This blog has never been one that had a lot of regulars that debate and socialize in the article comments threads. The responses are sporadic, and I think I get a lot more "Anonymous" posts than your average Manosphere blog. I am fully aware that the full range of topics I write about can be eclectic and many times "off the beaten path," and that's fine. This blog is really nothing more than an outlet for the things I don't really get to discuss in real life within my social peer group and family. It was only two months ago that I even discovered that Blogger had begun to offer traffic stats and such back in 2009...but looking at them confirmed what I have always suspected - I have far more readers than one would guess just based on the comments.
What amuses me though, is that I never know when a piece I write is going to get a lot of comments or not. Sometimes I write something that I expect will generate a lot of comments, and it only gets only 1 or 2 responses...and other times I write something I expect to get little response and the opposite happens.
My last post, Explaining Opportunity Costs to Career Women
was one such surprise. The most amusing thing about it was the response by the person who's offhand comment over at OneSTDV's inspired the post in the first place.
I wasn't really out to 'get after' her...but that her comment that "she had it all" is one for which I've heard many a career woman exclaim. A lot of women fool themselves into believing that they did in fact "achieve it all." The only real point I was making is that 'having it all' is physically and temporally impossible.
As that prolific poster Anonymous wrote:
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?
I guess such basic mathematical logic was to hard to comprehend for a successful career woman like jz.
She actually commented and confirmed precisely the point I was making, but still failed to get it. Just as I suspected, she had a Nanny perform the Mommy role for her.
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.
No matter how well qualified she was, she was still hired to do the things you did not have the time for while you were busy with your challenging work making all that stunning income.
Her nurturing of them included intangibles that I could not have provided,
You could have. You just chose to pay someone else to do so for you.
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.
Do you really think that the amount of time and effort you put into your career, had it been applied to raising your children, you really believe you could not have provided them with games, mini-vacations and same age playmates?
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.
She was a great nanny who grew close with your children to the point that they treat each other like family. It is great that you were able to provide this sort of influence for your children....but it is THE POINT you keep missing. This is precisely why YOU did not "HAVE IT ALL." Your nanny had all of the things that I refer to when I say you could not have had it all. That is the opportunity costs you paid to focus on your career and paying another woman to raise and nurture your children for you.
Even in my part time years, I was paid beyond my wildest expectations. Contrary to happy platitudes, money does buy happiness.
I guess you missed the point of my headstone graphic on the last post?
It buys global adventure travel, choice of schools, choice of recreation, and choice of neighborhoods.
Of course, no one can deny the advantages wealth provides. But the human relationship of nurturing and parenting your own offspring? You wouldn't know, because you outsourced it. Perhaps that bought YOU happiness, as your children "flourished" under the nurturing of the hired help...so now you have the perfect status symbols to brag about when condescendingly telling the lowly proles how you in fact "have it all!"
No family energy is wasted on financial anguish.
I'd bet when your children were little, they had another sort of anguish to deal with. I'd bet my last dollar that at one point or another, your kids asked their nanny why Mommy is hardly around.
The OP knee-jerked on materialism, which is just trivial thinking.
My perspective on materialism is anything but a knee-jerk response, and it is certainly not trivial. What is trivial thinking is that by attaining career success to afford a luxury-filled lifestyle, is that you "had it all."
You didn't. You had material success, but you did not have maternal success. You paid someone else to do that for you.
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.
JZ, those are important things to work for. Someone has to earn and provide for the family. I am NOT criticizing you out of some notion that you are a bad Mom for having a career and earning lots of money. We all have to do what we have to do to put food in our bellies, roofs over our heads and clothes on our backs. That you were a financial success is obviously a great source of pride...as it should be.
The only point I'm taking pains to point out to you is that despite your claims, you DID NOT HAVE IT ALL. I am only insisting on the truth here. You had a lot...but you missed out on a lot of things that you paid somebody else to experience for you while you were out dealing with the challenging work making your stunning income.
You've internalized the lies of our modern world - that financial and career success is the be all-end all measurement for success. Deep down, some part of you has to realize that your kids are bonded with and closer to their nanny than they are to you.
Which is precisely what I mean by you did NOT "have it all."
Now I can earn for another 15 years; SAHMs experience the opportunity cost of staying out of the market.
And career women experience the opportunity cost of staying out of the home and paying someone else to make it a home for you.
So, I'll reiterate that some women can have it all.
Only if you define "ALL" in terms of materialism.
You state that my dismissal of materialism as the measure of success was trivial.
I find it incredibly sad that you trivialize the most meaningful aspect of having and raising children...actually spending substantial and meaningful time with them as they grow. I'm sure you had many a moment that you had a moment of realization buried within yourself, covered up and hidden with rationalizations and justifications...moments in which you noticed the bond your children had with their nanny instead of you. Who did they run to for comfort when they got hurt as children? I bet there was multiple occasions in which they ran right past you (if you were even there...) to the comforting arms of their nanny.
This is my final comment here, because this is a blog that I do not respect.
I'm sure I'll manage to carry on...but I thank you for proving my point for me despite missing it for yourself.