[syracusa]

I think these are two terribly hard issues to reconcile: being there for your child 100% of the time - as a mother - and being somewhat independent and having a personal source of income, as a woman and a free-standing individual.

I sort of believe in both - generally speaking - but I find the two unbelievably hard to reconcile (unless you inherit something from daddy or other nice relative).

Truth is many men are far from "perfect angels" and power corrupts. In this world, money is power. And a paycheck is power too (in various degrees).
The higher the paycheck, the more power and "say" in the family.
When you have a human being in your house who is economically dependent on you (typically the woman-mother) it becomes very easy to abuse the situation and use it as constant leverage for yourself in the relationship.

Although we have this idealized image of the committed man who will do anything to provide for and protect his family (I am not sure if this clause also includes "be sweet to his family") - many men do not conform to this image in reality. On the contrarym they use their position to "own" the family not to "protect it or provide for it with good heart".

The number of abused women (or just unhappy and trapped) has been huge throughout times simply because they saw no way out - being economically dependent. But I think that even in a "normal" marriage with no abuse or anything horrific - the person who brings most economic assets to the table is always the one who feels naturally "entitled" to get his/her way (traditionally, the man).

People always give lip service to the "mother" job - how it is "the most important job of all" and then some - but it sure doesn't seem to be all that "important" in reality, when it is measured against the job that brings home the bacon. Who gets to put the foot down when it comes to it...- the one with the "mother" job or the one who brings a paycheck at home?...

On the one hand, I do not think that a human being can maintain a 100% level of dignity when they are economically dependent on another human being. It is basically impossible.

On the other hand, if you commit yourself to your child 100% as a mother - that prevents you from being economically independent (again, unless you have something from daddy yourself).

There are few men out there who trully believe in their hearts that their stay-at-home wife does a job as important as they do, even if hers does not generate income.
I believe the problem comes from the fact that even though the "mom" job is probably as important, it is much less unpleasent and more personally satisfying than the one that goes on in an office where you are constantly stressed by impersonal bosses or tough competition (if you're self employed).
And then again...the paycheck job is for survival.
The full-time mom job - is for feeling accomplished and fulfilled once you decided you must bring an offspring into this world.

Of course men feel that you owe them!

The "mom" job happens in the "haven". The "paycheck-generating" job happens in the "heartless world". This automatically makes the "paycheck-generating job" feel more important because it hurts more. Hence the man feels that the wife-mom owes him for all the pain and unpleasent-ness that he goes through during the day to generate income.

I do understand this. And if today my husband could generate an icome that would allow me to be a full-time mom, I would hold him in total and complete respect because I KNOW now that any regular job SUCKS compared to the "mom" job. Yes, I would feel economically dependent (not a 100% pleasent feeling) but he happens to be one of those saints who would not look for the "upper-hand" in a relationship in a million years.

But he doesn't make that kind of income...so back to basics.


Full-time mom or economically independent?...
Who knows?
It looks like nature did not want this issue to be solved...