both parents working-blame feminism or consumerism?

In a recent thread about feminism, Riverrat wondered if part or all of the reason that both parents have to work to support a family these days was the result of more women in the workforce.Various arguments against this idea were put forth, but one that I think Ned mentioned but was never expanded upon was lifestyle.I wonder how many families would be just fine on a single income if they didn't put a significant portion of their income towards luxuries.By "luxuries", I mean things like cable TV, expensive electronics in general, cellphones, expensive hobbies (like flying model planes?), eating in restaurants, alcohol and tobacco, frequently buying expensive convenience food like prepared/frozen entrees, snack and junk food like ice cream, chips and soda, going on trips, designer or famous label clothing (lots of clothing in general), prestige sneakers and shoes, getting nails done, getting a new car, etc.I am sure that many families in the US would be shocked to think that any of these things should be considered "luxuries", but they certainly are. Nobody needs any of them.Our consumer culture combined with easy access to credit has made all of these luxuries something that people think they deserve and need as a part of normal, everyday life.How much money would families save if they treated these things as the real luxuries they are and indulged in them only occasionally, or didn't spend money on at all?Is it possible that the reason both parents "have to" work is because they are supporting the lifestyle they choose to maintain, not because they really must in order to survive and provide for their children?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This is your strategy, to simple redefine essentials as luxuries? What's next, live-in maids and dream therapy? I agree with you - it's a lifestyle choice. Two incomes make it possible to participate more fully in our consumer society. But that's just in general, since if you examine individual families there's a wide range of variation.There's a monetary income threshold that must be surpassed if it's to make monetary sense for both parents to work. The specifics of each family's situation governs where this threshold lies, but certainly it makes no sense for a mother to work at a job that earns $20K/year if the family has 3 or more pre-school children in daycare. I wonder how many mothers work who are in something along the lines of this situation, since it would be more advantageous to not work. To the degree that this occurs it would indicate other motivations for dual-working parent families.--Percy

'Blame' is biased word. Many two-career households are what they are by choice. Of course, if one is determined to view the situation as inherently bad, one can always blame the individuals for their choices, I suppose.No one questions that it's better to work because you want to and not because you have to. The fantasy of getting up in the morning and doing only what one wants to do is a potent one. It manifests itself a variety of ways. Some people learn about investments. Some people look for a rich person to marry. Some people buy lottery tickets. Some people blame.Discerning 'necessity' and 'luxury' is not an either-or proposition. What we find is more like a bell curve. At the narrow opposite extremes are those things we undoubtedly need (food, shelter, health care) and those things we know to be frivolous (the plastic action figure atop the computer monitor). Between the two is a huge region of things that are a bit of both that call us to make choices. Food is essential, but is it essential to own a refrigerator? meat tenderizer? a coffee maker? Shelter is essential, but is it essential to own a smoke alarm? an air conditioner? a vacuum cleaner?Convenience is not always mere convenience. Time saving devices enable more effective pursuits of livelihood. That's why our view of new technologies tends to change. One year a new gadget is a toy; the next year it is a professional obligation. Automobile, radio, TV. computer, Internet, mobile phone, PDA--last year's gadget, this year's expectation.But on the subject of jobs, let's not overlook the influence of people with jobs on Madison Avenue. Their success depends on getting the rest of us to think of their clients' products as necessities. And they are very good at what they do. They know how to use images, fantasies, and anxieties to make their appeals. They are skilled at moving strings most people do well even to see. It would be naive to overlook this.Historically, I understand, the two-earner home became the norm in the US in the aftermath of double-digit inflation in the 1970s. The cost of living (housing, food, transportation, health care) rocketed past the rise of wages. Wages never caught up once the prices stabilized. As women entered the work force in large numbers in the 1980s (partly as a consequence of this), the larger pool of workers dampened corresponding pressures to increase wages. Ever after, the two-earner household became the norm.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair; tinkering.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

can i translate this to saying that women started working because they needed the money and not that they wanted to become men?

you missed corporatism that is sucking the middle class back into the working class.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

There was a joke about this on an episode of "That 70s Show". It was also the only episode of that show I actually watched the whole way through. One woman asked the other, "How could you have ever convinced your husband to let you work?" The other answered, "It was easy, all I had to do was show him our morgage bill." And then there was laughter.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I have wondered similar things, only because the time line is suspect. About the same time when most, or at least half, of women began working, the nation was quite prosperous financially. Aside from the horrific crime rate, the 80's were generally kind to Americans bank accounts.I wonder if because most households doubled their income, and thus consumed more goods, if it caused, at least in part, the inflation rate.I don't think we can chalk it up solely to this reason, as inflation is a normal occurrence. But nonetheless I wonder if it did greatly contribute to the fact that now or days, you must have a two-income family just to make it.And of those that aren't married, its pretty much an inevitability that you get a roommate or two just to afford the rent and other basic amenities. No, we certainly don't. There is only the illusion of necessity which drives consumerism. I guess kids aren't the only one's who like having toys. A good amount I reckon. The frivolity of it has become so commonplace that anyone who doesn't have these things is essentially living in the dark ages in the eyes of those who do. I'm sure it has greatly contributed to it. At this point, it would take another cultural revolution to go back to the way it was. I guess we just have to deal with it for the time being and play the game society has doled out.But I know this much; the market is driven by the consumers in it. If we stopped buying these items, it would either force the manufacturer to lower the price, by demand, or inflate the prices even more to compensate for the lost revenue. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fixed typos

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

I thought that more women were working because:(1a.) It's more fulfilling to have a career that makes an obvious contribution to society, especially if the job is one that the particular person enjoys doing;(1b.) even if the job isn't particularly alluring or thrilling, there is obvious fullfillment in making an obvious financial contribution to the household, as well as the security in demonstrating that one has the necessary skills to support oneself if the family breaks apart;(2) women are now allowed, in some cases even encouraged, to work outside the home.I mean, why do we assume that women are being forced to work outside the home? That, if left to their own devices, they would actually choose to remain housewives? If housework is so intrinsically worthwhile and fullfilling, then why when families take the option of a single income household it's rarely the man who volunteers to stay home?

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Absolutely! This is the situation many people run in to now or days. What purpose does it serve to work if most or all of that second income goes in to paying for daycare, just so the other spouse can work?That's completely circular.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

quote:

---

What purpose does it serve to work if most or all of that second income goes in to paying for daycare, just so the other spouse can work?

---

Making money isn't the only reason people want a career/job.Other reasons are personal fulfillment and accomplishment, intellectual stimulation, social connections, continuing education and skills development, and prestige and status in society, to name a few.

quote:

---

I'm sure it has greatly contributed to it. At this point, it would take another cultural revolution to go back to the way it was. I guess we just have to deal with it for the time being and play the game society has doled out.

---

Except that no, you don't have to "play the game" at all.Buying all of that stuff is a choice, pure and simple. You can choose to play the game of "keeping up with the Jones'" or you can reject that game, either partially or entirely.My point is that it is a choice.

are you kidding? there was a huge recession in the 80s. i think i could afford my house alone on my current income.

For once, I completely agree with you!We have been surviving just fine on one income for 3 years, and it is not an extravagant income by any means. We have cable in every room, high speed, we had two vehicles, and video cameras etc.Whenever I hear that money is tight, I wonder why there is always beer in the fridge, frozen food and take out, no lunches packed, tv on all night...and I get busy making meals from scratch, shopping thriftily, picking things from the garden. Never flies though, my household is sunk in consumerism.My cousin 'lives off the land' in the Poconos. He laughs at all of us, but he doesn't realze that too much of what used to be able to be done for free, is now an 'expensive hobby'. Gardening costs me money, making soap, candles, or canning food would cost me money. Hunting is an expensive hobby, no one is allowed to have chickens or goats. It would be a full time job to run a household that way, too. I have started working part time this week, because I miss getting out of the house, making choices other than which stroller to bring, going at my own pace, and being able to surpise someone with a gift without having to ask for the money. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Except that no, you don't have to "play the game" at all.Buying all of that stuff is a choice, pure and simple. You can choose to play the game of "keeping up with the Jones'" or you can reject that game, either partially or entirely.[/qs]The game I was referring to is this societal situation. We can't undue years of cultural revolution overnight. If gross inflation is caused by more people entering the job market, we can't very well protest that effectively without first gathering considerable support.The game, in this instance, is conceding that you have to have a double income.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

I assume you a referring to Black Friday, but that doesn't undercut the fact that the economy was prosperous during the eighties. Some people can, depending on where you live. Some can do so comfortably while others barely squeak by month to month.I think in general, though, most can't.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt