To think that a career / work is not the be all and end all

[Cantz]

I am 38 now, no children and I haven't worked a job since I was 29 and even the it was just part time. My husband works but I don't I have a blog that makes a little money and I sell some art work which brings in something but I don't have a career or a job I am mostly at home cooking, gardening and doing my own thing. It works for us and we are happy after 21 years together.
Lots of my friends have careers some are Doctors, others work in TV or in IT and we still have plenty in common. I want these women, my friends to have what makes them happy and of that is a career then great. I absolutely support the right of a women to do what she wants with her life but I am finding more and more that for me to choose not to have a career, especially as I don't have children is a total taboo.

It often feels like there is huge pressure to go out and get a job, that you cannot be fufilled unless you are in paid employment and that worse by not working you cannot possibley be contributing to society. There are lots of ways a person can make a contribution it isn't all about money or even having kids for that matter.

Surely paid employment isn't the be all and end all?

Apatite1 - "I can't really understand how you have a very fulfilling life as you don't have kids, nor care for elderly parents either but just sort of live for yourself and take from others. "

I find this statement bizarre. We don't know what else the OP does. As for "living for yourself" if the OP chose to have children, that would be her choice. It wouldn't be less selfish or more selfish. Unless you think people have children for the benefit of the world - in which case, surely they would have stopped ages ago due to overpopulation!

The paintings the OP paints may be bringing joy to others. the OP is not draining the state in any way. The OP may be a crucial support to her friends and/or family. I do a lot of family stuff but I don't think that's the measure of me or think it's something to be proud of. I just do it because I want to.

If I was your husband I too would probably resent working to support your lovely lifestyle. However, if you are both genuinely happy with the set up then more power to you both. I couldn't in good conscience stay at home having fun while my husband was working to support my lifestyle. I am going to be the only earner (yay, finally got my dream job!!) but my husband is disabled and I think I will feel the pressure of being the only one with the responsibility of earning, and he would love to be well enough to work. If he was staying at home to just have fun I would resent the hell out of him I think.

If you are both happy then good for you. I do think you will have a very hard time getting back into work if things go tits up though.

Don't you get lonely OP? Just pottering around the house...... by yourself?

It's being with other people that I like. I like the people I work with, and I like that it funds the hobbies I pursue with some friends and the nights out with others, and the holidays I have with my kids and the parties I have with my wider family.

I occasionally get a little time to myself and eagerly throw myself into gardening, baking, knitting, reading, crosswords and general pottering. But by lunchtime I desperately need someone to talk to.....

gosh, I'd kill to be home alone all that time, sounds wonderful. Commuting to a poxy office and having to talk to people all day - yes they are lovely people btw - does my head in. Not everyone needs someone to talk to all the time. Very little quiet to be had in modern life.

Haven't read the full thread, but I think that there is judgment of both working and non-working women. SAHMs I've met at playgroups go on and on about how happy they are that they can see that there are more important things in life than having a career, how sad it is to be career focused etc. It's all a bit pass-agg against people who are invested in their careers - I derive enormous enjoyment and satisfaction from my professional life and I'm not a saddo thanks!

As I have said before if I needed to work I would simple as that

you think it's that simple? To not work for years and years and then just find a job that will cover all your essential outgoings (and then some reasonable ones on top)?

Your posts suggest you don't have a clue about the 'what ifs'.

I am someone to whom a rather massive 'what if' happened. My life has never been the same since and it is only because I was educated and had tons and tons of work experience in a relevant field that I was able to re-train and make something out of the mess. I never considered the 'what if' prior to it happening to me. 'What if' is something I always, always consider now.

I'm not judging the OPs decision to not work.
I'm judging OPs smug, self satisfied post and her need for us to endorse her choices.

I think the fetishistic attitude to working comes from living in a capitalist society, whereby a moral value is ascribed to supporting it. For most people, that support comes in the form of exchanging labour for money. This strikes me as being an inherently morally neutral transaction. However, there are powerful societal messages sent out about this activity, and I think they come from the people who benefit most from it, because the way that things are suit them. Thus, we learn and internalise from a young age that working is a productive use of our time on earth. Not only that, but working makes us good people - see phrases such as 'earn an honest crust' or 'make an honest living' etc.

As others have pointed out, gender is highly relevant. When have you ever heard a woman described as a good provider? And yet men are still labeled that way, which isn't good for either men or women IMO, since it simply reinforces outdated gender roles and expectations.

Another thing: I can understand wanting to take a sabbatical from paid employment to (for example) pursue creative interests. But I would respect this sort of thing only if the person dedicated him/herself to the work consistently, rather than occasionally picking up a paintbrush or sitting down at the piano only when the muse alights. And for me, such a period of time would have to be defined in advance. By the time the sabbatical ended, there would be something to show for it.

actually elk I've been described as a good provider by numerous people.
because I am.
I earn seven times what my OH does. It would be disingenuous indeed never to refer to me as at least a satisfactory provider.

That is interesting, lemonade. I have never heard the word applied to a woman, and I'm sure you agree it tends to be a highly gendered label.

I have a similar experience and attitude to the OP but I find it's rare amongst my peers. I haven't worked for 17 years, I'm a sahm to one teenager but she's fairly independent now and I spend most of my time now on creative interests. I've always tended to maintain some formal activity (e.g. part-time courses/voluntary work) to keep some structure and social contact but nothing as demanding as a job. I'm financially secure due to investments (mostly started with DH's income but put into my name for tax reasons) and have a pension etc. DH doesn't harbour any resentment about our situation and we're both happy with how things are. Occasionally people question our choices but I tend to deflect conversation elsewhere rather than try to justify ourselves.

If working isn't dignified (for minimum wage or otherwise), do you think that it is undignified? Shameful? Less dignified than living off someone else for no reason other than you don't fancy working?

I think historically it did pertain more to men.
my generation (late twenties-early thirties) don't tend to automatically follow their parents ideal of partnering older and more economically successful men so quite a fair few of us are good providers/breadwinners and are referred to as such by variously our peers, family, friends and partners.

I think that men were previously referred to as good providers for the same reason that both sexes now are.
because they were proficient at financially providing for their families.

Not just proficient - they were the only ones who could provide. Women in most the 20th century were expected to give up work when they became pregnant - and before that, married. It seems inconceivable now. Childcare was as rare as hens teeth, and so women had no choice but to rely completely on their husband - unless they were lucky enough to have family who would step in.

I'd be pretty hacked off if my partner was only working part time whilst I was having to work my guts out. Doesn't seem fair. But happens a lot. I've only been working 4 days a week recently, which has not been fair on my dh, so I've upped my days to 5. Not 'cos he asked me to, just because it was the right thing to do.

"Oh, I don't need to work...my dh earns a lot." Waste your entire education and brain, then. And more fool you if he leaves you!!

If working isn't dignified (for minimum wage or otherwise), do you think that it is undignified? Shameful? Less dignified than living off someone else for no reason other than you don't fancy working?

Was that aimed at me? As I said above, I don't think the act of exchanging labour for money, in and of itself, is morally anything, good or bad. It has become loaded with these value judgements because we live in a capitalist society.

I think the fetishistic attitude to working comes from living in a capitalist society, whereby a moral value is ascribed to supporting it.

Working (either at home or elsewhere) comes from the need to survive.
The OP has the benefit of drawing her upkeep from someone else's efforts. Nice for you, but surely you can see how such relationships are usually classified?
I'm a biologist, so I'd mostly consider it as a relationship of parasitism.

as a relationship of parasitism.

And before another pedantic biologist :) comes along, yes, strictly, it's between species, but it describes the notion for this purpose.

I don't think it's the actual getting or not getting a job that's the problem. If it works for you and your partner is willing to support you financially or you have private means then fine. I'd hate to be completely financially dependent on another adult's money.

I don't consider working undignified only that it is not inherently dignified and I wouldn't class myself as a parasite my husband gets just as much from me as I do from him but then we don't feel it all comes down to money, we aren't a business partnership we are married. He always knew I was unconventional and he loves that about me. I prefer to spend my days alone and I never get lonely and I never get bored and I don't bother worrying about the worst, not because I've lived a pain free life but because worrying about it never did me any good.

Working (either at home or elsewhere) comes from the need to survive

Agree - and that's the case for any type of society, capitalist or otherwise. The wonderful thing about paid work is that it provides a lifestyle of one sort or another - in the OP's case, that's the ability to stay at home, potter about and not earn a living herself.

I guess I don't feel that my Husbands wages are "his money" and neither does he it is our money regardless of who earns what. I find this seperation of income very odd indeed.

I couldn't not work. It is too important to me to pay my own way in life. It wouldn't matter if my DH earned millions, I'm not happy to spend his money maintaining me. Becoming financially independent for the first time in my life post-uni was a huge ego boost for me.

we don't feel it all comes down to money

Oh, but it does OP. His money. He earns it and you live off it. Without his money you'd be stuffed - you certainly wouldn't be able to live the life you do now.