago. Tip for the day: Don't aim at a goal that is below your current status -- you just might hit it.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Some kids are evil, and you want them far from you; some parents are evil and take no joy in their kids. But I'm focusing on the rule, and with a bit of perspective behind me. I didn't start having kids until I was in my 30's, so I can compare adult life pre- and post-children. I can honestly say that if I had it to do over again, I would have had kids sooner. Being a father is far more important, valuable and rewarding than anything else I might have been doing with my time and energy. I think my wife would say the same about motherhood.

 

Bombur,

I respect your decision, and I think it is wonderful that you and your wife are able to do that. I also will admit that a large part of it depends on where you live. I have some family out in the middle of the country, and a one-income family still works there for the most part. The east and especially the west coast is a whole other story. My wife and I live in a small house (1000 sq. ft. divided between two floors) and drive rather economical cars. Until recently, we drove a Corolla and a Civic, but we recently traded in teh Corolla and an Accord. I don't think we live extravagantly, and yet, we'd never be able to keep our house and have kids if she didn't work. It's not like we have all this extra money in the bank...

I suppose I could get rid of the dish, but that only saves $600 a year, and I imagine kids cost more than that. We don't have a stereo, DVD, or music collection. There are certainly ways to do it - I could raise chickens and grow vegetables in the back yard and save money on food, although that isn't very practical either.

 

Let me get this straight. You somehow came to the conclusion, that your economic woes are tied in to the women's liberation movement?

You mean to suggest if, "the women folk" hadn't started getting carreers, things would be cheaper?

So from, say... 8am to 3pm, its ok for a school to watch your kid, but from 3pm to 5:30 or 6pm its *not* ok for a daycare establishment to take care of them?

Both Splunge and Bombur nailed it when they suggested its a standard of living issue. I live a much more expensive lifestyle than my parents did. I eat out (in the city no less, I don't live in the burbs like they did) all the time, we like our luxuries, we have a cable internet connection (who really *needs* that at home?), we have magazine subscriptions, and I think many other things that I simply take for granted and can't even think of. I play *computer games* for fun, they're expensive, I have a fast computer, that's expensive. If I do recall correctly, my parents had neither.

My parents bought the house that I grew up in, for $68,000.00, in the early 70s. They sold it in the 80s for 4 times that much.

Do you blame the womans movement for realestate going up too much? I don't see the connection, but for most young couples to own a place, there needs to be a significant amount of cash involved - more so than in the "old days" before the woman's movement (or during or whatever, its just something that happened.)

Again, how can you really point at woman's lib, to have anything to do with this? You want to live a mid-western lifestyle on the east or west coast? Be realistic. Property is property, it costs more in certain places.

The bane of modern society? Have you asked any women how they feel about buying their own things with their own money without having to ask their husband if its ok?

If it hadn't happened, this wouldn't *be* modern society.

[ June 22, 2004, 21:56: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

 

I mostly agree with Splunge that it is more to do with expectations than women's liberation. Our lifestyle has been many orders of magnitude more extravagant than my parents. They never ate out, my Mum knitted a lot of my clothes, she cooked economical meals and made good use of leftovers, she preserved fruit, baked her own cakes, my Dad knocked together shelves in the shed.

When our son was born, my wife stopped work to look after him because we think that is the most important job that she can ever do. As Aldeth points out, this makes it almost impossible to live the same extravagant pre-birth life. So we have had to make a range of 'sacrifices'. We no longer eat out (but my wife's cooking is better anyway). We no longer have fast internet (but there is no time for the internet now anyway). I catch the bus to work instead of buying another car (but the bus is faster anyway). We buy less clothes now (but we don't go anywhere anymore so it doesn't matter).

No matter how many sacrifices we make, I think we're still being more extravagant than our parents, and we're still miles better off than most of the world's population (living close to hunger in third world countries). And we are most definitely and firmly 'middle-class' as you put it. So, it is definitely possible to be a one income middle class family (if that is what you want to be).

It's all about choices. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I hope Rallymama comes on and joins this conversation because she will also have another informed perspective to add to this topic.

 

Geez, Art, good thing I had my flame suit. Let's get one thing straight - I'm not blaming the women's liberation movement on anything, least of all my economic woes (for the simple reason that I never even mentioned I felt I had "economic woes"). The point of this thread is not to bash the women's liberation movement, but to talk about how it completely changed society, especially in regards to child rearing. If you read my post carefully, you would have found that I am supportive of the women's liberation movement, and even have sympathy for those mothers who work full time and raise their families. How did you interperet my post that I was "blaming" the liberation movement for anything? I was observing a cause-and-effect (one that seems quite apprarent) scenario.

And as far as the one thing you said on topic,

That is true. The school does not WATCH my kids. They go there for education. Plus, schools are state sanctioned, and my children are required to be there, unless I home school them, which I can't because I don't have time. Children are treated like cattle in daycare centers.

As for this:

You obviously aren't married, or have a totally different economic situation than most people, and thereore have no clue about what you are talking about. in truth, my wife always asks me before she buys something, and I always ask her before I buy something. Other than grocery shopping, we budget everything, so I don't see your point.

 

If you want to, a women (or man) can still have her (or his) own money even if she (or he) didn't go out and earn it directly.

Just put the single salary into the joint account then 'pay' a personal allowance to each person to do with as they will. The rest stays there to pay joint household expenses.

 

OK, now that I've been put on the spot...

They're right, it is all about lifestyle choices. My husband and I chose to go with daycare, and for our family that's proving to be the right choice. Our son is thriving in his pre-school - socially, academically, linguistically, you name it. I'm sure he's far ahead of where he would have been had I become a stay-at-home Mom. It will be quite interesting to see if #2 does so, as well. But that's us. If you're not comfortable with daycare, all my glowing reports don't mean a hill of beans. We choose to life a lifestyle that requires two salaries. Relative to the times I think we're at about the same level of extravagance as I grew up with, and we far exceed my husband's upbringing. Me leaving work to remove the daycare expenditure would still be a net loss, BTW. My career progression has not been impacted due to motherhood.

This country runs on supply and demand. If anything, there's the major impact of women's lib - changing the resources available to the average family, and the products and services that are waiting to absorb those resources. All you can do is what families have been doing forever - figure out what you want to accomplish and manage your resources accordingly.

[ June 23, 2004, 03:36: Message edited by: Rallymama ]

 

Atually I live with my girlfriend, we own a house together and we're raising a kid (who just graduated from the 5th grade today, we also have a dog, anything else you'd like to know about me fiscally or personally? Maybe the annual percentage on my mortgage?).

Does that qualify as knowing what I'm talking about?

Edit: (couldn't help myself.)

I take it you're a daycare worker?

Funny you equate something you *have* to send your kid to by law to be the acceptable means of care, and the one where you get all the choice in the world is the one you don't like. Talk about not having a clue what you're talking about.

For our solution to this problem, we sent our kid to the local JCC, where we enrolled her in (you guessed it!) classes! Yes for her daycare, as opposed to being a farm animal, she did artwork, or science projects, and other times, did her homework with other kids and supervising adults were there to help. omigosh the horror.

[ June 22, 2004, 23:06: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

 

Actually, we can partially "blame" women entering the workforce for one thing - the very high inflation rates of the 1970's.

When women started to work, this created more disposable income. More income = more spending. More spending = higher inflation. But income levels didn't keep pace with inflation, so it became harder and harder to manage on one income.

Now of course, there were other factors involved with 70's inflation, and using the word "blame" is unfair (which is why I put it in quotes), but women's earnings were definitely a consideration.

Having said that, IMO it's still primarily a difference in defining "standard of living". Bombur said it well when he says "Two wages are often required to keep up with the Joneses, but not to keep up with Mom and Dad." Of course, you define your standard of living against the standards of today, not those of 30 years ago.

(And just how old is Bombur anyway? - I know there are some SPers older than I am, but none have 'fessed up yet.)

 

@Splunge: 37, so far.

As far as cost of living goes, I'm in a big city near the east coast. I spent 30 years in L.A. prior to that, so I know cost of living is greater in some areas than in others. In my experience, and according to wage surveys, wages typically vary according to cost of living. In places where it is expensive to live, they pay more. It's not a precise relationship, but it helps.

Also, in every area that I know, there are expensive places to live and inexpensive places to live. At any rate, my children are important enough to me that I would change my career and move somewhere else if I could not establish the type of household I wanted in a particular area. It's a tradeoff, and each person must weigh the factors individually. Then there's always government help...

 

I shudder to think where I'd be if my mother didn't have a job... They don't live together with my father. In fact, I'm the only child they have together, each having other children as well. I guess she'd have to go get a job anyway in this situation. That is, until she married afterwards. Still, if she had stayed home then, I would have depended on a strange man's income and money sent in by my father who chose a "fulfilling" job, ie supervising something that leaves him enough time in the work to paint, sculpt, write poems, play instruments etc. And now... that would be bad. Really bad.

Another thing is that things would be substantially different if she had the same salary as a man would in her place.

Yet another thing is the so called grandmother solution. Yes, grannie runs the house. I haven't seen much of daycare and I surely wouldn't have been left unsupervised with keys until, I don't know, maybe the age of 12.

Myself, I'll go for two-income scenario. I couldn't really ask a lady to stay home and take care of children + chores. That's one. Economic reasons, that's two. I enjoy travelling. I enjoy learning languages - and using them in practice. It costs some. Add computers and broadband. Books aren't cheap. And I love to dance. I want the same for my children. That would also cost.

I'm not a fan of day care. Neither of au pairs. It would have to be family after infancy when the child would be with the mother. Private lessons - languages, dancing, sports, computers, whatever - take some time and hours can be arranged as well. Plus, schools typically have some canteen. If I end up having a house, someone will need to be hired for all the chores, anyway, so it's not like children would be left unsupervised with various potentially dangerous devices.

It's not like it's going to happen any soon. I still have studies to finish and a job to get, so many things may change before it comes, as well. Guess it wouldn't do any good to speculate too much this early.

[ June 23, 2004, 01:05: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Regarding this sentiment:

You must have had some horrific experiences with daycare, or you're going off other people's horror stories. My experience has been quite different. Two of the daycares I've used were utterly wonderful. The other was acceptable in many ways but there were a variety of little things that bugged us, so we changed. Please, do yourself a favor and look into daycares around your area. I think there's far more love and care given to children at a private daycare than at a typical public school - those are the real cattle-cars.

 

@ Art - I also lived with my then-girlfriend, now wife, and even purchased a home with her prior to marriage. I still couldn't believe how different things were after we got married. You don't think it will happen, but it does. All I can say is if your solution works for you, your wife, and your child, they are the only people you have to justify it to. See comments below on why I don't like daycare.

@Rally

It seems your experience at daycare centers are much better than what I have heard. I have several friends and family members who have children under 5, and I have heard far more people with negative experiences with daycare centers than the glowing review you have posted. Some of these reports even come from the so-called "good" centers. I'm not bashing anyone who chooses daycare though.

@ All

I also thought about two other things. First, inflation, but Splunge touched on that and said everything I was going to say. The other is the issue of supply and demand. Women in the workforce obviously increases the supply of workers. That says to me that the more people in the workforce tend to drive salaries down.

So, if we had a lower level of inflation, and higher salaries from those working, it may pretty much balance out to what it was 30 years ago. I cannot believe that if we were still a one-income society that only the wealthy would be able to afford new cars, or have DVD collections, or high speed internet access, etc.

 

It has already been pointed out that the cause of you're trouble with what we label "progress" is a common misinterpretation of our parents lifestyle.

Subsequently you expressed your desire to life yesterday's life with nowadays standards. Fair enough, although achievable only for a minority of well paid beings.

If I understood your last post correctly, we already know who's to blame: damn women! If they hadn't "entered the workforce" and had settled for no brain household activities, your desired way of living would have been possible.

Does anybody besides me feel that this thread is heading down a, um, questionable path?

 

@ Aldeth - the only thing about the supply and demand theory is that it not only applies to workers, but also to the stuff that workers buy. ie. Two income families earn more, so they spend more. This increases the demand for goods and services, so along with the inflationary effect as result of short-term supply shortages, more jobs are created to meet the demand in the longer term. So while you may be correct that salaries have been held lower to a degree, I'm not convinced that it has had as big an effect as you might think.

I'm not so sure about that. Again, 30 years ago, we had less stuff, and I doubt that would have changed much if the one-income family had stayed the norm. Although you've raised a good point in a round-about way - I think under a single-income family system, a lot of the new technologies we take for granted today wouldn't even exist because, due to income constraints, people wouldn't be able to afford them, and thus no market would have been there to support their development.

Edit: @ Darkthrone - Aldeth has already explained his position. From the style and approach of his other posts elsewhere on the Boards, I think he is looking at this in a more analytical way, rather than a sexist way, and is trying to reconcile "traditional" parenthood with modern economics. I don't see a "blaming women" theme from anyone here, including Aldeth.

 

@ Splunge: Granted. Still, as we mostly agree that our increased standards are responsible for the gap perceived by Aldeth, I don't see what use a discussion about How High Our Wages Could Have Been could be.

We've identified the problem and I expected a discussion about how to solve it, certainly not about what cultural changes (to the better, I might add!) to hold responsible for the problem.

If we keep talking about hypothetical things concerning centuries gone by rather than taking the status quo for granted and working from there, this thread is in danger to slip into the direction I mentioned earlier, that's all I'm saying.

To add a more constructive touch to this reply: no one said children would come for free. Most of us have to sacrifice one thing or another for this experience. You're getting something back, or so I'm told.

Besides, even the one income family did not get it all. Let's face it: 30 years ago we had to work longer hours. The amount of free time we have at our disposal is ever growing without anyone having lower standards than their counterparts in the 60s and 70s.