Woman decides full-time mothering isn't for her

[Monika]

So what's next? Do we compensate children for playing nicely together because they grow up to be caring citizens? Since when "should" we pay people to do the right thing?

The issue has been and still is that mostly women do this work which enables the man to work full time or more. The work they do work is necessary for every family to cope, but it is only the work that men do that is paid. That gives the woman an economical disadvantage.

[milomorris]

For better or worse, there have been economists including John Maynard Keynes, who in the past have argued that wives and mothers should be compensated financially for the work they do.  It's a lot of labor that goes unrecognized in economic terms... and that by and large benefits men... since in not paying their wives, they (the husbands) don't have to pay others to do the work that they require to carry out their own lifestyles.

Yeah. This has been floating around for a while. But as I said, things that men do around the house fall into the same category. Men do things that women would otherwise have to pay someone else to do.

[CellarDweller]

My Mom is not subtle about putting pressure on me about my choice not to have kids (at least so far) and I'm 35 and a lesbian... so the odds are very slim really.

My Mum is itching to have new grandkids. Both my Mum and my sister are ALWAYS making comments about when I'll have kids.. and then my nieces have heard it so often that they ask when they'll have cousins too.

And you don't have to be female to get that pressure!

 

I have two younger brothers (no sisters) so Mom & Dad expected at least a few grandkids.

Chris (the youngest - 37) is single and liking it that way, no intent to marry any time soon.
Mike (the middle - 40) married a woman who has a daughter from a prior marriage (she's 20), and doens't anticipate any more.

They then started talking about "Chuckie will meet a partner and adopt" and to be honest, adopting a child was something I thought my future would hold.

However, after Brokeback, I look back on all the traveling I've done, and realize I really enjoy being able to pack a bag at a moment's notice and leave for somewhere, no worries of taking care of the needs of kids.

I've already broken this to my parents, and they told me they could see this was happening after I started my trips.

As for the general topic, I always wondered about divorces and that in most cases the women get custody of the kids.  I've often wondered if there were situations where the mother simply wanted to move on with her life, and couldn't because she had the children at that point, while her ex-husband went on to being "single", while she became a "single mother".

[milomorris]

And you don't have to be female to get that pressure!

You can say that again and mean it!!

[serious crayons]

So what's next? Do we compensate children for playing nicely together because they grow up to be caring citizens?

That's not "next," it's been happening for generations. We pay taxes, whether we have kids or not, to support schools and community programs that teach children to "play nicely together," among other things, and help them grow up to be knowledgeable, caring citizens.

- Employers are compensating stay-home parents. The worker gets paid enough to provide for his/her family, otherwise both parents would need to work.

Workers with a stay-at-home partner caring for their kids, at least officially, are not supposed to get paid more than workers who don't have kids, or don't have a stay-at-home partner.

In reality, men with children actually DO, statistically, get paid more, controlling for other factors, than men without children -- perhaps because of unconscious assumptions that these men need the money because "they have families to support." Women with children, meanwhile, get paid less, statistically, than men or women without children -- perhaps because of unconscious assumptions that they'll prioritize the children over work. Either way, though, I don't think most people would consider this a fair arrangement.

Beyond that, employers who offer retirement plans create the possibility--in the event of the death of the employee--for the stay-home partner to obtain funds that were generated by both the company and the employee.

Some retirement plans end with the employee's death. For this and other reasons, older women in poverty far out number older men.

- As far as volunteering goes, non-profits (correctly) tell us about the benefits volunteering brings to the volunteer. Volunteering offers (among other things) the opportunity to help one's community, positive human interaction, and networking possibilities.

Paid work offers psychological and networking benefits, too. And yet we pay people to do it.

[serious crayons]

The issue has been and still is that mostly women do this work which enables the man to work full time or more. The work they do work is necessary for every family to cope, but it is only the work that men do that is paid. That gives the woman an economical disadvantage.

Yeah. This has been floating around for a while. But as I said, things that men do around the house fall into the same category. Men do things that women would otherwise have to pay someone else to do.

I'd like to request that we note that "the work women do" and "the work men do" does not always fall into gender-typical categories. Men often care for kids and clean the house. Many women change their own oil and shovel the driveway. Ideally, both male and female partners are at least capable of performing most household labor.

[louisev]

I'd like to request that we note that "the work women do" and "the work men do" does not always fall into gender-typical categories. Men often care for kids and clean the house. Many women change their own oil and shovel the driveway. Ideally, both male and female partners are at least capable of performing most household labor.

amen to that!  the term 'women's work' isn't an economic reality anymore, it's simply a sexist cliche reinforcing a stereotype.

[Monika]

amen to that!  the term 'women's work' isn't an economic reality anymore, it's simply a sexist cliche reinforcing a stereotype.

Not so sure about that. Yesterday I read a new report on this - it showed that women in the world still do a very very high percentage of what traditionally is called "women´s work". Gonna se if I can find it again.

[milomorris]

That's not "next," it's been happening for generations. We pay taxes, whether we have kids or not, to support schools and community programs that teach children to "play nicely together," among other things, and help them grow up to be knowledgeable, caring citizens.

Supporting an infrastructure that provides children with an opportunity to grow up and become good citizens is not the same as paying the kids to do it. Those that we pay to provide that infrastructure have to meet certain standards. For example, most (if not all) states require public teachers to be certified. So if we want to pay stay-home parents to raise their children properly, they would have to meet some criteria defined by...the STATE. I don't think anyone wants to see that happen.

Workers with a stay-at-home partner caring for their kids, at least officially, are not supposed to get paid more than workers who don't have kids, or don't have a stay-at-home partner.

Even if there is no difference in compensation between the partnered and the un-partnered, some people are able to manage a family on a single income.

While you are right that there is no official difference in the compensation for employees based on the status of their families or partners, when it get's down to the nitty-gritty of negotiating packages, it certainly can come into play. For example, "I'd love to take this job, but I just can't pay for my ailing, elderly aunt's home nurse and my kids' college tuition with what you're offering."

Paid work offers psychological and networking benefits, too. And yet we pay people to do it.

It can be argued that the psychological and networking benefits are different when one is volunteering. Besides, for many people, the stresses created by work far outweigh the psychological benefits. Also, business networking events have been the butt of jokes for quite a while...and from my experience, deservedly so. In my experience, even "organic" networking in the professional world is much more restricted than it is in the non-profit arena. Businesspeople really aren't all that interested in networking with a peer unless there is business value (real or perceived) in doing so. Non-profit folks--especially volunteers--just like to share ideas, contacts, etc. whether it will make them a dollar or not.

[serious crayons]

Not so sure about that. Yesterday I read a new report on this - it showed that women in the world still do a very very high percentage of what traditionally is called "women´s work". Gonna se if I can find it again.

You needn't provide proof. Women unquestionably do a much higher percentage of domestic work. My only point was, let's not talk about it as though those divisions of labor are etched in stone, without exceptions. Statistics aren't useless, but they aren't everything.

The tipping point for me was when Milo said,

Men do things that women would otherwise have to pay someone else to do.

and I went, "Wait, what?" I do hire people, who so far happen to have been men, to do plumbing and carpentry and car-repair stuff that I can't do myself, because I am kind of lame at it. But for the record, my ex-husband can't do that stuff either. In fact, when we were still married I did most of the minor repairs, snow shoveling, etc., while he did the dishwashing and laundry. And I certainly know women who don't "have to pay someone else" because they DO know how to do that stuff themselves.

Meanwhile, I also hire people, in the form of cooks in takeout restaurants (gender unknown), to do work for me that is traditionally "women's work."