As for your mother working, once the kids start school it's a whole different story. There really isn't a valid reason to argue that a mother shouldn't work at that point because our kids are off at the liberal indoctrination centers, anyway.
But I don't think that it's asking too much to make a valiant effort to be a SAHM through age 5 until kids start first grade in order to nurture a strong bond, even if it means sacrificing things like downsizing your fancy car or moving into a cheaper home so that you can pay the bills with one income. And before it's asked, yes, we did both of those things for your baby-downsized both cars and sold a pop-up camper, as well as moving into a cheaper home so that we didn't have to work the long hours we were and had time for our family.
I can definitely attest to the irritation of women I've worked with in the Marine Corps who've had several children in a short time period. We had one female who had 3 kids in 3 years, she pretty much was out of pocket her whole enlistment. It definitely hurt the people around her because she couldn't deploy which meant someone else had to. Not to mention she was still getting promoted over her peers who struggled trying to get high physical fitness scores while she was 20-30 pounds overweight because they're given a long time to lose the baby weight and can't be forced to do the PFT while pregnant so I know that pissed off a lot of her coworkers.
I dunno. Sometimes its a real pain in the ass when your coworkers are constantly leaving because they're on maternity leave (or their wife is pregnant, guys get leave too) or they have to pick up their kids and you get stuck picking up their slack.
Ah, another unintended consequence of changing family structures. I'm not advocating a return to this, but it should be understood that at one time, it was accepted that a married male employee was the primary breadwinner for a family and that married women were suspect if they worked before their children were old enough to do without them. By the same token, single women were assumed to be temporary, in that they would leave after getting married, or at least after they had children once married, but that single men would become more stable and responsible with marriage and children. Thus, the priority for hiring in corporate America was married men for responsible positions, single women for temporary ones, and single men on the assumption that they'd eventually become good husbands and fathers. Married older women were rarely hired, and when they were, it was usually for administrative or senior secretarial positions. The army had a similar policy, in that officers were expected to be married by the time that they were company commanders, enlisted Soldiers were expected to be single until they reached a rank that would support a family and as a result, the army could maintain an expeditionary standing. This changed during WWII, with the influx of married draftees.
What changed everything was changes to marriage laws. Divorced or single moms needed to be able to support themselves and their children, while divorced men found that they had more time to spend on work, so liberalized divorce laws created an unintended consequence of changing the dynamics of the workplace (divorced men became more productive, single women became more desirable as employees, especially younger and more attractive women, who found that divorced men made great trophy husbands). Meanwhile, changes to the tax code and economic downturns during the 70s and women's liberation combined to create the necessity for dual-income families in urban areas. In short, what seemed like minor social changes created massive economic changes. Anyone still think that same-sex marriage, polygamy or any other alternatives won't have any effects?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|