Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Women Who Ditch Their Career for Homelife Could Be Making a Huge Mistake

By Leslie Bennetts, Huffington Post. Posted April 16, 2007.


Women who abandon their careers and become financially dependent on their husbands often look back on that decision as the biggest mistake of their lives -- even women in stable, enduring marriages.
Advertisement

Everyone knows that authors have to be prepared for negative reviews. What I didn't anticipate was an avalanche of blistering attacks by women who hadn't read my book but couldn't wait to condemn it. Their fury says a great deal about the current debate over women's choices -- all of it alarming.

I wrote The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much? because the typical reporting on the job-versus-family issue was so biased and incomplete. The media gave lots of coverage to women who quit the labor force to become full-time mothers, but they treated this decision as if it were simply a lifestyle choice. They never seemed to mention the risks of economic dependency -- or the myriad benefits of work. As a result, women were being lulled into a dangerous sense of complacency about relinquishing their financial autonomy. Why wasn't anyone telling the truth about how much they were sacrificing -- or what the consequences could be?

When I researched the subject myself, my findings made it all too clear how false that sense of security really is. Over time, most stay-at-home wives are likely to face major hardships as a result of divorce, widowhood, a spouse's unemployment or illness, or any number of other challenges. Women who abandon their careers and become financially dependent on their husbands often look back on that decision as the biggest mistake of their lives -- even women in stable, enduring marriages. I interviewed women all over the country, of every age, socio-economic level and background, but many used the exact same words to ask an angry question: "Why didn't anybody tell me what a mistake this was?"

My goal in writing The Feminine Mistake was to provide women with what I saw as one-stop-shopping that would help close this information gap. My goal was to gather into a single neat package all the financial, legal, sociological, psychological, medical, labor-force, child-rearing and other information necessary for them to protect themselves. My reporting revealed that the bad news is just as ominous as I'd feared; so many women are unaware of practical realities that range from crucial changes in the divorce laws to the difficulties of reentering the work force and the penalties they pay for taking a time-out. I devoted two chapters to financial information alone.

But the good news is just as dramatic -- and equally neglected in much of the current debate. Work confers enormous benefits in addition to a paycheck. Despite the undeniable challenges of the juggling act, working women tend to be happier and even healthier than stay-at-home moms, in ways that have been documented by a broad range of surprising medical, psychological and social science data. Their incomes give them power in their marriages and options in the larger world, not to mention opportunities that benefit their families. Women are socialized not to brag, but it's very gratifying to make money, be successful, and get recognition for your work. Like most men, many working women wouldn't even consider giving up such rewards.

As for the children's welfare, sociologists have spent decades comparing the kids of working moms with those of full-time homemakers, consistently failing to prove that the latter do better. "The research on the impact of working mothers on kids shows that there isn't any," reported sociologist Pamela Stone. And when the kids grow up, the futures of working mothers are usually brighter than those of the homemakers, who often find themselves financially stranded and bereft of viable opportunities for employment.

And yet millions of women continue to be misled by the fairy-tale version of life, in which Prince Charming comes along and takes care of you forever. Our culture programs women to believe that they can depend on a man to support them -- the classic feminine mistake -- and fails to explain how often that alluring promise is betrayed, whether by a change of heart or a heartless fate.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: women, career, independence, spouse, homelife

Leslie Bennetts is the author of The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Here we go again...
Posted by: SavageDissension on Apr 16, 2007 1:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AlterNet didn't learn with the first gender article this weekend? Here it comes for part two....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Any woman who gives up her career for a man is nuts...
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 16, 2007 2:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
unless, of course, she really loves home life.

After Saturday's stalking article, that's all I have to say.

Hugh "Got His Ass Kicked by the Ladies Saturday" Scott -- editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree . . . omg Posted by: off-the-radar 2
The man is nuts, too
Posted by: Michael LaFlow on Apr 16, 2007 3:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read your book either, but from my 35 years as an adult, I have found that women with careers are much more interesting for husbands too; they continually bring new ideas and energy to a marriage; they present an alternative way of life to children; they have the financial power to act on their decisions rather than ask the man, so they make family life more dynamic; they increase a couple's social circle; they reduce financial stress which enables families to take creative risks; they keep their minds challenged and active and have better judgement, etc etc. Being a homebound wife and mother is a mistake for the entire family.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The man is nuts, too Posted by: Rixblix
» RE: The man is nuts, too Posted by: zing
» RE: The man is nuts, too Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: The man is nuts, too Posted by: brigid
» RE: The man is nuts, too Posted by: brigid
» RE: The man is nuts, too Posted by: astockton
» RE: The man is nuts, too Posted by: tamsin
Right... as a child of two career parents...
Posted by: Smartcookie on Apr 16, 2007 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Give me a break, if anything people today live FOR the economy, they are barely making ends meet as it is with two jobs and living at work... there's no easy answer to job-life balance in capitalist society, the ethos of our entire culture is screwed up from the getgo. You're just a sign of a mindless one following herd of capitalism, not seeing the source of todays modern life sucking economic circumstances.

I grew up with both parents who lived at work, and let me tell you it was no picknick. I was a latchkey kid and to be frank most people aren't good parents to begin with, they have no clue how to raise kids. It's small wonder most people turn out such screwed up children because they are screwed up and indoctrinated themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Making money is the highest virtue Posted by: theracerace
» RE: Making money is the highest virtue Posted by: dangerouslysane
Who are you?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 16, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you put your book out there as an alternative to the stay-at-home soccer mom fantasy, that's cool. Information is good. People can take it or leave it.

But you make it sound like it's required reading, and that you have been put down here on earth to save everyone.

This article sounds like an ego trip and self-promotion to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"dependence" apparently depends on who gives what
Posted by: H_H on Apr 16, 2007 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Women who abandon their careers and become financially dependent on their husbands..."

...and yet, during the Welfare Reform debates of the 1990s, I recall hearing feminists argue that women on welfare are not "financially dependent" on anyone, but are plucky and tough from being on their own.

More simply put:

Getting financial support from a loving husband makes women dependent and weak.

Getting financial support from an uncaring government bureaucracy makes women independent and spunky.

Normal people would find this logic to be obtuse, but there is a crucial difference: In the latter situation, there are no eeeeevil men around, therefore by feminist logic it's a better arrangement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you
Posted by: cyclone2525 on Apr 16, 2007 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a young woman whose stay-at-home mother was left destitute after a divorce, I sincerely thank you for this book. My parents were married for 16 years and my mother has never recovered financially. Had she had a career, I truly believe she would not have stayed with him as long as she did (he was abusive) but without a proper social net, she did what she could. She made me promise that even if I wanted to be a stay-at-home mom that I would at least get a college degree first so that I had that to use if I needed to; deaths, divorce and illness DO happen and we're sticking our heads in the sand if we pretend they don't. You have to protect yourself and by so doing, protect your children's future also. It's just common sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Same Experience Posted by: lynned2002
» RE: Same Experience Posted by: redjenny
Mommie Track Is Madness Track? This Is A False Inference!
Posted by: starhelix on Apr 16, 2007 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I won't read Ms. Bennetts' book, but I think she's missing what the real problem is. It appears she's offering a false dichotomy. She's saying a total commitment to stay-at-home family life diminishes the future economic security of the woman -- that it's a losing proposition. Well, there are times in life when choices need to be made. There's no guarantee a life in the business world would be any more rewarding or risk free than parenthood. Further, is being financially self-sufficient any woman's raison d'etre? Of course not! It's not a matter of women wanting to have it all. It simply means a marriage and family life are made successful by commitment.

The thing that riles most folks, including me, is Ms. Bennetts' cold reliance on the money issue. Money is the No. 1 reason why relationships fail at every level. As long as the conversation is focused on money rather than love, no relationship is safe. Of course, America's business world isn't family friendly, except for the Ruling Class. However, things are changing -- slowly. The sudden rise of marriage partner search companies indicates the difficulties people are having finding suitable mates who are willing to make the proper commitments. This isn't because people don't want to do the right thing. It's because we've lost the genuine sense of what it takes to make a family and a community. The Mommie-track-is-madness-track is the wrong argument. The real question is: Why are people finding it so hard to FALL IN LOVE, get married, have kids and live their lives into old age without arguing over money? The real issue is: Do we want to build families on love, respect and commitment or do we want to build them on cold, corporate control? People are starting to see the light and are opting out of the corporate model. May God bless them for making the better choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remembering 9/11
Posted by: Urstrly on Apr 16, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After 9/11, I was struck by the lifestyles of the stay-at home women who survived some of the high-rollers on Wall Street; their whole lives were built upon the wealth of men who worked most of the time, and many of them had no life insurance. Besides caring for the children (with plenty of help, I presume), they were left as the managers of estate-sized homes with pools and tennis courts and stables. Before the nation's largesse was apportioned, many of them couldn't pay their bills.

A few widows worked to research the causes of the attacks and were savagedly set upon by the right wing harpies, but I often wonder about the others and what they are doing now. No matter how much wealth your spouse produces, spending it is not a career.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: emembering 9/11 Posted by: VZEQICVA
Thank you again
Posted by: Devan on Apr 16, 2007 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My mother also told me explicitly that staying at home was the worst mistake she made in her life. She had very few friends, had no economic independence to buy the things that she believed the family needed (and that my father didn't believe we needed), she was miserable and lonely and gained a lot of weight. After we grew up she divorced my father and she is now a different person. She seems younger and she's much more fit and so much happier. I think the amount of guilt she had about divorcing my father and her fear of "abandoning" her children hints to the amount of defensiveness present in stay-at-home moms. I think these women (and men) see self-sacrifice as a woman's only role in caring for a home and children. I don't understand the barrage of criticism about a book that is purely research. Much-needed research at that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No friends? Posted by: slydad
Our society could do much better, if it cared about kids as much as it claims
Posted by: Beck on Apr 16, 2007 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've often wondered why, given that I've often read that people who work 8-hour days generally do 4 hours of work, we didn't come up with job sharing systems for husbands and wives. If someone worked from, perhaps, 7 to 12, everyone had lunch together, then the other parent worked from 1 to 6; or if other family members are around, overlap the shifts so the kids have lunch with grandparents or go to a brief stint at preschool. We're a long way from anything humane.

I remember reading that housewives have double the cancer rate of working women; one of Dr. Bernie Siegel's books, I think. And it was thought that they were around too many cleaning chemicals. Then he wondered if professional cleaning women wouldn't have an even higher cancer rate, because they'd be exposed at work and at home, but found that they had the same lower cancer rate as working women. The author proposed the idea that cancer is a disease of falseness, that a life of feeling like you're playing a role makes you more suseptible, and in interviewing patients who were housewives, he found this to be common. I did both, raising my son, and found staying at home to be lonely and isolating, but I was certainly glad that when I did start to work, it was satisfying work and only part time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is totally wrong
Posted by: Bobsays on Apr 16, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's look at the facts: in life and in careers nothing - nothing - is certain. Your career can flame out at any moment for a whole long list of reasons (you slept with the boss and got caught, you 'dropped the ball', you had a breakdown, you were fired, etc.).

To tell any woman that her life is over because she had a child and stayed at home for a few years is to perpetuate the myth that work will make you free ('arbeiten machst frei' as Hitler used to say). Work does not make you free, and especially living for a career with a big blue chip does not make you free. You are a disposable tool, nothing more.

I have none women who have flamed and been pushed down the ladder despite having no kids. I have known women who have done fine having kids and then returning to the workforce. You can never predict what the economy will be up to in five years time. Here are some examples: you leave to have a kid, and then re-enter the workforce at the kick-off the dot com boom. Labour shortaged mean you are hired straight away: no questions asked. Or you are a former security expert and then want to get back to work just after 9/11 - you have Blackwater beating your door down. See? Anything can happen.

This woman is the kind of woman who wants to turn the world into a planet of frigid dykes and lonely latchkey children. Not a pretty place I am afraid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is totally wrong Posted by: nise52
» alot of them are Posted by: Beck
» RE: This is totally wrong Posted by: hms2004
» RE: This is totally wrong Posted by: techphile
Focusing on the symptoms...
Posted by: sdoboze on Apr 16, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... not the problems. Typical western, north american dialog.

It is a human right, for [at least] one parent [at a time], to give their full direct attention, to children.

Children need adequate attention - this book would be an example of wasted ink, because it clearly fails to include the realistic conclusions these women have such hardship.

1.7 Billion U.S. Dollars a day, taxes paid BY these [men] who work, distributed as subsidies among committees of all the U.S./U.K. parenting mothers, goes much farther than 'the war on terror'. Jeffery Sachs BBC.CO.UK lecture. Giving them free 'cheese product' and food stamps is a worthless exercise in PR futility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Mother and I agreed: we would not have had children
Posted by: Aimee on Apr 16, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shortly before my Mother passed on we discussed the joys of motherhood. She was near 80 and I was near 60 years of age. She gave birth to 4 of us and I gave birth to 3 children - all out of the house. We both agreed that if we had it to do over again we would not have had children. It is a big mistake. That doesn't mean that we do not love our children - it just means that we would not have had children if we had known better ...

Those who enjoy there lives with children, more power to them - just don't wish it on everyone else. It is a big mistake.

Aimee
DataOptions.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Can you say it ISN'T ... ??? Posted by: AdamSelene40
Choices have consequences
Posted by: BetteM on Apr 16, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe my parents were ahead of the curve, but they believed that EDUCATION was the key to a successful life...everything followed after that. (raised in a family of 8 siblings evenly split between boys and girls). All my sibs are/were married...some raised families ...some did not.

The take-away from this book is....women need to carefully review their financial situation..for now and in the future ..with or without spouse/family. It is unfortunate that despite 30 years of women entering the work place, and despite the acceleration of women with advanced degrees inMD, engineering, law.. there STILL exists a bias against women. Just check out the minute number of women CEO's in Fortune 500 Company.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

an antidote to the June Cleaver fantasy...
Posted by: xenacat on Apr 16, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The stay at home Mom is an apple pie fantasy that has been very heavily pitiched to women especially since the rise of the right wing nuts to power. I, for one, am happy to see alternet stop supporting the "stay at home Mommie" movement with this kind of article. In the long run, niether men nor women nor children profit from a relationship that has such a power imbalance in it as those in which the woman has no outside life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are so right Posted by: janvdb
Growing neglect
Posted by: Deb C on Apr 16, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have enough harm in this world because of rugged individualism. I am sad to read that this is what this article appears to be promoting. Recently on NPR they were discussing child abuse and neglect. I wish I could recall exactly the names of the two people who were relaying that the growing number of neglected children are in homes where both parents spend most of their time career climbing.

I realize that many parents have to work to stay a float in this economy but that is different than the person working a 50+ hour week climbing the career ladder. I experience many parents today coming to their senses and being creative about work. Some are working from home or one parent working part time. Some parents are understanding what is really important in life, and it's not climbing the career ladder and staying on the treadmill of work and spend.

We will have much more sanity in this world when we understand that the job of a parent is one of the most important jobs you will ever hold. Changing a diaper may not be glamorus but it's nurturing and loving, and that is worth a million dollars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Economic concerns strike me as only part of the story with regard to women in the workplace...
Posted by: mjabele on Apr 16, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.....though I gather the author does spend time talking about the "sociologic" aspects as well - i.e., the personal psychological satisfaction to be gained from being involved in a career, as well as the possible benefits to society at large from women being involved in professions such as medicine, law, art, politics, and science.

Women who've made the choice to stay at home immediately seem to bridle when this point is raised - "What could be a more important than raising the next generation of children?" is the usual thing I hear. Well, as the father of two children, I don't doubt that's important - but I also think it's a terrible waste of intellect and creativity to consign half of the adult population to doing one task only, while leaving the other half to determine, more or less by default, the technological, economic, legal, and political parameters of the world these children will grow into.

Some stay-at-home moms have made the argument that they participate in volunteer activities in addition to taking care of their children, but I still think these women inevitably lose a signficant degree of influence over the shape of our future world by not participating more fully in actual careers.

The big question, I suppose, is how to actually generate the necessary time and freedom for women to pursue careers, while at the same time ensuring that our children are raised in caring and nurturing environments. As things stand now, there's an unspoken assumption among most employers that younger women will at some point want to take time out or limit their hours in some way to accommodate children, but that younger men will NOT be asking for or needing these things. My feeling is that it's actually the latter part of the assumption that really needs to change at this point. In order for women to participate more fully in the actual "business of running the world", if you will, men will need to retreat somewhat from that role. My guess is that many men won't actually mind that as much as one might think - a lot of us feel rather cut off from the "business of running the home", if you will. But we also sense that we're not in a position to ask for such "privileges" from our employers - and that current social (and corporate) expectations don't really support the idea of men working less in order to spend more time at home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More American female garbage
Posted by: Jharyn on Apr 16, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's continue to let someone making barely enough to survive, who could care less what your children turn in to, raise your kids. I hope women like this get an operation that will keep them from having kids. You obviously only care about yourself like all the other feminist whiners in America.
God forbid a woman actually plays a part in raising her own kids. Women like this author don't deserve the joy of being a parent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nice to have choices
Posted by: www.suekatz.com on Apr 16, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most women don't really have the option to stay at home. My mother didn't, because of class. I didn't - because of sexuality (no men involved). And now I don't seem to have the choice to go out to work because of age - women over 50 are having serious problems getting hired - long work history or not. In short, this debate about choices doesn't necessarily include a lot of different kinds of women. Good luck with the book!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nice to have choices Posted by: Bozwell
Amen, Amen, Amen....
Posted by: nise52 on Apr 16, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I got married the first time at age 19. By that age I had been working for nearly 4 yrs and had paid my own way thru 1 1/2 yrs of college. My new husband told me if I just worked 1 year (so we could get "established" as a couple), he would make sure I got to go back to finish my degree. 10 yrs later I was still working with no degree. He was always making new bills and the money wasn't there for tuition/books. He then left me for an older woman. I was stuck with his bills, my bills, and our bills. But I had a job...and within a week a 2nd job. I met my current husband 2 yrs later and he and I spent the first 5 yrs of OUR married life paying off my bills from marriage #1. I had no children from husband #1, received no alimony and lost my home at a sheriff's sale (I could pay off all the other bills but not the mortgage). But I had my (2) jobs and was able to keep my car so I could get to work to pay off the rest of the bills.

Husband #2 and I have been married for 25 yrs. We raised a daughter (I worked the whole time). When she was small I felt the pangs of regret that most mothers have but I knew if I stayed home we couldn't put decent food on the table. I like fresh salads and meats...not Ramen noodles for dinner. We live in a mobile home and drive older cars so we're not the country club set.

Five years ago I was diagnosed with a chronic (gets worse...no cure) medical condition and had to quit working. I was approved for Social Security Disability BECAUSE I had worked right up to the onset of the condition. Within 24 months I became eligible for Medicare health benefits. So now, because I worked all of my adult life (like most men) I have a small monthly income and health benefits.

Stay-at-home moms receive NONE of this because American society glorifies mothers only one day a year (Mother's Day) so it can SELL something to her family.

There was a saying in the early 1970's (when feminism was born)...."Never produce more children than what you (the woman) can raise by yourself"....

It's true...because the odds are that sooner or later YOU will have to raise them yourself and you had better have a job!

D H Plain City

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amen, Amen, Amen.... Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Amen, Amen, Amen.... Posted by: dangerouslysane
ahimsa
Posted by: ahimsanow on Apr 16, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is more capitalist/empire materialistic culture rubbish attacking "feminist" women who choose to stay home to raise their children, enjoy home life and, above all, who believe that motherhood is the most important full-time profession.

I am a middle class woman and mother of two sons (24 and 17) who has not worked outside the home for 25 years and have thoroughly enjoyed my life with my family and my husband of 34 years.

I am not economically dependent on my working husband, who would love to stay home, too! His earnings are our earnings. We share bank accounts and have equal say about how our money is spent and saved.

We embraced simplicity and rejected the ways of our decadent materialistic culture more than 30 years ago. Today, I am primarily a peace and environmental activist, with enough time to read and research the big issues facing our times -- Peak Oil, climate change, coming economic collapse, etc.

Pursue your dreams and give your life to noble causes (such as full-time motherhood!), not just to making a dollar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 -