Dual Income Necessity


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Dual Income Necessity

Dual Income Necessity
EnglishProf
Contributor
EnglishProf

The fact is most women don’t have the option to not be career women. Most families need a dual income just to survive, especially if they need to meet financial goals (for example, rent/mortgage, high gas prices, student loans, medical expenses, college funds, IRAs, etc.).

And in case you think that dual income families only need the second income to pay for extravegancies: my husband and I need two incomes to make ends meet. We both work in education where salaries are not very high, but we like what we do. We rent a two-bedroom while we save for a modest house; we only have one car and we commute together to work; we only commute 10 minutes to work so gas prices are lower; we cook meals from scratch using ingredients like lentils, beans, and veggies; we rarely eat out; we rarely take vacations; we pay cash for just about everything. We are also paying down our student loans and saving voraciously for things like kids, home, retirement. We could not make it on his income alone.

Observe a lot of the new immigrants to this country–look at how hard all members of the family work to carve out a decent existence–dad, mom, even the kids. Hey, Mr. Noer–why not visit your local Chinese or Indian corner grocery store to see what I am talking about it. There are tons of them within walking distance of the Forbes building on 5th Av. near 13th St.

A lot of the recent articles about working moms vs stay-at-home moms have been frustrating to me. (Ok, I don’t have the specifics–but they have been in Time, Newsweek, etc). The reporters often interview highly educated career women in their lush Victorian homes in the Northeast who have quit lucrative jobs to stay home with the kids. Of course, the articles never mention that the husbands often work in finance or law and make well into the six figures. Of course these women have the luxury of staying home. Most women don’t have that luxury, and most women don’t resent it–they enjoy contributing to the community at large through their work while also contributing to the family’s income.

I feel that Mr. Noer is writing from the priviledged context of white, upper-middle class, materialistic, high-flying New York City. Things just don’t work that way in other contexts.

08-25-2006 10:31 AM

Re: Dual Income Necessity
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
You can thank Feminism for the “Dual Income Necessity”.
Feminism told you to be a man and spend your life working.

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

08-25-2006 10:35 AM

Re: Dual Income Necessity
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

It makes me crazy how most of the rhetoric on this subject seems to take it for granted that women who work and women who stay home are all “choosing” to do so for personal reasons. Thank you for bringing this up. Notice that Noer’s definition of “career woman” is pretty broad (no pun intended). Only the college degree eliminates more than a handful of middle-class women.

08-25-2006 10:45 AM

Re: Dual Income Necessity
yohan
Contributor
yohan

<englishprof
The reporters often interview highly educated career women in their lush Victorian homes in the Northeast who have quit lucrative jobs to stay home with the kids. Of course, the articles never mention that the husbands often work in finance or law and make well into the six figures. Of course these women have the luxury of staying home.
…..
I feel that Mr. Noer is writing from the priviledged context of white, upper-middle class, materialistic, high-flying New York City. Things just don’t work that way in other contexts.>

What you are writing here is a good description of what feminism is…

Yes, feminism is an ideology for high or middle class, mainly Caucasian women, who are financially well-off and who are far away from being called ‘helpless’.

Feminism does not benefit all women…

A Latina housemaid in USA or a Filipina nanny in Europa is doing usually these ‘difficult’ housekeeping jobs for rich feminists – they receive small pay, have a lot of work all time and no advantage is seen if the employer calls herself a feminist.

08-25-2006 10:47 AM

Re: Dual Income Necessity
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

You can thank Feminism for the “Dual Income Necessity”.
Feminism told you to be a man and spend your life working.

Go look into the demographics of factory workers during the industrial era. Also, go to the nearest low income, predominantly black neighborhood and ask the first elderly woman you see how much she enjoyed all that sitting at home minding her house and children that she must’ve gotten to do before the women’s movement. Most of the world is not and has never been white and middle/upper class, sweetie.

08-25-2006 10:51 AM

Re: Dual Income Necessity
EnglishProf
Contributor
EnglishProf

This is an old, tired, and fallacious argument. Go back to college and take a course in basic logic.

First of all, how are you defining feminism? I would recommend going back to John Stuart Mill’s “On the Subjection of Women” and reading forward from there. You will see how “feminism” has been evolving for several hundred years. Even the feminism of today is different than that of the 70s and 80s. People who wish to bash feminism or “women’s rights” need to do their homework first before they are knowledgable enough to argue.

Second, are you saying that “working” = “being like a man”? How are you defining work? What about men who stay home, or women who stay home, or white collar vs. blue collar? If one parent can stay home–great! I am merely asserting that a dual income is necessary for most families. I don’t judge someone’s decision to what is best for them and their family.

Feminism didn’t create the “dual income necessity.” What has created it is the following: inflation vs. stagnant wages, higher insurance premiums and cost of medical care, higher college tuiltions, inflated home prices, rampent materialism and consumerism which has led to high-interest credit card debt . . . and the list goes on. IT IS A SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PROBLEM, NOT A WOMAN PROBLEM!

08-25-2006 10:53 AM

Re: Dual Income Necessity
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
Fact is, the huge influx of extra workers (women) into the workfoce is precisely what depressed real wages or at best kept them stagnant for decades. This is feminism’s fault – now both parents must generally work, whereas previously one could go out to earn money while the other looked after the family.

Of course today the concept of family has been debased by none other than feminists. In true Gramscian/communist style they destroyed a stable social order while paying no attention at all to the consequence of this.

The consequence is of course chaos. Western society as it existed prior to feminism was an amalgamation of hundreds of years of social optimizations which overall increased the efficiency at which society operated based on certain innate characteristics of its citizens (men and women). These optimizations have been almost completely negated by marxist feminists at this point.

Make no mistake: what will follow is chaos in the short term and tyranny beyond that. You cannot arbitrarily devise a set of artificial rules, impose them on society, and expect them to work. Given time, the law of unintended consequences ensures with 100% accuracy that feminist ideology will eventually go down the same path as Lysenkoism.

Message Edited by Antiriad on 08-25-2006 10:57 AM

08-25-2006 10:55 AM

Re: Dual Income Necessity
EnglishProf
Contributor
EnglishProf

I like yohan’s points, and my husband and I were just talking about this recently. I have been very disenchanted with a lot of discussions about “feminism” recently, because I feel that only upper-class women have the luxury of even having the discussion. I can remember living in NYC and seeing the black and Hispanic nannies pushing around baby carriages in Central Park East–caring for the triplets born to women lawyers who had gone back to work immediately after giving birth. The nannies probably had a house full of kids of their own–in a not-so-nice section of Harlem or the Bronx. Do we call these nannies “career women”? You bet we do. And their income in necessary for their families’ survival.

08-25-2006 11:00 AM

Re: Dual Income Necessity
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Yes, feminism is an ideology for high or middle class, mainly Caucasian women, who are financially well-off and who are far away from being called ‘helpless’.

This is a valid critique of the feminist movement. However, it’s constantly being addressed within the movement, and improvements have been and continue to be made in this respect. What steps have the detractors of the feminist movement made to rectify this mistake and help women and men of the “lower” class? If you would criticize feminists for this, tell us how you’ve done better.

08-25-2006 11:00 AM

Re: Dual Income Necessity
KLM71
Visitor
KLM71
Feminism is just wanting to be treated equal to men. There is no scary agenda. And the perfect family of the 1950s was short lived and a delusion. My mother grew up in the 50s and it was not all mom making cookies and dad coming home from work with a smile on his face. In her town people were out of work and self medicating themselves with alcohol.

08-25-2006 11:05 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Dual Income Necessity

Re: Dual Income Necessity
EnglishProf
Contributor
EnglishProf

Antiriad writes:

“Western society as it existed prior to feminism was an amalgamation of hundreds of years of social optimizations which overall increased the efficiency at which society operated based on certain innate characteristics of its citizens (men and women).”

Okay–but look at how the nature of “work” changed dramatically in the mid-20th century. At least in industrialized societies, technology began to do the work of men, so more men began working in “white collar” jobs. Home innovations (dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, frozen foods, washing machies, even automobiles) changed the nature of work around the house–so that a woman could take care of things in a fraction of the time it took previous generations of women. Because home work was not quite as work intensive or fulfilling, women sought out other things to occupy their time and use their talents. So, suddenly, those “social optimizations” aren’t so optimal any more as the nature of both domestic work and industrial work have changed.

I have seen two major arguements as to “why” this happened: one follows my argument above and points to social forces and technological advances; the other sees things in terms of the relativism of post-modern ideology that subverted traditional hierarchies based often on socio-religious assumptions/beliefs.

08-25-2006 11:09 AM

Re: Dual Income Necessity
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
So rather than start their own companies, run their own businesses, and basically create their own realm of tasts, feminists saw it fit to usurp what men had built up through their own hard work?

If women were keen on intellectual development, then tell me – why is it that they were disinterested in coming up with these on their own? Why is it that even today all the major technological innovations (Internet, WWW, ebay, google, etc.) are all devised by men? Don’t even claim discrimination, because in 2006 when more women graduate from college than men, that is a totally bogus cop-out.

Feminism fabricated a new social system based on nothing but lies and falsifications and then attached “reasons” to them. This doesn’t mean they were ever created out of optimality or necessity.

Women never chose intellectual development of their own volition; they merely kept taking more and more free handouts (free to them, but at an escalating cost to society) handed to them by feminists.

08-25-2006 11:37 AM

Re: Dual Income Necessity
VPat33
Visitor
VPat33

Dual income is a necessity in many areas of the country. People who don’t have outrageous property taxes, state income taxes or above-average prices for fuel may not realize just how expensive it is to live in many places. The recent housing boom drove the prices of properties in these areas so high, that even a small 2BR house in need of great repair can be $1 million in some states.

And I look at it this way – I am not a spoiled upper-middle class woman. I was raised on very modest means. And I worked my way through college waiting tables to pay for tuition and bills. It’s difficult to carry a 20-hr class load, make straight A’s, and work 40+ difficult hours per week in smoke and germ-filled restaurants. But I did it. And upon graduating, I could either take a job making $8/hr or making $50k year. Which would you choose? Why work the same hours for less money? If you have to work, make the most of it. And that makes me a terrible wife? I am happy that I can contribute to a stable and fulfilling quality of life for me and my husband.

08-25-2006 12:32 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: