Letter - Family 1st - Women work for luxuries? - Feb 19

Lady Godiva

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 7:58 pm

What is so shocking about that statement? I know women who work for luxuries they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford, or would feel guilty buying with their husbands' hard-earned money.

I'm not sure that 50% of working women fall into that category, but it's not an alien notion. I wonder if they surveyed women or just made an assumption at the percentage they gave.

(I did not read the article you're referencing, just the sentence you put in your post.)

manhattanmom

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 8:02 pm

So....if a woman wants to work so she can have what she and others may feel are luxuries, then let her! At least she's not forcing her husband to work more or to spend money they don't have.
It's way better than getting yourself into debt. So that's actually being pretty responsible.

That being said, I personally don't know any women who are working full time with young children and families to take care of because they have all they need and just want more--and I definitely include myself in that. I am working full time because my family needs things like health insurance. And we need to pay tuition. And we need to put food on the table. And we need clothing (not excessive, people are shocked when I say I DONT get myself something new for every yom tov. I just don't always need something new--but that's also another story.

mirror

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 8:24 pm

Lady Godiva wrote:

It was a letter to the editor. No one was surveyed. The statistic she threw out was her personal opinion.

rosehill

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 8:40 pm

The writer's premise is all wrong.
She assumes the husband is the default breadwinner, and the wife works to 'supplement'.
In some couples, the wife has greater earning potential, and the husband works either ensure the bills are paid, or to afford luxuries.
Just nobody judges working men.

yogabird

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 8:43 pm

I don't know how you get from "the bar has been raised on the standard of living" to "women work for luxuries."

Doesn't sound like the same thing to me at all.

ETA: I didn't read the entire letter. Maybe OP can post all of it so that we can see the quote in context.

Last edited by yogabird on Sat, Mar 01 2014, 8:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

out-of-towner

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 8:44 pm

The problem with that letter as a whole is that the author did not acknowledge that some women are just not cut out for being a SAHM. And...THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!!!! I am not working now...in school only very part time for a number of reasons, but I do want to be able to eventually go out to work. The salary will be a big help IY"H...but I want to work so that I can make a difference in other people's lives...I am going for a specific profession that will allow me to do just that. I am not a good mother if I sit at home all day, I need to be out to get a change of scenery and to interact with other people. In the old days, the mothers didn't work, but everything had to be cooked from scratch, freezers weren't invented, so no cooking ahead. Laundry was a whole ordeal..you get the point.

I won't deny that the Frum world HAS gotten used to luxuries that, yes some are real luxuries. But I don't think that that is the reason why so many mothers are going to work. Tuition alone is a major strain on parents finances... and that is very much a necessity these days.

Being a SAHM is wonderful, maybe even ideal...but for everyone? No! Money is not always the reason why mothers choose to go back to work.

And BTW, I'm not working now only because the salary I could be making would barely be enough to cover babysitting.

Last edited by out-of-towner on Sat, Mar 01 2014, 9:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

MaBelleVie

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 8:59 pm

Of course fewer women would be REQUIRED to work if the standard of living was lower. However, it is inconceivable today in most frum communities in the US to be ok with living in an apartment all your life. It is inconceivable to not send kids to camp. The list can go on and on.

Why do you think more women work today than did two generations ago?

gold21

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 10:00 pm

MaBelleVie wrote:

We live in an apartment and currently a house isn't even on the horizon.

I could conceive not sending a child to sleep away camp. I mean, my oldest is 7 and a half, so who knows, I may change my mind on that one.

Just saying.

I guess you are able to conceive of things if you are brought up in that fashion. I'm pretty well adjusted to being a member of the not-rich crowd at this point.

gold21

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 10:05 pm

out-of-towner wrote:

I hear that. It is frustrating to try to fit an ideal (stay at home mom) that just doesn't work for you. At the same time, you need to consider what is in the best interest of the children. It's hard. I grapple with this issue. I can't figure it all out. It's confusing.

amother

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 10:09 pm

I always wonder about this. I grew up with no luxuries and I don't have luxuries now, but it seems like now, unlike 20 years ago, hub and I both have to work just to pay basic expenses. I don't know what my father made as a rebbi when I was a kid but my mother didn't work and we weren't on the streets. Now, I still do most of the cost-cutting things that we did then - my kids wear hand-me-downs and get used bikes; we live in a small house relative to people around us, we drive a used car, we clip coupons and only buy off-brands; but it seems like the only thing that we have over the way I grew up is the ability to pay bills on time and maybe like $3-5000 a year to save.

I think that some differences are insurance, which now costs half of an average salary; tuition; children's inability to amuse themselves (so camp, ballet, karate lessons). There are probably some others I am missing.

It also annoys me that the people in my neighborhood do none of the money saving things I do, work fewer hours, go to the country, and the only financial difference seems to be that I pay for my stuff and Uncle Sam pays for theirs.

MaBelleVie

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 10:12 pm

gold21 wrote:

Right, and your state of employment reflects that attitude. Correct?

There are definitely communities where women don't work as the norm, and the standard of living is lower as well. I find it very interesting.

gold21

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 10:16 pm

MaBelleVie wrote:

Yeah I only work part time, and it's a very flexible job, so it's not exactly a money pot.

I think most of the women in my neighborhood work part time. Lots of Morahs and therapists. Many have houses, but I guess there are enough that don't that I don't feel weird or self conscious.

PinkandYellow

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 10:23 pm

MaBelleVie wrote:

Things are not as simple as you make it sound. I can't live in an apartment, not because it's inconceivable but rather because no one will rent an apartment to someone with more then two kids. Don't just assume that people in frum communities are spoiled therefore have a certain standard of living which requires two incomes. Most decisions are not as simple as they look on the outside.
Standard of living isn't higher. Cost of living is higher.

saw50st8

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 10:24 pm

MaBelleVie wrote:

These things are totally conceivable to me. However, if you took either DH's salary or mine, it covers tuition for 4 kids (plus commuting and health insurance) which would leave no money even for a rat infested studio apartment in Newark. So if you consider tuition a luxury (I do), then yes, many women work for luxuries.

gold21

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 10:26 pm

PinkandYellow wrote:

That's interesting, I wonder why you had the experience of landlords not renting to larger families....

I have 3 kids....KAH. I didn't know there was a cutoff....

manhattanmom

Sat, Mar 01 2014, 10:41 pm

MaBelleVie wrote:

It's not really standard of living--that we need fancier clothes or just to have excess of everything. The world is just a changed place. My mother was able to be a SAHM for 10 years (from the time I wasWborn---her oldest) until her baby was in school full time. Because, yeshiva tuition was MUCH lower, rent/mortgages were MUCH lower, and health insurance was always offered (my parents had everything covered in full by my father's employer back in the late '80s and early '90s.)
Those are certainly NOT luxuries. That's why women didn't have to work.

I wish I didn't have to work full time. But I have to. And I don't have cleaning help at all. And I shop at target and old navy for my kids' clothing, and we are living in a small apartment. And we rarely get takeout. Because I am working for neccessity--because we don't believe in begging yeshivos for tuition breaks.