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

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
In my experience, [b]90% of men in challenging careers are not there for the “personal achievement” and self-actualization.[/b] Those men are there for the money to take care of the families. They aren’t particularity happy working. Occasionally you run into men who would do exactly what they are currently doing no matter what. You may be similar to that latter group of men, but you’re painting with a broad brush.

As for why men don’t stay home, women play a part in that as well: [b]women, unlike men, have a harder time being attracted to potential partners who are not career oriented.[/b] Yes, there is a small subset of women who would marry and stay with men who are less ambitious than they are, but men who would prefer not to work have a real hard time finding and keeping a partner. Hell, these boards frequently feature posts from women who are frustrated by their husband’s lack of ambition. Very rare to hear men express the same sentiment about their wives.

Finally, while there are a whole host of factors that go into the longer life expectancy and better health outcomes of women vs men, I believe one of those factors is the stress that men experience with work.

None of this is to suggest that men should work and women should stay home with the kids. People should structure their lives as they please without facing the judgment and scorn of others. I always thought that was a major point for feminism and female empowerment, but this thread suggests otherwise. [/quote]
Do you not see how the two statements contradict each other? If it's really all about the money, then any intelligent man would probably recognize that two careers that achieve 75% of their potential are probably better than one single career that reaches its full potential. My experience, as an ambitious woman married to a man who is not as overtly ambitious but internally gets a lot of job satisfaction, is that if he were willing to step back a smidge, I could earn a lot more. But he's not, so here we are. Both of us would be considered highly paid, but he earns twice what I earn. And, minus childcare, we could pretty much support our entire lifestyle on my current salary alone (it's pretty close to what our HHI was when we bought our house). In other words, if he stopped working and became the FT care provider, we would barely miss a beat.

As to why you don't see as many posts from DH's complaining about their DW's lack of ambition? I think that at least partially reflects the fact that there are more women on this forum than men. I've heard plenty of men complain about their DW's lack of ambition/willingness to earn an income. I suspect you're right that on balance it bothers women more, but it's not all or none.

Ultimately, though, I think I have a better deal than DH. I really don't want to devote my entire life and all my energy to my job...neither does DH. I just wish the constraints on what jobs I can have if I don't prioritize my job over everything in my life weren't so tight. I am more efficient than most of my (almost all male) co-workers. Any of my boss's will tell you that...but many employers won't take a chance on me, because I'm not willing to promise them my soul at the outset.[/quote]

What is highly paid in your view?  Could you fully make up his income if he stopped working?

I don’t think my two statements contradict. First, I mentioned guys in challenging careers (though I should have said ambitious, high earning careers that don’t allow for work life balance).  I’m trying to get at outlier compensation jobs. Second, the math is not so simple. In my household with outlier base compensation, I work 60-70 hours per week on average. If my spouse and I were both working in well balanced jobs, we could probably get to 75% total of my total base (ignoring bonuses) while working about 20 hours more combined (then add in time for commuting and additional work necessitated stuff and the math gets worse). On top of that, I would undoubtedly be less stressed but my spouse’s stress would undoubtedly increase more than my relative stress would decrease.

Perhaps we’re traveling in different circles, but in my experience, around guys making a minimum of $500k/year, I’ve never heard a complaint about a SAHM’s lack of ambition or career. Perhaps the incremental income doesn’t really do much for those households, and those guys would be complaining if they were making less and the incremental income had more value to them.  I just don’t think the math here is as simple as you suggest and I know for a fact that in my circles, I’ve never heard a guy complain about his SAHW’s lack of a career.

Finally, even if my spouse could earn my full income, I think she would be less willing than I am to accept the time commitment and availability demands required. I’m not complaining and she would do it if necessary, but on a relative basis, she would be less happy than I am with the work demands.

I get what you’re getting at in your last sentence, but as long as some people are willing to fully commit to their jobs at the expense of other things in their lives (admittedly, overwhelmingly married men and childless workers of both genders), what can be done?  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics