"Working for nothing"

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Probably just me.... but does anyone else get annoyed when a woman in a partnership says 'after I've paid for the childcare there's nothing left out of my wages'? The implication being that childcare is the woman's sole responsibility and that, if she doesn't stay home to do it herself, the cost of hiring someone else to look after the children is entirely hers... even if there is a wage-earning second parent. The conversation then goes on to something like....'I'd be better off if I stopped work'...or ... 'It's hardly worth me going out to work'. As if her contribution is totally negated and her job worthless.

More accurate to say that paying for child care reduces the household income in total. Shared cost, shared responsibility. But no-one ever phrases it that way. Wonder why.

Ah ok, different scenario. I guess my question would be(and feel free to tell me off for asking too much)..could you not change jobs?

Incidentally, I think those who want to SAHP, should be able too...it is just when motivations are less clear cut I get concerned.

Snowmama -

I agree the calculation should factor in impacts in future earning power, buy childcare does not become a non-issue or negligable expense once they reach school age. Preschool childcare is expensive but straightforward. Patching childcare around school hours and holidays, children's social lives and homework projects seems like almost a full-time job in itself!

Not buy...but

I could change jobs but this is where everything gets complicated - I work in the public sector where jobs are very very hard to come by at the moment. I could find a f/t job but my children are so young, I really don't want to do that. Even finding a different p/t job could potentially mean another change of childcare.

So yes, you could argue why should all this be my responsibility? But then dh takes home 3 1/2 times what I do so for him to stay at home or even work p/t is simply not an option .

Himalaya - as I am just entering patchwork childcare hell - I agree completely.

However, as I as single mum - accept that all the choices/decisions are with me alone. What concerns me is that my married friends appear to be taking on all the slack/decision/making on their shoulders and their husbands (beyond being fairly passively supportive) get to carry on as is.

Knittingrocks, yes the current economic climate does not help and is dispportinately affecting women (in exactly this scenario).

Which is why I would encourage women to maximise their earning potential as early as possible in their careers, and hold on to it for as long as possible. Actually, marrying lower earners is a viable option (but in my case was an unqualified disaster so not sure I can really comment).....

The real answer for me,is viable flexible working options that are respected and workable, and allows you (wo/men) to carry on your career (even if it was a slowler pace). That is possible with good performance management and understanding of roles and responsibilities but far too rare.

I'm a SAHM by choice. Before DS I had a professional career (one I'll find very hard to get back into when our family is complete). If I were to go out to work we would be significantly better off financially even after factoring in child-care. But, I would have to work long and erratic hours, any domestic chores would have to be done in the evenings when DH and I are home from work, my child would be being raised by someone else and our weekends and evenings would e taken up shopping for groceries, organising shit and general rubbish (some of which I now do during the day and some of which H does when he gets home from work)

We would both have significantly less sleep and IMO a poorer quality of life.

My short-sightedness,as it has been called on here, is a conscious decision, one which we are very happy with (despite the judgement of RL friends and colleagues) and I don't regret.

Yes, there are times, I desperately miss my working life, especially the social interaction that goes ith it. But I feel that my contribution to our family is as valuable (if not more so) at home as it would be were I to go out to work.

"women's needs for self-actualisation through paid employment are seen as unimportant/dispensible/low priority within the relationship once they have children'"

Thinking of employment as 'self-actualising' sounds like a luxury to me, and one that has only appeared in recent years. I imagine most people around the world don't work in order to realise their potential or to feel as if they have an identity but because they need to buy food and pay rent.

What I am saying is that anyone's need for self-actualisation through paid employment is low priority when the question is not "can we afford to go to Center Parcs?" but "can we afford to eat?"

I do not think SAHP is either necessarily short sighted and definately not lacking in value. It should in priniciple be an individual decision only.

My point is that society as whole does not value this role, and in the main women are expected to bear the risk of being a SAHP. By risk I mean -lack of career progression, impact on pensions, financial autonomy, impact should the marriage fail etc, etc.

If society recognised this role and made it easier to shift between working and stay at home, without such negative impacts and men were equally encourged to take this role (and took it up), and I would think it would be a lot fairer and until society looked something like that - would never be a personal risk I would be prepared to make.

It is rather arrogant to assume that a woman who does not go out to work is not 'self-actualised'.

Yes, society should value the SAHP's contribution more and yes it should be easier to move between family and career responsibility but, I am very uneasy about this notion that people have to buy into the capitalist (patriarchal) system of payed (and taxed) employment in order to be of worth or realise personal potential etc etc

Agree very strongly with your last two posts, MummyBerryJuice.

When I work for money, I always have the feeling that I am renting my brain out to solve someone else's problems. Which isn't particularly self-actualising!

Love that phrase, I am going to use that as my job description! :o

But it's true that if a woman does want to work because it makes her happier, even though financially it makes little or no difference to the household finanaces, she is told she is silly for bothering, whereas a man's desire to have a job (even if it would make financial sense for him to be a SAHP) is given more respect.

I think it's really important to recognise the economic value of work, whether that work is for others, and paid, or that work is for your family's benefit, and in kind.

"Work" that has no economic value is essentially pretty self-indulgent and little more than a hobby.

" I imagine most people around the world don't work in order to realise their potential or to feel as if they have an identity but because they need to buy food and pay rent."

this is how I feel, so I don't feel it's worth our household income to make it possible for me to work for the little left over just because in the future I will need to work. Why make myself miserable for an extra four years?

"my child would be being raised by someone else "

Bingo!

agree very strongly with Bonsoir and MummyBerryJuice.

it's not just that it's arrogant to assume only paid work is self-actualising, it's buying into the misogynistic worldview that counts the work women do in the home as menial and not worthwhile.

some of it is pretty shitty and it can be isolating and tedious but equally much is creative and rewarding and it is extremely satisfying to know you are doing it very well.

I come at this question from a slightly different angle as my earnings are three times DHs, so it was never an option for me to work part time or become a SAHM.

We split our financial responsibilities based on income and I pay for everything, except for the childcare and monies he gives to DSD. Those payments take up all of his salary, so technically he's "working for nothing", but continues to work as he doesn't want to be a SAHD as that is not a role that interests him.

So I wonder if the OP has a point in that it tends to be the person who would be the logical choice as the stay at home parent who sees themselves as working for nothing if their wages go on childcare.

Having said that, we could just as easily pool our contributions into a single account and pay bills from there, so technically joint money pays for everything, but we've just not done it like that.

I hope this makes sense.

"misogynistic worldview that counts the work women do in the home as menial and not worthwhile"

It's only misogynistic if you assume that only women should do that work. Just because they traditionally have done, that doesn't mean they always should or always will.

I completely buy that being a SAHP can be creative, rewarding, and a zillion times better than sobbing in your car before you go into the office.

What troubles me is that in many cases, SAH does irreparable damage to one's earning power. If I were to leave my job (not an option as I am a single parent!) I would never ever get back into my sector, and would be looking at a pay cut of at least 50%. This leaves the SAHP in a very vulnerable position financially, not just in the case of bereavement/separation but also in old age.

Completely agree with snowmama that it should be far easier to reenter the world of work, work flexibly etc. But this will never happen until men start to do it in large numbers. For individuals, it is often the most rational or perhaps the only decision for the lower earner to SAH. But unfortunately it exacerbates the overall problem.

X-posts with Ormirian - yes, I completely agree!

no, it's misogynistic even without that assumption.

Why everything has to be pushed into the labeled boxes? I gave up my work to be SAHM and wife. I earned 6x my dh's salary and I do not regret a second of it. I also loved my job, but what I do now is much more important for me and my family.

What MummyBerryJuice and Bonsoir said.

I never ever understood people whose identity was so wrapped up and integral to their job. I mean, in an instant, the ability to do that job can be gone. Then what?

IYKWIM.

Excatly Ormirian. It is the assumption that work at home is 'women's work' that is misogynistic.

It is the assumption (and often reality)that women will earn less that is misogynistic.

The assumption that women will take on this risk, without men having to take on a similar risk is misogynistic.

Agreed about the capitalistic structure being shit, but I need to feed my family, and when my husbnd revealed himself to be a abusive knob, I needed to run - earning a salary allowed me to to this relatively easily.

'Self actualising', and realising personal potential is a luxury far beyond the grasp of my life - so really cannot comment on it, I enjoy my job a lot, but actually I would probably enjoy being a SAHP a lot - I am not sure it is that relevant.

MummyBerryJuice- - agree with you too.