Why is it that the higher up you go in the social ladder, the more enforced gender norms are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually some anthropologists have written about this. Wealthier men prefer more feminine women. Men who struggle prefer women who can take care of themselves.

The book Primates of Park Avenue talks about this.

[Anonymous]

I have noticed this too actually.

In my UMC/UC neighborhood and social circle, the more money the husband makes, the more likely it is to hat the wife doesn’t go back to work after baby #2.

And these are women with elite degrees and professional jobs (lots of lawyers quit).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed this too actually.

In my UMC/UC neighborhood and social circle, the more money the husband makes, the more likely it is to hat the wife doesn’t go back to work after baby #2.

And these are women with elite degrees and professional jobs (lots of lawyers quit).

This post isn't about whether or not women go back to work. It is about "traditional" gender norms and how "feminine" the woman in question is lol. OP is obviously a mid 20's woman who has a lot of growing up to do.

[Anonymous]

I don't know if this is about class and gender roles or more so that "merger" couples (i.e. met at the law firm, med school, or when both were already somewhat accomplished professionally) have trouble sustaining two "big" jobs when they have kids. I've read interesting data that more high earning individuals are marrying other high earning individuals (versus when people got married earlier) and in those circumstances, sometimes one has to scale back or step out when they have kids. Because of, ya know, biology, sometimes its the mom b/c multiple maternity leaves was going to stall her career anyway.

I think if the phenomenon the OP is noticing were a devotion to traditional gender roles you would see this division of labor happen earlier, but I don't know many UMC/UC women who left the workforce upon getting engaged or before having children (which my mother and grandmothers did). Instead I think it's the reality that most families can't make two high-intensity jobs work, and people in high-intensity, high-status jobs marry other people with big jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you rather be a Viking Woman/Celtic Warrior or an English Lady of the Manor who can't fathom how to put the tea on? I know which I'd prefer for my daughter these days.

Given that the Viking / Celtic warrior woman lived in a highly patriarchal society where women were not only chattel but at high risk of rapes and brutal murders by a rival clan, and most likely lived a short and nasty and brutish and primitive live, I’m guessing you chose the lady of the manor in her safe and comfortable manor house with plenty of servants and a sense of order and respect and who occupied herself with the household management and organizing social events and leading charity endeavors.

Those ladies were married off at menarche to men two to three times their age. The manor houses were not luxurious. And there was pretty good chance that your children would die in infancy and you in childbirth.

The best deal was to be a cloistered nun. You could have books and music, the diet was better than that of the nobility, and they lived longer than women in the outside world.

Yes off to the convent then

[Anonymous]

I think... oh wait, I hate when I do this...

In my observations, many men prefer dependent women who dote on them and whom they treat as children. I have a lovely book of French poetry somewhere around here from a former French lover with a perfect inscription on this common male sentiment.. something about how feminine I was despite being a feminist. Dumped him...

Female subjugation isn’t high class. It’s Everyman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see two different trends.

On the one hand, a lot of UMC families I know have dual high wage incomes and these relationships are not absolutely not gender typical. In one, he does almost all the cooking and both he and she are light on cleaning and laundry as they have an au pair and weekly housekeeping. In another family, she travels a lot, he has a government job and does more kid pick ups/kid sick days, and they eat out a lot. In a third, she works a lot, he works a lot, they have a nanny, they have a food service (which she says saved their marriage) and their house is a wreck, so even though they have weekly housekeeping, I'm not sure either of them is spending time "picking up." She has told me he does a lot more laundry than she does (mostly because she admits with a laugh that he breaks down sooner than she does), but I've seen her do the yard work...

On the other hand, I know an equal number of UMC families with very gender typical division of labor with high paid executive men whose careers have been furthered by SAH wives who are socially graceful and helping their husbands work a million hours a week by doing all the kid/house duties. In one of these families, he makes several million a year and she is a bombshell, has a personal trainer and a personal shopper, their house is gorgeous (they do have a housekeeper, yard service, and a dogwalker) and she does 100% of the kid and home duties. In another family, he is a high powered lobbyist. She is really fun outgoing, goes to manicurist once a week, goes to hairdresser before each "do" (and they seem like they have 2-3 of them a week), she does all the cooking and shopping (they throw a do about once a week), and they have a nanny who does most of the kid duty. She plays a lot of tennis at a fancy country club. In a third family, she is a SAH mom, he travels a lot for some job in international finance, and I would not be surprised if he truly does not even know how to drive a car (he takes a company car to the airport, etc.) or do anything for himself. She maintains their calendar and he has a personal admin who reminds him about all his work stuff. She told me once that he phones his admin with her birthday/anniversary present lists...!

This is all fine, but I don't think these are representative of UMC families and gender dynamics.

I am highly-educated (PhD), grew up UMC, and am currently UMC. Most of my friends are similar, though not all of them grew up UMC. I would say that the vast majority of us are in dual-income households where the woman takes care of the majority of the traditionally female responsibilities (kids, cleaning, etc) and has also made decisions to limit or slow career advancement in order to support those responsibilities. I can't speak to the reasons for everyone I know, but I can speak to my own. There are some idiosyncracies around finding jobs in the same place for DH and I, which resulted in us ending up in a location that was best for DH's career. My observation is that somehow or another, most of my friends up in a similar situation (location based on DH's career). Because of the geographic transition, DH was out-earning me when we had kids. I have had a couple of opportunities for much higher-paying, more demanding jobs, and I ultimately turned them down. My reasoning was that: 1) we could not both have extremely demanding travel and work schedules, 2) I was not confident that DH would step down as much as needed in his career, 3) I wasn't willing to take that risk with small babies, and 4) truth-be-told my career isn't the most important thing to me. It's not for DH either, but he's not shown himself willing to sacrifice any aspect of it. Details for others' are different, but pretty similar. Unlike some of my friends, I think DH is perfectly capable of handling the home front. I'm just not confident that he will; and I value being able to make some of those day-to-day decisions (esp. since one of my kids has delays). Some of my friends don't even think their DH's could handle the homefront...

I'm doing just fine in my career (Director at a company with very few of them, primarily WAH, ~$250K salary)...but I could be doing much better. I've taken on traditionally feminine responsibilities both by choice and by necessity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if this is about class and gender roles or more so that "merger" couples (i.e. met at the law firm, med school, or when both were already somewhat accomplished professionally) have trouble sustaining two "big" jobs when they have kids. I've read interesting data that more high earning individuals are marrying other high earning individuals (versus when people got married earlier) and in those circumstances, sometimes one has to scale back or step out when they have kids. Because of, ya know, biology, sometimes its the mom b/c multiple maternity leaves was going to stall her career anyway.

I think if the phenomenon the OP is noticing were a devotion to traditional gender roles you would see this division of labor happen earlier, but I don't know many UMC/UC women who left the workforce upon getting engaged or before having children (which my mother and grandmothers did). Instead I think it's the reality that most families can't make two high-intensity jobs work, and people in high-intensity, high-status jobs marry other people with big jobs.

Yup, this. I do think, though, that UMC women are making choices. I am the PP with a PhD, and we could easily afford a lot more childcare so that DH and I could have similarly demanding jobs. But, at that point, I would be pretty much leaving my kids in the hands of paid care providers (many people would argue that we basically already do). DH would actually prefer even less time with care providers than we currently have, but he views it as impossible to make any concessions. Since I was actually offered the more demanding, higher paying job and turned it down, it's very clear to me that trade-offs are possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if this is about class and gender roles or more so that "merger" couples (i.e. met at the law firm, med school, or when both were already somewhat accomplished professionally) have trouble sustaining two "big" jobs when they have kids. I've read interesting data that more high earning individuals are marrying other high earning individuals (versus when people got married earlier) and in those circumstances, sometimes one has to scale back or step out when they have kids. Because of, ya know, biology, sometimes its the mom b/c multiple maternity leaves was going to stall her career anyway.

I think if the phenomenon the OP is noticing were a devotion to traditional gender roles you would see this division of labor happen earlier, but I don't know many UMC/UC women who left the workforce upon getting engaged or before having children (which my mother and grandmothers did). Instead I think it's the reality that most families can't make two high-intensity jobs work, and people in high-intensity, high-status jobs marry other people with big jobs.

I agree.

Here is how the dynamic plays out.
Kids start full-time school, kids are in different schools due to age differences, have different sports or music classes after school, the family schedule and logistics explode, one kid starts crying out for attention or having trouble reading or doing math, parents struggle with how to handle this, can't outsource it to tutors or a nanny or au pair, you have more than one kid so Mom can't help both at the same time while spouse is at office until 7pm most days. Mom quits to run the household and help the kids. Husband keeps digging in at the office, or hospital, or law firm, etc. Hopefully he appreciates his SAHW who does everything to keep the family from derailing.

Having only 1 kid would be manageable, but after 2, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think... oh wait, I hate when I do this...

In my observations, many men prefer dependent women who dote on them and whom they treat as children. I have a lovely book of French poetry somewhere around here from a former French lover with a perfect inscription on this common male sentiment.. something about how feminine I was despite being a feminist. Dumped him...

Female subjugation isn’t high class. It’s Everyman.

Looks the opposite for me and my MBA friends: Husband wants someone independent who dotes on them and the children and leaves them alone to do their "very important work." It is the husband who gets babied and treated like a child, while the independent, intelligent wife runs everything else in life.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, and I suppose you need a penis to prioritize your career. Way to genuflect SAHMs who left the workforce. You made your choice to be second.

Yes, you’re second. And you know it. Why not just admit you prefer traditional gender roles?

I’m not saying it’s easy. But the basic philosophy is...

He makes more money now, will make more later.
Only a Mom can raise a child best.
I heart the patriarchy!

The blech moment is one of women who believe it’s a privilege to SAH as a status indicator of awesomeness.

No, you failed women your own age, you are failing your daughters. Even if you only have sons, you failed the future of breaking gender stereotypes.

Go ahead and rock your awesome choice to be dependent on a man. HE could have daddy tracked and supported your dreams beyond pedicures, spin class and the latest YSL bag. If you even have dreams beyond launching your kids and being the skinniest richest bitch at x event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you don't know a fig about which you speak. You see what you want to see.

I think she is trying to develop a college thesis.

OP are you a new Womens Studies major?

LOL thanks for the laugh!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, and I suppose you need a penis to prioritize your career. Way to genuflect SAHMs who left the workforce. You made your choice to be second.

Yes, you’re second. And you know it. Why not just admit you prefer traditional gender roles?

I’m not saying it’s easy. But the basic philosophy is...

He makes more money now, will make more later.
Only a Mom can raise a child best.
I heart the patriarchy!

The blech moment is one of women who believe it’s a privilege to SAH as a status indicator of awesomeness.

No, you failed women your own age, you are failing your daughters. Even if you only have sons, you failed the future of breaking gender stereotypes.

Go ahead and rock your awesome choice to be dependent on a man. HE could have daddy tracked and supported your dreams beyond pedicures, spin class and the latest YSL bag. If you even have dreams beyond launching your kids and being the skinniest richest bitch at x event.

You sound fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, and I suppose you need a penis to prioritize your career. Way to genuflect SAHMs who left the workforce. You made your choice to be second.

Yes, you’re second. And you know it. Why not just admit you prefer traditional gender roles?

I’m not saying it’s easy. But the basic philosophy is...

He makes more money now, will make more later.
Only a Mom can raise a child best.
I heart the patriarchy!

The blech moment is one of women who believe it’s a privilege to SAH as a status indicator of awesomeness.

No, you failed women your own age, you are failing your daughters. Even if you only have sons, you failed the future of breaking gender stereotypes.

Go ahead and rock your awesome choice to be dependent on a man. HE could have daddy tracked and supported your dreams beyond pedicures, spin class and the latest YSL bag. If you even have dreams beyond launching your kids and being the skinniest richest bitch at x event.

Let it go...let it go...let that anger and jealousy gooooooooo.......Seriously, that much anger isn't healthy.

[Anonymous]

I do see this phenomenon. At our local public school there are nearly as many dads at dropoff and pickup as moms, there are lots of dads on the PTA, lots of dads coaching sports and running carpool. At our local private there are no dads evident anywhere except evening events like the auction. Wealthy families seem more likely, in my experience car, to have a single income-earner -- nearly always the dad.