I came across this article on the net today (even though it's a bit old) and found it alarming. The way I read it, it basically contains a detailed, step by step plan for eradicating the traditional/nuclear family.
Also, I found some of the stated goals of attaining more money, power, and honor as particularly shallow.
Like some people, I've been concerned about various effects of society on the family. However, it never occured to me that there were people out there who made this their goal. Is this disturbing to anyone else?
P.S. I think she wrote the article in response to the NY Times article about more women with degrees choosing to have families. To the author, 'choice feminism' is dangerous. Now how weird is that?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't know... I was very skeptical through most of the article, but she made some very good points.
Personally, I find the working world dreary. I would much rather be at home making a home, doing crafts, and baking. But I have to work. At this crappy low-paying job. I don't think I'm doing much for women here.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Not as weird as being disturbed by an obviously minority view. Nor as dangerous as implying that attaining more money, power, and honor is a laudable goal for men, yet shallow for women.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
We've traded a structural discrimination against women for a sociological one.
It's almost as though a woman today has to choose between being successful and having a family. If she chooses to have a career, then she's seen as cold and without the traditionally feminine virtue of being nurturing. If she chooses to stay at home with her family, she's seen as regressive. "Choice" feminism really isn't feminism at all.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
It's not particularly obvious to me that it's a minority view. I've heard lots of rumblings about this and read the NYT article she used as her catch. Lots of people are listening, which means lots of people must at least find the idea worth thinking about.
Second, I don't think BQT implied anything of the sort. Her focus on money, power and honor (one of these things is not like the other) was utterly repugnant to me as a man. When she infrequently referenced men in the article, their choices and views, I found them to be completely foreign to me. I think the author lives in a shallow mental world, populated shallowly on both sides of the gender divide. I see no other way of explaining her inexplicable tirade about feminism's failure.
On a side note, what very good points do you think she made, Katarain?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Whereas I'm upset at the feminist movement for making it socially unacceptable for me to be a stay at home mother.
Isn't strange how what you want affects your perceptions?
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I was particularly offended by this statement:
quote:Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, “A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.”
She is implying that if we choose to stay home we are ignorant. Frankly her views are quite disturbing. She came across as someone who thinks that those of us who choose to stay home need to be saved else we ruin society. I have to wonder what kind of society does she want? History has show that stable families create stable societies. I'm not so sure her viewpoints would create stable families.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I'm not so sure her viewpoints would create unstable families.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
This is what is strange. I've been around America, and no where have I seen people look down at stay at home moms. Gold-diggers, on the other hand, are often the objects of scorn, but who is this who derides stay at home parents, because I simply haven't seen it. And I look. Is it other women? Because I don't think that's it's the men.
Now I have seen claims against uneducated parents. I've hurled invectives against uneducated parents. But by and large, there is a large well-spring of support for educated stay at home moms, poverty is what keeps both parents working, a parent at home is a welcome option if that is what the mother wants and the family can afford.
[ March 09, 2006, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I agree with Irami. Maybe it was my suburban upbringing, but if anything women who left their children with daycare after school were the ones who were scorned and socially ostracized.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Well, I'm gonna have to look at it again...
This part:
quote:There are three rules: Prepare yourself to qualify for good work, treat work seriously, and don’t put yourself in a position of unequal resources when you marry.
I think those basically are good rules, but I probably think they're good rules for very different reasons.
1. A woman needs to prepare herself for quality work because she can never really know what's going to happen in life. She may never find someone to marry, her husband might die or lose his job, or she might someday get divorced. (EDIT: Or she may CHOOSE to never marry.) In all those situations, she'll probably need to get a good job.
2. A woman should treat work seriously, basically for the same reasons above.
3. Don’t put yourself in a position of unequal resources when you marry. Well, okay, this one I don't quite agree with. In fact, even in her article she suggests that women marry down, or at least not with someone in an equal place in their career, as when job and home life gets difficult and busy, usually the woman gives up her career. So I'm not really sure why this is one of her rules at all. I don't agree with this one because I'm a romantic, and I think you should marry someone you love and are compatible with, mostly not considering profession.
So, the first two I think are good rules.
I personally liked her little part about not knowing where the butter is, and the fact that when women marry, they typically do MORE housework, and men typically do LESS than they used to. I hate that. I can relate on a surfacy level, but not really on a personal one.
And I can see her point about how these "elite" women need to be in positions of power as examples for the rest of us and to be in positions of influence for change. I don't, however, think that they necessarily need to be rich women, and and can simply be capable, intelligent women. (Maybe she wasn't inferring rich, but it felt like it.) I don't think they need to be forced into it, though. I am still all for choice, simply because I'm going to do what I want to do (as is possible) and not pay heed to any feminist agenda. And I don't think any woman should--unless she wants to.
I honestly want to be a stay-at-home mom and homemaker. But I also want to pursue writing and other of my interests while I'm at home. Really, I find it a little selfish that men are expected to do all of the hard work to support a family. Most of the people I know aren't going to executive jobs, men or women... and most of them don't have the luxury of one of them staying home. So it really is hard work for them.
So why should I GET to stay home? Well, I believe that women ARE typically better suited for nurturing and raising a family. If this puts feminism behind decades, I'm sorry... but that's what I believe. My husband wants us both to stay home, actually, with both of us working from home. That'd be nice. But we don't want money... we want security and privacy.
In other words, what we want is a very private thing, and I'm not willing to give that up to further the feminist cause. I think many of the feminist goals are worthy ones, but I think women like the one who wrote that article, need to understand that maybe many women really do WANT to be in the home, and instead of trying to change that desire or say its simply social conditioning, maybe they just need to accept it.
I'm all over the place, I know. It's hard for me to explain my views on feminism. I value traditionalism, but I also don't want to be oppressed. I don't want women to feel trapped at home, but I also want the children to be nurtured. And while I want the children to be nurtured, I also don't think that each generation is on the earth SIMPLY to nurture the next one. There has got to be something more to give us purpose.
To go further into my own desires... since I doubt we will ever be wealthy enough to just be at home all the time, I want to stay at home until all of my children reach 5 years old, or school age. Then I want a job that ends when school does preferably, or at 5.
-K
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
This article had me thinking until this part:
quote: What better sample, I thought, than the brilliantly educated and accomplished brides of the “Sunday Styles,” circa 1996?
Then it had me rolling on the floor with laughter. I don't think I'd use the Sunday Styles as a basis of anything that has to do with common trends. And, I don't much care having the notion "If I can find enough anecdotes, it proves my case" beat into my head quite that many times. At least the census figures were brought out and disucssed I suppose. Or glossed over at least.
In all honesty, should I (a male) happen to marry a woman who could comfortably support a family, I don't think I would have any problems being a stay at home dad or only working part time (from home or at an office). I think part of the equality movement is that I'd even consider that acceptable, so there has been some progress.
I find this to be a fine opinion piece. It should simply be taken with several grains of salt.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Not as weird as being disturbed by an obviously minority view. Nor as dangerous as implying that attaining more money, power, and honor is a laudable goal for men, yet shallow for women.
aspectre, I really don't appreciate you misconstruing my statements. You seem to do this to many people, I don't know if you think you're scoring points or what, but it is childish.
I did not imply that money, power, and honor was only for men. I think a worldview (of a man or woman) that puts money, power, and the honors of the world (for a man or a woman) as their highest goals & ideals (for a man or a woman) is a particularly shallow (man or woman). Is that sufficiently clear?
As for an obvious minority view, I have two responses. One, I don't think the view is as in the minority as you derisively imply. Two, every change to the status quo has come from something that was once a minority view.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I came across this article on the net today (even though it's a bit old) and found it alarming. The way I read it, it basically contains a detailed, step by step plan for eradicating the traditional/nuclear family.
It's ivory tower nuttiness. Don't give it more attention than it deserves.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I think of myself as a feminist, and this article offends me. My mother chose to be a stay-at-home mother because she wanted to have time to devote to being available to her children. I love how this is given out as feminism when actually she is denying the right of women to choose. It's insulting: a woman who chooses to stay at home with her children must necessarily be brainwashed by society.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I agree with her to a point. I understand what she's saying, but I think she's taking things too far.
There is certainly an inequity in our society. While it's not wrong for a woman to choose to be a stay at home mom, it doesn't seem right for a woman to feel pressured by society to do so. It's not freedom if coercion is involved. I'm not saying that all women are brainwashed, just that there's certainly influence involved. Society expects women to be nurturing.
I mean, all you have to do is look at statistics from trials. Women who murder their children typically receive harsher sentences than men who commit the same crime. What does this stem from? Society's inclination to believe that it's more wrong for a woman to murder her children than for a man to because women are expected to be more nurturing. Is this fair? Of course not.
Posted by Mirrored Shades (Member # 8957) on :
I think the article has some good points, though she gets a bit too bossy in places. I don't agree with some of her points, and she could have worded some things more carefully. On the other hand, what she says about young women and liberal arts degrees certainly rings true. There is also a measure of truth in that society raises us to believe that for women, getting a job is a fallback plan, or something to do only if you want to, whereas for men it's something they grow up believing they'll need to do.
But -- having full societal equality will probably never happen, because most people want children -- and if there are children, someone is going to need to make time to spend with them. Biologically speaking, the woman is more likely to want to do this. The problems arise when people don't even question other structures, other options, and other possibilities.
Marry down, she said. Marry a liberal. Marry an old man, or a young one. My advice: marry someone you love and who loves you, talk it out together, an decide what works best for you as individuals. There are no hard and fast rules, and *that's* what the feminist revolution achieved, and keeps achieving.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:aspectre, I really don't appreciate you misconstruing my statements. You seem to do this to many people, I don't know if you think you're scoring points or what, but it is childish.
This is uncalled for, BQT.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I don't know if aspectre regularly miscontrues people, or even just BQT regularly, but s/he certainly did just then.
I think the problem with woman getting good careers as opposed to being stay-at-home-mums with husband as breadwinner, is prolonging their formal education too long. A lot of the educational paths that lead to the most high-paying salary jobs for men and women take so long that, by the time their into the workforce, if they want to make a name for themselves, they have to give up having children in the first place, or else retire to part-time or no work if they do.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I still think that both sides of this debate are making up an opposition. I have yet to see a person deride a woman's sense of social responsibility for staying home with the kids. The adult feminist movement is now, and really has alway been, chiefly concerned with equality, with respect to the work force, that means giving women the choice to pursue a career with the equivalent rewards and rigors as her male counterparts.
Apparently, it was more socially accepted for women to forgo education to raise children before the feminist movement. I've always believed that the mother part of stay at home mother commends a rigorous and classical education, but then again, I think that merely being a citizen in a democracy commends such an education, also.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I've been around America, and no where have I seen people look down at stay at home moms.
I've never met anybody that was against stay at home moms. However, I have met several women who say or do things that suggest they see themselves as superior to SAHMs for working and raising children. Similarly, I have also met stay at home mothers who act as though they're superior to mothers who put their children in day care/ have a nanny. I don't really think that either reaction is too suprising. Every woman with children makes a decision based on what they think is best. They're likely to see the option they rejected as being worse.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:However, I have met several women who say or do things that suggest they see themselves as superior to SAHMs for working and raising children. Similarly, I have also met stay at home mothers who act as though they're superior to mothers who put their children in day care/ have a nanny. I don't really think that either reaction is too suprising.
I agree. But I think neither position is anti-SAHM. I've seen doctors look down on nurses, and vice-versa, but both professions are pro-healthcare. *thinks* Maybe that analogy only muddled my argument.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
To clarify what I meant. I'm in a very serious relationship. We're not engaged or going to get married anytime soon, but it is a definate possibility and we've talked about our future together a lot. He's made it clear that while he will certainly respect and support me if I want to stay at home with our children, he would prefer I pursue a career.
Thinking about it, I think he mostly has a lot of trouble understanding how I could want to be a stay at home mom. He's very goal oriented and knows exactly what he wants to do and is willing to do whatever it takes to do it (engineering, and he's quite good at it, too). I'm not, I don't have the faintest clue what I want to do, and whatever my job is, I doubt it will be that important to me. I don't think that's easy for him to grok.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Crap. I feel like swearing. I *hate* what this article is saying. It is so demeaning and insulting.
quote: Their words conceal a crucial reality: the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism.
quote:the successful conservative cultural campaign to reinforce traditional gender roles
Why do I have to earn a paycheck to be worth something? What sort of message does this send?
Look. SOMEONE has to watch the kids. It might as well be one of their parents, and doggonit I *want* to do this! Who are they to tell me I shouldn't *want* that?
quote:What is going on? Most women hope to marry and have babies.
Too many women are stay-at-home-moms! Waaaaaa!
quote:they agree that the household is women’s work.
Oh, is that what they said? Or is that what you want to think they said?
Woman, if you don't want to be a mother, that is your perogative. But don't you *dare* think you speak for me. Newsflash. Maybe a lot of other women feel as I do. Quit pouting because you don't think enough people feel the same as you.
Why do you scorn staying home with children? Why do you think this is so worthless a thing to be doing?
quote:Prying women out of their traditional roles is not going to be easy.
Frak you! You aren't prying me out of anything!
quote:The preparation stage begins with college. It is shocking to think that girls cut off their options for a public life of work as early as college.
College is more than just preparation for a career. It is an education. Education has a far higher purpose than just "job-prep". It enriches you, makes you a better person.
There are other ways to acheive respect from the men that still seem to be ruling the world. Destroying the traditional family is not the answer, and I believe your efforts, if successful, will tear apart society. I can't prove it, and I don't blame you for disagreeing with me, but what you *are* doing is still wrongheaded.
The truth is, YOU want ME to be a working woman so that YOU can climb the career ladder more easily. You think that if more women follow this path, it will be easier for people like you to be accepted into positions of power and wealth.
So you would make women feel bad for desiring to stay and mother their children. You would have us believe that if we are not out there making money, we are not productive or valuable members of society. This is your own selfish agenda, not an altruistic mission to liberate the oppressed woman.
quote:The privileged brides of the Times -- and their husbands -- seem happy.
Duh. So leave us ALONE.
quote:We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society, and is widely imitated,
Where do you get off telling me what is good or bad for me? As for society, you are just plain wrong.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Woah.
*sends calming vibes*
I don't have time to write a full reply here but let me just say that I don't disagree with some of her points.
I find it frustrating that a gender inequality still exists because women are in a position where they have to choose to stay home/work full time or have to juggle kids/jobs in a way that most (not all! not all!) men don't.
This *doesn't* mean I look down on SAHM.
However I think: * Anyone who supports/argues for SAHM's should also argue for SAHD's, if that's what the couple wishes (ie, society should be geared towards a stay at home *parent*, not necessarily a mother) * We, as a society, need to re-evaulate the workplace so that for parents it isn't a family/career choice.
quote: The truth is, YOU want ME to be a working woman so that YOU can climb the career ladder more easily. You think that if more women follow this path, it will be easier for people like you to be accepted into positions of power and wealth.
Well, I don't. I do however want all women to have a choice - and a real, practical, liveable choice not a on-paper choice. And I think that may require more women fighting for that choice.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
Imogen, that's exactly what I'm saying. We need real choice. Any type of societal coercion (like the belief that women are more nurturing and should be stay at home moms) infringes upon our right to choose. The fact that women are no longer legally barred from education and high paying jobs does not mean that we have achieved equality.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
There is this job called housework and a separate job called child care. However, they are both jobs that, when hired out, pay low wages. When parents get babysitters for an evening out, they rarely hire people with college degrees at professional wages. They usually get a family member to do it for free, or else pay someone who is little older than a child herself (usually girls, sometimes boys) to watch the kids for the evening.
When people hire people to do housework, they rarely hire elite professionals at $150/hour to carry this out. No, we believe that is a job which someone paid minimum wage or lower can handle just fine.
Now, as everyone who has done either job knows, there actually is a lot to both, and they're rarely done well except by someone who really loves the family involved. They are jobs that matter a great deal to society and to families. But they are invisible jobs. Nobody even notices they're being done unless they aren't. They're low status jobs. Undocumented immigrants and the people with the least education in our society might be hired for these jobs, if they aren't done for free by family members.
At the end of a day of housework, when someone asks what I've done, I don't even feel I can count dishes, laundry, vacuuming, scrubbing surfaces, dusting, or sweeping, as something I've accomplished. After all, it all has to be done over again tomorrow or next week. It hasn't accomplished anything, I think to myself. I look forward to a day when some robot will do all of this for me, and wonder why we haven't automated these tasks more. This work simply isn't valued. And yet it's considered mainly my job, because I'm female. That is a bizarre thing to me.
As for married dynamics, I see in the families close to me that the major decisions about where in the country they will live, how they arrange their lives, when one spouse is the main breadwinner, they overwhelmingly choose in a way that's favorable to that spouse. That only makes sense. The family must have resources to live. The breadwinner (and occasionally that's the female) of course must be heard, otherwise the family resources may dwindle to nothing. It seems to happen a lot in my experience that the other spouse doesn't really get that much say in things. I hate to even think in terms of power where personal relationships are concerned, but there is undeniably a balance of power in all relationships, and when I look from the outside, it seems to me that the spouse who is the major breadwinner (when one makes much more than the other) is the one with most of the power. In other words, they live where he or she wants to live, the major life decisions of the family seem to follow or favor him or her.
I've also seen people stay in marriages where they were treated with little or no respect and consideration, only because they and their children would be in severe poverty if they left. Perhaps the other spouse was even capable of learning better, but would not because he or she couldn't be forced to.
I do think it is wise for everyone to be able to earn a good living for themselves. I don't think choosing a spouse or staying with a spouse because of money is a good thing to do. An equal partnership in marriage is highly desireable, and when there are huge differences between the two spouses' prospects were they to split up, then it skews the balance and makes an equal partnership much more difficult to accomplish.
All those things are true, and yet it's still a great thing when at least one but preferably both parents can be home with the children a lot. It's still a very important job, even though we as a society don't tend to value it. People will claim they value it, but when someone must be hired to pinch-hit or substitute in an emergency, they either get someone to do it for free, or else pay really low wages to unskilled labor to fill in.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Now, as everyone who has done either job knows, there actually is a lot to both, and they're rarely done well except by someone who really loves the family involved. They are jobs that matter a great deal to society and to families. But they are invisible jobs. Nobody even notices they're being done unless they aren't. They're low status jobs.
Would you describe paying bills, doing taxes, making home repairs, driving the family around, maintaining the car, mowing the lawn, and other male-stereotyped dirty work as high-status or high-paying?
If valuable work isn't being valued, I think the problem is with our values. And thus the solution is to value it more.
I will add, however, that child care responsibilities may not come with high wages, but that doesn't mean there are low qualifications for it. Actually, most parents trust few people to watch over their children - people they know pretty well. They might pay a stockbroker a ton to manage their money, but I suspect they wouldn't allow him to watch over their kids for a day, unless they happened to know him personally and trust him a good deal.
As to the way in which certain undervalued tasks almost always seem to fall to women while other undervalued tasks tend to go to the men, I don't think there should be a problem with that, itself. The problem arises when, because a certain task is often done by one gender, it becomes EXPECTED that an individual of that gender should do that task regardless of their preferences, and when that individual is pressured to do that task against their will. As far as I'm concerned, a relationship is fair when both parties respect one another's will equally. It's okay if most women stay at home because many women, for whatever reason, would prefer to stay home. It's not okay if most women stay at home because society pressures them into it against their will. In reality there is a mix of both, and individuals need to decide what they really prefer, and to distinguish that from what they are being pressured into doing by expectations.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Feminism should be about giving women CHOICES in life. If a woman CHOOSES to be a stay-at-home wife and mother, good for her. But she shouldn't feel pressured to do that. And if a woman CHOOSES to concentrate on her career, good for her. So long as she doesn't feel like if she chooses the other option, she's somehow less of a woman.
Edit to add: I think there's been a serious overcompesation/backlash in recent years. I've given this example before: my brother and I are two years apart and were raised in the same household. However, our views on relationships are completely different. In fact, in a lot of ways, I'm the stereotypical male, while he's the stereotypical female. I find this strange.
-pH
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote: We need real choice. Any type of societal coercion (like the belief that women are more nurturing and should be stay at home moms) infringes upon our right to choose. The fact that women are no longer legally barred from education and high paying jobs does not mean that we have achieved equality.
If I'm reading this article correctly, the author is advocating exactly the opposite societal coercion - instilling the belief that women isn't a woman unless she's working.
Edit - I've noticed several posters now say that it's ok to choose to be at home, as long as she doesn't feel forced. What about the opposite? It's ok to work, as long as she doesn't feel forced?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Swampjedi: That's pretty much my position. I plan to work, and I plan to work a lot. It caused a huge conflict with one of my exes because what he REALLY wanted was a stay-at-home wifey, which is where most of my sarcastic comments come from and not from any actual negative attitude towards stay-at-home wives and mothers.
-pH
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I have noticed something, and perhaps it is not intended, but I still have to comment on it. There is this huge emphasis on a woman having a choice, but a much lesser emphasis on a man having a choice. We say that men can be SAHD, but I still think that he has even less choice of what to do with his life. He has to be out there working, unless his wife chooses to work instead.
I know that it doesn't work that way in a lot of couples, they come to a compromise, but I'm talking about our emphasis as a society or whatever, where the woman has a CHOICE, but typically, the man has got to work.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. I'd cry a river, but it's not exactly worth it. It's not all that hard being a man, so I'm not going to whine about our "inequality."
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
*shrugs*
It's not all that hard being a woman. I like it.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I find it sad and humorous that some women (such as the author of the article) have become what they despised - cold, calculating, bloodthirsty, power hungry, workaholic men. As a man, I have to say that I'd want someone to shoot me if I ever became those things. "Live to work" just doesn't work for me. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote: I've been around America, and no where have I seen people look down at stay at home moms.
Sometimes it's hard to see something that doesn't directly affect you. Just as you would probably say I'm not qualified to speak to the types of racism that blacks endure in America because I'm white, I will say it's difficult for you to understand the pressures put on stay at home moms to stop "wasting themselves" and get back to productive work since you aren't one and haven't experienced it.
I can't tell you how many times I've been told by people that I'm "so smart" and "so gifted" why should I spend all my time at home?
Then there's always the "But what are you going to do when the kids go to school?" As if it's okay to be a SAHM with small kids, but once they're school age you shouldn't be there at home full time anymore.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
To follow up on Belle's post, I think this particular assessment is communicated more through tone, pauses, and body language than by specific words. Also, as she notes, it's the unstated assumptions -- even if someone doesn't flat out say to her "Only stupid women should be SAHMs, because they can't do anything else," the message is still underlying the stated comment.
I wonder if this has something to do with a more "female style" of communication, so to speak? Regardless of whether one buys into that characterization, I am sure myself that the message gets across pretty loud and clear.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I have yet to see a person deride a woman's sense of social responsibility for staying home with the kids.
You should read the article. The author did exactly that, deriding stay at home mothers (or, at least, "elite" stay at home mothers) for being socially irresponsible.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I've seen it, in college. Twice was it very memorable.
First, in my freshman seminar, we were discussing life plans. A woman told the group that she planned to finish her degree and go to graduate school, and the she planned to be a SAHM. The other women in the class were shocked and angry. They couldn't belive someone at such a liberal school didn't have a "raised consciousness." Emory isn't an ivy league school, but it is in the top 20 in the US.
Second, in the scholars group, a very similar situation occured. A very bright woman told the assembled scholars that she was going to law school, and planned to stay at home with her children (when she married and had them). The response was stronger than in the previous example. If I'm not mistaken, several feminist teachers joined in on the dogpile.
Both were very unpleasant.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
People should learn to mind their own business.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'll rescind my comment then. It's a shame that educated women feel pushed into the work place.
I read the article, and it seems that the easiest way to see and feel the presence of more women in the corridors of power-- and more women in these positions would be good for everybody-- is to encourage stay at home dads.
She said that while the public role for women has changed, the private one remains fixed. That seems an accurate statment, and a solution would be to support a culture that makes men more responsible at home.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yes. I agree completely, Irami.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I agree with Irami. Encouraging SAHDs more seems to be a good answer to real equality and real choice for both sexes.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Then we could have Mortal Kombat matches between SAHD and SAHM to see which one has to go out and bring home the bacon.
Seriously though, most Dad's I know would much rather stay at home with their kids than slave away for corporate America. Can the social structure handle these newly liberated men?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I was a SAHM for nearly 20 years, and for the past 5 years have been working as an epidemiologist. While I was never dogpiled on or otherwise made to feel less than others for being a SAHM, I am treated VERY differently now than I was then - in every social and business circumstance that you can name. I certainly understand why... but it still bothers me. I'm the same person I was before.
I never realized then how I was condescended to and treated like little more than a child. I was talked down to by everyone from pediatricians to school teachers to dental hygienists to grocery store checkers. It's not overt, but it's there. Although there's a lot of lip servic, our society does not have any respect for SAHMs.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
My mother said that when she had me and then almost immediately went to work pay the bills, she got an immense amount of flak from people questioning her decision, calling her a bad mother. Around the same time period, my mother in law got an immense amount of flak for choosing to staying home with her children, from people who told her she was lazy and wasting her education.
I think it's an interesting parallel because both women are roughly the same age, lived in the same area of the country, and both have the same college degree and eventually worked in the same profession. Both women got criticism from family, friends, and complete strangers. Both women said they got it worse from women than men.
I don't know what it is about this particular decision a woman makes (and sometimes economics makes the choice for her) that invites the whole world to comment and pass judgement. People just can't seem to mind their own business on this one.
Do you guys think this venom and getting in other people's business on this issue stems from society's inherent interest in the well-being of children? How many times have we heard "but think of the children?" I know I've thought on occasion "I can't believe that school is going to focus on X instead of Y" and I don't even have children, much less school-aged children. What do I care what the school teaches?
This societal interest is a good thing for the most part since most adults will protect even unrelated children from harm and want to see the best for them. However, it seems to me that his societal interest is too invasive and judgemental when it comes to things that can have many positive outcomes (like either being a SAHM or working full-time or part-time by choice or necessity).
What do you guys think? I could be way off base here. Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
I agree about the SAHDs though. I know a lot of men that want to spend more time with their kids and would willingly become SAHDs if it were possible. My husband has said that when the time comes he wouldn't mind being a SAHD except for the fact that his salary is likely to be at least twice what I will be able to make, just based on our chosen careers.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Belle hit on part of the problem:
quote:I can't tell you how many times I've been told by people that I'm "so smart" and "so gifted" why should I spend all my time at home?
As if there is any job on earth that is worth more of your intelligence and gifts and time and care than your own children! As if any outside job is more important than how you raise the humans you added to the world! As if staying home to care for your own family is the "consolation prize" for not being good enough to cut it out in the working world! I know many, many moms who wish they could stay home with their kids, but for monetary reasons they can't. Those are the ones without a choice, not the SAHM's.
blacwolve said,
quote:Thinking about it, I think he mostly has a lot of trouble understanding how I could want to be a stay at home mom. He's very goal oriented and knows exactly what he wants to do and is willing to do whatever it takes to do it (engineering, and he's quite good at it, too). I'm not, I don't have the faintest clue what I want to do, and whatever my job is, I doubt it will be that important to me.
I think this is part of the perception in the world - that SAHM's lack goals and ambition, so they "just" stay home. Whereas it has always been my goal to be able to stay home and teach and raise my own kids, and I had to work hard to be in a position to have that opportunity, and plan ahead from before I was married to be able to do it. It's not a "default" choice, it's not a "lack of ambition", it's a conscious choice by a lot of women to do what will make them happiest and what they feel is the most important thing they could do. To act like they're "settling" for something less than their potential is turning the situation completely on its head.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I must say, I'd love to be a SAHD. Family is far and away more important to me than being a corporate slave.
Why do some feminists think that being a slave to some boss is somehow less degrading to being a 'slave' to some house? To me, as a man, I'd much rather take care of my family than report daily to someone, doing very little of any real importance. I'm talking corporate America here, where "accomplishment" = you helped the firm make more money more effectively.
Or maybe I'm prematurely jaded and cynical.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Do you guys think this venom and getting in other people's business on this issue stems from society's inherent interest in the well-being of children?
To be honest, I think that this comes from the underlying assumptions that lead people to make their own decisions. If a working parent believes that day care during the day and parents at night is good enough for their kids, they are more likely to feel that stay at home parents are unnecessary and wasting their talent. If a stay at home parent feels that only they, as a parent, can properly raise their kids, they are more likely to feel that working parents are making a mistake. And to be honest, I think it really is an either/or. Either staying at home is better for the kids and daycare is a lesser alternative or day care is fine and thus staying at home is unnecessary. That's why I don't think all the talk about embracing choice for women will really change much in way of judgment. Most people embrace one of these thought processes and I suspect people on both sides will always look down on each other.
Irami, I think that supporting SAHDs would be very helpful. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
JennaDean- You probably didn't mean to, but what you said sounded like I would be choosing to "just stay home" because I can't do any better, and that I'm reinforcing the stereotype. I think you misunderstood me. I have plenty of good reasons for wanting to stay at home with kids, whenever I have them. But so many other people have already articulated those reasons on this thread that I didn't feel I needed to.
A major reason I don't have significant career goals or much ambition is because I understand the sacrifices that both of those require. Those sacrifices in home life, in time spent with my future children, are not ones I'm willing to make. So while I might daydream about working in an Embassy, or making my way up through the ranks in Washington, those are simply daydreams, because there are other things I want more than that. I don't mind working. I'll probably work for a significant portion of my adult life. But the job I work probably won't fulfill me on its own. I'll find fulfillment in my family and friends, things I couldn't have if I went after the jobs my ambition would drive me toward.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Imogen, I just want to say that my vitriol was not in anyway directed towards you or anyone in this thread. The only person I've seen on Hatrack say anything remotely as insulting about SAHMs as this woman is Lalo. I gave him a tongue-lashing at the time.
My words were meant for the author and her ilk. I only scanned the article, but it made me want to go on a rampage because she was just so damn insulting.
I agree that things are still imbalanced. But I think these deeply ingrained sexist ideas often work themselves out as one generations passes the batton to the next. If someone is sexist and doesn't want to change because it serves to their advantage, they aren't gonna change. But their kids will respond more and more to the enlightenment that they learn outside their homes. The trends *will* continue, of that I am confident.
"Liberating" SAHMs would only work if they want to be liberated. She seems to assume that is a given, and it is deeply offensive to me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: My husband has said that when the time comes he wouldn't mind being a SAHD except for the fact that his salary is likely to be at least twice what I will be able to make, just based on our chosen careers.
That was one of the author's biggest points. If you are going to have a 2 person family, and one is going to stay at home to raise the kids, the *other* needs to be in a lucrative profession. For whatever reason women tend to choose the liberal arts majors, that tend to be lower income than more technical majors that men tend toward. And yes, if you have the less lucrative degree or work experience, it makes sense for you to stay home with the kids. Ask Papa Moose.
But if women don't have those lucrative degrees, by default, they are going to end up as the stay at home partner for the good of the family. I'm not against that.
But in order to achieve equality in the work place you *do* need women working at those higher levels in those fields. So yeah, she may be calculating and saying things you disagree with, but on the other hand I understand her goal, as a woman in a technical field. I was actually amazed that law enrollment has reached 40% women, considering that engineering enrollment of women is probably 25% optimistically.
don't know if that works but it's 20% as far as graduation goes.
AJ
Her article tied in to something I've been thinking about a lot lately as far as women in engineering. Communisum and Socialism have done a heck of a lot more to get women into technical fields than Capitalism has. Why?
Believe it or not BannaOJ, companies love women engineering graduates. It's good PR for them, so they snap them up as fast as possible. Additionally, there are far more scholarships out there for women in technical fields than men. So it's not lack of support at an industry or higher educational level. It seems like it could be a couple of main factors. One could be that women are less inclined to enjoy the types of skills that engineering requires. Ask the ex-president of Harvard how well a similar suggestion went over (although to be fair my suggestion of less inclined is quite different from biologically incapable). Another could be social pressure (e.g. from family and friends) that continue to push them away from technical fields. One more could be lack of academic encouragement early on towards technical fields.
From anecdotal observation, I would honestly say it's number 1. In high school advanced math classes had as many or more girls as boys. However, the ones I talked to didn't have a lot of interest in becoming scientists, engineers, technicians, etc. They would rather write, paint, make music, or teach children. Is the root cause of this their own innermost desires or social pressures? Who knows?
I honestly believe that any female high school graduate of 2006 has just as much (or more) opportunity to pursue the technical field of her dreams as her male counterpart. I believe the author even acknowledges this. Now however, it seems like she wants to reshape these young kids desires to be in line what the author wants, rather than what the child wants. To me, that is really really wrong to do.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
BannaOj, charts like that are so vague as to be meaningless. I tend to ignore these, personally.
If you compared men versus women all else being equal (equal degrees, equal experience, etc), then you'd have a graph to be angry over. Just comparing aggregate numbers tells you nothing.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Swampjedi, the bias comes in so many different forms. I had to fight tooth and nail to be a real engineer at my first engineering job. They kept trying to shuffle me off into something that seemed suitable for girls to them, like sales (people skills, stay clean, wear pretty clothes, be attractive), or project management (administration, stay clean, use computer, write reports), or other office type jobs. Those are all fine jobs but what they don't give you is direct hands-on experience with the equipment. They aren't the bread and butter of the company.
Instead, I made it very clear that I wanted to do field work like the male engineers did. They finally let me try, after Jason went to bat for me. Jason was the only black engineer at our firm, and he had been there for years and gained everyone's respect and trust. He knew a little bit about barriers, and he took my side. That was a key advantage I had, that he was behind me. I don't think I could have been given a chance without him.
So he convinced them to let me have a chance. Then Pete went with me on my first two start-ups, and showed me how to do it. On the first one, he quit telling me anything, or keeping me in the loop after the second or third day. So I had to go to him and say "Do you need to yell at me? Did I mess up? Pete, don't give up on me. Give me a chance. Tell me what I did wrong and help me learn how to succeed."
I guess that impressed him because he began to mentor me at that point, and he was extremely good at everything technical that we did. He was great at startups, and at dealing with the mills. I got such a great education from Pete. I'm so glad he didn't give up on me, but it was a hard battle to get him to accept me and realize I was trying and I was on his side and worth teaching.
So with Pete and Jason in my camp, and with a couple of successful startups (with Pete), they sent me on my own. I could call back to the office for technical advice, and for policy decisions (anything to do with money) but at that point I was representing my company in the field. It was hard, hot (or freezing), dirty, and uncomfortable, but it's the spot in which you learn the very most that you can possibly learn. The guys soon came to me to ask "how are they using this machine?" "what did you see in that mill?" "how should we improve our design?" and other such things. Because I did that job, I became someone very knowledgable and very valuable to that company. They almost almost didn't let me do it because I'm a girl.
I suck at sales. If I'd let them shuffle me off into sales, I would have probably done a mediocre performance and they would have shaken their heads and thought girls don't belong in engineering.
Do you see how the subtle pressure always always pushes girls off to the edges of what really matters? You have to fight not just to get hired, but then again and again to be taken seriously, to be given real work that is at the heart of the company's business, etc. Girls who might be brilliant but just aren't pushy enough to overcome these forces end up in the lower end jobs that don't really matter much. That's why we are paid so much lower than the guys. Because our jobs aren't as important, because we've let them relegate us to that state.
It's really hard, because if you're too pushy you alienate everyone, who instead of thinking you're high-powered and formidable, think you're bitchy. Because you're female and they aren't supposed to be able to dominate the idea-space with their thoughts and opinions. They're supposed to be sweet and malleable.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I know Beverly.
I just wanted to put out a more rational view than the article. Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:JennaDean- You probably didn't mean to, but what you said sounded like I would be choosing to "just stay home" because I can't do any better, and that I'm reinforcing the stereotype. I think you misunderstood me.... A major reason I don't have significant career goals or much ambition is because I understand the sacrifices that both of those require. Those sacrifices in home life, in time spent with my future children, are not ones I'm willing to make.
See, you said it totally differently that time. Instead of saying you didn't know what job you wanted, you pointed out that you do have goals and ambitions but that they are not career oriented - they are family oriented.
I only make that point because I think we often sabotage ourselves - saying "I'm just a Mom," or, "I don't know what I want to do," when maybe we feel funny saying, "I want to be a Mom." I used to say I wanted to be a Mom (when I was about 5), but didn't get a whole lot of respect for it; instead of demanding respect, I stopped saying it and started acting like my work outside the home would be what I really cared about. And in doing so I reinforced to other people that that kind of work was more important than what I really wanted to do (and am now doing). I hate that I added to the "You must work outside the home to be a valuable member of society" lie.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Tatiana -
I respect that. I think that men who see inferior engineers/doctors/lawyers in women are idiots. I'm not saying that a problem doesn't exist. I say judge people on merits only. If that means that more women firefighters get fired, that doesn't make the policy sexist. I had to use firefighters, the pun was just axing to be used.
I'm just saying that the numbers are flawed. I think a 2% discrepancy is much less serious than a 20% one. Of course, these numbers are pulled out of thin air, and are not to be taken seriously. Numbers are too often used by people to bludgeon other people into seeing things differently.
By the way, Swamp or J or Jeremy is fine.
-- J
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: [QUOTE] For whatever reason women tend to choose the liberal arts majors, that tend to be lower income than more technical majors that men tend toward. AJ
heh. I used to envy the salaries of my english major friends. I'm a scientist or at least I was before I went back to school. But I wasn't the type of scientist that makes lots of money. My jobs always provided livable wages (I mean I always supported myself at a reasonable standard of living after I got out of school), but not a lot.
I've also often wondered why more U.S. women don't pursue engineering degrees. Of course, I never volunteered to be one of them...I'm not sure I'd like the subject, even if I could handle the math requirement.
I wonder if it's because women tend to choose careers/majors that are fulfilling rather than strictly practical? There's always the chance that I'm projecting my own reasons for staying in a less than lucrative career...who knows? It's been a long day and I'm on Hatrack.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm curious, as to what feminists would do if men decided to force women into the work place for a mass influx of SAHDs. There'd be cries of men forcing women into slavery in the workplace, against their will, more men dominating women and forcing them to do something they don't want to do. Eventually you come to the conclusion that apparently, men can't be allowed to decide anything without it somehow oppressing women.
Why should it be the woman's choice to decide who works and who stays at home with the kids? Instead of promoting women in the work place, or promoting men staying at home, why not promote a society based overwhelmingly on families who make such decisions together. Personally I think whoever makes more should be the one that works, and the other should be at home, however if one has an overwhelming desire to be at home, then regardless of gender do whatever is best for that specific family.
Feminist values, or male dominated values, aren't going to be the best formula for every family. And quite frankly I think it's the feminist values that are far more dangerous, because they can be promoted and touted much more easily. Feminists get attacked, but they also have widespread acceptance, where few if any will allow a man to step up and say a women should get in the kitchen, it's perfectly acceptable for a woman to stand up and tell a man to shup up and get in the kitchen. Personally I don't care, I'd rather be in the kitcen myself than at a desk, as I can make a pineapple upsidedown cake a lot better than I can file a report.
As a man I don't know what to do other than stay on the sidelines and wait for the women to fight to a standstill. No matter what I say there's always someone who'll tell me to shut up because I'm a man, or that this is a women's issue (as if women's rights never effect men, and we should never have a say) and I don't get an opinion, etc etc.
But as Tom said earlier, there's probably no point in complaining. Being a man really isn't all that bad 90% of the time. And complaining isn't going to get me anywhere anyway, afterall, I'm a man.
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
I agree with Lyrhawn. And being a woman isn't all that bad 75% of the time. (There is that one week every month....) But I'll get back to you on that when I'm 30, I'm sure I'll have more to say.
I lived with my grandmother for a year, and boy was she ever a blast from the past. To hear her criticize my mom for being too opinionated and for things like not ironing my father's shirts (he wears freakin' cotton polo shirts every day) just made me realize how far women have come. I am so thankful that women have the choices they do today. Progress takes time, and in the period between my grandmother's marriage and my (future) marriage, I know that the world will continue to open doors that were previously closed to women. Meanwhile, I know that amazing women will continue to do whatever it takes to get around those closed doors and inspire others to do the same!
Whew, concisely expressing all that optimism was exhausting. There's my one post for the week.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Eventually you come to the conclusion that apparently, men can't be allowed to decide anything without it somehow oppressing women
Well I'd say that men deciding things about women without women also making the decision *is* oppressing women. No somehow about it.
I'm not sure that's what you meant, but the paragraph tends to imply it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think he was trying to say that the reverse, women deciding things about men without men also making the decision *is* oppressing men, is also true.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H:
quote:aspectre, I really don't appreciate you misconstruing my statements. You seem to do this to many people, I don't know if you think you're scoring points or what, but it is childish.
This is uncalled for, BQT.
No, it's really not.
quote:There is this job called housework and a separate job called child care. However, they are both jobs that, when hired out, pay low wages. When parents get babysitters for an evening out, they rarely hire people with college degrees at professional wages. They usually get a family member to do it for free, or else pay someone who is little older than a child herself (usually girls, sometimes boys) to watch the kids for the evening.
Watching children for one evening is way less difficult than watching them full time. Certain things can slide for one evening of being babysat by someone the child sees only occasionally that can't be allowed to slip by the primary caregiver.
Also, most evening babysitting of the type described here is done for purely discretionary (ok, getting a night out isn't discretionary for sanity, but you know what I mean). If babysitting cost $20 an hour, there'd be much less of it being used for dinner and a movie. Probably parents would develop exchange of babysitting services.
While I realize that daycare workers are also paid fairly low wages, and some below-minimum wage babysitters are actually primary or secondary caregivers, most day care workers receive significantly better than minimum wage where I come from.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I think he was trying to say that the reverse, women deciding things about men without men also making the decision *is* oppressing men, is also true.
Thanks, more or less, yes that's part of what I meant.
Moreover, what I meant was that men forcing women to do something is inherently wrong and oppressive, but women doing the same thing to men is considered women's liberation, not male oppression.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
My mother administrates a kindergarten. [/random thought]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
BaoQuingTian. I *am* a recent engineering graduate. Yeah yeah companies love you when recruiting. It looks better for their affirmative action numbers. But, when you have actually *been* in the work force and are in an area where there are even *fewer* female engineers than the "average 15%" in the engineering workforce. It's a whole different ball of wax. The only coworker I have in my area that is female is the secretary (there are 14 guys)
Out of 150+ engineers that my company employs, there are 6 or 7 female engineers and only 4 remotely involved with design, the others have gone over to a customer service-account manager role. There are lots of pockets of industry like this, particularly in manufacturing. There are pockets witn 20% females, to make it average to the 15%. But when you are in one of the low percentage areas (and even 15% isn't high for crying out loud, it makes a *huge* difference)
And it also makes a big difference in promotions and raises too.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also I'm at a loss as to how the graphs showing the discrepancies of women in engineering that I posted should not be taken seriously. If you'd go to the website and look they are heavily backed up by years of research data from reputable sources.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Feminists get attacked, but they also have widespread acceptance, where few if any will allow a man to step up and say a women should get in the kitchen, it's perfectly acceptable for a woman to stand up and tell a man to shup up and get in the kitchen. Personally I don't care, I'd rather be in the kitcen myself than at a desk, as I can make a pineapple upsidedown cake a lot better than I can file a report.
And there are women that suck at cooking and can burn water.
Until I ate my boyfriends cooking I had no idea how horrible my mother's and grandmother's SAHM cooking was. And my boyfiend works full time too. Oh and I'm the one that burns water.
I have absolutely no problem telling Steve to cook something for me. We both know he is better at it. And actually among fine cuisine and "chefs" there is a gender bias also. And the bias is.... Male! Go watch the food channel. Who was the first true cooking superstar? It wasn't Julia Childs... it was Emeril. How many females are there on Iron Chef? How many women in the sugar/chocolate/ice sculputre competitions????
AJ
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
The numbers are suspect because they are aggregates.
Lemme give an example. Say, for example, that the average number of years of experience for women is 5 less than men, for whatever reason. I'm not sure what the number is, but it is less for women than men last time I checked (2003). Since years of experience is correlated with income, there will be a difference in aggregate income. If these years come in the middle of the working life (say, time taken off for children), the difference will be more.
Of course, you might argue that this is itself bias, but that's much more debatable.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sigh.. had a post here and lost it. GRRRRRR
OK, I'm talking about the percentages of women graduating from engineering school and the percentage of women actually in the profession, those numbers are *not* agregates, even if the salary numbers are.
Plus, even the agregate salary numbers shouldn't vary drastically in the <5 year category. Most women in engineering would work for at least 5 years before taking any time off for having children anyway.
AJ
Here's another chart that I'd thought I'd posted before but hadn't "% women in the actual engineering workforce".
The reason why I'm choosing engineering is because it is one of the last professions where you can make a living to feed the average family of four straight out of college. In other words only one income would theoretically be necessary in a two person household if one partner is an engineer.
AJ
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Oh I see, sorry for misunderstanding you AJ. I was only referring to the income aggregates.
J
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
we're cool... AJ
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: The reason why I'm choosing engineering is because it is one of the last professions where you can make a living to feed the average family of four straight out of college. In other words only one income would theoretically be necessary in a two person household if one partner is an engineer.
AJ
Thats funny BannaOJ, that was my number one reason for choosing engineering as well. That and the fact that it's pretty much a non-hazardous, 9-5, relatively low stress job so I spend a lot of quality time at home with my family. I think if I could choose, I'd probably just be a perpetual college student. Unfortunately for me, that doesn't bring home the bacon Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I'm a computer scientist because I love the work. Not many women, though. Too bad.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yeah SwampJedi, EE is fun, don't get me wrong. However, there are so many fun things out there to do. I think being a doctor would be fun. Also a college history professor. A wrecking ball operator or demolitions expert. Architect. Professional violinist. Journalist. Photographer. Car reviewer for a high performance auto magazine. Heck, there's a lot of things out there that I have shown as much or more aptitude for as electrical engineering, and some of which are way more fun to do. Really why I chose what I did had much to do with the type of life I wanted. I chose a relatively stable, predictable, and decent paying occupation for my family. Not for me. Some of the above would have brought me more money, or been more fun, or generated more fame, power, or honors. But I made the decision long ago that I would not live for just me. I guess some people would try to say I'm unfulfilled or not validated or something--but to be honest I'm just happy.
Edit: I guess my point is that all our choices have consequences, and you really can't have everything. But you can have what's most important to you.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I know exactly what you mean. I'm blessed to love a profession where I can also have all of the benefits that you list. With the right job (which I have found), I can have wonderful hours.
Family first. That's why I turned down a sweatship coding job, even though the pay was great. They wanted more than half of my life.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
People who pursue money and power as their highest goals are not shallow - they just have different priorities from yours.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:People who pursue money and power as their highest goals are not shallow - they just have different priorities from yours.
Let's muddy this up a bit. Some people who pursue money and power as their highest goals are indeed shallow in their pursuit. And I'll even go the next step and say that some people who place their family first are shallow as well. I have in mind those individuals who forsake money, power, and education to start a family and succeed in raising poor, impotent, ignorant children.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Family first means, for me, getting a good education and making enough money to support and nurture a family to the best of my ability. I didn't forsake anything, I just see those things as a means and not an end.
That's a big assumption, Irami. (Hard for me not to call you Snowden, since I came from Ornery )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's a big assumption, Irami.
Not really. In fact, you can safely say that some people in ANY profession -- even the ones we consider noble -- are shallow.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Ok, this is what I get for reading too fast. I missed the "some."
<abashed />
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I found an interesting article on another board today concerning attitudes towards the daily task of taking care of home and family. I think that is what this fight boils down to. There is a segment of the population out there that looks at taking care of home and family as mundane and even something to be shunned, its beneath them. Admittedly this article comes from a LDS woman so it has a religious component but I still found it interesting after reading this thread.
*************************************************** My Home as a Temple by Kristine Manwaring
Is there something sacred in the everyday?
I have spent too much time in my home discouraged.
I want to rear my children in a celestial atmosphere. "With all my heart I believe that the best place to prepare for eternal life is in the home," said David O. McKay1, and his words resonate to the core of my being. Yet, believing something does not automatically make it happen. In the abstract, I love my family, I love my home, and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. In the reality of three meals a day, soccer games, dirty laundry, reports on Spain, and strep throat, the connection between eternal life and daily life often escapes me.
"Only the home can compare with the temple in sacredness," the LDS Bible Dictionary tells me.
When I think of "sacred" I think of temples. I picture white couches, hushed voices, crystal chandeliers, and uninterrupted worship. I cannot recall ever leaving the temple wishing I hadn't been there or begrudging the time I spent serving our ancestors. It seems everything in the temple runs according to plan and that everything I do there is part of a larger, meaningful whole. Homes, on the other hand, are noisy, messy, often disorganized, and characterized by nothing but interruptions. The demands during a single day are relentless, and it is not uncommon for both mother and father to feel used or spent. Even in the quiet moments, I usually find myself cooking, folding laundry, giving spelling quizzes, and playing Legos. These activities do not feel sacred to me, and, if the truth be told, I'd rather not be doing them so much of the time. What possible definition of the word "sacred" could apply to these two seemingly opposite experiences?
When I was first presented with the idea that homes should be sacred, I tried to make my home fit the kind of cleanliness and order I thought the temple represented. Instead of a temple-like home, I ended up with a growing resentment towards the very things that homes exist for. Cooking and laundry became onerous because the tasks themselves created disorder. I even developed an intolerance for the cheerful chaos that burst through the back door with my children as the school bus pulled away. I became confused. Is my home still sacred when it is messy? What about when it is loud? What if I have children or friends who do not want to be reverent? Do they still get to come into my home? The harder I pushed my family to fit my narrow definition of "sacred," the more anxious and less temple-like we all felt.
Then I began walking in the mornings with a wise neighbor who grew up in a large, loving family and first became a mother at the age of forty-four. From her long perspective as a daughter and her more recent experience as a mother, she has come to believe that the work of feeding, clothing, and nurturing one another is every bit as spiritual as it is physical. She feels strongly that when ordinary, life-sustaining tasks are done together as a family, they bind family members to one another in small but critical ways. She speaks of chopping vegetables and cleaning bathrooms with her sons with something akin to reverence. She has even said that scrubbing a wall with a child is a more productive "togetherness" experience than attending his ball game or vacationing as a family.
I was startled to realize that she saw as "sacred" the very tasks that I always thought were obstacles to sacredness. And for evidence, she turned to the scriptures. The parable of the sheep and the goats found in Matthew 25 clearly shows that Christ will judge us according to our willingness to feed and clothe "the least of these my brethren." Does this include members of our own families? In fact, Christ used imagery of feeding and washing and cleaning throughout His parables and object lessons. "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd" (Isaiah 40:11). He will "wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion" (2 Nephi 14:4) and "sweep away the bad out of [His] vineyard" (Jacob 5:66). He even likens Himself to a hen who "gathereth her chickens under her wings" (Matthew 23:37).
Even more striking to me, Christ not only spoke of these things, He personally did them. He fed multitudes with limited tangible resources in a miraculous example of His attention to our physical as well as spiritual hunger. He washed the feet of His disciples to illustrate the humble service required of a Master, and to reveal what He was willing to do that we might be entirely clean. In the book of Moses, He states that He, Himself, made the coats of skins to clothe Adam and Eve. When seen in this new light, my perception of tasks like peeling potatoes and scrubbing floors began to turn upside down and inside out. It was becoming obvious to me that when we care for the physical as well as the spiritual needs of our families, we are patterning our lives after the Savior.
One morning my friend commented about the struggle mothers face cleaning with children. She worried that if mothers think they have to maintain temple-like standards of cleanliness, they will focus on the cleaning itself and miss out on the wonderful opportunity to work side by side with their children. "Are we doing a disservice to mothers if we hold out the temple as a standard for them to emulate?" she asked. Her question touched a raw nerve. It brought back painful memories of my own attempts to make my home like a temple, and I wanted to object. I went home and looked up the exact wording of the "temple" entry in the Bible Dictionary. There it was again: "Only the home can compare with the temple in sacredness." There was no hint that we should try to make our homes sacred like the temple. The sacredness is somehow already there.
For the rest of the day, parallels between my routines at home and those at the temple flooded my mind. In the temple, for instance, we worship as a group. The pace for the entire group is set by the slowest member. I thought of how family scripture reading or dressing for church or even passing the food at dinner is almost always determined by our two-year-old. In temple ceremonies what we do with our hands is just as important as what we say with our lips. Certainly I show my love for my family with both my hands and my lips during the rituals of homemaking. I vocally tell my children I love them, but an understanding of the depth of my love comes when my hands clean up their vomit or gently scrub their backs or hang on to the seats of their bicycles or hold their hands as we cross the street. I even thought about what it is we are taught at the temple. In both settings we learn of our true identity and our connections and obligations to one another. Boyd K. Packer stated in the October 1998 Conference, "[M]ost of what I know about how our Father in Heaven really feels about us, His children, I have learned from the way I feel about my wife and my children and their children. This I have learned at home."2
Michael Wilcox, in his book House of Glory, states that, "As we pray for understanding, we can be assured that everything in the temple is beautiful...The temptation to reject a symbol as unedifying says much more about our ignorance of its meaning than about the symbol itself. If we understood it, it would be beautiful and powerful." As I have prayed for an understanding and testimony of the sacredness of my home, I have learned to apply this same principle to the ceremonies of making a home. Only when I cease to feel "above" mundane tasks like taking out the garbage or sweeping the kitchen floor do I glimpse their symbolic and sacred nature. As I clean windows, for instance, I notice the sunlight shining through more clearly, affirming that Jesus Christ is the source of all light. When I choose to spend a particular moment serving my family in this way over the many other possibilities, I remember that Mosiah taught that "when [we] are in the service of [our] fellow beings" we are also in the service of our God (Mosiah 2:17).
I learn even more when I share these tasks with my children. One Saturday morning my nine-year-old daughter and I were cleaning our large kitchen window together. I was outside and she was inside. We both sprayed the entire window with cleaner and when I looked at the window, I couldn't see her at all. Gradually, as we both wiped away the spray, her image became clearer until, with both the dirt and the spray gone, I could see her with perfect clarity. Our relationship is sometimes stormy, and the incident reminded me of my need to constantly keep wiping away surface tensions, judgmental thoughts, and misunderstandings whenever her true identity and potential are temporarily clouded from my vision. On the days I don't really feel like laboring for and with my family, my reluctance itself teaches me about my relationship with my Heavenly Father, His son Jesus Christ, and my own progress toward them. How much greater their love for us must be than what I am capable of, for they never tire of listening to our prayers nor are they inconvenienced by our constant need for their help.
Realizing something of the spiritual value of homemaking has made me more aware of the need to more fully involve my family in these tasks. My husband and I no longer simply delegate chores to our children each day. We wash dishes and make beds alongside them. By doing so, we have been blessed with opportunities to teach our children and be taught ourselves with a frequency and a depth we previously never imagined. A year ago, I spent most of my dishwashing time muttering under my breath and trying to jam too many dishes into the limited dishwasher space. Now, every time I invite a child to thrust their hands into the warm, soapy water with mine, I learn something new about their spirit and their life. It is only when doing dishes together that my twelve-year-old son, who mostly speaks in monosyllables about his experiences at school, reveals who his friends are and why he has chosen them, the pressure he feels about his grades, how much he likes math, and what he thinks about his teacher.
Paradoxically, what I previously labeled "mindless" and once thought of as interruptions to spiritual growth are becoming the core of what makes my home feel sacred. As I cook meals, wash dishes, make beds, and sweep floors, I am continually in the midst of both teaching and being taught about charity, humility, hope, and faith. I am exchanging independence and "everyone seeking after their own" for a mutual dependence and unity in purpose that surely is related to Zion. I feel the sacredness in my home not only when it is clean, but also when we are in the process of getting it that way. Some days I don't even mind that we will go through the process again the very next day.
Much of my discouragement at home was due to a sense of failure I felt for not being able to artificially create sacredness there. How comforting it is to be released from that burden. With joy and gratitude I now realize I need only look for the way sacredness already surrounds me.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stasia: I wonder if it's because women tend to choose careers/majors that are fulfilling rather than strictly practical?
I chose engineering because I love it. It's so fun! It's like a grown-up version of all the building toys I loved most as a kid, blocks, tinkertoys, legos, k'nex, etc. It's really artistic. You get to dream up or imagine something, then bring it into being. It's creative. Your cleverest ideas and brand new thoughts are needed to pull it off. It's collaborative. Along with the fabricators, electricians, millwrights, and operators, you are building something good that will hopefully last a long time and be useful and beautiful. Hopefully it will be loved and appreciated by those who use it. It's like a great puzzle. All the pieces have to fit together correctly for it to work right. It's such a great feeling when the best solution finally clicks into place. It's regenerative. My machines are the children of my mind. My influence and caring, my concern for quality work and excellence in the details can remain active in a place long after I'm gone from there. They can influence others to emulate them.
I think it's strictly bias that causes so many liberal arts type people to think nobody is in engineering for love. We really are.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
First of all I wanted to point out that I found myself smiling while I read beverly's post. I'm a guy, but I found myself agreeing with you there quite a bit.
I really truly despise societal pressure when it comes down to either side of the argument. The article isn't about feminism, it's about pressuring women to go to ther other end of the spectrum simply because it's "the opposite of what they're supposed to do". I'd almost equate the feeling behind such arguments as mere rebellion sometimes. Doing something not because it's a good thing but because it goes against what's expected of you.
I have a deep amount of respect for women no matter what path they choose in their life. I see SAHM who love their kids and their families and really put their heart into it because it's what they want to do and I admire them. I see women who are incredibly driven to pursue the career or the goal of their dreams and I admire that as well. It's the passion that I admire, not their goals. I don't think either woman is smarter than the other, it all boils down (or should boil down) to what they want out of life and what makes them happy. It is definitely not wasted potential, if anything, it's quite the opposite. People are far better at doing things they're passionate about, whether it lies in the workplace or at home it makes no difference, it's all about doing what you want the most the best you can. Someone forced into the workplace will doubtfully be a great worker, just like family often makes for better babysitters than someone whose only concern is making money.
I personally would love to be a SAHD but I don't see it as the only option. I am pursuing a career in a field I'm interested in but I definitely don't plan to let it rule my life. I want a family and kids and I would hate to be the dad who's always at work and only sees his kids sparely. I'd want to be a part of their lives along with the woman I love because to me, work is nothing more than a tool. It helps me enjoy what I truly value in life: Relationships.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Paradoxically, what I previously labeled "mindless" and once thought of as interruptions to spiritual growth are becoming the core of what makes my home feel sacred.
If you learn to value what you do, what you do will seem valuable.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I think it's strictly bias that causes so many liberal arts type people to think nobody is in engineering for love. We really are.
Well now, I know a significant number and percentage of engineers who studied engineering because of the prospects of securing a four year degree with a solid job at the end. They didn't hate it. Well, some hated it, but most of them didn't hate it, they just hardly cared either way. I'm not sure if the percentage of humanities majors with like dispositions is commensurable to the engineers. Maybe Scopatz could design a poll.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I think it's strictly bias that causes so many liberal arts type people to think nobody is in engineering for love. We really are. [/QB]
I didn't mean to imply that nobody became an engineer because they love it. I have a good friend who is an engineer who could not have imagined doing anything else with his life. I just think that men are often more mercenary about career choices than women, at least in my experience.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The article is disturbingly arrogant. "Women [who want families] need guidance." From her, presumably.
Fortunately, she's beating her head against a wall impossible to break: telling women that if they *must* have a child, don't have two! Her ideal human race would go extinct.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I have in mind those individuals who forsake money, power, and education to start a family and succeed in raising poor, impotent, ignorant children.
As long as you're not stating that the one necessarily follows the other.
Because money, and power do not necessarily contribute to good childrearing (or even positive citizenship); education does, somewhat, but only to a certain extent.
I am guilty of the education-for-money-not-love thing; the only reason I got into computers at all was for the money.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There are a lot of shallow business majors. By "shallow," I mean that they don't really like business at all; they just think it's the quickest, easiest way to earn a buck.
Fortunately (for me), these people often have very bad instincts.
-pH
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The chief aim of education is to cultivate a sense of humanity within the student, and secondarily, to provide the student with the skills to enact the dictates required by this sense of humanity. Both aspects are necessary, but the priority is clear. Cultivating humanity is more important than teaching skills, even if the skills trade is more lucrative.
It seems to me that cultivating humanity and providing skills are also the tasks of a SAHM or SAHD, with the same prioritizing. It also seems that the aspects of education that belong with cultivating humanity are more closely considered in the Humanities.
This post should dovetail nicely into a point about how the muddle of degrees, jobs, parenting, and majors is much more confused than it needs to be, and how easy and misguided it is to conflate earning power and quantitive measures with educational success, how the study of literature is one of the most important aspects in cultivating humanity, how a deep well of morally engaging fiction is appropriate knowledge for anyone who seeks to raise a human, and lastly about how the University education of engineers, social scientists, business students, and yes, even humanities students, is deficient in this respect, but I don't know if I have the mind to pull of this together.
[ March 12, 2006, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Let's muddy this up a bit. Some people who pursue money and power as their highest goals are indeed shallow in their pursuit. And I'll even go the next step and say that some people who place their family first are shallow as well. I have in mind those individuals who forsake money, power, and education to start a family and succeed in raising poor, impotent, ignorant children.
I agree with your point, as long as you are not implying that the one follows necessarily from the other. Also, you acknowledge in the post just above this one that our current educational system is someone lacking. If the mother is able to through some education (perhaps through good fiction, as you suggest) to instill both a love od learning and what you call humanity into her children, then I see little chance that her children will be poor, impotent, and ignorant. If she can simply help her children love to learn, then in this country I believe they will be able to overcome their poverty and impotency through the results of education.
I don't believe anyone in this thread is advocating that SAHMs or SAHDs embrance ignorance, poverty, and inability to influence. And that seems to be the crux of the problem to the author. Not that people are advocating ignorance, but they're saying, "Great. Get all the education you can. If you decide you want money and power through a career, good for you. If you decide to raise a family instead of a career, good for you too. The choice is yours."
In the article the author seemed to be lamentating that many of the wealthy, high in status, and Ivy League educated women are choosing to stay home as mothers. So these would be the educated, connected, and wealthy. What seems counter-intuitive to me is that instead of praising these mothers who are teaching and training their children to be as successful as them, she suggests getting someone else a less successful woman to chose to be a nanny (in the author's eyes) to raise the child. Now that seems counter-productive to me.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Thanks for posting that, Wendybird. I really enjoyed it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: That and the fact that it's pretty much a non-hazardous, 9-5, relatively low stress job so I spend a lot of quality time at home with my family.
Sorry, Bao, but your misconceptions have me doing this:
Though I don't know what discipline you are in, but no stress?! Hah! Admittedly Engineering school is more stressful, but that's just so they know you won't crack in Real Life.
Quality Time at home, HA HA HA. I don't see home very often! I work 10+ hour days routinely, that plus a 40 minute commute each way...(and we couldn't afford to live much closer to where I work)
You're Salaried. That means you Stay Til the Job Is Done. At Whatever Time that Is. You Don't Get Overtime unless you work for the government.
Plus you're a girl. That means you have to Prove Yourself and work *harder* and be *better* than the guys in order to gain respect.
Maybe there is a desk engineering job somewhere like you discribe, but I certainly don't know it, and none of my female friends in engineering have it either.
AJ
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I was describing my current job in electrical engineering. I'm at work for 9 hours a day- and 1/2 hour of that is for lunch, and another 1/2 is me staying after work to go to the gym here.
The most hazardous thing I do is solder occasionally, or work around machines that are capable of putting out ~50 volts at a few amps.
There are times when the job can be a a bit stressful, usually around the end of a project, but nothing compared to how bad school was. Maybe I'm just good at not getting stressed out, I don't know.
So feel free to call my experience misconceptions and laugh it away but I'll keep living my misconception and you can keep what you have.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Maybe it's the difference between Electrical Engineering and the Chemical/Mechanical/Materials/Industrial engineering that I do.
I guess most of my female friends aren't EEs, they are Civil, Chem, Aerospace and Mech Es.
Maybe that's the difference.
AJ
Athough, what I'm doing, is pretty much the same lifestyle my father had, while working in a manufacturing environment as well. My mother finally got that I "work like Dad" and don't stay at home like she does or have that sort of flexibility to drop everything and fly out to visit her all the time.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also, in the area in which I live, the cost to purchase a 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom house, is so expensive, that it basically takes two engineering incomes to afford it, and we don't have oodles left over either.
While I could afford to show my dog for a while, I couldn't imagine how we'd afford the additional cost a kid would be. Probably more than double the dog, and it woudn't go away when I decided to stop showing the dog. Plus, I couldn't leave it alone during the day. It would be even more expensive to own a house if I lived closer to where I work.
AJ
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My boyfriend is an engineer. He's had one day off in two and a half months.
MAYBE he'll get Easter off.
Maybe.
And he's working well over 70 hours a week.
-pH
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
A response from a fellow Chem E. I posted a link from this thread...
quote:I'm an engineer, work 12-hour days, high stress situations, always too much stuff to get done, on a pager/cellphone leash 24/7 (is 34/7 possible? that's what I typed at first), my decisions are potentially very hazardous (ever seen a fire at a refinery?). I call my console at midnight, I think about problems while sleeping, it doesn't go away on vacation.
Granted, I love it but it's not what's she's thinking, unless you don't really want to be an engineer with your degree. It's about responsibility and problem solving things others can't
Again, I'm glad you have your job Bao, but it's certainly out of the norm from my other female engineering friends. Now we've only been in industry 3-5 years, so maybe it's different for you.
AJ
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
You are welcome Katarain. I thought it was very uplifting.
Tom you are right and summed up what I was thinking perfectly.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I'm an EE, working a 40-hour/week desk job that I find imensely fulfilling and allows me plenty of time with my family. We live in a high real estate market, but manage to make ends meet on a single salary with a child. And we're looking at buying a house within 10 miles of work (about 30 min. commute).
There aren't a lot of women working here (EE is one of the lowest disciplines when it comes to female representation, from what I remember).
This wasn't intended to prove any point, it was just FYI that BQT is NAA (not all alone).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm a chemical engineer and make sure to keep roughly a 40-hour week as well. While I do have to be available if something goes wrong and have to arrange coverage if I won't be available, I'm not in outside of work hours very often. My commute is a bit less than 10 minutes, but I don't live in a big town (about 80,000 people). Actually, the town is the only major area of dissatisfaction for me at the moment, because while the short commute is convenient, the town is uninteresting.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This is funny because just last night we were talking about engineers at home and it was about people with engineering degrees who took jobs outside engineering because they couldn't make enough money as an engineer.
Specifically, there are three counter guys at the local plumbing supply house where my husband gets his supplies that have engineering degrees (one from Georgia Tech, even) and none of them could find work in the engineering field that didn't start out in the low 20's. That wasn't enough to live on so they took jobs with a plumbing supply house, making easily twice that much.
Maybe there's just a glut of engineers around here?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:the town is uninteresting.
That's what Hatrack is for.
And Overlook.
Duh.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah... it's interesting. It's just what Bao described was so outside my own paradigm of engineering I was shocked.
Maybe it is different for EEs. And twinky you are in Canada, I think labor laws are different there, as well as perhaps some expectations. I am in one of the higher priced real estate areas, in the Chicago suburbs, but it's nowhere near as bad as CA.
AJ
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I was going to ask you if you lived in the Bay Area (San Francisco) Banna, since I have heard stories of them working engineers to death there. I guess I never realized how good we have it.
Belle- That's bizarre. All my electrical engineering friends who graduated with me (from Utah State) took jobs in the Utah/Nevada/Arizona areas for 48-57K a year, and all but 2 (6 out of 8) had job offers a couple months before graduating. I'll definately stay away from where you are if they're only offering them 20K a year. What a joke.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That's really an anomaly Belle, the average starting salaries for entry level Electrical Engineers in the US in 2005 was $51,113.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I know - it's weird. I always thought engineers made good money, too. But it's been verified more than once. Not only are there the guys my husband knows personally, but my sister in law was a CPA for a large firm that employed mechanical engineers and they only started them out in the 20's. She herself was an EE major before switching to accounting and the reason she did so was job availability and starting salary. She knew she could do better as a CPA and she certainly has.
Could be a factor of our local economy.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Hmmmm...overtime pay....
Mayhap I should be adding to the birthday list of demands.
Edited to add: Looks like it sends results to email, just in case anyone was interested. I've plugged in a few different variables, just for curiosity's sake.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Belle, I find the situation you report very very strange. Most large companies recruit engineers regionally if not nationally so there isn't a whole lot of variation in engineers salaries from place to place. Even in Montana were engineering jobs were fairly scarce, the salaries were only a little bit below the national average. What you are reporting are salaries that are less than half the national average? Its hard to imagine that persisting for very long. Very few Americans are so committed to living in one place that they would be willing to accept a job for less than half the pay. Did these friends of your husbands look for job in neighboring cities and states?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Median Salaries of Electrical Engineers by in the southern states
Tennessee 56460 Arkansas 56770 Alabama 55460 Missouri 60060 Mississippi 51500 North Carolina 64390 Georgia 61490 South Carolina 68830 Florida 55770 Louisiana 58950 Texas 68250 Oklahoma 47280 Virginia 57780 West Virginia 53250 Kentucky 59940
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Median EE salaries in the western states
Montana 55670 Idaho 62735 Utah 59470 Colorado 58670 Wyoming 61850 New Mexico 65770 Arizona 71130 Washington 57720 Oregon 64970 California 62280 Nevada 59520
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm an Electrical Engineer, and this thing about Electrical Engineering being low-stress, I don't know where that comes from. It's not that way in any job I've been in.
Bao, are you male or female? I think I read all your posts in this thread and I can't tell.
I'm in Birmingham, AL and the last starting EE salary I heard here was 50k, and that was a few years ago. I don't know why the anomaly, but starting EEs made more than $20k even back when I graduated.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Hehe, I'm male. So is that good or bad that it doesn't show?
I don't know what the reason for my low stress is. It could be that my job is truly low stress...none of my co-workers have any burnout symptoms. Also, it could be that I have so many other things in my life that cause unbelievable amounts of stress that work challenges seems like nothing. It could be that between being a full-time (i.e. 17 engineering credits) student and working was pretty stressful. I also have a great manager here. I'm not really sure, it could be a combination of all of the above. I work in a place that is both a manufacturing plant and design. We design our own products, manufacture them here, test them, and then ship them directly to the customers.
There are undoubtably stressful days, but no more so than any other job I've worked.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)