CNN interviews this dude who’s written a book called “How to Survive (and Perhaps Thrive) on a Teacher’s Salary.” I’m sure he may have some good tips for living on $39,900 a year, as he claims, but that’s not what he’s doing.
The interview begins by explaining that he’s a teacher with a wife who stays home with the kids. They pitch this as if it’s a luxury his wife gets to enjoy because they’re so smart with his income. But do we really have to go over yet again what it would cost to outsource childcare, let alone everything else many stay-at-home-moms do for the household? Even when you consider the wife’s living expenses, it’s nearly true that “two can live as cheap as one”, so it doesn’t come close to excusing his assessment that the family’s “living” on a mere $39,900/year. Just by enabling the household to avoid professional daycare costs, the wife’s labor is equivalent to several hundred dollars a month. That bumps up the $39,900 estimate quite a bit for any single parents who have to pay for daycare. Or two-income families who are just making $39,900 between their income. And of course, it’s no help to families living on less.
What happens if this man loses his wife? Either he has to find another one, pronto, or he has to start paying for daycare, which can rival your rent or mortgage. Whatever chores his wife handles, he’ll either have to take over himself or pay someone to handle. That could include maid service, cooking, and not only paying all the bills every month but also fighting with creditors over billing errors and all that fun stuff, just to name a few.
No, sorry, folks. If you have someone who’s doing the work of one or several professionals in exchange for a slightly larger grocery and clothing bill, you are not living on your take home pay. You are living on your take home pay plus the market value of the free services that person provides, minus her living expenses, and you are not simply entitled to those free services just because you have a wang. Therefore you are a very fortunate and privileged dude, and your failure to notice this is highly irritating to me.
And I’m irritated CNN doesn’t have the basic intelligence to call him on this. I mean, his situation is unusual enough in that he gets months off every year, during which he can grow his own food or do DIY projects year-round workers at the same salary might have to outsource, or, I dunno, write a book to increase the income he’s bragging about living on. Whatever!
{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, I live on less than 12k/year, so 39k sounds pretty nice.
Does he talk about how he lives on 39k, or how he and his family live on 39k? I think a lot of families are just as well off financially and considerably less stressed when one spouse stays home and runs the household, but credit should go to all family members for the teamwork involved. Carol Keeffe writes about it in How To Get What You Want in Life With the Money You Already Have (1995), and she doesn’t make it sound the slightest bit sexist.
Anemone(Quote) (Reply)
I am very fortunate and recognize it. It is not because I have a stay-at-home wife, but because I am married to an outstanding woman who has had a great career. A woman who consents to be “kept” in return for services places herself at great risk. It is sometimes hard to believe it still happens.
Jim(Quote) (Reply)
And yet it is a luxury that they only need to split two paid/unpaid jobs between them (though it shouldn’t be). Someone working three paying jobs at minimum wage would probably still need a spouse working at least one paying job to support a family, in addition to the work they would both need to do at home.
I just thought that maybe this guy was crowing about how easy it was for him, rather than for all of them.
Anemone(Quote) (Reply)
A woman who consents to be “kept” in return for services places herself at great risk. It is sometimes hard to believe it still happens.
There’s still a lot of religious conditioning that teaches The Woman Should Stay At Home With The Kids. Many women believe they’re doing what God wants when they do that, and may not realize the risk, since it’s Not Polite to talk about abuse openly so everyone can be educated and aware.
Anemone, as far as I can tell he’s talking about how the whole family lives on that amount. I didn’t get into the classism involved in suggesting that’s a piddling amount of income. I just edited a bit for clarity: “They pitch this as if it’s a luxury his wife gets to enjoy because they’re so smart with his income.” But in fact, her labor is part of the reason they can live on that amount (daycare can be $700-1100 a month). How would his tips apply to a single parent making that income who HAS to find a way to pay for daycare? Maybe they would help. But my main problem is, they’re treating his wife’s SAHM status as a luxury, when in fact it’s labor that provides a huge savings to them, and should be factored in to the $39,900.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
$40K is a lot for a teacher to make in the K-12 level; he probably has a tenure or something, too. I’ve looked at starting teachers’ salaries since I’m getting my BS in 2 years. :/
If anybody’s coming at the book as “One person can thrive on $40K a year,” yeah, that’s hella easy. I’m in a family of 6 people, including 2 high schoolers, 2 dogs, and 2 cats, and there’s no way in hell my parents are pulling in $240K annually. Even if you don’t include the housing-related payments per year for each person, it doesn’t work out. But “A family can thrive on $40K a year” when it’s one person’s salary seems… misleading. And unrealistic. I mean, I’m sure he’s only got one car note figured into his plan, you know? Having a stay-at-home-wifemom and having a job with a relatively convenient schedule and that is probably close by affords him that one-car luxury.
nijireiki(Quote) (Reply)
Seriously, the first comment on a post about the economic value of a woman staying at home is calling at-home mothers “kept” women and denigrating that choice? Seriously?
It’s not so simple. Childcare is–as noted in the original post–very expensive, and for couples with more than one child, the childcare savings of having one parent stay home are often greater than that parent’s income would be if they worked outside the home. And because society is still what it is, the person with the smaller earning potential is most often the woman. Many couples simply cannot AFFORD to have both parents work. Let me repeat that: many couples with children CANNOT AFFORD to have both parents work.
Also, there are in fact parents who enjoy being able to stay home with their kids, especially while they’re young. Again, because of social conditioning, often women, but in an ideal society, I hope we’d see more men being at-home dads. (Actually, in an ideal society, I’d like to see flexible work hours for all parents, so they can spend more time with their kids even if they do work outside the home.)
And there are people who cannot work outside the home for whatever reasons–mental health, physical disability, etc. (note that I am not saying everyone with mental health issues or physical disabilities can’t work outside the home–most can)–but who can raise their children.
It’s true that staying home to raise your kids does temporarily take you out of the job market and potentially put you at some risk in the future should the marriage go south. But a lot of things carry risk–getting married and having kids in the first place, for example. Changing careers. Deciding to be self-employed. Starting a business.
For some mothers, staying home is a necessity; for others it is a privilege; and yes, for some, it is something they do because it’s expected and they never realized there were other options. But it’s condescending and disrespectful (as well as clueless about economic reality) to assume that all at-home mothers are the third type. And the third type doesn’t deserve condescension, either.
Mel(Quote) (Reply)
I apologize, because some of the condescension Mel points out kinda sailed over my head somehow. I zeroed in on the possible implication that women wouldn’t find themselves trapped in abusive situations if they got themselves careers and responded to that, only. My bad. It’s been a hectic day in my brain.
Actually, in an ideal society, I’d like to see flexible work hours for all parents, so they can spend more time with their kids even if they do work outside the home.
I’d like to see flexible work situations evolve for ALL people, including the child-free, because while parenting a child who will be a beneficial member of society is a great endeavor, so are some of the things child-free people might get up to if they had the time. I think there are many flexible ways to address business’ needs at least as well as they’re getting addressed by the rigid practices of now and decades past.
$40K is a lot for a teacher to make in the K-12 level
I wondered about that. I know in the late 90s, they were doing well to make $22k, and salaries in general haven’t gone up all that much.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
There was assuredly no denigration intended. The comment was intended to indicate that such a situation often results with no discussion and constitutes a one-sided arrangement.
As such, if this arrangement is chosen by both and agreed to, it is fine. There are, as you indicated, many reasons that force this pattern.
If the arrangement is selected without a discussion and agreement, then it could be ripe for “abuse”. At any rate, temporary or not, the arrangement can prevent people from interacting on an equal basis.
Jim(Quote) (Reply)
As such, if this arrangement is chosen by both and agreed to, it is fine. There are, as you indicated, many reasons that force this pattern.
That’s not true. Many male abusers play Nice Guys until they’ve got a woman “trapped” – then out comes Mr. Hyde, and the terrorizing begins. A rational, intelligent woman may agree with her Nice Guy that she will stay at home with the kids, only to later find herself married to/partnered with a different person – an emotional terrorist who controls and isolates her not through what he does (which would be prosecutable) as what he indicates he might do by showing he doesn’t regard her as anymore human than the coffee table.
At any rate, temporary or not, the arrangement can prevent people from interacting on an equal basis.
It’s important to realize, though, that the only reason this prevents people from interacting equally is that we live in a society that values the working spouse’s job, no matter how superfluous it is or how psychopathic is the company he does it for, and denigrates the (often much harder) work of a spouse who brings up a child to be an adult we’re not scared to share the planet with.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Well, I signed onto this blog to learn and I am. Among other things, I am learning that taking shortcuts while writing does not work very well.
I agree with you entirely.
Jim(Quote) (Reply)
Believe me, I keep learning that one myself almost daily.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
The unpaid labour of women makes the world function. This has always been the case.
Ginny James(Quote) (Reply)
Teacher’s salaries can range a lot by state and region. I know that my mother makes a lot more than that, but it isn’t considered that much money for the region she lives in (also she’s been teaching for nearly 30 years, which adds to it).
With a kid on the way, I’ve called around for childcare and I’ve found the cost ranging from $600-$980/month. Not easy to afford at all. If we had two, childcare would be very close to my husband’s or my salary (we make close to equal).
amymccabe(Quote) (Reply)
$39k a year sounds like a pretty high-end salary for a teacher – so how’s this book talking about living on “a teacher’s salary”, when many won’t be earning that?
Furthermore, “stays at home with the kids”: I presume that means they’re not at school yet? What happens when they are? Kids cost more money as they get older. Has he factored that in, or will that involve the mother working (at which point you’re not surviving just on his teacher’s salary and that defeats his point)?
Charles RB(Quote) (Reply)
According to the comments on the Amazon link, he doesn’t survive on 40k a year anyway – his wife apparently worked for most of the period covered in the book, they tutor on the side, they receive disability payments and gifts from relatives, etc.
But “how to survive on 80k a year” isn’t as catchy a title.
Fiona(Quote) (Reply)
The unpaid labour of women makes the world function. This has always been the case.
Unpaid labor in general makes the world function. In particular, I tend to notice a lot of unpaid child labor and labor-by-relatives helping families thrive. Not to take away from that point, but it’s not just women being undervalued.
@Fiona: How are they getting disability?? Isn’t it illegal to continue to work while getting paid disability?
I could see “getting a side job” as a tip for an established teacher, but for a new teacher, or someone whose job doesn’t allow for extra hours like that, or someone who is a single parent/supporter of the household, it’s not going to work out. Gifts from relatives help out, but if that’s worked into your budget, UR DOIN IT WRONG.
nijireiki(Quote) (Reply)
“But “how to survive on 80k a year” isn’t as catchy a title.”
It’d be a lot shorter too!
re the disability: the comment, allegedly based on what’s in the book, says they were collecting disability when one of them wasn’t working. Which isn’t that damning – it’s what disability payments are for – unless you’re claiming you can survive on a teacher’s salary only.
And what’s really damning is “At one point, Danny leaves teaching altogether for a more lucrative job selling flooring”. That goes against the whole point of the book!
Charles RB(Quote) (Reply)
Re: unpaid labor — Um, slavery.
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
@Maria: WOOOOORD. But I didn’t want to be the one to possibly start up a Godwin’s Law-style flamefest.
nijireiki(Quote) (Reply)
@Nijireiki — no worries. But all’s I’m saying is that we all voted on unpaid labor and we agreed it’s bad. Sooooooo dismissing it as historically inevitable (when it never ever has been) is stupid and not critically useful.
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
Forty thousand dollars a year and one paycheck? That’s middle class. So?
I want to see a book by somebody who fell through the cracks by being unemployed “too long” and managed to live a decent life. Incidentally, I saw the beginning of the argument that led to this nasty situation in a back issue of Good Housekeeping from 1911. The article profiles the (then) new subsidized day cares for infants and preschoolers and points out that the single moms who worked full time outside their homes also had to be full-time homemakers after hours instead of sleeping or otherwise taking care of themselves. Why not, the article asks, pay them to stay home and take care of their own kids instead of throwing the burden of raising future citizens on charities and the state? Because the authorities who could set up such “widows’ pensions” were afraid of “pauperizing” the women–making them dependent on aid.
A hundred years later, we have how many people sinking out of official sight every month in the name of keeping them independent? Wasn’t it up in the tens of thousands as of late last year? What happens to them?
Back on topic: If I were as lucky as the guy who wrote that book, I wouldn’t crow. As a matter of fact, I am that lucky. If you count his and his wife’s side jobs, they make about what my family makes with one main paycheck (his) and some extremely part-time work (mine). And we are solidly middle class. We live in one of the most expensive states in the U.S. as far as groceries go, but you wouldn’t believe how low our mortgage is, so it balances out. Our big “struggle” is not taking on any credit card debt in the name of convenience or to buy frills that don’t affect our morale. For this we should get a book deal?
Jenny Islander(Quote) (Reply)
Forty thousand dollars a year and one paycheck? That�s middle class. So?
I wondered about this. In Los Angeles, it WOULD be a challenge to raise kids on that salary. *Everything* is hella overpriced, with rent/mortgage being ridiculous even now. It looks like this book is pitched strictly at people in coastal cities who’ve lost their jobs or had huge pay cuts or something. But even those people had better have a spouse who can stay home with the kids, or they won’t make it on his tips.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Put this book in the same class as Scratch Beginnings by Adam Shepard.
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
My family lives on much less that $40K, and we have 4 children. I stayed home with the children for 6 years until my husband lost his job, now we have reversed roles. We have done this to be more economical, daycare alone would have cost us more each month than we could have made.
Pandora(Quote) (Reply)
And where will she be getting the $40K if hubby dies, leaves, loses his job or is disabled and cannot work?
SayBlade(Quote) (Reply)
I don’t understand the point of this article. I’m sorry–call me crazy, but if his wife is doing this extra home labor for “free,” then she’s doing it for…free. Sorry, end of story!!
If his family is living on $40k/year, then because she stays at home that doesn’t mean they are actually living on $40k + another salary–because there is no other salary. If anything, he’s living on half (or less) of his $40k/year and his wife and kids are living on the rest.
Obviously, if the work was outsourced it would cost money–but if it was outsourced to someone who would do it for free it would NOT COST MONEY.
LIL(Quote) (Reply)
Lil, you’re not crazy, you’ve just missed the entire point, which was clearly presented in the argument. Everything you’re confused about was addressed. Perhaps a re-read would make it more clear, because I honestly can’t think of another way to phrase it.
Perhaps you might also want to google “bartered services IRS” to discover how the IRS instructs you to declare the market value of any free services you receive as earned income. While this law is traditionally overlooked in cases of family providing free services, it still makes my point: technically, this guy’s family is living on $40k plus the market value of the services the wife provides, the way the IRS looks at it.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Ok.
Except…not. See above statement.
LIL(Quote) (Reply)
Here’s what I really don’t understand. You say that he’s not living on $40k/year, because his living situation is more fortunate than other people’s living situations. Which is true. That doesn’t mean that he’s not living on $40k/year, it means that he’s doing something a lot of people might not be able to do…fine. Yes, he has a stay-at-home wife, so he has an advantage to all the people who do not have stay-at-home wives. Yes, he has a job where he gets 3 months off, during which he can do various things to increase his income–other people may or may not have this. However, he’s writing the book from his point of view, as a teacher-with-a-stay-at-home-wife. Not from his point of view as an immigrant worker with six children and no spouse.
So, SRSLY.
That said, regarding your earlier comment (about his living on $40k + her income, according to the IRS). It makes no sense. The IRS does traditionally overlook free services provided by family members, therefore they do not have to declare her “income.” So, according to the IRS, TECHNICALLY the family is living on $40k/year.
That said, if they were required to report her income as taxable…that would mean more taxes for them and…then they would be living on even less per year.
LIL(Quote) (Reply)
Understanding the points in this discussion requires reading BOTH the lines and between the lines.
1. The IRS does not recognize the contributions of stay-at-home mothers (or fathers) as taxable. Whew!
2. It is possible for people to lose sight of the contributions of stay-at-home wives, not even recognizing the ability to have a “normal” home life by dint of those contributions.
3. It is possible for women to be trapped in the stay-at-home situation after they have “bargained” for support with their earning husbands. Situations can change, love can be lost, husbands can become abusive, etc.
4. Women that do not share as “equal” partners in some real sense (sometimes monetary, sometimes not) can end up in very disadvantageous circumstances.
5. People who write this kind of book should think a little bit about other perspectives and recognize all contributions.
6. This discussion is about changing your perspective so that you can see things in another light.
I am sure I have missed some ideas, but the discussion is maybe not about the literal “truth” of the IRS code.
Jim(Quote) (Reply)
Piggy backing:
From what I understand, it’s also to your tax advantage if you’re in a couple and one partner makes substantially less than you.
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
Lil, you’re not even reading my comments correctly. I never said anything about her “income.” I said “the market value of her services.”
However, he’s writing the book from his point of view, as a teacher-with-a-stay-at-home-wife.
No, he’s writing a book to persuade people that ANYONE can live on that salary. That’s what the title implies. If he meant “A teacher with a stay at home partner can live on this” he should’ve titled it like that.
Tell me – SRSLY – you wouldn’t roll your eyes and laugh if I wrote a book called “You can live on $X” and you read it, and one of the first things you discovered about me was that I lucked into free housing somehow and therefore have no rent or mortgage payment every month. Only I don’t even offer that as a tip – I don’t say “Get free housing from the government or relatives if at all possible.” I just seem to have assumed everyone can live rent/mortgage free. You’d think I was completely clueless to my good fortune and therefore not worth listening to, right?
That is analogous to what this guy’s doing. A stay at home partner provides a tremendous financial value to him, but he’s oblivious to its monetary value. The role of a SAH partner needs to be appreciated and taken seriously rather than for granted. It should not be thought of as “normal” for people to have a family member who functions as several kinds of tradespeople providing valuable services. It should be thought of as “fortunate.”
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Did not read the book. Did not see the interview. Did read your review of the interview and I agree with your basic point about the market value of the services that a wife or stay-home parent/partner provides.
However: wife-servant? Really? I GLADLY stay home, homeschool the kids, manage the lion’s share of the housework, bills, pet-care, and bring in a bit of supplemental side income to boot. My husband works HARD for the LA public school system as a Special Ed teacher for severely disabled, medically fragile children. We work about an 80/20 split in which he brings in most of the income and I do most of everything else.
Our arrangement is mutually consensual and on many days I feel like I have the better end of the bargain. Neither one of us would ever refer to me as a “wife-servant” and I’m surprised that you refer to the author’s wife as such here.
sasha(Quote) (Reply)
Why wouldn’t you use that term? Why do you find it insulting? Because it implies a power dichotomy that you don’t believe exists in your relationship? I got news for you: there IS a power dichotomy. It’s a calculated risk for most women these days, thank goodness, and sometimes it’s the men taking the risk. But the fact is, if the partner earning cash decides to screw the other partner in divorce proceedings, guess what the other partner’s situation is? Penniless and unable to hire a lawyer. If the earning spouse decides to turn abusive (or the non-earning spouse realizes they’ve been the victim of emotional abuse for years and wants out), the non-earning spouse is in a very bad position for getting out of the marriage with any kind of compensation for his/her training for the work force or taking care of the kids financially.
I don’t consider the term “servant” insulting, perhaps because I grew up in a class that was more likely to become a servant than to employ one.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I’ve been employed as what could aptly be described as “servant” many times…from midnight janitor scrubbing toilets to underpaid “wage slave.” However “servant” is not a part of my current job title, and I reserve the right to state that for myself, just as you enjoy the right to label non-wage-earning spouses as you see fit. I disagree with your opinion and verbiage, but have at it – it’s your column.
Both my husband’s and my own contributions are mutually valued. As I pointed out above, our arrangement is consensual. We also find it mutually beneficial as well as in the best interests of our offspring. Neither one of us is subservient to the other, which is the first connotation that leaps to mind when I read “wife-servant.”
There is risk inherent in almost any action, and certainly in any relationship based on trust. I don’t deny that power dichotomies are also inherent in human relationships, but the sword cuts both ways…courts routinely discriminate in favor of women when it comes to child custody issues. I trust that my husband won’t “decide to turn abusive” and he trusts that I won’t take off with our kids.
“Penniless and unable to hire a lawyer” might apply in some parts of the country if the wage-earning partner “decides to screw the other partner” but here in our community property state it matters little which of us does the wage earning and which of us does the non-compensated work. If my husband and I decided to split we’d also be splitting our debts and assets right down the middle. However in our case we’re penniless already…we choose to live our lives the way we do because we value having an at-home parent with the kids and spending time together over time spent chasing money.
sasha(Quote) (Reply)
“Penniless and unable to hire a lawyer” might apply in some parts of the country if the wage-earning partner “decides to screw the other partner” but here in our community property state
So, you just dismiss “some parts of the country” as irrelevant to the discussion because they’re not big important coastal cities. Nice! That’s your prerogative, of course, but I write for a slightly larger audience than “city folk of the U.S.”
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
You know what the real problem is? None of the comments in this conversation let me get a full row on my anti-feminist bingo card.
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
LOL, Maria, I feel for you. There are a few in the spam-hole that might help you fill it out, though.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I don’t mean to be dismissive, just to speak up for myself. I did not say that any part of the country or that anyone else is irrelevant. I’m just standing up to be counted as a wife and partner, not a wife-servant, and attempting to point out that your “what if the wage earning partner decides” scenarios may not apply to everyone. Hopefully most of us are married to better people in the first place. I for one am happy not to be governed in my marriage or my daily life by “what if” thinking…if it makes you feel safer then by all means carry on, and I’ll continue to forge ahead in my risky marriage!
sasha(Quote) (Reply)
Sasha is confused about why the above comment didn’t make it through moderation, so I let it through so the explanation could be public.
I for one am happy not to be governed in my marriage or my daily life by “what if” thinking…if it makes you feel safer then by all means carry on.
We don’t have a rule that explicitly states “don’t try to psychoanalyze the other person” because anyone who has any manners at all should recognize how aggressive and rude that is. That’s why we simply reserve the right not to post comments we don’t feel are adding to the conversation.
And you’re letting your California elitism show through. You are indeed dismissing women in parts of the country who have been brought up to believe a man will “take care of them” and will learn the hard way just how much “servitude” they’re in for.
And yes, Sasha, we are done talking to you because you aren’t adding anything useful – just wounded indignation at accuracy.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
It looked more to me like she felt insulted you were saying “YOU are subserviant and unequal in YOUR relationship and just don’t realise”, which turns it from hypothetical debate into a jab at a specific person. That’s going to piss people off.
Charles RB(Quote) (Reply)
Annnnd not everything on the internet is directed towards one particular person. Sometimes, when you analyze power structures, shit hits a little close to home, and your job as a critical thinker/reader is to remember that it’s not personal… it’s analytical.
Plus, like one of my favorite mentors always says… if you have an opinion or a knee jerk response to an analysis of power, pause for a moment and think about how your opinion/thought/emotion serves you in the context of your daily life. How is it useful? What’s it doing for you? What is this response not allowing you to think about? What’s it forcing you to confront?
It’s a really useful excercise on why sometimes your personal experiences are educational but not in the way you initially think you are.
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
“YOU are subserviant and unequal in YOUR relationship and just don’t realise”, which turns it from hypothetical debate into a jab at a specific person.
But that’s not what I said. I said marriage is designed to create that power dichotomy, and the fact that some people have found a way to make the traditional roles work in a more healthy way doesn’t alter what it actually is, at base.
And it doesn’t help the majority of people see past the Tradition Usually Works propaganda that makes us assume choices have already been made for us by people who know better, only to find out there’s no one there for us when it all goes pear-shaped for whatever reason.
Also, due to an html error, part of my comment above wasn’t showing. Rather a big part.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Considering how my father made less than $10,000 last year and we got foreclosed on and had to move into a decrepit rental up the block, my family* would be shitting ourselves with joy if he made a steady $40k a year (*mom, dad, two kids and three dogs).
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
It is though, how it came across. As a stay at home mom, I admit I was initially insulted too, but I’ve been reading your blog long enough that I’m fairly confident that it isn’t what you intended to convey.
Strong women can get into abusive relationships, just as stay at home moms can be servants rather than partners. But that isn’t to say all relationships are going to end up abusive and that all stay at home moms are servants who are unappreciated and will be totally screwed when their husband inevitably leaves them for a younger model or starts beating them.
But since we stay at home moms get that assumed about us a lot, we are perhaps over sensitive about such. It’s like the folks who assume because I’m a stay at home mom I’m also a Palin supporter, tea-party member, Christian, Republican, misogynist, etc… After a while, it gets old and we get defensive.
GardenGoblin(Quote) (Reply)
Yeah, um.
In a system where a woman still makes two-thirds of what a man makes for the same work at the same job, and sometimes more work at the same job, with the addition of the second shift at home and the third beauty shift …?
Not so hard to believe after all, maybe.
littlem(Quote) (Reply)
This Jim guy sucks, his comment(s) reek of oblivious male privilege.
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
Casey, remember the rule about criticizing arguments, not the people making them?
This comment was posted before we had nested replies, so there is some discussion down thread about it. Yes, there’s a lot of privilege in this comment. But we all have privilege we haven’t overcome yet. Doesn’t mean we all “suck.”
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Argh, I’m sorry. >__<VV)
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
{ 1 trackback }