posted by
alexist at 02:45am on 12/04/2005
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
There was an article in the Guardian Weekend on Saturday (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1454070,00.html) that got me thinking a bit. I grew up in a family that was a bit like that--my father worked long hours and my mother stayed home and did all the childcare. I hated it, and I would never let myself be put in that position. I don't care how much money Neil made or how much he loved his job, I would simply refuse to tolerate a division of labor like that. (Luckily, he's not that sort of person--and it would've been very silly of me to marry a workaholic.) I don't insist on some kind of perfect 50/50 split, and if I were home, I'd expect to do the majority of the housework, but I'm not a servant.
I never had very strong views on the home versus work issue, but I've been thinking about it more lately, as it's been in the news. I grew up with a stay at home mother who was abruptly forced back into work, in an area with a lot of PTA-mother types. It left me with the feeling that you need something besides being a wife and mother. It's one thing to be home when they're babies, but children grow up. And (G-d forbid) things happen. My grandmother was widowed, my mother was divorced. You can't rely on someone to provide for you.
At the same time, though, I'm not careerist. I used to be very strongly pro-working, but not these days--possibly because I've yet to find my passion in life, at least the one I'd like to do for a living. (If you find it, could you deliver it before I turn 30? Cheers.) Work versus home is a real dilemma for me as I think about having children in a few years. (That is, the choice I'll make then; I don't plan to sit home and be bored until then, in case you were thinking that.) I was reading something fairly recently where the author advocated widespread, cheap childcare (as in much of Europe) as the answer. I was much less sure. Improved childcare would make things better for women who want to work, but are unable to because they can't find good childcare or because the cost would be greater than the money they'd make, but it only addresses one part of the problem. It doesn't really change the fundamental decision of balancing family and work, and the feeling that you're going to end up with two full time jobs and not do either one as well as you should.
I don't want to be one of those women rushing to get the kids to the nursery, then rushing to pick them up, rushing to get some dinner on the table then collapsing from exhaustion. At the same time, I don't want to get stuck as a housewife. I may have my Martha moments, but I'm no Stepford wife. I know from experience that once you get out of the job market, it's hard to get back in. I don't care so much about advancing my career while having small children, but I don't want to start from scratch. It sounds a little antifeminist, I know, but I look at it this way: I have a finite amount of time and energy. If I'm devoting a large portion of it to my family, I've got less to devote to work, and hence will advance more slowly, if at all. In theory I could be angry that it's me who has to choose, but I'm not--if more men want to take it upon themselves to adjust their careers for family I'd be very happy, but I'm not choosing for all women. I'm choosing for me, and in our family, as things stand now, I'm best placed to make that choice. I'd like to be in a position where I could work part time (and I mean genuinely part time, not nearly full time with part time pay and prospects) simply to keep my toes in the water, so I'd be in a position where I could get my career properly re-started after a few years, but that's not an easy thing to get!
The whole issue can alternately annoy and depress me, and sometimes I think reading magazine articles is the worst thing to do. Women who have it all, women who can't, women who have "dropped out"... (and I really tend to hate that last, because the women they interview are women in a very privileged position, where their husbands have fantastic jobs and they can afford extended periods of staying at home). Sometimes I do hate the way it's always portrayed as a "women's issue", or that women's working is portrayed as mainly a financial decision. Many women enjoy their jobs. I know that I'd like to get out of the house and exercise my mind.
Life sucks, eh? :)
(no subject)
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out for us; I'm not actually as keen on children as Colin is, so I've good grounds for not giving up too much. But it's very hard to redefine roles; and already, despite a much shorter working life, he earns much more than me. Life, indeed, sucks.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Believe it or not, I'm not lazy.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
"I've yet to find my passion in life"
Re: "I've yet to find my passion in life"
I love to cook, but I can't imagine doing it professionally. I might enjoy something food related, but I wouldn't want to be a chef.
Re: "I've yet to find my passion in life"
If can swear half as much as Nick nairn does, or can utter the word "pucca," you can be a chef. :p
(no subject)
It sounds a little antifeminist
...It really isn't. Feminism these days seems to be about wanting everyone (men and women) to have all the choices - whether they want to stay home full time, pursue a career full time, or do something in between. Feminism is just as opposed to women being pressured into staying at work and leaving their kids in daycare as it is to them being pressured into leaving work and being a full time mum.