first!

Here's a thought -- do you think women CHOOSE jobs that require them to be a caregiver -- or do you think that they tend to take their jobs and make them into opportunities for caregiving? I'm thinking about my own tendency to want to mother my students, even though they're in college. I'm more likely to ask them about how they're coping when I meet with them, to offer sympathy when they're having trouble combining work and family responsibilities and so forth. I could probably have a more businesslike relationship with them -- and many of my male colleagues do -- but that's not who I am. Honestly, if I was an IRS agent or a fireman or a zookeeper, I'd probably turn that into an opportunity to nurture people too. I'm thinking a lot of it's just hardwired, and that many women are just more likely to want to nurture.

On the other hand, I definitely agree about the being burned-out aspect and lately when I'm finding myself getting unnecessarily sucked into the drama of a student's life, I find myself asking, "I wonder how George or another male colleague would handle this?" and subsequently cutting back on the hand-holding.

Also, I think we tend to encourage our daughters into these helping professions -- perhaps more so than we would encourage our sons. (The old saw where you encourage your daughter to be a nurse and your son to be a doctor.) Though I try really hard not to!

Interesting observation, but I wonder if it has more to do with the fact that the average compensation of those in careers such as "teaching, counseling, nursing, ministry, and social work" is not high enough to cover child care and other employment related costs (e.g., commuting costs). My SIL and many friends were also in those fields prior to having children and they often complain that even if they wanted to go back to work, it'd be a net loss on their family income considering how low these jobs pay.

To me, I think this is the bigger issue.

"I stayed home until my sons were three and then returned to work part-time as a school psychologist. A year ago--bored with testing and diagnosing kids and having rediscovered my love of writing--I quit."

So how many full-time years of the boring work eventually became "too much" for you? Who supported you and your kids?

Do you have aging relatives?

One plus of working full-time is that you have an "excuse" for ducking out on elder care to the extreme as in, "Mom I'll call every day but I just can't come by and have tea every afternoon so you can recite your surgeries."

I have found that the expectation of care-giving by women is so ingrained that it is very hard to avoid it. We all have different qualities but women who are not interested in care giving get pinged to the nth degree by our society.

Wow! It must be nice to stay home, work part-time, and then quit your job whenever you feel like it!

Where do I sign up?

It's hard to believe you are a psychologist.

This blog is right on the money for me. I was much less stressed as a SAHM. My patience, which I worked very hard to develop while I was home with my children, is fast eroding. I hate that. I hear myself sometimes and think "what a b*tch".

I don't know how to balance it all without becoming stressed and angry. I guess maybe exercise? And always keeping in mind what your priorities are.

Wow, I see how Leslie feels. We really do judge each other harshly.

I feel like I chose the wrong career--based on my need to please rather than my passion and now I'm working to build a career in which I can make a positive contribution. Freelance writing actually does involve work.

But yes, my husband supports me and we are scrimping so I can build a rewarding professional life, too, after putting everyone else first for the last 8 years. Changing course mid-career isn't easy, but I don't want to wind up bitter and cranky.

Thanks for your comments!

This is a really interesting perspective. I'm a lawyer and work p/t for the government. I've often thought I would have been better off going into a "caregiver" profession like teaching or social work because I think family-friendly schedules are easier to find than in law. Plus, it seems so much more personally rewarding to me than what I do.

I can see, though, how doing all the caregiving at home and then at work could be draining. One of my closest friends teaches middle school part-time and she has remarked to me that her job isn't that different from caring for her kids at home and it would be nice to have more contrast. I think one way to make sure caregivers are not burned out is to have flexible, part-time schedules and make sure the other spouse (mom or dad) pitches in as much as his/her schedule allows at home so the caregiver professional gets a break.

It's funny, because I'm not in a classic "caregiving" profession (lawyer), but I feel this pressure, too. We get and keep our clients by building relationships, and then by meeting all of their needs whenever they come up -- in some ways, it's like being surrounded by demanding 3-yr-olds all day, because everyone NEEDS whatever they want, NOW, with very little concept that other people have needs, too (this week is especially bad, because I have clients expecting me to be in MD, TX, and NJ -- all at the same time).

There are some days I'm just exhausted by 9:00 at night. Not because I worked hugely long hours, or because the kids were exceptionally demanding. But because I went from taking care of the kids in the morning, to taking care of clients all day, then back to taking care of kids in the afternoon and evening, and then to taking care of husband after they go to bed.

I suspect Armchair Mom is right, and it's a little of both. I think society expects women to be nurturers, and then puts pressure on them to fit that mold; and I think some of us just have that nurturing gene anyway, and would turn any job into a nurturing profession.

The way I get through it personally is to remember that my hard times are inevitably followed by easier times. Right now sucks. But last week, I took an afternoon off, had lunch with a friend, went to Wegman's and got all sorts of great food, got the kids early, and played ball in the yard for a couple of hours. And I think of the people who take care of me -- my secretary, who noticed last week that we were running out of my favorite tea bags and ordered more for me; my mother, who is picking up the kids tonight so I can do a deposition without worrying about getting out early; my husband, who took off last Friday to finish tiling the kids' bathroom. Gratitude goes a long way toward sucking the wind out of a case of the whineys.

Frieda taught school for several years after college but also became burnt out. Having needy kids all day, (she was a special ed teacher) and then coming home to family would be abit overwhelming for anyone. As she would say, "I am just touched out." I can understand this. I did help out with her students a couple of times, it was very exhausting.

She finds working in public health less stressful, if you can comprehend that!

Hang in there Amy, some posters can be tough but you will find some good insights posted here. You might even find some people who totally understand and agree with you.

"But yes, my husband supports me and we are scrimping so I can build a rewarding professional life, too, after putting everyone else first for the last 8 years."

"Putting everyone else first?" From where I sit, your husband has had the bulk of the breadwinning responsibility for nearly a decade. Suppose he came to you today and said, "This is just too stressful and I can't take it anymore. I want out of my job." How could you step up to relieve him of that burden?

I have trouble looking at anyone who quit her job because she got "bored" with it and who takes no responsibility for supporting her family as put-upon.

Amy Stuart Taylor

"so I can build a rewarding professional life, too, after putting everyone else first for the last 8 years."

As a psychologist, you should know that putting everyone else first is usually not a good idea.

And again, someone else is paying for most of your choices, partly because you have his children.

I tend to agree with Laura and PT Fed Mof2. I think the burn-out can come from any job that is demanding - emotionally, physically, in a time-consuming manner, etc. And I think SAHMs burn-out at the same rate as the rest of us.

I think burn-out is just a reality for most moms, especially in the children's early years when their needs for mommy are the greatest and most constant. Though I bet the teenage years are pretty tough as well...

Amy: West Lafayette, woo hoo! (Purdue U., class of a long time ago :-)

I do take issue with one thing you say. As someone whose mother, sister and niece are all teachers, I haven't seen that many of them get "bitter" or "burned out". (Okay, my niece is still in her 20's, but...) Those who went into teaching with the expectations of what it would be like - what the job would entail, what the environment would be like, what the pay would be like - haven't gotten burned out. They didn't go into it for the "flexibility" or anything like that; they all went into it because they truly loved teaching. (And both my mother and sister were given numerous "teacher of the year" awards, taught at "blue ribbon schools", etc. )

I suspect that that may be the biggest single factor in burnout. If you're doing a job you truly love, it doesn't tend to stress you out as much and you handle it much better. If you're doing it because it's a necessary evil - a way to make money to support your life & family - it becomes much harder.

(As you'd expect from a Purdue grad, I'm an engineer so it's a little different. But I've noticed the same general trend - when I'm working on a job that excites me, it really doesn't seem like work and my life is good. When I get stuck on a task I hate that just has to be done by somebody, then work exhausts me and can impact family life, too.)

I try to keep in mind that the 20+ years when I will be actively raising my children (that is, they'll be in the house with us, living under our rules, etc.) is SHORT. If I am lucky and live to be 80, it still represents only a quarter of my life. And as Laura said, most of the time when things aren't going great, there are brighter days just around the corner.

Amy, did you have an Eureka moment when you decided to be a writer?

Fred, how did Fredia decide to become a breast freeding consultant?

In the plethora of options, how do women decide what to do, or try, *next*? In my conversations with women, both currently working and non-working, there seems to be this muddling non-decision period. All to often, this non-decision period becomes the decision itself. I'm not sure why...

This is a bit off topic but man... I am really starting to get shocked at the concept that floats around this blog that if someone in a marriage stops earning money for a while that they are being some kind of lazy jerk.

My husband now is sort of off the scale on work, but throughout our thus-far 13 year marriage we have each had times that we made a career change or gave up a promotion in order to live in line with either our values or our dreams. He turned down a lucrative director position because he wanted to do work that was ultimately more interesting to him. I switched career streams for me, which came in handy when it enabled me to travel with him for a year, and took some time off with our son and now work part time because WE value a particular calmer way for our family to live.

We anticipate several more switches too. We are saving now to be able to both take a year off and travel when our kid maybe kids at that point) is in his early teens. That may or may not happen. Also, he will burn out on what he is doing now and may want to take some time off or - who knows? And at that point I will be fine if I am the primary breadwinner. And if not, we'll work it out.

Together.

I am really shocked at the meanness of people who look at a family that is supporting itself and say one partner is getting a free ride. My marriage, anyway, is not about making sure people put equal numbers of quarters in the cookie jar. It's about creating a home and a support structure so that everyone SOMETIMES gets what they want, and SOMETIMES gives up things for others.

Sorry for the rant but I just cannot believe how petty and bitter some of you sound to me today.

"Amy, did you have an Eureka moment when you decided to be a writer? "

Could you have acted on that Eureka moment if someone else wasn't supporting you?

Shandra- well written...I agree with you. Some of the anon comments have, shall I say, an agenda.

"I am really shocked at the meanness of people who look at a family that is supporting itself and say one partner is getting a free ride. "

What else would you call it?

Shandra, we're doing the same thing -- saving to take a year off when the kids get older. We want to sail down the East coast and then winter in the Bahamas, homeschooling the kids. It makes it a lot easier to drive older cars and not eat out so much if you've got a dream like that.

My husband is an incurable optimist. He is always saying "What would you do if you knew everything would turn out just fine?" And then his advice is to make that decision. It has worked for us every time.

Ignore Amy's career path and answer her questions about how to handle a caregiving profession when you are a caregiver in the rest of your life.

If you you re-read the post - She admits she left the psychologist job from boredom, not burnout and knows she wanted to change her career focus. I have a feeling if she had changed the focus of her pschologist career, (becoming an administrative type, etc) she probably would have avoided all the snarky comments from the posters.

Her individual circumstance does not make the questions she asks unimportant.

"I have a feeling if she had changed the focus of her pschologist career, (becoming an administrative type, etc) she probably would have avoided all the snarky comments from the posters."

Duh, she's a psychologist! Shouldn't she be able to predict snarky comments!!!!!

I am a SAHM that works part time. Am I getting a free ride because this is what we chose for our family right now (two small children)? How narrowminded you would have to be to condemn our choice.

My stepmother was a nurse, and she could not handle both taking care of her four children and her job. She ended up divorcing her first husband over the job/kids, and then eventually divorced my dad over the same issue. She was so into her job that she completely neglected her role as mom, and her kids ran wild with no discipline whatsoever. My father and her argued constantly over this until they finally split up.

A married friend of mine, a teacher, realized she could not "give" to her job as much when she became a mom, and quit to work for a religious organization where she had more flexible hours and didn't have to deal with children as a job, then come home and do it some more.

"What else would you call it?"

I call it "sponging".

But only when I'm burned out, bitter, and cranky from all the work I do. :-)

Amazing anyone guest posts to this blog since there is always so many people ready to insult their choices. At least Leslie gets paid to be insulted.

I know someone who left social work because of burnout. I believe that the burnout was strictly due to the difficulty of the job and the population of people that the social worker dealt with. It really was NOT because of 'caregiver overload' caused by caregiving on the job as well as at home. I say this because the social worker was a single man with no children, and he didn't have aging relatives to care for, either.

Sometimes the burnout is just job burnout and not caused because "women do too much".

Staying home with your children isn't getting a "free ride." It's making an important contribution to the family. The breadwinner is bringing in money which helps the family. And the partner is watching the children which helps the family. Both are equally important contributions and no one is getting a "free ride."

"Amazing anyone guest posts to this blog since there is always so many people ready to insult their choices."

There's one born every minute.

I've often wondered if teachers, especially elementary school teachers, feel burned out between their job and taking care of their own children.

Yes, we moved and I met a neighbor who defined herself as a writer and I was struck. I had forgotten that when I was 8, I wanted to be a writer. Somehow, that natural sense of what I was meant to do got buried in the following years of schooling and life.

I believe nothing is wasted, but I do wish I had gone to grad school in english or journalism rather than psych (I double-majored). Right before college graduation, I woke up in a panic--I knew I was making a mistake, but I didn't know how to undo it. I thought I was supposed to do something to help other people. I missed the fact that I am much more helpful when I am happy and authentic. Giving IQ tests was just not the right career for me, although I found the work more rewarding in Maryland where I could actually do some early intervention with kids. The profession is trying to evolve, but we are behind the times in Ind.

I know I'm fortunate to have a second chance. But I also know I won't always have it and I need to work hard to become the person I want to be.

I think that Army Brat is right to a certain extent. If you love the job, you will find the happiness to avoid burn-out.

However, I have a friend who teaches special needs kids and one friend who teaches high school. There is a much higher turn-over rate in the special needs realm because the kids require SO much work and because, frankly, it can be pretty frustrating when your students don't progress.

But we desparately need people in these professions. Maybe taking the time to thank your kid's teacher or your parent's nurse or hospice worker will help ease their burn-out. I know that when I voluteer, a person who shows genuine appreciation really makes it all worthwhile.

And RoseG is right about the expectation in our society for women to be natural care-givers. When my husband's boss asked me (not him) to babysit her kids and I said no, she seemed shocked. My husband had to explain that I'm just not a kid person.

"The breadwinner is bringing in money which helps the family. And the partner is watching the children which helps the family. Both are equally important contributions and no one is getting a "free ride."

Ha, ha, ha!!!! "Watching the children"; is that what you do? I would call that a babysitter getting a really goo deal!

On a somewhat related issue, I would say that I have observed a similar pressure/inclination in men in regards to "breadwinning."

My mom stayed home with us, and my dad worked. My mom took care of us, the house, made dinner, did the errands, etc. And my dad made a nice living, provided for the family--and shared in the parenting with my mom when he was home. It was a nice, happy family life.

So, was my mom "sponging," "getting a free ride," etc.? Or, was it an equitable way to raise a family?

To Shandra:

I agree with your comments. I too am a partner in a strong marriage. Each of us plays to our strengths, which can change with time and circumstances. We weather good and bad times, and over all our family and each individual in it are happy, healthy, and whole. People may not approve of the way we achieve that, but why it might matter to them at all is beyond me.

"The breadwinner is bringing in money which helps the family. And the partner is watching the children which helps the family. Both are equally important contributions and no one is getting a "free ride."

Ha, ha, ha!!!! "Watching the children"; is that what you do? I would call that a babysitter getting a really goo deal!

Posted by: | May 15, 2007 08:50 AM

_________________

You are just silly!

A sahm is about the only profession I know where a person can get burned out from boredom.

A sahm is about the only profession I know where a person can get burned out from boredom.

Posted by: Father of 4 | May 15, 2007 08:55 AM

________________

Do you truly think it's boring to be home with your children?

I think that people who go into teaching with the expectation that it's going to be fun because you hang out with kids all day, everybody loves you, and you have summers off are the ones who get 'burned out' and quit at the first opportunity.

Teaching is hard work -- like any job worth doing well.

I'm not my students' friend; I am their teacher (I was not my sons' friend either, and I won't be until they grow up and leave the nest). That doesn't mean I'm mean or unfriendly; I give and receive hugs every day, and there is a lot of laughter in my room. I'm told that I'm the 'coolest' teacher and the 'best teacher ever' -- although I don't take it to heart. I'm sure they don't like me so much when they're doing their homework, and that's OK. They don't HAVE to like me; they have to sit still, pay attention, work hard, ask questions when they don't understand something, and try their best. I'm there to be sure they learn what they need to learn to move on to the next grade.

If my main prerequisite for a career was to have everyone love me, I would have chosen to do something else. I don't know what -- is there ANY job for which the performer receives constant affirmation -- but it certainly would not have been teaching or, for that matter, motherhood.

Amy - You go, girl! If writing, whether it be journalism or the creative arts, is your calling, then go for it! Nowhere is it written that we must remain in the career we started out in. Enjoy the journey! May you be energized by it!

Amy --

BTW, a little off-topic, but your post brought back warm fuzzies to me -- I lived in West Lafayette from @ 7-11, and I have extremely fond memories of riding my bike all over the state park, going to Purdue football games in the crisp fall air, hitting the vending machines in the Purdue student union for jawbreakers (mom was a grad student), and the general freedom that comes from being a kid in a smaller town in the midwest. Of course, I don't know a dang thing about living there as an adult, but it's a great place to be a kid, especially for their current ages.

"Fred, how did Fredia decide to become a breast feeding consultant?"

Posted by: dotted | May 15, 2007 08:28 AM

She had a bit of trouble bf the first child so she received help from LLL. This turned into her being a LLL Leader which (including a lot of seminars and study) turned into a job at the health dept. This has always been a flexible pt job for her.

As to the snarky comments about "sponging", Shandra stated very eloquently that a true marriage is a union of concern and sharing, not a business transaction.

"Shandra stated very eloquently that a true marriage is a union of concern and sharing, not a business transaction. "

And a free ride never hurts. Get real.

Meesh,
Slightly off topic but - isn't is inappropriate for the boss to ask an employee to babysit?
I am a nurse and there certainly is a burn-out factor - mostly due to shortages. The hours can be flexible which is nice for some people but, as a new nurse you end up with the worst shifts (nights, weekends). In some places it takes years to get a day job.

Two issues, at least, seem to be at play here. One is the notion that women can become dissatisfied with their jobs and quit them much more easily than men. We collectively believe that men's primary responsibility to their families is to bring in the money, and women's careers are 'nice to have' but far more dispensible. This puts a lot of pressure on men. If we could even out the score a bit, both partners could enjoy semi-freedom to get out of jobs/careers they no longer felt matched their authentic selves, but both would need to do so more financially responsibly than we require women to do right now.

The other issue is that caregiving careers can become too much over time, especially for women who own this role with children at home. I would suggest that we even out this inequality as well - men contributing equally to childraising would allow women to get some balance on this front.

I think that every job, as other posters have said, can turn into a caregiving one if we make it that way. Those that are naturally so are more problematic, but they offer the instant reward of directly helping others every day (which makes life more meaningful). The key is balancing all of this out so that there is more room for all of life, and caregiving doesn't consume us.

Amy - best wishes in your new career. Following your gut is important, and I'm glad you're on your way.

"so I can build a rewarding professional life, too, after putting everyone else first for the last 8 years."

Honestly, that is very selfish. I plan on placing myself second or third, etc...for the rest of my life.
Right now, my daughter needs me, she is "first", my husband, my job, my family,...They are all more important to me than having a need to "be put first"

It takes a very special person to be in a care taking field- that's why great teachers and nurses, etc are few and far between. The good ones I know have no need to be first.

I'm not saying that they don't get drained, but these jobs aren't for everyone.

Shandra,
You are very fortunate to be in a stable, loving partnership marriage. I hope you take time each day to thank God, or fate, or karma, for your blessings/luck, and I hope you continue to be blessed/lucky.

To Is anyone a teacher:
I was more stressed when I taught middle school English while my sons were in middle school. I had bouncing hormones literally from morning to night. Also, teaching English is stressful because of the quantity of graded work; it takes much longer to grade 90 persuasive letters than it takes to grade 30 spelling tests, 30 vocabulary quizzes and 30 social studies review sheets. That being said, the reason I left that position had everything to do with the principal and almost nothing to do with the my sons or the grading.

Now that I teach fourth grade and my sons are in high school and college, I think my job is easy. I would teach middle school again, in the right school, but I'm not interested in leaving where I teach now.

Putting yourself second/third/fourth/whatever isn't always a good idea either. Apparently, Amy is lucky enough that her family doesn't need immediate income from her, so she has the opportunity to pursue her dream. Does it mean she's a bad mom? NO! She's a great mom, and is taking the opportunity to put her career on a rewarding path. The fact that her children will see that will do more value to them than if she dropped everything to "put the kids first." She's not selfish...she's smart!

"She's a great mom"

How do you know?

"and is taking the opportunity to put her career on a rewarding path""

That her husband is subsidizing. Sweet!

"Do you truly think it's boring to be home with your children?"

Sometimes yes, but I'm so limited in the things I can do. I would love to read to my kids or play catch, or cards...

Actually, I can play the card game "War" with my kids if they are honest about the card I play, but I think they all cheated me because the longest game lasted only 30 minutes instead of the usual 2 hours...

And I always lost!

I am just curious as to what steps you are taking towards becoming a writer. I mean, I couldn't wake up tomorrow and be a psychologist. I've put a lot of hard work into my education and career and find it a little bit conceited of people when they say "oh, I'll just be a writer." Not you in particular, but some people in general.

I don't mean to add to the snark, I am really just wondering. Do you have an undergrad degree in English, are you going back to school, taking workshops, or are you just an exceedingly good writer? I do, however, wish you the best of luck.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

For the second day this week...

Wow.

Those of you beating the "sponging" drum sound really angry. Why?

You might want to rethink this. I "sponged" off my late husband when I started my freelancing business, and eventually became the primary breadwinner to the tune of 6 figures.

Now that I'm remarrying, I'm working with my wife to let her "sponge" off me while she takes care of the kids/home (hardly a babysitting job) when they're small and figures out her career path. We're doing this because we _both_ think it's the best thing to do for our family. If our circumstances change, we'll adjust.

We both think that we're getting the better part of the deal.

Fred and Shandra have already said it well, so this may be redundant, but I've just gotta respond to the 'free ride' comments.

When we first got married, we both worked full time (as Feds). DW decided to quit her full-time Fed job after child #4 was born because (a) she really, truly hated the job; and (b) with the work-related expenses (childcare, commuting, wardrobe, etc.) what she was bringing home in pay was a pittance - something along the lines of 3 or 4 dollars an hour. So she was a SAHM mom for several years, while I was the primary breadwinner.

I never once, ever, even for a second, looked at her as getting a free ride, or sponging off me, or any of these other terms. We were a couple - a partnership, dividing up the tasks. She was the primary caregiver (although I knew I had to do my share in that regard :-), while I was the primary breadwinner, and together we made it work.

Yes, because of our particular financial situation, we could make it work with her quitting to stay at home, while we could not have made it work with me being the one to quit. (I'm an engineer and even the Federal Government pays engineers more than analysts - it's a "supply and demand" thing.) And yes, there were times when friends of mine were quitting to start their own companies that I was somewhat jealous - I couldn't do that because the family couldn't take the financial risk.

On the other hand, my wife being a SAHM allowed me to take jobs I never could have taken otherwise. When I quit the Feds and jumped to private industry, I took a job that involved a substantial amount of travel all over the world. Travel situations like an afternoon phone call inquiring whether I could be in Stockholm the next afternoon, or 6-day trips to Hong Kong that evolved into 3-week Asian tours because of side trips to Sydney, Tokyo and Singapore. That would not have been possible without my SAHM wife; but at the same time I'm in my current position precisely because I was able to do that kind of traveling.

Now we're at a stage where DW has gone back to work, and I'm in a job with only occasional travel, all in the US. It's still us working together; nobody "sponging" or getting a "free ride" or anything else.

Some of these anonymous trolls just need to get over themselves. If you honestly believe that a stay-at-home parent is getting a "free ride", you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Everyone who comments here must be really well off financially because no one talks about a job as a way to pay the bills. It's all about being fulfilled and challenged and whatever. Most people work so that they can have a life--pay rent, buy food, have children and do things they enjoy in their spare time. It's great to have a job you like but I honestly think that people who get their sense of worth from their jobs will always grow dissatisfied and burnt out.

"She's a great mom"

How do you know? She's a "great mom" because she's showing her kids that you can have a career that's rewarding (not just one that's draining). And she's showing her kids that even if you don't make the "right" decision the first time, with perserverence, you can make a new start in a new direction. Will her kids understand all of the lessons now, at their young age? Probably not. But it's something they'll learn about, and understand, later on in life...and it will be valuable to them as they make their own career choices.

"and is taking the opportunity to put her career on a rewarding path""

That her husband is subsidizing. Sweet! Yes, he's "subsidizing" it. Apparently, he loves his wife, supports her, and is willing to do his part to give Amy this opportunity. Who's to say that a few years down the line, he won't need her to do the same for him. That's what marriage is...it's having a partner, for life...and doing nice things to support each other. Now, if Amy was incapacitated, and her husband cared for her--would she be "sponging"? If her husband was in medical school and she was working to support the family, would her husband be "sponging?"

Posted by: | May 15, 2007 09:17 AM

Huh? "Clever moniker", you had a "late husband" and now you're marrying a "wife"?

I don't get it.

Hey anon at various times this morning:

Do you get off on being insulting? Your view is one view, but by no means, the only valid view. Accept there are other views of marriage. Ahem, grow up.

"Apparently, Amy is lucky enough that her family doesn't need immediate income from her, so she has the opportunity to pursue her dream."

Yeah, because her husband is underwriting her escape from boredom, and has been for the past 8 years.

Look, I don't care if she's sponging off her husband or if he's sponging off her or whatever. What I care about is that she's got a responsibility to support her children, and she's shirking it because she got bored.

If she's got another income stream and could support her kids if her husband was laid off or disabled or divorced her, then I've got zero problem with her experimenting with different career paths. But I'm not going to apologize for finding it infuriating that so many women don't think they have any particular responsibility to be capable of supporting their children.

"are you just an exceedingly good writer? "

Check out her website for the answer.

Hint: she's as good a writer as she is a psychologist.

Yes, Army Brat. Happens that way sometimes.

Wow.

Those of you beating the "sponging" drum sound really angry. Why?

You might want to rethink this. I "sponged" off my late husband when I started my freelancing business, and eventually became the primary breadwinner to the tune of 6 figures.

Now that I'm remarrying, I'm working with my wife to let her "sponge" off me while she takes care of the kids/home (hardly a babysitting job) when they're small and figures out her career path. We're doing this because we _both_ think it's the best thing to do for our family. If our circumstances change, we'll adjust.

We both think that we're getting the better part of the deal.

Posted by: Clever moniker | May 15, 2007 09:20 AM

Wait! First you had a husband? Now you have a wife? Are you male, or female?

Lizzie- don't you think Amy and her husband themselves decided how to go forward? It wasn't her sole decision, but rather, a family decision, and as such, should be respected as THEIR decision.

To Chris1458: We're not that well off financially, especially compared to some in this area. But, yes, after growing up watching my father dedicate his life to the Army and my mother dedicate her life to teaching, I wanted to make darned sure that I had a career doing things I really loved. I worked three jobs to put myself through six years of college (getting three degrees in the process) because that was what I needed to get where I wanted. Yes, the work provides money which provides a nice lifestyle for my family, and it also lets me help others, but it also provides me with a deep sense of satisfaction - I can point to what I've accomplished with a lot of pride.

You said "I honestly think that people who get their sense of worth from their jobs will always grow dissatisfied and burnt out." I disagree - I think it's those who DON'T get a sense of worth from their jobs, who view their jobs just as mindless drudgery that's a means to a life, who will burn out.

Now, I grant you that I don't get ALL of my self worth from my job. My family always has been and always will be my number one priority, and with DD #1 about to graduate from high school it's bringing a lot of things into focus. But having a meaningful job that I can be proud of is very important to me, and I think it helps prevent burnout.

"Wait! First you had a husband? Now you have a wife? Are you male, or female?"

Glad you guys are focusing on the main point of the story. :P

If it matters (does it?), I'm female.

KLB SS MD, I hadn't considered that. He and his boss are very close. They talk on the phone and hang out, so I figured she'd want him to watch them. I barely know her! But I guess it could be seen as inappropriate for her to ask him. Thanks for the other perspective.

Amy

"I know I'm fortunate to have a second chance."

Tha someone else is paying for!

Amy

"I know I'm fortunate to have a second chance."

Tha someone else is paying for!

Posted by: | May 15, 2007 09:32 AM

GOODBYE!!!!!!! You've won the stupid poster of the morning award!!!!!!!

Wow, I am shocked people are attacking her for finding a job that will really interest her. As far as being a SAHP, it sounds like Amy and her husband made the decision jointly. And for all we know, maybe he can adequately support his family financially without a second income. What is wrong with that? She isn't shirking her responsibility of financially supporting the kids if 1) Amy and her husband agree on having one child stay at home 2) they can afford it. It doesn't sound as if they are waiting for the food stamps to arrive each month to support their decision to have a stay at home parent. If she doesn't need the money, her spouse agrees, and she thinks she will be more fulfilled at being a writer, sounds like she made a good decision. Hang in there Amy. Most people spend their life wasting their time on jobs they hate. Good luck on your writing career.

"It wasn't her sole decision, but rather, a family decision, and as such, should be respected as THEIR decision."

That doesn't matter even a little tiny bit. What matters is whether Amy is capable of supporting her kids. Right now, I'd say she's not.

If they decided together that it was a good idea to cash in their life insurance policies and blow it all on the ponies, it wouldn't matter that they had made that decision together. It's still a lousy, irresponsible choice.

Hint: she's as good a writer as she is a psychologist.

She should find a new hobby.

I noticed the gender change in "Clever Moniker's" post as well. Interesting.

As for SAHM's "sponging" off their husband, give me a break. My mom worked as a mom and housewife the entire time she was married to my dad, and no way would either one of them have considered her not working in a paying career "sponging". My father worked varying shifts at his job, and then worked on our farm when he came home. My mom cared for the children when they were young, as well as the various household chores, cooked all the meals (although my sister helped when she got older), and handled the finances and shopping/errands. She also helped out on the farm as needed (planting, gardening, etc). It's a wonder she had any time for herself, but I remember her reading, knitting and doing other restful things after supper was over.

I don't call that "sponging"; I call it the way two adults split the work that had to be done to make a family function properly.

"Shandra,
You are very fortunate to be in a stable, loving partnership marriage. I hope you take time each day to thank God, or fate, or karma, for your blessings/luck, and I hope you continue to be blessed/lucky. "

Thanks educmom. I do and I think my husband does too. This is one reason I put up with the chores thing (he does none) I've talked about on here before.:-) No one's perfect! God knows I am not. :)

I just am still shaking my head at the idea of a spouse "subsidizing" another, at least in a derogatory way. I want my husband to be content and proud of what he does, and vice versa. I would be happy, and have been happy, to lower my *material* lifestyle in order to get there, or to be the "breadwinner."

Sometimes you just have to suck it back for a paycheque, yes. Having a child really brings that home, especially when they are young. But neither one of us believes that you have to lead a life of quietly hating what you do *if* you do have genuine choices.

We have the luxury of doing that 'cause we're middle class, because we each went to non-prestigious schools and weren't saddled with vast student loan debt, and also 'cause we have been savers and not spenders overall (err, except for his dream motorcycle we bought a couple of years ago), had good health insurance, and have only gone through very brief periods of unemployment.

Our house is modest, but 50% equity (partly 'cause we bought our first house instead of a fancy wedding/honeymoon, and did ok on it), and our cars are over 5 yrs old and will be driven for years to come, etc.

BTW Amy I am in your new field and it is great fun, if a lot of work. So hang in there. You go girl. :)

foamgnome

"1) Amy and her husband agree on having one child stay at home "

Huh?

"It wasn't her sole decision, but rather, a family decision, and as such, should be respected as THEIR decision."

That doesn't matter even a little tiny bit. What matters is whether Amy is capable of supporting her kids. Right now, I'd say she's not.

---

Marriage is a partnership. This is not a hard concept, unless you refuse to accept it.

foamgnome

"1) Amy and her husband agree on having one child stay at home "

Huh?

Posted by: | May 15, 2007 09:37 AM

Correction. Amy and her husband agree on having one parent stay at home.

About the "free ride" and "sponging," I have no problem with one partner taking some time off as long as it's reciprocated later on. Being a SAHP counts as taking time off because either person could do it and it is the more desirable position to be in (assuming you love your kids).

My husband and I have that deal. I was out of work, so he stayed at a crappy job. I got a job, and he decided to quit his. I'll be going to school part time soon, which he's helping pay for (I'll still be working though). When I'm done, he'll quit to go to law school. It truely is a partnership, with no one person bearing the brunt of the breadwinning or housekeeping responsibilities.

I think people get fired up when one partner has to be the breadwinner all the time. I think that's unfair because it's a lot of pressure. Same with the housekeeping/caregiving role.

Equal is absolutely right (as usual) in terms of easing burn-out for care givers. With regard to this topic, women caregivers might be less burned out if their partners shared more of the caregiving responsibilities at home.

In general, if more tasks were equally split, I think people would be happier and less stressed out. People hate doing the same thing day after day. Equally sharing resposibility would allow both partners a little wiggle room.

I'm with Shandra on her comments that all you folks criticizing Anne for quitting her job and switching careers are just petty and mean. A family unit that makes a decision, as a family, to allow one spouse a break or a career change or whatnot is just that: a family unit making a decision for the good of the family. As the primary breadwinner in my family, I can say that while my husband does not make the bulk of the money, he contributes in ways that are far more important to me than money, and he is doing something that will improve not only his future, but the whole family's future. Right now, that works for us. If we ever had to adjust it, we would make that decision as a family.

"Marriage is a partnership. This is not a hard concept, unless you refuse to accept it."

Indeed it is. My husband and I both have equal responsibility to support our putative children.

Look, I'm not going to engage about this any more. I've posted on this extensively in the past, so it's not like it's news to anybody.

Lizzie,
There are other ways to support your child or your spouse than financially.

STBX makes a pretty good chunk of change -- between three and four times what I make. However, he is the LEAST supportive human on the planet.

I would have been happy had he made half as much money, but been loving, caring, and supportive. As it was, he was the primary support for every bar and liquor store within a 20-mile radius.

I supported my sons all their lives: I went to their plays, concerts and games (sober). I made them study, do chores and play outside. I taught them manners, compassion, empathy and consideration for others. I helped them figure out how to behave well, and how to make it right when they didn't. I showed them how to overcome the obstacles life throws in front of each of us.

The sons cleaned my entire house for mother's day, made me a cake, and bought a flower. He'll be lucky to get a card from them on father's day (they're 17 & 19 -- they can decide what do do all by themselves).

Money doesn't buy love and happiness, Lizzie; it buys stuff. I'm sorry that you have not yet learned the difference.

"Being a SAHP counts as taking time off because either person could do it and it is the more desirable position to be in (assuming you love your kids)."

I disagree with you on this one, Meesh. It might be more desirable to stay at home with the kids for some people, but not for all (and I am making the assumption that ALL these people love their kids). It depends on the personality and temperament of the persons involved. I find it much easier to go to work than to stay at home with children. Being a SAHP is a thankless and relentless job. It is not a break in any sense of the imagination. I love my son, and spend a lot of time with him, but I find working to be more restful than staying at home.

"That doesn't matter even a little tiny bit. What matters is whether Amy is capable of supporting her kids. Right now, I'd say she's not."

I wonder if your father left and your mother was unable to support your family. I was in a situation where my father left and my mother was only able to provide minimal financial support. It was a tough way to grow up. Because of my experience, I vowed to never be in a position to be unable to support my children, no matter how much money my husband made.

However, I realize that that is my personal baggage. Other couples who are comfortable with having one breadwinner are entitled to make that choice, as long as they are not asking society to subsidize that choice.

But I'm not going to apologize for finding it infuriating that so many women don't think they have any particular responsibility to be capable of supporting their children.

Posted by: Lizzie | May 15, 2007 09:24 AM

Where did you get the idea that she didn't think she needed to be capable of supporting her children?? Maybe Amy and her husband have disability and life insurance. Either way, that is one heck of a leap to make based on her blog. She's looking for a new career. Good for her.

My husband makes a good salary and we could get by on that alone. I work part time in a job I really like because I want to. If I didn't like the job, I'd quit tomorrow and either stay home or find a new job that I did like. If my husband wanted to do something different, I could go to work full time and we could trade places. He too has found a job that he truly enjoys (most of the time). It works for our family. What works for others is usually different from what works for you. Either way, the notion that she is shirking her responsibility is silly. She's a member of a family that is doing what works for THEM!

I have to add, when it comes to doing dishes, a sponge is very desirable.

Just saying...

----What matters is whether Amy is capable of supporting her kids. Right now, I'd say she's not.----

Amy has years of experience working as a school psychologist. How is she not "capable" of financially supporting her children should the need arise?

It sounds like Lizzie is advocating being "ready" for a divorce. This is probably a realistic, sensible strategy for some. It's likely a damaging, self-fulfilling prophecy for others. Certainly not a "one-size-fits-all" solution, though.

"I could probably have a more businesslike relationship with them -- and many of my male colleagues do -- but that's not who I am. Honestly, if I was an IRS agent or a fireman or a zookeeper, I'd probably turn that into an opportunity to nurture people too. I'm thinking a lot of it's just hardwired, and that many women are just more likely to want to nurture."

Why do some women go out of their way to rationalize all of their personal choices as "hardwired"? It's not hardwired, it's how YOU are. Own it. Love it. But don't assume the way you are is somehow because of your gender and not your choices and preferences. I do not turn any opportunity in my professional world into a nurturing moment. No woman I work with does. Neither do the men - no surprise there.

I am frustrated by the stigma attached to "care-taking" jobs, because these roles are so necessary in society. Four years ago I graduated with an undergraduate psychology degree and began my career working as a type of caseworker for mentally disabled adults. Family and friends were extremely negative and discouraging about my career choice.(i.e you are "too smart" for that type of work, social workers are all bitter, etc.) This attitude also continued when I expressed my desire to persue a Master's in Social Work degree. I have a passion for this work, but I am disappointed at the negative perception of what I do, and the lack of appreciation for professionals that sacrifice in regards to time, stress and compensation to work with challenging populations. Perhaps it would be easier for parents in these professions to find "balance" if they did not always have to defend their career choices. I'm not asking for a pat on the back everyday, but it would be nice to speak to others about the "social work" profession with out constantly hearing about what a terrible job I must have. For someone that enjoys the work, it can be a very rewarding profession.

"Indeed it is. My husband and I both have equal responsibility to support our putative children."

Well I consider it that we both have equal responsibility to /be able/ to support our son. Which is a big reason for continuing to work, /or/ continue to develop skills and to network, if one is on the SAHP track.

However as I've said before - industries die. Layoffs happen. A job is NOT security, although it can be part of it. Security is about saving, planning, and working - all three - PLUS rising to meet challenges you never saw coming.

Also, burnout and stress of hating your job can take a big toll on one's health. Having a stroke or developing Type 2 diabetes is going to be a strain on a family, and a real burnout - I've seen them; have you? - can mean one person in bed depressed for a year. There are actual sound reasons for supporting people in, gasp, being unproductive now and then!

What your statements are missing is a sense of time. (I found this to be an issue with the Bennetts book too.) If you take the moment in time that one parent is at home fully and one is working fully it can look very inequal.

Yet the SAHP is actually performing two financial roles. One is to manage the house in the cheapest way possible - the Millionaire Next Door which is a great financial planning book goes into this in some detail.

The second is providing contingency space - I think it was the Two Income Trap that talked about this? Meaning, if you build your financial picture based on two incomes, and one is lost, you /can/ be in bigger trouble than if you build it on one income and then if that person loses their job you have two people to try to make up that income, whether that's through two lesser-pair jobs or whatever.

But beyond that, in the life of a marriage, people do support each other. My husband is 4 years older than I am, so when he retires there's an excellent chance I'll keep working (actually I don't plan to retire, although I have planned financially as if I will). OH MY GOD THE HORROR the old man may be sponging off my income, esp. if we keep our retirement savings untouched during that time.

Also I do find it sort of disturbing that parenting is still perceived as no work. We pay our babysitters. If it were no work, people would just say "sure your kids can stay with mine for the day every day for no pay." But that's really really off topic.

Err, that should read "lesser-paying" - rushing does not pay off!

re: nurses

"The good ones I know have no need to be first."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

KLB SS MD--this is your cue--take it!

My wife, after working in a paper-pushing, dead end job for over 10 years, decided she couldn't take it anymore and wanted to go back to school full time. After looking at the financial situation with just me working, we agreed it would work and it was better for her mentally as well.

She graduated with a perfect 4.0 grade and a degree, but had the bad luck to do so during an economic downturn in her chosen career. Eventually she found a stable job, but for a while it was taking temp work and whatever was available to make ends meet.

She did not "sponge" off of me while going back to school; it was a conscious decision by both of us that would eventually result in a happier, more financially stable family for both of us.

ISTM that all of you claiming a spouse is "sponging" off the other one because they stay at home want both spouses working out of the house and making enough money to support themselves if the other one is gone.

How often do both spouses make that kind of money?

to kat:
I have 2 year old twins (and a 5 year old) and at least once a week someone tells me "hard and thankless it must be to take care of all those kids." It is a lot of work, and sometimes it is hard, but I haven't found it thankless. After two years of these silly comments, I finally have decided I don't have to defend my family or my choices to these people. I just smile, say that I love my kids and walk away.

Congratulations on finding a profession you truly love. Don't worry about what others think. It's great that you have chosen your work based on a passion.

Other Chris,
I love my job most of the time (I think everyone has their days where they are faced with something that is frustrating rather than challenging because). It is still a way to pay the bills, and always will be, no matter how satisfying it is. :-) There have been plenty of things I've done in life that were not always the most pleasant, but I was always able to take satisfaction in knowing I did whatever it was to the best of my abilities, and that in doing so I was paving the way to a better life. That said, as long as I have stayed positive and focused on the truly important things, opportunities have presented themselves that allowed me to move to more fulfilling jobs.

I agree with Army Brat, who wrote: "...it's those who DON'T get a sense of worth from their jobs, who view their jobs just as mindless drudgery that's a means to a life, who will burn out."

Which is not to say that every day's unalloyed bliss, just that when you enjoy your work from the wider perspective, it makes it easier to get through the frustrations which inevitably arise from time to time.

To Dotted: I'd written a great deal in the course of traditional employment and had always been recognized for doing it well, yet little of it could be considered very "creative" in the artistic sense. My transition came about serendipitously when I volunteered to proofread a first-draft of a manuscript for a friend of a friend (which in hindsight you could call a networking situation, I suppose). When I emailed back the corrections of the first several pages, I sent two versions -- one with only the most basic corrections, the other rewritten to a (nearly-)finished level -- along with a gentle note asking what the author thought of my more extensive revisions to the first-draft. Long story short: the author was impressed by my rewrite to the point of inviting me to join the project as co-author. And now that the book is out and receiving favorable feedback among its target audience, I'm able to initiate my own projects as well as entertain offers to collaborate with others. Obviously YMMV, depending on the subject matter, nature of your potential readership and the scarcity of people with your skills, among a multitude of other factors.

Educmom,
I loved my "cool" teachers, even when they gave homework, because I understood that they had to give homework as part of their job. They were the ones who made learning fun, and made even the most boring subjects bearable. So, if a student says you are the "best teacher" or "coolest" you CAN take it to heart because to them when they say it, they really do mean it. I would hate to think that somewhere along the line one of the teachers I praised and thanked for being great (especially elementary or middle school), brushed it off as meaningless praise.

"How often do both spouses make that kind of money?"

Exactly. My wife and I need to make sure that the family is taken care of if anything happens to me and my income, but we'd have to do the same thing if she were working full time. Since she is not working full time, I'm free to take on a job with more responsibilities that pays more.

And again: the person who takes some time off regular employment to figure out what they're going to do can end up being the main breadwinner. It's an investment.

"I'm with Shandra on her comments that all you folks criticizing Anne for quitting her job and switching careers are just petty and mean"

That's right! They're just jealous. Ignore them! See you all at the Prom Decorating Committee meeting today after study hall!

I've seen her blog. Not jealous in the least.

"and the lack of appreciation for professionals that sacrifice in regards to time, stress and compensation to work with challenging populations."

Then ask for more money! Don't whine that you don't get respect from your friends & family AND tell us how much you give up for the love of your job.

It sounds like you treat it like a hobby, or avocation.

Let me translate "calling" for you:

Four times the work, one-fourth the money.

I'm thinking of nurses in particular, but it applies to you too.

Amy will always have a fall-back job. There is a huge need for school psychologists.

Lizzie nailed it.

There's nothing petty or mean about pointing out that Anne's flexibility to dilly dally around with, first, her initial choice of career and education, and, subsequently, her second choice of career, only exists because her work ethic and career choices are irrelevant to the bottom line of her family.

A man posted a couple of weeks ago that women as a whole don't take seriously their obligation to support their respective families, and that this expectation and burden is imposed entirely on men. Anne's story is one more personal anecdote from a woman who sees her career as all about personal happiness, boredom vs. satisfaction, and entirely irrelevant to the financial health of the family. This attitude leaves her husband without a moment to contemplate personal happiness and satisfaction. Maybe he's on board with this. Maybe he'd like to have the same option to wake up tomorrow and open a store selling hammocks, whether or not he breaks even on that venture for ten or more years.

You know, this makes me think about an article this year in Money magazine.

The wife outearns the husband. They are okay with it, but neither spouse wants their names in print with it KNOWN that she outearns him.

Why? Is it shameful or something?

I find it a strange attitude.

If she is not asking you to support her, I honestly don't think it is any of your business who is supporting her.

"I've seen her blog. Not jealous in the least."

She isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and until her Eureka moment, she seems to have led a pretty passive life. Of course, she is not paying for anything. These types generally find someone to support them.

Did she even do a little homework and check out this blog before she posted to it?

"A man posted a couple of weeks ago that women as a whole don't take seriously their obligation to support their respective families, and that this expectation and burden is imposed entirely on men."

Maybe if more women viewed their salaries as a pile of food they'd take compensation a LOT more seriously.

Money is access to resources, and a means of stockpiling resources for their future, and their family's future.

Shandra eloquently laments "...the meanness of people who look at a family that is supporting itself and say one partner is getting a free ride."

I agree with her and the others who are discussing (what they at least hope will be) a lifetime partnership with one's spouse, including concern for one another's happiness. It means sometimes having to make sacrifices, including scrimping financially.

Those who view one partner's SAH, taking time off to change careers or earning less than the other as "sponging" are taking a view of marriage as just two roommates grimly splitting the bills equally, without concern for the other's feelings.

Emily, I see what you mean. I think I meant something different but didn't say it right. I think SAHPing is "taking off" if both parents want to do it and are able to do it. Then it is a break from work because one person still has to work. Obviously, if one person didn't want to SAH, then it wouldn't be a break.

Not sure if that makes sense. I do agree that some people do not want to SAH. I don't think I'd be cut out for it.

Can I make a suggestion to the blog organizer? could you please have the "posted by" thing at the top of each blog rather than at the bottom. I've being skipping over the anonymous posts for awhile now (hgihly recommend this tactic) and it would make it that much easier. thanks! (Watch how lots of anonymous commenters will now attack me and my suggestion. Or even better, don't watch, just skip over them.

I don't know what your life is like, although I think it's safe to say you are NOT a SAHM. But do you realize how bitter you are? It is blatantly obvious to almost everyone on this blog. Even when you have a valid point, you are so abrasive that it is often lost to those who might benefit.

Tell me why (and I want to ask this of right-wingers as well) is it that you simply refuse to admit that the other side has importance and relevance? Why do you, Lizzie, just write off all SAHMS as being selfish cows who are neglecting their children?

Wow. I have no comment about anyone's employment status, but, taking care of everyone is the classic "Sandwich Generation" dilemma.

The reality is that it is often at your expense, even when you have other things in your life. Caring for yourself is important, but, there's no magic way to do it.

You do what you can do, and, yes it is hard.

http://genbetween.com

Father of 4, why can't you read to your kids? I'm sure you can find their favorite books in braille.

Lizzie wrote: "My husband and I both have equal responsibility to support our putative children."

Not exactly. Your equal responsibility is to CARE FOR your putative children -- through emotional, educational and other means, not just financial.

"There's nothing petty or mean about pointing out that Anne's flexibility to dilly dally around with, first, her initial choice of career and education, and, subsequently, her second choice of career, only exists because her work ethic and career choices are irrelevant to the bottom line of her family."

Newsflash: men do this new career thing too. They are usually called "entrepreneurs" by society. And the women who support them are called "wives."

Also, I kind of doubt that the income of a school psychologist now freelance writer is, on balance, irrelevant. I'll use myself as an example again even if it's a little tiring: for years we plowed my salary into savings and paying down our mortgage. Did this make it "irrelevant"?

How about this one: a friend of mine and her husband bought a home. He went to part time hours to renovate it mostly by hand (they hired some trades). They sold it at a 200k profit. Was he "sponging"?

In a lesbian couple I know one of the women stayed home with their kids and their expenses for food and clothing and commuting dropped by 5k a year. Is that irrelevant to their bottom line?

I appreciate all your thoughts. I'm sensitive enough to feel the zings, but smart enough to know that taking risks is how we learn and grow.

As far as the career work, I do have a B.A. in english. I am contributing regularly to a few publications and seeking advice and mentoring from people in the field to learn what experience and/or education I need to get where I want to go.

Best to you all.

Lizzie wrote: "My husband and I both have equal responsibility to support our putative children."

Not exactly. Your equal responsibility is to CARE FOR your putative children -- through emotional, educational and other means, not just financial.

If you can't afford to keep them fed, clothed and in a safe environment, all the rest is irrelevant.

"Why do you, Lizzie, just write off all SAHMS as being selfish cows who are neglecting their children?"

And why do others say that WOHMS are selfish cows who are neglecting their children,"farming" out their child care and "sticking them" in day care?

Chris,

I don't brush praise off as meaningless! I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

I ADORE it when the kids hug me, and tell me I'm the greatest! I just think of it as an added bonus, and not as the reason I became a teacher in the first place.

In fact, on the days that I dread going to school, and I feel like I couldn't teach a fish to swim, someone invariably tells me I'm the coolest teacher ever, and it means the world to me.

The people (men and women - my brother-in-law is a nurse) who choose nursing as a career are no different that those who choose to be an engineer or airline pilot. They are people who want to do a job to support themselves or their families. It is a physically and mentally demanding job, just like many other jobs. Not everybody can do it. There is nothing wrong with someone who can't. You do get attached to patients which is good and bad. You not only care for patients but you are their advocate; you are also a manager, housekeeper, food service and chauffeur (wheelchair only :-).
I don't think of nurses as being more or less selfless than anyone else. It is the person - not the profession.

How often do both spouses make that kind of money?"

Exactly. My wife and I need to make sure that the family is taken care of if anything happens to me and my income, but we'd have to do the same thing if she were working full time. Since she is not working full time, I'm free to take on a job with more responsibilities that pays more.

And again: the person who takes some time off regular employment to figure out what they're going to do can end up being the main breadwinner. It's an investment.

Posted by: Clever moniker | May 15, 2007 10:12 AM

Wait a second! You said you're female, so how do you have a wife?

Lizzie, you sound like my (abusive) BIL who gets all of his self worth from how much money he earns and how my sister never earned what he does (she is a sahm). He uses this as ammo against my sister (see, you'll never be as good as I am). Who cares? If you are in a partner ship, then does it matter. When I sah'd, I did mostly all of the shopping and schlepping and planning for meals. So my dh had less pressure on him when I did those things rather than now. He was about to quit his job and start his own business which would not have brought in anything for a period of time.

To us, our income is our income and it does not matter who put it there. We work together to ensure that the kids and the house are taken care of.

Shandra, Grinding away with thine ax.

Both of your examples -- where one person's contribution to the household is to decrease expenses by 5K and another person's contribution is to add to savings -- require that someone else is burdened with bringing in the income off of which the family's living.

Men do the new career thing because an industry shifts overseas, not because they initially picked a low-paying job and only later realized it also might not be satisfying. It's interesting that in your world of assumptions, men are entrepreneurs and the women who support them are "wives". Have a little respect for real entrepreneurs. It takes cash on hand to be on entrepreneur. It takes zero cash on hand to quit your job and call yourself a writer or a consultant.

Shandra

"In a lesbian couple I know one of the women stayed home with their kids and their expenses for food and clothing and commuting dropped by 5k a year. Is that irrelevant to their bottom line? "

5k! Wow! Maybe the couple were bad money managers!

Amy,
The general consensus in this blog is that "balance" means having everything in a family "equal all the time". Meaning, people think that both husband and wife should be working. Daycare/nanny-care/whatever is a-ok, and preferable to having a parent staying at home to care for the children--because that's just "sponging." And husbands should be equally responsible for taking care of the children--taking off when the children are sick, caring for them, finding the daycare arrangements, etc. So, the only true definition of "balance" is for both parents to balance work and family. Anything other arrangement--such as balancing as a couple (meaning one stays home and one works), or one having a career that allows them to do more of the childcare isn't balanced in this blog's perspective. And anyone who doesn't share this opinion gets blasted! So...you know what Amy...you have it much, much better than a lot of these narrow-minded people who post here. ENJOY IT! (guilt-free) And as for the comments on your writing ability, ignore that too! This board is filled with mean, critical people.

altmom

"When I sah'd, I did mostly all of the shopping and schlepping and planning for meals"

Ha, ha, ha!!

I'm disgusted by the snarky, petty rants that pass for comments on today's blog...
Amy, as long as you & your husband & kids are happy, keep doing what you're doing. Life is too short to play by someone else's rules.
Don't let the miserable posters get you down!!

poverty isn't ennobling wrote: "If you can't afford to keep [your children] fed, clothed and in a safe environment, all the rest is irrelevant."

As Shandra has already pointed out, once a family rises out of basic poverty, it becomes all about decision-making to suit their priorities -- saving vs. spending, more vs. fewer hours spent working for pay by the couple, higher vs. lower pay, more fulfilling vs. more mind-numbing work, etc. It takes self-discipline in our advertising-driven culture to avoid mistaking the "Keeping up with the Joneses" McMansion, private-school, expensive extracurriculars, extra cars, pricey entertainment, frequent dining-out mindset -- as well as earning all the money required to sustain it -- for life's basics.

I'm disgusted by the snarky, petty rants that pass for comments on today's blog...

disgusted, yes, suprised no, not at all!

"I'm disgusted by the snarky, petty rants that pass for comments on today's blog..."

What other reason is there to read this blog?

"I'm disgusted by the snarky, petty rants that pass for comments on today's blog..."

What other reason is there to read this blog?

Posted by: Charles Brandon | May 15, 2007 11:04 AM

Supposedly, to discuss balance from different perpsectives and how we can learn from each other and achieve the balance we want.

If you wonder why people post anonymously, look at how personalized the comments targetted toward Lizzie have become.

Anonymous snarkers get away scot-free. Those using names for controversial or offensive viewpoints get this:

"Money doesn't buy love and happiness, Lizzie; it buys stuff. I'm sorry that you have not yet learned the difference."

"But do you realize how bitter you are? It is blatantly obvious to almost everyone on this blog."

"Lizzie, you sound like my (abusive) BIL who gets all of his self worth from how much money he earns and how my sister never earned what he does (she is a sahm)."

I've got no dog in the underlying fight, but am shining a mirror on why this blog encourages anonymous trolls. Just sayin'.

Looks like it's time to move on to another topic...

"I'm sure you can find their favorite books in braille."

OT to MV: Braille is one of those rare things I tried to learn, and after hours and hours of headaches, I gave up. Failed!

"...require that someone else is burdened with bringing in the income off of which the family's living."

You seem to assume that all primary breadwinners feel "burdened" by their role. I don't think this is the case. Some primary breadwinners want that role, and having a stay at home spouse frees them to devote their time and energy to their career in ways that would be impossible if they had to participate equally in the home duties. Every marriage is different, and every couple needs to make accomodations for the other. I think that things go more smoothly when people go with their natural strengths rather than insisting that everything be split down the middle equally. If one person's temperament is more conducing to working outside the home and the other's is more conducive to raising children, then why not let each person do what they most enjoy? But I do think that we cannot and should not assume that women want to stay at home and men want to work. When we make these assumptions based on gender is when we get in trouble.

to: 10:52

You're saying that women make career choices because they are (essentially) spoiled and sponging and you're getting on my case about assumptions! Please.

We all have assumptions. Yours seems to be that the long-suffering men get into a career or job and stay there forever because their wives are incompetent idiots.

My assumption is that most adults in a marriage negotiate their choices within the bounds of reality and in a way that both can be relatively happy with the results. Maybe this is some kind of odd cultural or generational gap we're speaking across.

But really, give me a break. I've seen plenty of men change careers - often, oddly enough, into the more caregivingy roles like from engineer to math teacher, or corporate lawyer to non-profit director. I'm not sure why you think only spoiled women are supported in making career changes.

Of course job mobility is a really complex thing. One thing the stats do show though is that middle-aged men and older are most likely to be laid off and most likely to only be able to return to part-time or lesser-paid employment.

So probably they will get their time in the sun, so to speak, as their wives who changed jobs and gained new skills and stayed competitive in the marketplace support them. Now THERE's a whack of assumptions. :-)

Anon at 10:52: "It takes cash on hand to be on entrepreneur."

Umm, no. It takes the ability to raise cash. It doesn't necessarily take your own cash, that you have right now before starting the enterprise. Read Steve Wozniak's book, "iWoz" for the story of how Apple Computer was founded using "other people's money"

And that's far from the only circumstance when that was done.

You also wrote "It takes zero cash on hand to quit your job and call yourself a writer or a consultant."

Umm, if you want to eat and pay the rent/mortgage and other bills, it takes a source of money, whether that be from a spouse, parents, venture capitalist, etc.

You obviously understand entrepreneurship as well as you understand stay-at-home parenting; which is to say, not at all.

"Lizzie" and "OR Mom" do not seem bitter or mean. They are making somme good points. So what's really happening is that they point out the negatives of SAH and get blasted while several people are agreeing with Amy and Shandra and others. In fact, right now, there are a lot more posts supporting SAHP.

So re-read their posts. They're saying it's unfair to have the breadwinning burden on one person, and they're saying that it's unwise to not be able to support yourself.

You don't have to agree. They are not bitter because their opinions do not match yours. Who's judging whom now?

You also wrote "It takes zero cash on hand to quit your job and call yourself a writer or a consultant."

Umm, if you want to eat and pay the rent/mortgage and other bills, it takes a source of money, whether that be from a spouse, parents, venture capitalist, etc.

You obviously understand entrepreneurship as well as you understand stay-at-home parenting; which is to say, not at all.

Posted by: | May 15, 2007 11:08 AM

Duh. That's the point, 11:08. I understand it perfectly and said not a thing about stay-at-home parenting, a topic near and dear to my heart since I am -- bada bing - staying at home with my 2 month old. Judge much?

Meesh

"You don't have to agree. They are not bitter because their opinions do not match yours. Who's judging whom now?"

The former high school Queen Bees, no matter what their status, go on judging to the grave.

"They're saying it's unfair to have the breadwinning burden on one person, and they're saying that it's unwise to not be able to support yourself."

But it's only unfair for one person to be the breadwinner if that particular person doesn't want that role. Many do. And while it's unwise not to be able to support yourself, I do not agree that Anne is unable to support herself. If push came to shove and she really needed the money, I am sure Anne could find decent paid employment. The fact of the matter is that she is able to support herself, but in this chooses instead, with the agreement of her husband, to pursue a different career which involves a transitional period when her husband is the main earner. If he is okay with that, there is nothing u