I need to figure out to which socioeconomic class my family belongs, in order to determine my reference point in the mommy wars (the SAHM v. the WM). The general consensus is that it is upper-middle-class moms who are faced with the dilemma of whether to return to work after having a child. Lower-middle-class moms are excused from the argument as they are expected to work as a matter of necessity. In fact, they probably shouldn’t even have to hear the argument since they are completely powerless in their own lives (according to this view).
Upper-class moms often have nannies regardless of their working status (see Angelina Jolie’s promise to be a SAHM), so we’ll focus on the Uppers and the Lowers.
Income (also, number of income earners and size of household), Education and Job Type are cited in my reference of choice (wikipedia.org); wikipedia also describes the thresholds for each indicator.
Johnson Family
Income: mid 5-figure range, 1 income earner for a household of 5.
Education: Dick: MFA from Columbia University; Dick & Jane: BA in English, with honors, from BYU.
Job Type: Dick: white collar, “senior” level, but not management (he’s only been in the field 2 years); Jane: mother and homemaker.
Result: Close tie. Other descriptors that describe us are “lower autonomy and independence in job” and “live paycheck to paycheck with little savings.” That tilts the balance in favor of lower-middle-class. Ouch.
If I class myself as lower-middle-class, then the assumption that lower-middle-class mothers do not have the choice of whether to earn an income or not is staggering. Sally asked if I was serious when I told Dick that I would be working at Wal-Mart tonight. (Seriously, I hope that if I did have to seek a wage, I would at least be in charge of my own little department at Wal-Mart).
Also, when I get irritated at WM for telling me how “lucky” I am to be able to stay at home (it’s a choice, not luck), I am missing the obvious: they must assume that I have an inheritance which ennables me to stay home. That would be lucky, indeed.
Either Dick and I are in denial about our fiscal present and future, or our priorities are seriously screwed up. According to recent books such as The Feminine Mistake, by Leslie Bennetts, and Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World by Linda R. Hirshman, it’s probably both.
An article in today’s New York Times talks about how these books develop a lot of buzz, but few people read them; I’m willing to give them a glance. But first, a couple quotes from an op-ed column by Linda Hirshman, also in today’s Times, made me so mad I subjected Dick and the girls to my ranting all through dinner:
Why are married mothers [with children] leaving their jobs? …why do they take the option? It?s easier in the short term, sure, but it?s easier to forgo lots of things, like going to college or having children at all. People don?t ? nor should they ? always do the easier thing.
Staying home and raising kids is easier? Easier than what? Maybe easier than negotiating world peace, but there’s only one Secretary of State, and that position is already filled.
Should we care if women leave the work force? Yes, because participation in public life allows women to use their talents and to powerfully affect society.
Is patience a talent? Is negotiating a talent? Is nurturing or nourishing a child a talent? Is beautifying a home or reading a book well a talent? Is cooking a meal a talent? Is modeling good behavior a talent? Is teaching anything and everything a talent? Is creating art or music or quilts or clothes or gardens a talent? Is raising a worthwhile human being a talent?
Will doing any of the above affect society?
I wonder.
Subscribe by email
Amen.
[Reply]
You are right on with this! I can’t believe someone would basically say that SAHMs aren’t using their talents, nor affecting society! Does she think there will be some world-wide disaster and none of these kids will ever grow up and be “society” someday? I can’t believe a woman wrote this. She must not have kids. It seems that most people think that when a mom works outside the home, she only gains the work/career stuff – and doesn’t lose anything at home. As if you can have an extra 10 hours a day just to go to a job. Why doesn’t anyone think of what they are losing and sacrificing by not being with their children all day every day?
[Reply]
Hey! I’m the star commenter!!!!!
[Reply]
Commentor?
[Reply]
now you’re just padding your score!
[Reply]
A receptionist at the Dr’s office told me the same thing too. That I was “lucky” to be able to stay home. I didn’t feel like explaining to her that we are living off of savings and student loans (which we will have to pay back 2 or 3 times their original worth) while my husband is in medical school. I am making no judgement on the receptionist since I don’t know her situation, but you can’t tell me that answering phones and scheduling appointments uses more talents than staying at home with kids all day. Of course some women have better jobs than that, (I used to have a job that required a lot of skill – I am not trying to brag here) but it is still just a job and it can’t compete with the skills required for raising kids.
I think a lot more people could make the choice to be a SAHM if they wanted to, they just don’t want to deal with all of the work that comes from being with their kids all day. It is easier to pay someone else to do it. Of course to do that, then you have to go to work so that you can afford it. I could talk all day on this subject but I won’t. I took a lot of flak in DC for leaving work when I had Callie. One woman went so far as to say they shouldn’t hire Mormon women in the work place because they leave when they have kids. Never mind that one of her kids has tried to commit suicide and another one is barely passing high school. At least she uses her talents where they are needed most. At work. Helping society.
[Reply]
Hey Shannon- this is your cousin Suzie. I read your blog quite often. Usually I’m one of those silent blog readers that reads everything about everyone without having to commit to a formal relationship- but this post is something I have been thinking a lot about lately.
I don’t know if you saw it, but last May, Salary.com published a report stating that the average mom would earn “$134,121 for her contributions as a housekeeper, cook, day care center teacher, janitor and CEO, among other functions.” The article can still be found at http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/03/pf/mothers_work/ . My friend next door was recently offered a part time position that would allow her to make almost as much money as her husband makes working full-time. She has one little boy they adopted as a baby (she can’t have kids) and they are starting to take classes to do foster-care with the intent to adopt more. Her parents are completely encouraging her to take the job. Her mother has never worked out of the home. But, yet, they are almost insistent that she take the position. When she asks why??- they tell her it so she can get ahead. What does that mean? To “get ahead” in this world it is usually measured in a monetary form. Why isn’t inspiring young minds to think for themselves and do miraculous things daily count as getting ahead? The lady that wrote that article you cited obviously has never spent a week in her life as a full-time mom- completely dedicated to her work.
You noted how Angelina considers herself a SAHM- and we both know that isn’t true. If a woman is truly doing all that she can to provide and create the most incredible world for her family (not just the kids- dad is included too in that work) then she would know that she is doing the best job that is available out there. It is her job to use every talent imaginable to create that world- and do all that she can to prepare her children to do the same thing for future generations. Both her and her family are continuously “getting ahead” with their everyday actions. As parents we don’t know what our children will become- maybe they will be the ones that find the cure for cancer or become a prophet or have a strong enough testimony to teach their values to their children. One isn’t greater than the other.
[Reply]
Melinda–since I know what your former job was, maybe that lady really thought she was about to save the world… and that might be worth the sacrifice of her kids.
Suzie–how great to hear from you! i did see that salary.com article last year; i printed it out real big for my husband to see–just to remind him (he already is 100% supportive) that I am super-valuable. i hope you’ll continue to comment. this is so much fun when it’s more of a conversation. i’ve been reading your blog too (i just didn’t know if you knew that i was). now that you know
, i’ll leave some comments. do Amy or any of your other siblings have blogs?
the more i think about this (last night i calmed down after writing my post — blogging is so cathartic), the more i wonder if i’ll really bother to read those “women should go to work” books. if the authors are capable of such idiotic statements as those i quoted, what could i possibly learn from their books? still, it seems only fair.
[Reply]
I agree with everything said. My mom was a SAHM for 18 years and then when my dad became too disabled to work, she went to work. At first she said it was wonderful because people would daily tell her she was doing a great job and she felt so needed. But soon, she realized the fulfillment she found at work didn’t compare to the fulfillment she felt from being home with her kids. She is so tired at the end of the day and is still expected to cook and clean and help with homework, etc. If she had the choice she would quit working in a heartbeat. I believe women can do a great job in the career world. I think there can be great stay at home dads. But I firmly believe men are better in the career world and women are better at home.
[Reply]
Adrianne, I think your last sentence can be read in several different ways. such ambiguity can be very interesting.
judging from the second-to-last (penultimate, if i might be so bold) sentences, you’re not saying that men are better (than women) in the career world or women are better (than men) at home. though maybe you do mean that?
another interpretation is that men are better in the career world (than at home) and women are better at home (than in the career world). in this sense, it is a statement that there are biological differences that lead us to being most fulfilled, personally, in the traditional sphere (men outside, women inside). i would extrapolate: as a women, i am a better women when i am raising my children in my home rather than pursuing other interests. and men likewise in the career world.
a third interpretation is that (the world and/or the children) are better when men are in the career world and (the world and/or the children) are better when women are at home.
which were you thinking of? (or was it a fourth or fifth option?)
[Reply]