"I'm lucky that I don't have to work"

[AnnieLobeseder]

I was having a discussion on Facebook today about bread machines and cleaners with some women, most of whom I don't know since they're 'friends of friends'.

One woman, who seems to be older than me, maybe late 40s, early 50s, said, "I hand-bake my bread and don't need a cleaner, but then I'm lucky that I don't have to work."

So, this made me want to reply that technically I don't have to either, but I choose to for many reasons including my sanity and the fact that I love my job. But since I don't know her I decided it wasn't the time for an arugument!

But now I'm wondering...

1. Is there a general assumption that women only work when they have to in the older generation? Or perhaps in our generation too? Do people still really believe a women should stay home unless there's a pressing financial need?

2. Am I seeing sexism where there isn't any; perhaps she thinks that no-one, male or female would work if they didn't absolutely have to, because she's never had a fulfilling job?

Any thoughts?

Obviously the free 24-hour thing is a little dated now, and there probably aren't too many people who would express it in exactly those terms. But there is a serious point there.

Women (in the main) are currently providing free 24-hour childcare, which has an enormous economic value - totally unrecognised by society.

Without access to affordable childcare, lots of women can't afford to work and are trapped in poverty. And if you are on the minimum wage, then the only affordable childcare IS free...

Obviously you wouldn't have to have all nurseries etc open around the clock, as most people wouldn't want overnight childcare - but for some women (e.g. shift workers) it is essential.

There is an element of sexism in the phrase, I think, because it implies that a woman's income is an optional extra, rather than her own income that is necessary for her, and it also implies that it's just the norm for a woman to be financially dependent on someone else.

For me, the most important issue is that women are aware that they are individually responsible for their own financial welfare. It would be very rare to hear a man say 'I'm just planning to marry a rich woman' or for parents to say about a son who is not doing too well 'let's hope he marries a doctor or a lawyer then!' as if his own earning power doesn't matter. Too many women get caught in a trap of relying on their husband's or family income, assuming breezily that the money stuff just gets taken care of in life. To me, this is unfair on the partner who provides the money as abdicating all financial responsibility dumps all the stress on the breadwinner. Unless they can handle it / enjoy it, it's unfair. The wake-up call can always come where a partner leaves or passes away or loses his job or money or becomes too ill to work.

I can recommend a really good book on this issue of feminist economics by the way: Leslie Bennetts' 'The Feminine Mistake' is a really inspiring book. I just finished reading it and it reminded me that as a woman, taking care of your finances is an important part of feminism. Romanticising child-rearing and sentimentalising your marriage is all very well, but you need to look out for your own financial well-being or you may end up poorer in your old age. This is something Bennetts blames for the reason that so many women live in poverty compared to men. They assume their own money or even earning potential is optional. She also gives an inspiring account of working mothers who have managed to 'have it all' and debunks some of the myths about the stress of having career and family.

I can't see how "but then I'm lucky that I don't have to work." " implies that it's just the norm for a woman to be financially dependent on someone else. "

Could easily have been said by a man - TheCrackFox's dad for instance.

I guess my view is clouded by my dad fucking off with his secretary and leaving my SAHM mother with nothing. She went back to work straight away, that was 20 years ago, she's due to retire next year but doesn't think she's going to last long on the pension she's scraped together. My dad is yukking it up with his new wife, they own two properties which they bought cash.

I personally think any women who relies on a man without making any long-term plans for her own financial security is a fool, but that's just me.

My grandad said 'every woman should have a midnight flit fund' meaning he was sick of rescuing his sister from abusive men and wished she had her own income so she was less dependent on them.

I don't know any SAHM who gloat or any mums who work outside the home who gloat. Let's face it, we all work either way. Most spend far too much time thinking they're not getting the balance right.

I gave up work when DD1 was born because DH had his own business with staff and I couldn't do the evening hours of my job without help. In truth I suddenly found being with my child outweighed the fun part of my job anyway. It wasn't a sacrifice. But now the dcs are a bit older I am setting up a home business. I am not the type to feel content with domestice life forever. Some are. Feminism should be about choice and support of each other.

Excellent post, InMyPrime. I will check out the Bennett book.

I feel - and this is obviously only my own view and not a criticism of anybody else's choices - that financial autonomy is one of the greatest gifts a woman can have.

It's a real scandal that - as people have pointed out up the thread - lots of women genuinely CAN'T work because of the cost of childcare/the inflexibilities in their partners' jobs.

"I can't imagine not wanting to work."

this ^^

I think that "I'm lucky that I don't have to work" actually means "I'm lucky that we have a choice as to whether both of us work or not". Lots of women on MN are forced back to work for economic reasons and would love to SAH with their children if they could.

I think that I'm lucky that I don't have to work (meaning paid work outside the home, of course) because it means that I see a lot more of my children, and it means that our lives are that bit less stressful as I can look after ill children, stay at home when things are delivered, take them to appointments and so on. Things that are harder when you need to fit them around a full-time job.

Mind you, I am probably a bit jaundiced about the world of paid employment. I was in a proper profession, so I had a "career" rather than a pay-the-bills job, but I worked long hours, for not that much money, and I was a bit sick of being told that my work was my life and that I was so dedicated that I would put in endless hours of unpaid overtime. It just wasn't worth it to me any more. DH felt the same, and took a sideways career move so that he wouldn't have to work weekends, so that he would see more of the children too.

I think that I'll probably go back when they're older, but not to any job where I would have to have that attitude again.

nearlytolate the male partner can choose to give up work and I know of a number of households where this is exactly what happens. It is a personal choice but I expect the reason most men don't want to give up work (and I know my DH wouldn't, subject of course to that lottery win) is that so much of the male identitiy is tied up in their job.

I think also you will find that most men who have SAH wives do not "fund their partners to stay at home" rather they fund their partners to take care of and raise their children. And so they should if that is what a couple decide is best for them. For as long as there exist men and woman who are so keen to denigrate the role of SAHM then I guess yes this is in fact a feminist issue.

And Maisiethemorningcat lol at the idea that once children are at school then it becomes strange for anyone to stay at home - once kids are at school is when the childcare arrangements get complicated.

'Spending the next 20 years doing the ironing, changing the beds and rearranging my tea towels....God, no thanks'

kathyjelly if you really think you are going to spend the next 20 years as a SAHM you are seriously lacking in immagination.

As a SAHM doing that.....

Thanks, inveteratenamechanger, and I agree, Annie, that planning for your own long-term financial security is extremely important. It's all very well to say that taking care of DCs is work** but kids need food, clothes, shoes, schoolbooks and a house to live in as much as they need someone to cook the food, put the clothes/shoes on, help with homework and clean the house. The money all needs to come from somewhere.

We are all influenced by our personal experiences too, I think. My mother wanted to stay home even though she could have gone back to work and my father was quite stressed about finances as a result. He always had to deal with money management on his own with no support as my mother refused to take an interest in that side of things. DH and I manage our finances together and it's easier. The author of the book I mentioned, Leslie Bennetts, talks about her grandmother being abandoned with young children and her mother & family living in dire poverty in the 1920s as a result. Her mother always worked as a result to keep her own money - in the 1950s when this wasn't the norm - and she felt it benefited her as a child to see her mother have an education and independence. I do agree though that working an exploitative, poorly paid, tough job while DCs languish in an expensive nursery is not exactly a feminist choice either. It's a dilemma but the book points out that too many women give up too soon because of a short-term squeeze / stress and end up poorer as a result. The book is subtitled 'Are We (Women) Giving Up Too Much'?

** (I believe taking care of DCs is work btw - I just don't know how we'd create an economic structure that would reward it properly and not make SAHMs reliant on either a DH or the taxpayer. Possibly setting up a tax-incentivised savings fund for couples so that they can save up to pay for one of them to have an income for when they have DCs, like a short-term annuity? That would make it more the couples' income rather than the earning partner's.

I say this sometimes. It means I don't work but I'm not unemployable or feckless or lazy, I haven't been sacked from every job I've ever had, I'm not fraudulently collecting jobseekers et al, I could work but I have the luxuary of choice and I choose to be at home right now. Its a defense mechanism against the "are you just a mum?" comments.

It doesn't mean "I am luckier than you the employed" but I do think that I am luckier than women who can't choose and work in jobs they hate for very little money after childcare (and have to do all their own ironing and teatowel arranging after work), or who want to work but childcare/logistics/lack of jobs make it impossible.

Yes, money gives you power and control and ultimately means that your children won't suffer if a man disappears. Women who don't look after their ability to support themselves risk damage not just to themselves but their children too. They are putting all their eggs into a very foolish basket.

The longer view as InMyP suggests is the better game to play. Why could I at 14 be thinking about and taking that longer view and other women not? Is it a personality thing - some toddler will take one sweet now rather than 2 later whilst some of us would always have been in the delayed gratification camp. We both always worked full time and at the start the cost of child care for 1 then 2 then 3 under 5s was more than the entirety of one of our wages but I knew I was ambitious and that over time would earn more, the investment was worth it. So what makes one woman so sure she will be a cleaner for life or on the tills at Tesco but never rise to manage the branch or run her own business and another not? Obviously if you think you will spend 50 years on the minimum wage you might think it simpler to marry a man and live off male earnings.

I think it's conditioning Xenia.

One can know logically that one is capable of greatness, or commitment to a job, but if all your experiences have led you to believe that it's not worth the disappointment, that women just work for pin-money anyway, that the man's career is more important, so you're the one who has to sacrifice their ambitions then what the heck, hand over the bonbons, switch that Murder She Wrote on.

Interesting topic and I'll try not to step on a landmine in giving my two penny worth.

I know a woman who has two (age 8 and 10) school age children and she is quite open about way she does not work. She bluntly says that she doesnt work because her husband (a dentist who has his own practice) told her she doesn't have to if she doesnt want to. The plain fact is she doesnt want to work and her two school age children are out at school all day so she has a lot of free time. I know a few other SAHMs who have school age DCs, nannies, cleaners and do not work themselves but spend most of their time pursuing one leisure activity or another.

Mainly, I suspect men tend to have higher paid jobs than women, especially after their DW/DP has had children so they do not end up in thsi position. To be truthful I supect many women just figure it isn't worth the effort of going back to a low paid job and instead focus on supporting their DH/DP in his career by looking after DCs and home and pursuing hobbies and other interests. Sounds a bit 1950s but thats the way many of our friends are.

Not many men find themselves in that position but I am and increasingly so in the last year or so and I feel both lucky and uncomfortable with it. When we decided to have children some 15 years ago I told DW I wanted to take a lower paid job with less hours and do more of the bringing up of children and DW agreed as she wanted a high powered career. That never happened and I just became a part time SAHD and home worker really by accident. However, now our children are older, I dont go out to work and the children dont take up that much of my time although I do a lot around the house. I do some work at home but it isnt full time.

In effect, I am becoming underemployed as our children got older and recently, I applied for a job which will be part time but I really dont have to work. I just want to. I cant really understand why someone would want to just sit about at home doing nothing really or going out for coffee with friends or going to the gym or shopping to fill their day - which is what a few SAHMs do that I know.

Being a fulltime SAHP is a proper hard job with babies and toddlers and preschoolers but once they get to age 8 it really is not the case IME.

It might also be birth position. I'm the oldest child. I've just always thought people can achieve a lot if they really want to. So why do I think I'm one of the best at what I do in the UK and most women think they are so useless they don't deserve their jobs?

Advert for job at £50k attracted no women applicahnts. They re did it at £30k and had droves of them. Why are all these pathetic women thinking they are useless? Why would 100% of women on an MBA course get paid less than men after because not one single one asked for more pay than offered and every man asked for more as they thought firms were lucky to have them? WHy do women feel so much guilt when I don't? What gives internal sense of worth - being loved as a child? or brain chemicals - seratonin levels etc?

Patriarchy innit.

TheCrackFox - you described your Dad as a kept man. I sometimes describe myself that way to people. I sometimes feel embarrased about my status if I meet other men who have 'careers' so I make a joke about it. I dont think many women would feel embarrassed in the same situation. It is more accepted in society for a woman to be at home. Men are just expected to work and certainly over the years have had a fair few snide comments. I am happy with my choices albeit that things didnt work out the way I hoped - but still I want to go back to work now.

That said, DW is in hospital tonight and into next week and cant look after DCs or do any housework for 6 weeks when she comes out so its good I am at home. Like MrsTittleMosue said, it takes a lot of pressure off.

I think people are lucky to have a choice.

Whether to stay at home or indeed to work (childcare, carers etc)

I've been a WOHM and a SAHM / carer and don;t think either was more valid tbh, but neither time was through my choice and I resented that as opposed to what I ws actually doing, if that makes sense?

My dad isn't embarrassed - he can't believe his luck. I feel sorry for him, though, as my mum has morphed into the worst type of 1950s housewife as she does literally no housework and expects her dinner on the table when she gets in.

'Advert for job at £50k attracted no women applicahnts. They re did it at £30k and had droves of them. Why are all these pathetic women thinking they are useless?

That sounds exactly like something i would do. For a brief while I thought I could go back to work and despite being a graduate etc I found myself applying for exactly the same unskilled jobs I applied before before I went back to university.

DH otoh would never dream of this (other than as a stopgap to pay the bills); why?

I don't have the answer. I wish I did.

Beenbeta - I would feel embarrassed about being a SAHM and not having a career. that's why I go to work. I don't even think about whether I 'have' to financially - I have to for my own self respect. I would feel deeply uncomfortable living off someone else when I am perfectly capable of earning my own living.

TheCrackFox - my DW doesnt do housework either although she does want me to go out to work. I feel lucky too and am certainly not complaining.

The problem is all in my head.