On the Today Show this morning, the author of the book, “The Feminine Mistake”, Leslie Bennetts, was featured. I have never heard such ridiculous arguments.
The essence of Bennetts’ book is this: because it is likely that women will end up without a man to support her, due to disability, job loss, death, or divorce, it is irresponsible for a woman to stay at home with her children. Bennetts offers nothing more here than a false dichotomy that, dangerously, leads women to believe that they are making a mistake by staying at home to do the most important job that any woman can do.
I’ll take her “arguments” one at a time. First she asserts that because a woman’s husband might become disabled, thereby leaving the family without income, the mother needs to be working in order to support the family on the off chance that her husband is unable; or, if the husband becomes disabled, then the wife must be able to replace his income. FALSE! The smart financial decision in this case would be to purchase disability insurance that would replace the husband’s income, and still allow the wife/mother to stay at home and raise their children.
She then asserts that a woman must be prepared to replace the family’s income in the event that the husband loses his job; or, if the husband loses his job, then the wife/mother must be working in order to replace his income. FALSE! The smart decision for a woman who stays home with her children is not to keep her job; rather the smart decision would be to forgo that new car or fancy home furnishings and tuck away three to six months (or more) of expenses into a savings or money market account. This smart financial decision would allow the wife/mother to continue to stay at home and allow the husband time to find another job – all while keeping the family out of poverty.
Bennetts also states that a woman’s husband might die and she therefore needs to have a job in order to replace his income; or if her husband dies, then the woman must have a job in order to replace his income. FALSE! The smart financial decision here would be to purchase life insurance for eight to ten times her husband’s yearly salary so that, in the event of his death, she will be able to continue living the sort of lifestyle to which she is accustomed, all the while remaining home with her children.
The final “problem” to which Bennetts points is divorce. Although this is not so easily solved with smart financial planning, her “argument” is still faulty. Rather than attempting to solve the problem of divorce by attacking the utter disregard for the institution of marriage in this country, she merely says, “Oh well. You just have to hang on to your career in case hubby decides to up and leave you one day!”
By pointing to statistics she labels stay-at-home moms as women who are taking part in “high risk” behavior. The problem is that the high risk behavior is not the staying at home; rather it is the lack of financial planning. Bennetts, however, seems to be attempting to hang on by her fingernails to the feminist movement of the 60’s, rather than trying to actually help women make smart decisions.
Rather than hanging on to selfish ambition (and what’s left of the women’s movement), women would be better served by making smart financial decisions. There is no greater job than that of raising a family, and the financial decisions that must be made (and acted upon) to enable a woman to stay home with her children are not rocket science. Figure it out, ladies! There is no one in this world who can raise your children better than you and to give that up because a dried up old feminist tells you that it’s “dangerous” is ridiculous! Make the decisions that need to be made in order for you to be there for your kids…and I promise you won’t regret it.
April 3, 2007 at 10:59 am
I agree with your premise that it is certaintly better for a parent to be able to stay home and care for children. The fact of the matter is that this is not feasible. Certaintly in a traditionalist/conservative utopia everyone would live like Ward, June, Wally, and the Beaver. For whatever reasons, and the arguments are plenty, families in todays society need two incomes. Some women like to have a career and children. Gasp!! of all the nerve.
The argument here is not addressing those who “need” two incomes, nor is it addressing those who want to have a career and children. The women to whom Bennetts is referring, and thus I here, are those who choose to stay home. Bennetts argues that they are making a mistake due to the reasons listed, and I argue that there are options other than working outside the home to solve said problems.
Whether or not a family can “afford” for the mother to stay at home is another argument for another day, as well as those who desire to “have it all” by attempting to balance a career and a family. But, no, families in todays society do not “need” two incomes. I will concede that there are some who do, but in many instances families are simply not willing to make the necessary sacrifices to keep mom home with the kids.
-J
April 4, 2007 at 9:54 am
I see your overall premise in regards to Ms. Bennett’s suppositions. Your arguments are fair enough, in that they are logical alternatives to her arguments. I just don’t find them to be realistic, given the economic variables encountered by families, in today’s America. Most disability insurance policies only cover around 80% of income and don’t forget out of pocket medical costs incurred when someone becomes disabled. If you know of a health insurance plan with low deductables and low out of pocket maximums with affordable premiums, there are plenty of people out there who will be all ears. Unless you are in the top 10% of income earners in this country it is not viable to assume that people can save for three to six months of replacement income considering the cost of living index has increased almost exponentially in the last twenty years. I’m talking about necessities here, not luxury items.
I just can’t disagree with you more on this. To maintain a comfortable standard of living in this country today two incomes are needed. It is not feasible for most people to support a family of at least four with one income. By the time you pay for health insurance premiums, utilities, food, shelter, and clothing there is nothing left. I have seen instances where family health insurance premiums eat up a paycheck. If you add a couple of sick children and two or three co-pays in amonth plus maybe some antibiotics with no generic alternative and you suddenly find yourself struggling to pay the utilities. A couple of sick children can get really expensive and they seem to get sick alot when they are young. I am fortunate enough that I don’t have to deal with this stuff any longer. But, I went through it. Like it or not, the majority of families in this country need two incomes to make it. Anyway, it is good to see you back. I enjoy our conversations.
Pish tosh. My husband and I do it, as well as the vast majority of my mommy friends (as a matter of fact, I only have two mommy friends – out of, oh, well over ten, who do work…and they only do so part-time. And several of them have 3 or more children). And not a one of us is in the top 10% of income earners in the US. As a matter of fact, we are all decidedly middle class.
Additionally, my husband and I are in the process of saving three to six months of expenses…we should have six months in the bank by the end of the year. Check out daveramsey.com, and he’ll show you how it’s done.
I fully understand that there are circumstances where the mother must work. My mother had no choice but to work when I was growing up, so I know that sort of situation first-hand. However, many, many women decide to work rather than stay home with their children because they are not willing to give up “keeping up with the Joneses,” not because they really can’t afford to stay home.
-J
April 5, 2007 at 9:24 am
All I can tell you is that study after study (too numerous to cite) show that in today’s society two incomes are needed to “make it”. The notion that “I can do it, so everyone else should be able to” leaves alot to be desired and is rather simplistic. How do you know that “many, many women decide to work rather than stay home with their children because they are not willing to give up “keeping up with the Joneses,” not because they really can’t afford to stay home”? I applaud you and your husband for being able to save money, but if it will take you to the end of the year to save six months of income, what happens if he loses his job today? Wouldn’t that put in the category of someone who should have thought ahead and already had enough money saved? Nevertheless, I don’t need Dave Ramsey to teach me anything. I worked my whole life and based on that I don’t have to “hit a lick” anymore. He didn’t teach me how to do it, nor did anybody for that matter. If I decided I wanted to go to Hawaii tomorrow for the month I could. My point is that I don’t let my own abilites and success underscore the reality that everybody has different circumstances. Most adapt the best way they can. The fact is, most families in this nation have two working parents. You think it is because they want to, I think it is because of necessity. Maybe you are right, but I think the data is on my side.
I didn’t say that “I can do it, so everyone else can, too.” I was responding to your statement that, “To maintain a comfortable standard of living in this country today two incomes are needed,” which is false. Additionally, I am certainly not the only one whose family is comfortably supported on one income, as I mentioned my several, several friends who do it as well.
Not that it’s anyone’s business, but my husband and I have a back-up account as well. The “three to six months of income account” is seperate from the “emergency account” which has us covered if my husband were to lose his job today.
The question is, how was the data that you cite obtained? A survey, perhaps? Most women are made to feel guilty no matter what decision they make – whether its to stay at home or to go back to work. I’m guessing that there are at least some who aren’t completely honest about why they are returning to work for fear of judgment. “We need this money to survive,” I’m willing to bet, is often a cop-out – a “don’t judge me” answer. Whether or not that extra income is really “needed,” we may never know.
And I wasn’t implying that you needed a lesson from Dave Ramsey; rather, that women who rely on their husband’s income and don’t plan for the possible loss of that income need a lesson from Dave (or someone, at least!). They shouldn’t be made to believe that the only answer is for them to return to work…
-J
April 9, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I realize that you didn’t specifically say “I can do it so everyone else can too”. It seems that you imply this at every turn. If that is not your premise, then I certaintly apologize. The fact of the matter is that, U.S. Department of Labor statistics indicate that the majority of two parent households in this country have both parents working. You and some others may be able to live comfortably on one income, but the reality is that you are a minority. Now, the question is logically, why are people in your situation a minority? The answer is simple really. Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, along with studies by the Urban Institute and Harvard University to name a few, indicate that fixed household costs continues to rise and outpace increases in wages. Therefore, especially since the wonder years of trickle down economics in the 80’s, families must have two incomes to maintain a comfortable standard of living. This is true, not false.
I dont’ presume to know what a woman feels when she makes the decision to work or stay home. Given the currrent economic variables today, I would hazard a guess that most women feel they have to work so their fmaily may have what it needs and desires. You do bring up an interesting and valid point that women should not be made to believe that the only answer for a women who loses a husbands income is to return to work. Effective estate planning should always take care of that. But the realty remains that both parents need to work in most families today. Again, I will point you to the example of health insurance. It is not uncommon for one parent to essentially work for family health insurance and the other to essentially cover living expenses. Like it or not this is a reality. I don’t make this up. The median income in Washington County, Tn. for example is around $33,000. Your family may make more or less than that. It is certaintly none of my business, but it is nearly impossible to raise a family of four on $33,000.
April 26, 2007 at 6:33 am
I was raised in a home where my father worked and my mother stayed home. We never did without. My father also managed to have a new car every few years. Most of the kids I knew had stay at home mom’s also. My dad just decided not to keep up with the Jones’s. That’s the way it was done years ago. But I must say it is harder for families to make it without 2 incomes in this day and time.