I read an article in the newspaper the other day about how some foundation or whatever did a study and found that the average "stay-at-home mom" does work equivalent to a job that would earn well over $100,000. If a mother works full time, her additional duties are worth approximately $80,000 a year.

I read the article the day after my Employment Law professor lectured on the fact that businesses reap the benefits of labor expended in the home, but they do not bear any of the costs. they have employees who are nourished and whose clothes are clean. employers also reap the benefits of the reproductive process, in that they have employees to exploit for the indefinite future.

both in the course of employment law lectures, however, and in the course of reading this article, i squirm. it bothers me that it is just the default assumption that the labor in the home is being done by women, and by mothers. it bothers me that it is assumed (wrongfully by employers, and I think, wrongfully by those who seek to influence policy-makers) that it is WOMEN who require shorter work hours, family leave, flexibility in schedule.

The article in the Globe did not say "work in the home is valued at ______" It said "US Mothers deserve $134,xxx in salary." That presumption that it's the mothers who are doing all that work bothers me. I know it likely is, but perhaps the presumption is what creates the fact?
I have the luxury to be "bothered" by this - I am in a relationship right now (and hopefully forever and ever) where these rules just do not apply. As a "woman" I no more need time off to cook and grocery shop and pick up kids from school than does my significant other. Actually, I need less. Being in law school, and this being a specially protected time, has some to do with that. but not everything.

This is evidenced by the fact that next Friday, beloved is giving his employer his 2 week's notice. Due to the good fortune of my summer job combined with the fact that his company is moving to the 'burbs within the next few months (and he's not goign with them, b/c the commute would become horrendous, and we're not buying a car so he can be subject to 3+ hours/day of a commute when we're quite happy as a car-free family, thankyouverymuch).

This is our trial run. It is our testing of the waters, to see if, upon my graduation and start of full-time work, Beloved can be an at-home presence. he will return to work (at a new place, thanks to this company's move) once the kids get settled into school in the fall for my last year of law school, and however much longer we find necessary before we try to restructure for the longer-term.

This is very much in line with this interests and his life goals. Beloved went to art school. He didn't go to business school, he didn't go to Human Resources School (what he's doing now). he went to art school. He wants to write - he wants to paint. He wants to do more projects than I can even conceive of. The 9-5 world creates a bit of a barrier to those desires.

I, on the other hand, am very happy working. I like it. I like the social contact, i like the intellectual stimulation that it brings me. Something I could never manufacture on my own while I was home full time, and that I believe I was worse off for lacking. I know that some CAN maintain an intellectual stimulation and growth without the external imposition of structure and responsibilities, but I cannot.

So we are hoping that it will work out for us that upon graduation and my working full time - beloved can be pursuing his interests on a full-time basis - but at home. therefore, when the kids get out of school, there will be a presence here. someone who they need to at the very least check in with (b/c they're gonna be old, before we know it). Someone who is at the house so that our apartment (home? one day?) isn't the place where the kids gather to smoke pot and get drunk.

And I think it's b/c of the fact that within our relationship this balance is struck in this way, I bristle at the assumptions that it's the "mother" or the "woman" who is working part-time, or staying home, etc., in order to take care of domestic affairs. Is it really true that some 90% of men are happier going to work every day while some 90% of women are happier in the home? happier working less so they can be cooking and cleaning and driving the kids around town? Am I that odd? Or does there need to be more of a shake up in order to be sure that people are happy? that families are cared for? that work is evenly distributed, and that women aren't barred from the workplace b/c of the *assumption* that they're going to be running off to the grocery store all the time? Or to the doctor? or having to stay home on snow days?

I just feel like there can be more collaboration. That the headline can be more about the duties that are done by a couple ... that the value of the goings-on in a home are not solely attributed to those with vaginas. Of course there are certain things - men can't give birth. They can't breastfeed. So I concede that there will be things that women need to do that men just can't take on. But the $134,121 mentioned in the article wasn't for wet nurse fees. Or surrogate parent fees. It was for laundry, transportation, childcare, grocery shopping. No vagina or lactating boobies required.

posted by Zuska @ 10:52 PM

4 Comments:

At Friday, May 05, 2006 10:37:00 AM, The Marpepps! said…

I was very much struck by this article (as per usual, great stuff) Zus. First of all, I am impressed by your relationship (also as per usual) with Beloved and both your presences of mind.

On the sexism point, I just want to say that it is upsetting to see these things in the paper, but I really do think they are changing. It may be based on whom I choose to surround myself with, but I see much more comfort and gender neutrality with regards to who stays at home than previous generations. But even still, I have a lot of friends who expect to raise their children at home and that expectation is based on their gender entirely.

I've always like the "trade off" model myself. One or the other finds themselves at home, pursuing something for a bit, going back to work for a bit.
At Friday, May 05, 2006 11:19:00 PM, Mieke said…

I love reading the sentence " get settled into school in the fall for my last year of law school". Can you believe it will be your last year? Has it flown by?
At Saturday, May 06, 2006 7:58:00 AM, Zuska said…

Lyco - the trade off model would be great if the job market wasn't so opposed to it - it's so hard for people who have sat out for a while to break back into it without an ice breaker like a new degree, etc. Of course that depends on the type of work you're doing.

Mieke - it's one of those things where it feels like forever ago and also yesterday that I started! In February, when this quarter was starting, I felt like I never wanted to school to be over. Right now, I wish I was graduating along with my 3L friends!!
At Saturday, May 06, 2006 11:17:00 PM, Mieke said…

You inspire my Zuska. Your attitude is great and all that you have accomplished seems to have done so with such grace. But then you may have more of a mind for this than I, since your LSAT was so much higher. I am wait-listed everywhere and still waiting to hear at all from Hastings. The wait-lists don't bode well for me. I think I'll have to sit this year out - get really serious about the LSAT, take it again in September and try try again.

I really hope how one does on the LSAT has NO bearing on their law school experience.