Women staying in, staying home, downshifting this year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like some of this is women being pushed out of their jobs by RTO. And that's awful. I wouldn't frame it as a willing "downshift."

I see a bit the opposite. We are leaning more heavily into in person socializing, some of it's hosting but also going out to meet up sometimes, or driving to visit family. It's comforting.

It is awful, but on the other hand, “careers” have been somewhat overhyped, and women’s work in the home has been so devalued that one feels worthless without a career. Which I think is bull$hit - what is really more important than caring for your family? It sucks because in order for that to work, the other spouse has to be earning a lot, at least around here. But after having done it all, and seeing my teens so much better off mentally with a parent who is able to be fully present in a way that few jobs offer enough flexibility for, I am starting to understand why so many teens are having mental health issues. Re: the teen-ternity posts from a couple of years ago.

It is grossly oversimplifying (and unfair primarily to working mothers) to blame the teen mental health crisis on both parents working jobs that make them less than "fully present."

While I agree we should definitely not just be blaming working moms, I think it's worth talking about whether the current model of two professional working parents and kids in childcare and activities most of the day every day, is working for everyone.

Questioning that model does NOT have to mean advocating for a system where women don't work or are discouraged from working. Most men I know would love to scale back working and spend more time with their kids or doing things around their home. A system where the adults in a household must both be ended in for-pay work 40 (or more) hours a week in order to even afford to have kids, and then much the traditional family system is outsourced to paid providers (many of whom are also parents, whose parenting is then also outsourced elsewhere) has some deep flaws.

I'd really like to normalize: parental leaves and sabatticals for both parents, not just with infants but at various points in a child's development; shorter work and school/activity days that leave more time for family connection in the evening; and part time work at various points for both parents. And all of this would necessitate rethinking the family economic model, and the American imperative toward maximal consumption (largest house you can buy, multiple cars, every modern convenience, outsourcing household tasks, big expensive vacations.

I have no interest in being a SAHM, but I don't particularly like having a full-time job in a dual income family where we can either afford to outsource most childcare and household upkeep or we flounder because we don't have the bandwidth to do that any our jobs. It's not better, it's probably worse, and we should be able to come up with a better solution.

My Northern European friends are living your dream model of part time work, lots of vacation and co-parenting. Guess what? They are miserable! It essentially means both spouses have mediocre jobs and they don’t make enough money to outsource. The women are all pushed into PT work because their labor laws require the option and the burden is on women. This just means an even more aggressive form of mommy tracking. However with their high taxes and strict labor laws, their spouse can’t make enough money to support the family.

Really the answer is for women who care about equality to not have children. This is happening.

My happiest friends are SAHMs in more conservative circles with a high earning spouse. Most miserable are co-parents in very progressive circles. Of course this is anecdotal.

I am living your "Northern European" model in the US and am not miserable. I work part-time, DH works FT but in a job that allows for balance (no late nights or weekends, easy to set boundaries). We are not wealthy. We get lots of time with our kid (we only had one) and both feel we have good work life balance. You are right we cannot afford to outsource a lot. We are fine with that, as we do not mind cleaning our own home or taking care of our own child. DH likes to cook, I am handy around the house. I feel our life is a really manageable scale.

I don't think either of our jobs are "mediocre." They are not high powered or high paying, as neither of us want the kind of job where you are on call 70 hours a week or that is very high stress. I am a consultant and can be selective about clients and projects, so I choose things that interest me and work with people I like. DH is salaried but selected his position because he likes the culture and the work. We are both professionally fulfilled, though neither of us views our job as the most important part of who we are. We both value being parents and investing in our family and community more than work. Work is for money and to be useful to society, but it's not everything.

I cannot imagine not having a child. I respect anyone who chooses not to have kids, people should only going into parenthood enthusiastically, but for me it is an essential part of my life and the human experience I have found most rewarding and fulfilling. Forgoing motherhood in the name of equality does not sound like equality to me. It sounds like a prison of its own.

I think the key to our happiness and fulfillment is in rejecting hyper-capitalism and the idea that we can be made happier with more money and more stuff. I have found the opposite to be true. Most days, my happiest moments are sitting on my couch reading library books with my daughter and my husband in our small but happy home. I have literally never though in those moments, "If only I had a higher paying but stressful job that I could be doing right now away from my loved ones in a bigger, more expensive home, wearing fancier clothes and ordering expensive food from a restaurant because we don't have time cook." Never, not once!

That’s awesome you are so fulfilled professionally and don’t feel the need for a large home, fancy clothes, restaurant meals etc. Most people aren’t like you. I want a nice,‘comfortable home and I enjoy dressing well. Same for nice dinners out with my family.

The same capitalism you criticize is what allows you to post on this message board with a phone and has resulted in many other technologies and advancements that make modern day life comfortable.

But I get it. You’re not an ugly American who wants a big house. You’re much better than the rest of us.

I’d be careful being so judgy and smug because plenty of people would think YOU are materialistic with your large home and fancy lifestyle. You just can’t see it because you’re smug.

New PP has issues.

[Anonymous]

I have been a SAHW happily for 20+ years. It feels like all my peers are finally catching up to my lifestyle, haha. And yes, I did raise and fledge 4 successful young adults during that time too.

[Anonymous]

It feels like a lot of us are just now surviving life not living life.
That's how I would describe it. Trying to make it through another day. Not enjoying much. Counting smaller things as blessings, I have a roof over my head and food to eat.

[Anonymous]

I'm with you, OP. I've reached my number ($3m for just me between IRA and my brokerage, plus funded 529 accounts for the kids), and DH is probably never going to retire, so why shouldn't I slow down and eventually quit? We don't need the money, so the stress of my job feels pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like some of this is women being pushed out of their jobs by RTO. And that's awful. I wouldn't frame it as a willing "downshift."

I see a bit the opposite. We are leaning more heavily into in person socializing, some of it's hosting but also going out to meet up sometimes, or driving to visit family. It's comforting.

It is awful, but on the other hand, “careers” have been somewhat overhyped, and women’s work in the home has been so devalued that one feels worthless without a career. Which I think is bull$hit - what is really more important than caring for your family? It sucks because in order for that to work, the other spouse has to be earning a lot, at least around here. But after having done it all, and seeing my teens so much better off mentally with a parent who is able to be fully present in a way that few jobs offer enough flexibility for, I am starting to understand why so many teens are having mental health issues. Re: the teen-ternity posts from a couple of years ago.

It is grossly oversimplifying (and unfair primarily to working mothers) to blame the teen mental health crisis on both parents working jobs that make them less than "fully present."

While I agree we should definitely not just be blaming working moms, I think it's worth talking about whether the current model of two professional working parents and kids in childcare and activities most of the day every day, is working for everyone.

Questioning that model does NOT have to mean advocating for a system where women don't work or are discouraged from working. Most men I know would love to scale back working and spend more time with their kids or doing things around their home. A system where the adults in a household must both be ended in for-pay work 40 (or more) hours a week in order to even afford to have kids, and then much the traditional family system is outsourced to paid providers (many of whom are also parents, whose parenting is then also outsourced elsewhere) has some deep flaws.

I'd really like to normalize: parental leaves and sabatticals for both parents, not just with infants but at various points in a child's development; shorter work and school/activity days that leave more time for family connection in the evening; and part time work at various points for both parents. And all of this would necessitate rethinking the family economic model, and the American imperative toward maximal consumption (largest house you can buy, multiple cars, every modern convenience, outsourcing household tasks, big expensive vacations.

I have no interest in being a SAHM, but I don't particularly like having a full-time job in a dual income family where we can either afford to outsource most childcare and household upkeep or we flounder because we don't have the bandwidth to do that any our jobs. It's not better, it's probably worse, and we should be able to come up with a better solution.

My Northern European friends are living your dream model of part time work, lots of vacation and co-parenting. Guess what? They are miserable! It essentially means both spouses have mediocre jobs and they don’t make enough money to outsource. The women are all pushed into PT work because their labor laws require the option and the burden is on women. This just means an even more aggressive form of mommy tracking. However with their high taxes and strict labor laws, their spouse can’t make enough money to support the family.

Really the answer is for women who care about equality to not have children. This is happening.

My happiest friends are SAHMs in more conservative circles with a high earning spouse. Most miserable are co-parents in very progressive circles. Of course this is anecdotal.

In my friendship group the SAHMs with a high earning spouse were happier when kids were young. But it has now flipped in our 50s once kids leave home and that focus has gone. Those that pushed through professionally in those years are now cruising in really senior roles that are highly paid and flexible. They seem to be having a lot more fun.

I don't know many people who are cruising in senior roles. Mine gives me grey hair, TMJ, and back pain. I'm almost 50, and I'm ready to be a full-time hobbyist. Ski 100 days a year while I still can, go on some extended cycling trips in Europe, whatever. I'm just glad I saved aggressively in the early years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It feels like a lot of us are just now surviving life not living life.
That's how I would describe it. Trying to make it through another day. Not enjoying much. Counting smaller things as blessings, I have a roof over my head and food to eat.

Isn't that how it's been for the vast majority of people throughout human history? It's easy to forget in our age of material abundance, but life has always been a struggle for survival for just about everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like some of this is women being pushed out of their jobs by RTO. And that's awful. I wouldn't frame it as a willing "downshift."

I see a bit the opposite. We are leaning more heavily into in person socializing, some of it's hosting but also going out to meet up sometimes, or driving to visit family. It's comforting.

It is awful, but on the other hand, “careers” have been somewhat overhyped, and women’s work in the home has been so devalued that one feels worthless without a career. Which I think is bull$hit - what is really more important than caring for your family? It sucks because in order for that to work, the other spouse has to be earning a lot, at least around here. But after having done it all, and seeing my teens so much better off mentally with a parent who is able to be fully present in a way that few jobs offer enough flexibility for, I am starting to understand why so many teens are having mental health issues. Re: the teen-ternity posts from a couple of years ago.

It is grossly oversimplifying (and unfair primarily to working mothers) to blame the teen mental health crisis on both parents working jobs that make them less than "fully present."

While I agree we should definitely not just be blaming working moms, I think it's worth talking about whether the current model of two professional working parents and kids in childcare and activities most of the day every day, is working for everyone.

Questioning that model does NOT have to mean advocating for a system where women don't work or are discouraged from working. Most men I know would love to scale back working and spend more time with their kids or doing things around their home. A system where the adults in a household must both be ended in for-pay work 40 (or more) hours a week in order to even afford to have kids, and then much the traditional family system is outsourced to paid providers (many of whom are also parents, whose parenting is then also outsourced elsewhere) has some deep flaws.

I'd really like to normalize: parental leaves and sabatticals for both parents, not just with infants but at various points in a child's development; shorter work and school/activity days that leave more time for family connection in the evening; and part time work at various points for both parents. And all of this would necessitate rethinking the family economic model, and the American imperative toward maximal consumption (largest house you can buy, multiple cars, every modern convenience, outsourcing household tasks, big expensive vacations.

I have no interest in being a SAHM, but I don't particularly like having a full-time job in a dual income family where we can either afford to outsource most childcare and household upkeep or we flounder because we don't have the bandwidth to do that any our jobs. It's not better, it's probably worse, and we should be able to come up with a better solution.

My Northern European friends are living your dream model of part time work, lots of vacation and co-parenting. Guess what? They are miserable! It essentially means both spouses have mediocre jobs and they don’t make enough money to outsource. The women are all pushed into PT work because their labor laws require the option and the burden is on women. This just means an even more aggressive form of mommy tracking. However with their high taxes and strict labor laws, their spouse can’t make enough money to support the family.

Really the answer is for women who care about equality to not have children. This is happening.

My happiest friends are SAHMs in more conservative circles with a high earning spouse. Most miserable are co-parents in very progressive circles. Of course this is anecdotal.

I am living your "Northern European" model in the US and am not miserable. I work part-time, DH works FT but in a job that allows for balance (no late nights or weekends, easy to set boundaries). We are not wealthy. We get lots of time with our kid (we only had one) and both feel we have good work life balance. You are right we cannot afford to outsource a lot. We are fine with that, as we do not mind cleaning our own home or taking care of our own child. DH likes to cook, I am handy around the house. I feel our life is a really manageable scale.

I don't think either of our jobs are "mediocre." They are not high powered or high paying, as neither of us want the kind of job where you are on call 70 hours a week or that is very high stress. I am a consultant and can be selective about clients and projects, so I choose things that interest me and work with people I like. DH is salaried but selected his position because he likes the culture and the work. We are both professionally fulfilled, though neither of us views our job as the most important part of who we are. We both value being parents and investing in our family and community more than work. Work is for money and to be useful to society, but it's not everything.

I cannot imagine not having a child. I respect anyone who chooses not to have kids, people should only going into parenthood enthusiastically, but for me it is an essential part of my life and the human experience I have found most rewarding and fulfilling. Forgoing motherhood in the name of equality does not sound like equality to me. It sounds like a prison of its own.

I think the key to our happiness and fulfillment is in rejecting hyper-capitalism and the idea that we can be made happier with more money and more stuff. I have found the opposite to be true. Most days, my happiest moments are sitting on my couch reading library books with my daughter and my husband in our small but happy home. I have literally never though in those moments, "If only I had a higher paying but stressful job that I could be doing right now away from my loved ones in a bigger, more expensive home, wearing fancier clothes and ordering expensive food from a restaurant because we don't have time cook." Never, not once!

That’s awesome you are so fulfilled professionally and don’t feel the need for a large home, fancy clothes, restaurant meals etc. Most people aren’t like you. I want a nice,‘comfortable home and I enjoy dressing well. Same for nice dinners out with my family.

The same capitalism you criticize is what allows you to post on this message board with a phone and has resulted in many other technologies and advancements that make modern day life comfortable.

But I get it. You’re not an ugly American who wants a big house. You’re much better than the rest of us.

I’d be careful being so judgy and smug because plenty of people would think YOU are materialistic with your large home and fancy lifestyle. You just can’t see it because you’re smug.

Uh, yeah, most people are. What is it, like, the top 10% are doing 50% of the retail spending in this country? The vast majority of people are trying to live reasonable, balanced lives with their basic needs met.