Sunday, July 10, 2011

Explaining Opportunity Costs to Career Women




In his latest post, The Housewife Paradigm, OneSTDV writes:

So the vast majority of women leave the home to do what: fetch coffee, take phone messages, babysit, and complain. Or, they could tend to the needs of someone they truly love instead of their irascible boss. They could prepare a nice home, pristine and comfy for their husbands and family. They can be present when their children arrive home from school, for emotional support, advice, homework help, and general supervision. They can spend many of their days socializing with other neighborhood housewives, fostering communal bonds amongst nearby families who ultimately become close friends.

Instead, we encourage women to slave away in a cubicle, convincing them that such empty work offers them satisfaction not available with her own husband and children.

Why of course...with her own paycheck, she can than participate in the official religion of USA Inc...worshiping at the alter of materialistic-based consumerism! What about all the shoes and handbags that could be bought with the extra income! Surely we must not deny women the opportunity for such fulfillment as a well stocked, walk-in closet!

But some anonymous female commenters on his thread raise some interesting points:

As a talented female academic, I disagree with you. I have no desire to "return to the kitchen." I don't think you will get women to subscribe to your idea in large numbers. And if you, as a society, don't keep your women happy, you won't be happy either.

Now just what is a "talented academic?" A womynz studies lecturer with tenure? And if society is supposed to keep our women happy, it sure seems like the current paradigm of encouraging all women to get educations and careers instead of getting married and raising children as housewives has failed spectacularly in that regard...

Never fear though...there are still a number of ladies who believe that despite the widespread decline in female happiness in the past 40 years, they've managed to HAVE IT ALL!

Take a look at another female commenter on OneSTDV's article:, jz wrote:

We tell women the conventional wisdom, "you can't have it all." In fact, some women (myself) have had it all: flourishing children, challenging work, stunning income, and a fun husband.

There are so many meme's and shibboleths that manifest in such a short statement...

First of all: "We tell women the conventional wisdom, "you can't have it all."

Oh dear. In what part of the world does jz live in? The idea that women CAN HAVE IT ALL is one of the most popular memes to permeate our feminist-driven mass media culture for close to 50 years now! Most women don't hear that message "you can't have it all!" and when someone tries to point it out, they usually respond like jz here: "In fact, some women (myself) have had it all!"

Why is such beliefs not surprising at all?

But let's look closer at how jz defines HAVING IT ALL:

"...flourishing children, challenging work, stunning income, and a fun husband."

Flourishing children

No doubt this is based on her kids getting good grades in our dumbed-down education system. She might even go the extra step here and have them enrolled in all sorts of extra-curricular activities like organized team sports or music lessons. Her kids may in fact be "flourishing." But how would she know, since she's not around while they're flourishing? She's at her career, HAVING IT ALL. I guess there's dinnertime conversation...if there not like most modern day families eating their dinner in front of the television, perhaps they do talk about the days endeavors in school.

Challenging Work

Now one cannot deny that in fact "challenging work" can certainly be rewarding...but I would point out the implications of such a statement in the context of a woman declaring that she HAS IT ALL. By describing her career work in those terms, she is also implying that a stay at home housewife's work is NOT challenging...that raising children is not as challenging - which also implies that it is not as rewarding.

But don't worry! They're getting good grades! They're on the local championship soccer team! The kidz are FLOURISHING!!!!

Stunning Income

Which probably means jz and her "fun husband" most likely outsource much of the domestic tasks and chores necessary to keep a house clean and functioning. Gardener, maid, nannies....STUNNING I tell you!

Here's one thing women like jz fail to understand until it is too late...

There is only so much time in a single day. You can only do so much with that time.

You cannot "HAVE IT ALL" because most of your time, effort, energy and attention is focused on your 'challenging work.' If it didn't require all of that, it wouldn't be challenging.

Therefore, time spent on the career, means time NOT spent in actually raising your children. You let the schools and after-school organized sports or lessons handle most of the "challenging work" in that department for you.

You may not realize it now, because your kids are "flourishing" and you get to brag to your work peers that your kids got great grades...

...but just how much of a part of their lives are you really?

Maybe one day, when you are at home and retired, enjoying your stunning income...and you realize that your kids are flourishing in their own careers, and the only time they call or visit you is when they HAVE to (like your Birthday or the Holidays), and you'll realize that you don't really know them as people (but your nanny who actually raised them does!) you'll discover that you in fact did not HAVE IT ALL.

43 comments:

Kimberly said...

Wow, what year do you write your blog in? 1960? I am hereby unsubscribing from your sexist, misogynistic blog.

Anonymous said...

Kimberly stomps her little foot and starts crying.

Ha ha ha ha! I wish we were in 1850.

Laura Grace Robins said...

You did a great job on this! Regarding the "talented female academic"--very few women get a lofty career like that. The vast majority are the cubicle workers or those doing some sort of clerical/retail work. It is easy from a comfy academic life to say such a thing.

I like what Patrick said on the original article:

"Of course, there is no possibility of large-scale return to the homemaker's life for women: they have been "liberated" into having to work full-time for the rest of their lives. Governments are dependent on the increase in the tax base from women working at paying jobs, employers have been able to use the flood of women into the workforce to suppress wages and prevent unionization, and merchandisers have their most easily gulled targets with more disposable income in their hands. These three power groups will NEVER permit any substantial return of middle-class women to being wives and mothers. Such is the fruit of the "liberation" of women: having to work full-time at low-paying unrewarding jobs for the rest of their lives. Work/life balance will never stop being the cross to bear of the modern women: never ever ever."

aspiringlady said...

I was waiting for you to break down the "fun husband" part of her list. That sounds like a strangely shallow way to describe one's spouse.

Badger said...

Cat's in the cradle, a song for this occasion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUwjNBjqR-c

"Fun husband" sounds like she qualifies her husband as a source of entertainment. If he stops giving her "fun" he will be substandard and, with her stunning income, replaceable.

Vae Victus said...

You CAN'T explain opportunity costs of employment to modern women. I have tried for the last 3 years to explain this to some of the girls in my classes, and they refuse to get it.

Elliott said...

@ Laura Grace Robins:

I'm curious to see what Patrick would have to say about the means that governments and corporations would use to prevent large numbers of women from being stay-at-home moms. Modern women aren't being rounded up at gunpoint and escorted to work by the Gestapo. They work because they believe the lie that they can "have it all." If this really is a lie and it really is making women unhappy, as Keoni demonstrated with his link, more women will begin to choose a more traditional and natural lifestyle. At this point, The Man will either have to resort to coercive measures or give up.

Hermit said...

"Cat's in the cradle, a song for this occasion"

Indeed, this song came to mind right away. Naturally though, at least half the people I've discussed the lyrics of this song with had no clue what the actual point of the song is. It's plain as day, but most people don't want to see it.

Anonymous said...

"Fun husband" sounds like she qualifies her husband as a source of entertainment. If he stops giving her "fun" he will be substandard and, with her stunning income, replaceable.

"Fun husband" means 'gina tingles are still coming. Should he stop providing the tingles, he will be kicked to the kerb in a heartbeat. And she will rationalize it as a failure on his part! He wasn't fun, and I deserve to "have it all", so he's outta here!

As she is a "female academic", most likely her "challenging work" entails the production of useless drivel of interest only to a small number of other female academics.

I'm curious to see what Patrick would have to say about the means that governments and corporations would use to prevent large numbers of women from being stay-at-home moms.

The coercion is negative. Without the second income, it is tough to afford a house in a decent neighborhood (meaning, not around white proles or minorities).

The ironic thing is that a lot of women are working just so they can afford day care. Their "extra pay" after taxes and day care are paid is trivially small.

Ping Jockey said...

I completely agree with Vae Victus: "You CAN'T explain opportunity costs of employment to modern women. I have tried for the last 3 years to explain this to some of the girls in my classes, and they refuse to get it."

This brings to mind the old saying, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

You cannot change the mind of a True Believer with mere facts and logic. Let the 'strong, independent' Modern Womyn that 'don't need a man' find out for themselves the hard way.

Renee said...

I'll leave a comment here that I posted on the original blog:

Dominion of Canada,
If you're actually a talented female academic, you would be doing a much greater service to the world by having 3 or 4 kids than toiling away in academia.

I've heard this from other posters on blogs like this. The thing is, what if she or other women in general don't want to be married or married with kids? Motherhood and being a wife isn't for everyone.

A woman may indeed do more service to the world by having kids, but it's their life. And again, not everyone is meant to have kids. And as a Christian, I believe God has a plan for our lives that hare meant for each of us. Some are meant to be mothers and/or wives, some aren't.

OneSTDV,
How do you think fathers feel about not being in their children's lives due to work. In discussions like these, people complain about career moms not being in their children's lives and the consequences of that, and I wonder "Well dang, how do the fathers who work or are career dads feel???".

Another thing. I think it was you who mentioned that working part-time was ok as long as it didn't interfered with a mother's role in the home. I have no problem with that. On a related note, what about the risks of women being so financially dependent on their husbands and not having any cash of their own on the side?

Anonymous said...

How do you think fathers feel about not being in their children's lives due to work. In discussions like these, people complain about career moms not being in their children's lives and the consequences of that, and I wonder "Well dang, how do the fathers who work or are career dads feel???".

It's not all about feelings, dearie.

jz said...

JZ here.
Jealousy rules. It is socially incorrect for people with blessed lives to acknowledge our hard work, smart choices, and good fortune. The jealousariat can not tolerate us. It was politically incorrect for me to point out that, in practice, some professional women can contribute hugely to the family welfare. These catty comments remind me to play dumb while amongst the proles.

.....and opportunity costs? I worked 1/2 to 3/4 of full time while my children were younger , and the opportunity costs of NOT working were clear to me.

Keoni Galt said...

Jealousy rules. It is socially incorrect for people with blessed lives to acknowledge our hard work, smart choices, and good fortune.

Jealousy's got nothing to do with it, dear. Just pointing out what most career women who claim to have it all don't realize until it's too late.

It was politically incorrect for me to point out that, in practice, some professional women can contribute hugely to the family welfare.

Right. Instead of meaningful time with their parents, they lived in the lap of consumerist luxury. Nice house, cars, gadgets and toys. They wanted for nothing...except for the time with their parents that always came second in priority to the careers that "contributed hugely."

These catty comments remind me to play dumb while amongst the proles.

No need to play. Fact is, you've convinced yourself that "I worked 1/2 to 3/4 of full time while my children were younger..." means you understand what I meant with regards to opportunity cost.

You failed to understand the entire premise.

You, like many women, love to claim you're the wonderful exception to the rule.

That "career women" can "have it all."

You have a lot. But the fact remains, time spent in one endeavor means you spend less time on another.

It's simple math.

Keoni Galt said...

And you fail to understand that based on simple math, deep down, your children know where your priorities have always been their entire lives.

Did you watch/hear the video that Badger linked to, "Cats in the Cradle?"

That young man in the song certainly flourished.

jz said...

You, KW, like other proles, do not understand the math of those with more opportunities. Don't pretend to understand what you have no knowledge of .

Keoni Galt said...

You, KW, like other proles, do not understand the math of those with more opportunities. Don't pretend to understand what you have no knowledge of.

I understand the math just fine, you're failing to grasp what I'm referring to.

Perhaps I have the benefit of being a new parent, and have deliberately reduced my work time and standard of living (in which I learned to differentiate between wants and needs) so as to spend a lot of time with my child..and loving every minute of it.

I've been told that I should find a babysitter so that I can work more to make more money.

Money cannot buy the time I've had with my baby this past year.

But don't worry. Keep telling yourself your above the proles.

Double Minded Man said...

There is only so much time in a single day. You can only do so much with that time.

That right there, is the whole post in a nutshell. The analogy of everyone having a piggy bank of 86,400 seconds every day, no more, no less. You can spend them however you want, but spend them you will, and you will never get them back, nor can you save any.

Not enough people understand that, and prefer to chase down the ever increasing demands placed on us by the material world, all the while slaving away to service their debts.

The Private Man said...

Let's also consider the no-fault divorce element. If women work less, they earn less, and can be vulnerable to hubby walking away and even with vaginamony and child support, a woman can be financial vulnerability.

Oh, and who pushed for no-fault divorce? First wave feminists, a few privileged white, educated women eager to push their social engineering contract onto every woman. Good work, cupcakes.

livingwell said...

I'm a little league coach in a university town where a great many of these women are making "stunning" incomes (taxpayer supported of course). I deal with their kids...it's not working.
There is a reason our elites are morally bankrupt, unethical, and inept at working with others. Come out for one of our practices and witness your future.

jz said...

"elites are morally bankrupt".........more evidence of prole jealousy. I'm loving this.

Anonymous said...

Just keep telling yourself that, jizz-for-brains, just keep telling yourself that.

Anonymous said...

Women for the most part are more gullible when it comes to these types of messages than men are. It is very difficult to convince a woman that something she has bought into with her whole heart is actually doing her and her family harm. It's the rationalization hamster on steriods because she actually wants to have it all so she convinces herself that she does in fact have it all, despite what the facts are on the ground.

A good example was my wifes support for abortion. Even after she had converted to Christianity she just could not acknowledge that abortion was the killing of a human being because she had a life time of being taught otherwise and deep down she still wanted the option for herself. It took a lot of conversations and God's guidance to change her. How much harder will it be with something like this where there is no absolute moral teaching but only a tradition that has already been stomped into the ground? Not impossible but certainly you're not going to change any womans mind with just a blog or E-mail exchange.

Lastly, women are herd animals (for the most part) and will resist going against the herd. Right now the herd is "having it all" so if you try to get in the way, that thundering herd will most likely run you right down.

Renee said...

It's not all about feelings, dearie.

Of couse puddin'. But with all this talk of missing out on the lives of children, not being there for them, not being there to support them, etc., it made me think of fathers who do indeed miss out on these things. It made me wonder how they feel sometimes missing out on these moments.

But as someone over at OneSTDV said, men and women, husbands and wives are biologically different (why biology has anything to do with it, I don't know), with different roles. By working, fathers are fulfilling their roles.

Anonymous said...

Herd animals? Cripes, that's an emotive term. I don't think it's just women who are falling for the 'Keeping up with the Jones's' misinterpretation of living a fulfilling life. There are plenty of 'stay at home mum' families that still put pressure on the family unit in order to compete in the game of consumerism. So really what are we pissed off about here? Women having non traditional roles within the family unit? Or families consenting to become part of the juggernaut of consumerism that requires them to earn enough to successfully compete? Where does the blame really lie?

Arual said...

I was an ardent feminist until I became a mother.

Then I realized I had been duped my entire life. There are certainly opportunity costs in working outside the home OR being a stay at home mother. However, I have found that many people don't see stay-at-home-mom work as meaningful and would prefer to pay someone else to do it if they can.

When you sacrifice your health, relationships with your children, husband, neighbors, etc. to go and work you are certainly not "having it all."

Few women make enough money to pay someone to make healthy meals, and no amount of money can replace actual time spent with your kids. I would also like to imbue something more important to my children than the ability to buy and consume and that's difficult to do if it's the only example I give them.


As a whole, it is frustrating to see how little value we give motherhood, fatherhood and child-rearing. I have no intention of turning my son over to a stranger paid by the state to do a job my husband and I far more capable of.

Laura said...

I am a teacher in public school, and I know exactly what you are saying about the effect on kids. However, I am glad to have job - I like knowing that I could take care of myself, if I absolutely had to. In the mean time, my husband and I are working together towards certain financial goals. Once we meet our goals, it will be time to have kids, and then I will gladly stay home. I will be contributing non-financially at the point, and I have to say it's taken me some time to feel ok at the prospect of being dependent on my husband. It can be a frightening thing for a woman in this world to be dependent on someone else, please keep that in mind. However, there is no doubt that it is the best thing for kids, and I trust my husband absolutely, and we are fortunate that his salary is sufficient to support a family alone, when the time comes. Not everyone has that choice...

Anonymous said...

What about women who genuinely just don't want children? Yes, they are rare, but they do exist (and they can have fulfilling relationships, sometimes with men that have children from a previous relationship). I'm not saying that you can have an awesome independent life as well as raise your offspring, but shouldn't you get the option of either/or?

Anonymous said...

You, KW, like other proles, do not understand the math of those with more opportunities.

What kind of math puts more than 24 hours in a day?

What kind of math allows you to be in two places at once (home and work)?

What kind of math will convince your kids that they're better off spending 8 hours a day with a stranger rather than their mother?

Do please enlighten us pathetic proles...

Anonymous said...

What about women who genuinely just don't want children?

They're not "having it all".

They have chosen NOT to do something that is central to the lives of most human beings.

it made me think of fathers who do indeed miss out on these things. It made me wonder how they feel sometimes missing out on these moments.

99% of men don't have a choice in the matter, and have to suck it up whether they like it or not.

Most men feel better about missing those moments if their chosen wife is taking care of the kids rather than some stranger.

jz said...

@anonymous 7:35pm

If your questions are genuine, I'll spend some time on them.

To review: my "yes, some women can have it all" comment was dragged into a blog devoted to women bashing and conspiracy theories. What surprised me were the knee-jerk elite-hating jealousy remarks....hence the "prole" term which I apologize for.

Keoni Galt said...

...blog devoted to women bashing and conspiracy theories.

Women bashing? Hardly...more like feminist bashing.

Feminists aren't women, they are a lesser species who's primary defect is creature born feminine but emulates masculinity.

Keoni Galt said...

Oh, and jz, I sense you still fail to grasp the point I tried to make here.

Go read the "Family Jewels" post about Gene Simmons.

Now there's a guy who has a real elite level of stunning income. Fantastic career success. Yet look at his regrets when he realizes that he never knew his Father and his stubborness robbed him of the chance to get to know him.

There are some things a "stunning income" cannot buy.

I've got no problems with anyone who works to support their family and reach the pinnacles of financial success and enjoying the rewards of it.

But when you say "you had it all" I only seek to point out that you only THINK you "had it all."

Know, you had challenging work and stunning income...those things mean you most certainly did not have significant time in the lives of your children.

That is a sacrifice many people make...but be honest with yourself.
How many moments in your children's lives did you miss while you were busy with your challenging work?

You probably don't even know just how much you missed.

Dulantha said...

Great post....

Naturally male body and sexual characteristics are designed for interact with the natural environment efficiently and strongly. Female body and sexual characteristics are naturally designed for growing an embryo inside a womb, bear children and for breast feeding. So there is nothing wrong with men are working hard, maintaining and protecting their families while women are nurturing children and staying at home.

Even for a man, job and wages are nothing important. The important thing is whether he can work or he cannot. If he can do any hard work and if he has an idea of how to create the society it is better.

If women can form the female community corresponding to men's social creations it is best.

Renee said...

"What about women who genuinely just don't want children?"

They're not "having it all".


That's your opinion.

They have chosen NOT to do something that is central to the lives of most human beings.

But again that's your opinion. To those human beings, that is central to THEIR lives. But fulfillment can be different to someone else. There are plenty of men and women who are happy without having children, married or unmarried. Everyone's different with different goals, desires, and capabilities.

About jz,
I think what she was saying was that she couldn't AFFORD to stay at home with the kids. Sometimes that's the reality. Now I know some people mention that being a SAHM takes material sacrifices, but I don't know her life. So maybe she's not able to do that or maybe she can. I don't know.

And anyway, she said she worked 1/2-3/4 OF full-time. So wouldn't that be PART-TIME, which is considered ok here?

jz said...

For 12 years my 3 kids were cared for in our home by the same woman. She is a physician's wife whose own children had grown. Her nurturing of them included intangibles that I could not have provided, including occasional same age playmates (her nephews), an exceptionally playful nature, new games, and she even took them on a mini-vacation. Each day she came, we spent time talking about how the day went. As a young mother myself, I valued her advice. The years progressed, she had grandchildren, and my own daughters babysat for her grandchildren. My kids were home for Christmas and they met to reminisce with her.

I worked part time during some years, and I brought home to them more than money. I brought home real life vignettes, cautionary tales, funny stories, and family pride because Mommy was contributing to the community welfare.

Even in my part time years, I was paid beyond my wildest expectations. Contrary to happy platitudes, money does buy happiness. It buys global adventure travel, choice of schools, choice of recreation, and choice of neighborhoods.
No family energy is wasted on financial anguish. The OP knee-jerked on materialism, which is just trivial thinking.

By staying in the game, I can now stockpile money for grandchildren that I hope to have someday, and I can contribute to political causes. Now I can earn for another 15 years; SAHMs experience the opportunity cost of staying out of the market.

The OP quibbled on the definition of "flourishing". My definition: being able to sleep well at night, knowing that the future will be in good hands. My kids, and their friends, are flourishing.

So, I'll reiterate that some women can have it all. This is my final comment here, because this is a blog that I do not respect.

Anonymous said...

"What about women who genuinely just don't want children?"

They're not "having it all".

That's your opinion.


No, it's a fact. They're not having it all, because they're not having children.

They have chosen NOT to do something that is central to the lives of most human beings.

But again that's your opinion.


But again you're wrong. It is not my opinion that having children is central to the lives of most human beings. It is a fact.

But fulfillment can be different to someone else.

Which is irrelevant and does not contradict my statement that "They have chosen NOT to do something that is central to the lives of most human beings." However these dried up useless spinsters find "fulfillment" (I'm thinking it involves cats) they still have not done something that is central to the lives of most humans.

There are plenty of men and women who are happy without having children, married or unmarried.

Only among the people you know, maybe, but not in the real world.

Anonymous said...

Her nurturing of them included intangibles that I could not have provided

They don't want a stranger's intangibles. They want their own mother.

including occasional same age playmates (her nephews), an exceptionally playful nature, new games, and she even took them on a mini-vacation.

And you expect us to believe you could not have provided these? Ha!

In fact, you chose not to provide them, an entirely different thing. Your statement here shows you STILL don't understand "opportunity cost" no matter how many times Keoni explains it.

I worked part time during some years, and I brought home to them more than money.

Hamster wheel in overdrive now!

I brought home real life vignettes, cautionary tales, funny stories, and family pride because Mommy was contributing to the community welfare.

Do you really and truly think they wanted this crap more than their own mother? If so you're pathetically deluded.

Contrary to happy platitudes, money does buy happiness. It buys global adventure travel, choice of schools, choice of recreation, and choice of neighborhoods.

Yet they'd happily trade that for their own mother.

I'm totally LMAO at the amount of feverish self-justification I'm seeing here.

Ecclesiastes said...

jz,

Have you spoken to your children's mother about any of this? She sounds like a very smart woman.

Alcuin said...

Here in Asia women have to be wage-slaves for about 10-12 hours, like the men. I don't think at the beginning Asian women wanted this, though now they are sufficiently brainwashed to think it's their only option. Western feminism has had a terrible affect on the family life of people all around the world. It is the worst of all Western imperialism. The British brought the railroad to India. Feminism brought abortion to the world.

flavia said...

However, it was inflation and not the women's movement that ultimately pushed women out of the kitchen and into the cubicle. The women's movement was just happy to take the 'credit'. After the 70s a one income household was not viable.

Can you imagine a butcher or a baker raising a family of four or five with the mother staying home? This was all perfectly normal in the 50s. However, rising inflation compounded with the high costs of health care and diversity (suburbs, high gas prices, private schools, firearms ;) made it the case that a family needed much more income just to survive.

The high cost of living and living AWAY from diversity has resulted in women in the work force. How cruel for our society to see this as a good thing. Women are unhappy and they don't even know why.

I don't blame most women, really. With work, kids, a house, who has time to sit and read 100 blogs about HBD and feminism and all this stuff? So they rely on the MSM to help them sort out the world. Unfortunately the supposed guardians of truth only spew out misinformation that serves to push women and men further and further into debt and despair.

...and to the academic lady...my work is "academic" too- and very male centric to boot. But guess what? I'd rather be quilting :/ Can't fight teh ovariez.

flavia said...

Aha! Found it!

This is a piece from The Economics of Global Turbulence by Robert Brenner.

"During the “Long Boom” of 1948-1973, the lowest annual profit rate in the U.S. industrial sector was still higher than the highest such rate in the ensuing period, the “Long Bust.” This fact is all the more shocking for being so contrary to the largely accepted story — often centered around the Reagan presidency, or Clinton’s “new economy,” depending on one’s party preference — of recent American history as one of minor falls and major lifts. "

From a review of Brenner's book- Autumn of the Empire. Must read for all. http://lareviewofbooks.org/post/7756129051/autumn-of-the-empire

"He [Brenner] persuasively debunks the idea that industrial profits were squeezed by wages; indeed, real wages have stagnated and even decreased in the last four decades. This has been concealed only in the sphere of rhetoric: Statistics about “household earnings” desperately hope you won’t notice that households now require multiple incomes to keep up. THAT WASN'T FEMINISM SENDING WOMEN INTO THE TENDER MERCIES OF THE LABOR MARKET — or rather, it was, but at the same time the migration to the workplace was part of a protracted disaster for the working classes, masquerading as opportunity. And even while working more and harder, households have increasingly found themselves obligated to take on debt to stay afloat."

Flavia here- So feminism was used to push women into the workforce and obscure the fact that wages were so low they could no longer support a family on one income. Slavery sold as liberation.

Anonymous said...

My wife wants me to work, make money, bond with the kids, support her work 100%. She wants me to listen about her day and her troubles which I do very well. But at the end of the day she is out of energy. I am just one more thing that is on her list that she has to "service." We argued about her work and having a 2 career home. Again, I am supposed to just support her decision gleefully. I had no choice she decided to work a lot. I have been labeled a "controlling" husband.