career woman or stay at home wife

onlyroz

Person_one wrote: »

There are so many double standards when it comes to gender, work and children that it makes my head hurt.

Reminds me of an episode of The Big Bang theory that I saw recently. Howard and Bernadette were discussing having children, with Howard wanting them and Bernadette not, because of the way that it would affect her career. She then made the suggestion that if Howard wanted the kids so much then he should be the one to stay at home and raise them. After that, he didn't seem so keen on the idea.

lostinrates

Person_one wrote: »

Its relevant because nobody ever asks these kinds of questions about men.

Nobody has ever asked a man with a job and a family "How do you manage to balance working with looking after the kids?" or told a single man "work might seem important now, but your priorities will change when you get broody!"

There are so many double standards when it comes to gender, work and children that it makes my head hurt.

It doesn't happen often that those questions are asked, but it increasingly is starting to happen. My bil is coparenting equally (in their opinion) with his gf, and I can think of several couples we know where i know or guess the male is the second earner and is an equall coparent.

That we have this choice is fabulous. But only, IMO, while it is choice and one or other options is not forced upon us be society (rather than need)

Edit: infact, I can think of a couple of examples now, we have one friend whose wife we have not met because he has been commuting to see her in their home country. They have three small children and my husband has asked him how he feels his balancing is going, because we thought its much harder (for either parent) if you have children you are in a different place from.

Almo

Person_one wrote: »

Its relevant because nobody ever asks these kinds of questions about men.

Nobody has ever asked a man with a job and a family "How do you manage to balance working with looking after the kids?" or told a single man "work might seem important now, but your priorities will change when you get broody!"

There are so many double standards when it comes to gender, work and children that it makes my head hurt.

Yes, so true. The stereotype of male as provider is still very much in force, although starting to change, gradually. I do know couples who disregard the stereotype and operate in a way that suits them best but there's a long way to go before we have true gender equality. Sometimes threads crop up on here that make me cringe with the assumption that the man is happy to work FT until retirement while the woman drops to PT and never goes back up to FT.

That's not to say that I think people should work, FT or at all, if they don't have to or want to, as long as everyone involved in the decision is happy and the decision isn't made purely on gender grounds. I think it's facile to position the argument as career woman vs stay at home wife who watches daytime tv, does lunch and always has perfect nails.

I envy people who have found a career they love, I really wish I had found one - I've always worked and intend to continue doing so but have never found something I absolutely love. Offices (i.e. people), yes, but the actual work itself? No.

Almo

Lilith1980 wrote: »

I have no plans to have children and would claw my own eyes out if I was indoors all day every day.

That said, OH and I both work full-time and I am finding myself daydreaming about working part-time. Even if it was 30 hours a week so that we had 3 days off together to go out for walks or potter around, that would be nice. 2 days off just doesn't seem enough.

I feel this is coming with age, although I'm only 32 and feel pretty burnt-out already :rotfl:

Do it. My OH and I are just a couple of years younger than you and also will not be having kids. If you don't need to work full time (and by 'need' I also mean have considered implications for retirement income etc) then don't, particularly if you know what you would like to do with the extra time. I definitely don't plan to work full time for someone else until I'm 67

VfM4meplse

Almo wrote: »

That's not to say that I think people should work, FT or at all, if they don't have to or want to, as long as everyone involved in the decision is happy and the decision isn't made purely on gender grounds.

I think everyone should work, whether they need the money or not.

Even if it's not about supporting yourself (which I think is something that everyone capable should have a taste of at least), it's about having a work eihic, ie a purpose and not fostering an aversion to getting stuck in - not working in some shape or form leads to an inherent laziness. And secondly, it's about doing something for other people, whether directly or not.

And lastly you'll never know when you might need the money .

Goldiegirl

Stay at home wife.

I worked full time for 34 years in a responsible and demanding role.

I took a pension as part of a redundancy settlement and now work a two day week, which if I'm honest is two days too many.

I'm giving it another 3 -4 years to get a bit more money together for full retirement, then I'll be giving up the job

I'm much happier at home, I'm never bored. The days flash past.

Almo

VfM4meplse wrote: »

I think everyone should work, whether they need the money or not.

Even if it's not about supporting yourself (which I think is something that everyone capable should have a taste of at least), it's about having a work eihic, ie a purpose and not fostering an aversion to getting stuck in - not working in some shape or form leads to an inherent laziness. And secondly, it's about doing something for other people, whether directly or not.

And lastly you'll never know when you might need the money .

Good points and I agree with much of what you say. I should clarify, I think everyone should be in paid employment at some stage, I agree with having a taste of it. More than a taste, in fact, a real understanding of what it's like, not just a few weeks but years in the workplace. I'm not advocating people spending a whole life without having worked, far from it.

I don't think a work ethic or purpose has to come from paid employment though, which is really what I'm trying to get at, and I don't think people should keep working to some age determined by the government 'just because'.

I've worked, PT while studying, since I was 15. No different to a huge number of people and nothing to be particularly proud of. If I can arrange my finances so I don't need to work, FT at least, right up to state pension age then I will. There is something I'd love to study further at university, to PhD level ideally and that would encompass work ethic and purpose to me. That's a long way off now, but a goal for the future nonetheless.

I'm hoping to become a trustee of a charity with which I'm involved later this year, again, if I had the opportunity to devote more time to that, I'd count that as meeting the work ethic and purpose requirements.

fluffnutter

VfM4meplse wrote: »

I think everyone should work, whether they need the money or not.

Even if it's not about supporting yourself (which I think is something that everyone capable should have a taste of at least), it's about having a work eihic, ie a purpose and not fostering an aversion to getting stuck in - not working in some shape or form leads to an inherent laziness. And secondly, it's about doing something for other people, whether directly or not.

And lastly you'll never know when you might need the money .

Looking after kids is work though, isn't it? As is doing voluntary unpaid work. I tend to agree that working's very good for you, I'd just expand the definition a little.

lostinrates

Almo wrote: »

Good points and I agree with much of what you say. I should clarify, I think everyone should be in paid employment at some stage, I agree with having a taste of it. More than a taste, in fact, a real understanding of what it's like, not just a few weeks but years in the workplace. I'm not advocating people spending a whole life without having worked, far from it.

I don't think a work ethic or purpose has to come from paid employment though, which is really what I'm trying to get at, and I don't think people should keep working to some age determined by the government 'just because'.

I've worked, PT while studying, since I was 15. No different to a huge number of people and nothing to be particularly proud of. If I can arrange my finances so I don't need to work, FT at least, right up to state pension age then I will. There is something I'd love to study further at university, to PhD level ideally and that would encompass work ethic and purpose to me. That's a long way off now, but a goal for the future nonetheless.

I'm hoping to become a trustee of a charity with which I'm involved later this year, again, if I had the opportunity to devote more time to that, I'd count that as meeting the work ethic and purpose requirements.

Absolutely agree with this. Someone who is a stay at home wife might not always have been, and the circumstances might well mean their work ethic has already been moulded and seek outlet.

Almo

fluffnutter wrote: »

Looking after kids is work though, isn't it? As is doing voluntary unpaid work. I tend to agree that working's very good for you, I'd just expand the definition a little.

Much more eloquently put!

Edited to add: LIR is right though that SAHM are not really being discussed here, it's the expansion of the definition I thoroughly agree with.