I am blogged out for today.So I think I will just give you an article to chew on as I wait for sumthin bloggable to happen.
Gold Diggers Are Alive and Well in 2005
Marty Nemko
I so often see this syndrome in my female clients: She comes in ostensibly wanting a career but finds an objection to every option, except going back to school, which defers having to work. Or she's done as much school as she can possibly justify, agrees that a particular career goal is appropriate, but refuses to do the work necessary to land a job.
When I ask, “Do you really want to work?,” most say no. So often, they’ll admit that what they’d really love is a man to support them so they can stay home—even if no children are involved.
One of my clients, a 20-something project coordinator for Sun Microsystems said, “If I could, I’d stay home in a minute. And that’s true for all of my (female) friends.” I was amazed by one of my clients, a recent graduate of a prestigious college who fit that profile perfectly, saying she’d love to meet a husband who made enough money that she could be a full-time housewife. What amazed me was that she said her most deeply held value is that women are constantly oppressed.
I had thought the era of gold diggers ended in the ‘60s with the women’s movement. But I’m here to say that from where I sit, it’s still alive and well. Perhaps today’s women, seeing their mothers not so happy in the workplace makes them decide they’d rather stay home and have a man support them, if they can find one.
My anecdotal experience is supported by others. For example, Time, 60 Minutes, and the New York Times Sunday Magazine all did major features on today’s women not wanting to work. Often cited, for example, was a study of Stanford MBAs. 95 % of the men were working full time while only 38% of the women were. In their book What Women Really Want, pollsters Celinda Lake, a Democrat, and Kellyanne Conway, a Republican, found that seven in 10 women say they would stay home with their kids if they could afford it.
I’m surprised that so many guys don’t mind being the sole breadwinner. Many of them, however, change their minds when I say this to them:
Today, it typically requires two incomes for a family to own a home and support a solid middle class lifestyle. If the wife refuses to work and especially if she pushes hard to own a home, have children, and spend heavily on clothes, jewelry, spas, going back to college, vacations, etc., it means that the man must try to find a very high-income job. Those jobs are very difficult to land and, once obtained, typically demand long, stress-filled, often unrewarding hours, for example as corporate lawyers, bond traders, insurance salesmen, or executives in which pressure to generate profit is high and the power to implement change is low.
Meanwhile, the wife gets a far more pleasurable existence, even when she has children to raise. Evidence it’s more pleasurable: In studies in which men who work outside the home offer to switch roles with their stay-at-home wives, most women refuse.
Finally, remember that men die much younger than women, with stress being a major killer. Do you really want to be a beast of burden so your wife can live a cushy life, and then after you die, inherit the money you’ve earned so she can continue her lifestyle?
Even after my lecturette, some men say they’re happy to be the sole breadwinner, but more say the lecturette opened their eyes—they agree that they would have more rewarding, less stressful career options and, overall, better lives if their wives contributed significantly to the family income. Most of the men say they will talk with their wives about it, but when they return for their next session, they usually report that their wife pulled out all the stops to avoid having to work: they cried, yelled, guilt-tripped, or avoided talking about it—anything but look for work.
These women use various excuses to avoid working, most commonly:
It’s better for the children. In fact, the data is equivocal about that. And anecdotally, I’ve seen many examples in which a stay-at-home mom overprotects a child, resulting in a less self-confident child than if the child were in a high-quality child-care program.
I don’t have earning potential. The definitive book on the subject, Why Men Earn More by Dr. Warren Farrell (Amacom, 2005) finds that for the same work, in many fields, women earn more than $1 for each dollar men earn. Even low-skill-required jobs such as waitressing can yield $50,000-$100,000 a year.
Men, I urge you to be more conscious about whether you are allowing yourself to be turned into being a beast of burden to pay for the expensive house, kids, and all the material “stuff” that you might well be willing to trade away for a more pleasant life.
And if you’re single, consider whether your life will be better if you hold out for a woman who will share responsibility for the family income. Besides, by requiring that, you’ll know that the woman wants to be with you because she loves you, not because—as a surprising number of my female clients have admitted in the privacy of my office--that she considers you a cash cow.
Please give your opinions and ladies please no profanity allowed!
America's Colonial Election
3 years ago
9 comments:
Am I first? Where are all those people that practically live on this blog ?
Nice post - I chewed on it all of five minutes and thought..hm.. here is what I thought..
First: If waiting on tables can produce an income of $100,000 a year, show me where and I will change careers and move there.
Two: And this is just my opinion, most working women with kids have three jobs, their paying jobs, the housekeeping job and the mother job (which is not be to confused with housekeeping). While mostly the man has one job (and the half that is being daddy). Whether a house has got a baby sitter (who will leave soon as the wife gets home) motherhood and housekeeper switches on after the day job switches off. So, if a woman can stay at home and do two jobs while the man makes enough to support the family, fair enough.
I havent got kids or a husband so I cant say that is my experience.
I understand there are women out there who will do anything to marry a rich man - but also there are men who are out to get that kind of a woman - to take care of the home and look after them and the kids - they both know the score!
Any other arrangement and one of the parties have been had LOL
Sorry the looooooooooooooonnnngg comment, but it never stopped me before
@ potential gold digger aka Guess!
Thanks for your comment.I think I should issue a disclaimer on that post coz it is just an article I ran into online.But male female issues will always be complicated!
Aii that writer, ati gold diggers? That word is a little harsh if all these women want to do is stay home and take care of the kids. Ama this is the new meaning of that word?
On the other hand, whats the point of these women going to grad school if they don't want to work anyway. Thats a waste of money; then again if they toka there with a husi then I guess they got something out of it.
@ Tee J
well I guess I agree with him when it comes to the chics who go to uni and dont want to work coz they lock out the ppl who want to go to uni and work!Why waste 4 years in uni to get a man when you can just join a country club or e-harmony with that cash?
1. You generally need two incomes to support an upwardly mobile family life style here (unless man earns a super salary like an MP). 2. Ayahs (maids) raise most kids in Nairobi and urban Kenya.
3. After a few years, kids go to school, wife gets bored, and will want to open a business (salon/restaurant) to occupy herself. Ideally it should earn some money for household (many don't) and will give her an answer to question at a party "so what do you do?"
@Aco - yes, I did realise you hadnt written it - was just giving my opinion on same :)
@Bankelele - I was assuming the person who wrote this didnt reside in Kenya, or Africa - out here, lives are a bit different and two incomes are definitely needed to run a household, three even - unless as you said you earn quite a lot.
Ayahs, once again, unless you are very rich, only look after kids when you are at work - and you pay them by the hours, so the longer s/he is looking after your kids, the more you pay here - oh and overtime too if you are late picking up kids. Also, they dont do any of your housework - they will not even wash your kids - and normally they will not be in your house, you drop the kids off to her in the morning, and pick them up after work, with all the food and drinks they will need during the day :(
Hope that kinda clears up my point!
@ all
This what i like being able to facilitate meaningful discussion!
hehehehe
Different strokes for different folks.. There are also male gold diggers...
As Guess says...
If both parties are sawaz... power to them...
Marty, thanks for the insight about female golddiggers. It makes it easier to understand the response I received when I called in to your show several months ago about the frank discrimination against minorities and women I have seen in a large company here in the Bay Area. I think we have to wait for a generation of men who were raised by women who work outside the home, and who have come to accept that minorities do not have smaller brains, before we can escape the problems created by, among other things, (1) the situation sometimes created where women are expected to single-handedly raise kids, with no or little financial support from fathers; (2) management who assume all women are supported by men; and (3) workplaces that assume women are golddiggers, and that a woman who spends months at a time out of state at a job to support her children is somehow not spending the time away from home that a man could. That generation has already happened, for many, but not for those boys-now-men whose fathers put them through college, and who now make hiring and promotion decisions at many companies. Thank you for your, and your wife's, contributions to the discussion.
Post a Comment