The Feminine Mistake

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Why on earth anyone would want to stay at home full time with a bunch of children is beyond me. I was the stay at home component of our family while I was in undergrad. Believe me, that was the only time that I ever looked forward to going to class. I love my daughter, but there is no way that I would willingly spend a 60 hour week at home alone with a baby, and from most of the others that I have spoken with, it is not a particularly pleasant experience.
If a significant amount of time at home can be balanced with something such as a part time job, volunteer work, or more schooling, enough to keep the adult feeling like a productive, non-isolated member of society then it is not a bad thing, I suppose. Finding a balance can make the time that parent and child spend together more enjoyable and productive.

Historically this is not the way things worked. People lived with their extended family and child-rearing was a group activity.

The phenomenon of a woman raising her children in relative isolation is new.

[MikeWaters]

anyone familiar with this book? written by a Harvard Law Professor. "The Two Income Trap"

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Tra...5614050&sr=8-3

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Historically this is not the way things worked. People lived with their extended family and child-rearing was a group activity.

The phenomenon of a woman raising her children in relative isolation is new.

I think that is an excellent point that often gets overlooked. As recently as last night my mother in-law talked about how both of her grand mothers lived on the same street as her family growing up. She was rarely at home -she was at Grandmas house.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Historically this is not the way things worked. People lived with their extended family and child-rearing was a group activity.

The phenomenon of a woman raising her children in relative isolation is new.

Yeah, this is one of the aspects of the Church's official stance that gets me steamed because it is based on an historical anomaly. During the post-War period it was possible for many, many families to have one wage earner and one spouse in the home. However, a number of factors make the choice increasingly economically difficult on lower income tier families, especially in places like California and the East Coast where housing is so expensive.

The other aspect of the policy that is nonsensical is the insistence that a mother be the one to give the care. Why not parent? Or loved one? This little turn of a phrase has caused my wife a lot of internal pain, because she was not able to stay home with our first. She felt that she had done something wrong and that our child would suffer for it. Only after about 4 years was she able to look back and admit that all had not been a disaster, but had worked out nicely. Modern society requires flexibility to produce the same, or better results, and to the extent a piece of verbage gets in the way of that it is unfortunate.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

anyone familiar with this book? written by a Harvard Law Professor. "The Two Income Trap"

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Tra...5614050&sr=8-3

I think it was quoted quite frequently in my wifes readings for the on-line course she had been taking to finish her degree with BYU.

[SteelBlue]

Leaving my religious beliefs out of the matter completely, I think that it's the education that is most important. As long as one has a marketable skill, they'll be ok should divorce or death knock on the door. It is my observation that having two working parents rarely translates into greater savings. Or in other words, a woman working prior to divorce might be no better off financially than a non working woman after a divorce except that she'd already have a job. Most of the two income families I know (fallacy of personal experience, I know) have more expensive things, but no more money left over at the end of the month than the single income families.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Leaving my religious beliefs out of the matter completely, I think that it's the education that is most important. As long as one has a marketable skill, they'll be ok should divorce or death knock on the door. It is my observation that having two working parents rarely translates into greater savings. Or in other words, a woman working prior to divorce might be no better off financially than a non working woman after a divorce except that she'd already have a job. Most of the two income families I know (fallacy of personal experience, I know) have more expensive things, but no more money left over at the end of the month than the single income families.

I agree. The education is most important. As a single income family it is sometimes difficult to see the dual income family with all of their things, depsite the understanding that when you make more you spend more.

[MikeWaters]

Who will join me in hearty condemnation of FMCoug?

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Who will join me in hearty condemnation of FMCoug?

FMCoug is my idol. I can't wait to build my own home and post pics of it's construction on here and CB.