Has our desire to consume changed the traditional family structure?

Question

Have women been forced into the workplace in order to support our consumption habits?

It is common thought these days that 2 incomes are required to make a go of things today. If we cut down on consumption, would this still be true?

I have nothing against women who want a career, and I have nothing against women who want to be SAHM. These are choices to be made with consequences on each side.

Interesting...I remember one of my high school classmates. Very intelligent girl who got her undergrad degree at Holy Cross and a grad degree at Columbia. Today, she is a SAHM with two children.

Not trying to bring religion or politics into the debate, people. Let us remember that prior to the 1960s-1970s, most homes only had 1 car, 1 TV. It seems that now we are forced to work to support our consumption.

Object....so wrong on my friend, pal. Her husband works in retail (a store manager at a clothing store in the mall). Things are tight for them financially at times, but they seem to be doing ok, and appear to be a happy family.

Object....how rude you are. They don't have to rely on the food bank to get by. They just don't drive a new BMW is all.

And, is there such a thing as marrying for love and compatibility these days? I guess in your shallow world the answer would be no.

Answer 1

Yes. It's shocking how many people have told me (part-time worker who stayed at home for almost 2 years with my son) that they envied my family situation. Complaining because there was no way they could make ends meet on one salary, even though one spouse was making good money.

Then they grabbed their Starbuck's double Mocha jumbo latte and gathered up their kids with their Calvin Kleins and hopped into their Ford Expeditions.

I'm being a LITTLE dramatic, but not much. I see it all the time.

Adds: And my wife is a teacher. These people are engineers, lawyers, etc.

Adds again: I'm not advocating what people should do, and as an historian, I can tell you that the belief that men used to work and women used to stay home is nonsense. But I think that kids who stay at home with a parent are better for it.

Answer 2

Excellent example:

"I remember one of my high school classmates. Very intelligent girl who got her undergrad degree at Holy Cross and a grad degree at Columbia. Today, she is a SAHM with two children."

She is solidly middle class. She will have married someone from the same socio-economic class. Someone well-educated, who earns a high income like a doctor or a lawyer. This family can afford to live on one income. These fortunate people constitute only a tiny minority: most families need two incomes in order to survive. It's not like when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's anymore: no more blue-collar, high-paying union jobs at the factory, plant or pulp-and-paper mill for dad anymore. In fact, by the end of the 1980's those factory jobs had moved overseas in search of cheaper overhead and NO trade unions.

YES. And during the same time period (1950-1980's) those blue collar jobs were everywhere. Pension plan, health care for everybody, dental coverage - you name it and it was there - courtesy of "IAATSA Local 22"! They're gone now, and you need to deal with reality as it IS, not as it WAS.

It's a whole different world out there

edit:
Why would she marry a shop clerk when we know people tend to marry people from their own socio-economic class! Hahaha... all those trips to the food bank must be just exhausting!

It's BS, and you know it.
The #1 reason couples divorce is over finances because
"love" doesn't pay the bills. Nothing like an entire family trying to live on a Petsmart manager's salary; what, maybe an annual income of $12,000.00? Why would somebody with a grad degree not use it and actively choose for her entire family to remain well below the poverty line ...that's the real question here. What a great life!

Answer 3

Yes. But it's not only desire...the marketplace is also adpating to this lifestyle, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find products and services to support a frugal, one-income family structure. Those of us who have made that choice usually drive older cars, buy durable goods second hand through ebay, garage sales, etc., plan errands to reduce the number of trips in the car (I alternate housekeeping days and errand days), cook whole foods from scratch (a very time-consuming endeavor - Rachael Ray's method is for people with more disposable income), and many of them garden and can/freeze the harvest.

How different is this from the "average" lifestyle of driving late model cars, eating in resturants often, and filling up one's spare time in activities that stimulate the economy by spending money? Recreational shopping, anyone?

Yes, these are CHOICES. There is no "force" in involved - only acceptance of the consequences that result from the choices we make.
Juniper has done a great job of explaining this already in another question - there is not much to add.

Answer 4

Honestly I don't think there has even been a "traditional" family structure in America, ever. Especially now with gay, lesbian, and swinging couples raising kids and all. Honestly I don't care about that. Look at WWII. Lots of women had to go to work in order to support the war. That certainly wasn't simply a consumption thing, it was a survival thing. Survival for the country and their soon to be reunited families after the war. The picture of the father with a pipe, the mother wearing an apron and the two kids playing with spot out in the yard with the white fence is a nice image and there probably were a lot of families like that back in the day. But i still wouldn't call them "traditional". Maybe conservative image?

Answer 5

I am always amused with this "traditional family" label. The "traditional family" is nothing but a buzz word for the socially conservative movement to rile up emotions. In reality the "traditional family," or the nuclear family is an invention of 20th century America. The reality is unless a woman was born to a well to do family, she would most likely hold some sort of job outside of the home. If she was from a rural setting, as most people were prior to 20th century or so, she would be out doing work on the farm. If she was from an urban environment, she would be providing care for other people's children, working a seamstress, among other "womanly" jobs. The whole notion of "daddy goes to work while mommy cleans the house, bakes cookies and plays with Jr." is a fairly new concept.

Answer 6

to respond to youy substantial questiosn: specific and specific. yet having one individual stay homestead and the different artwork is nice sort for a kin. Somhow the two staying homestead and one or the two working could be greater helpful yet demanding to rearrange. maximum companies such as you to truly seek for artwork! preserving a house working nicely and elevating youthful teenagers takes an incredible style of attempt. specific you may hire a maid and placed you teenagers in daycare bu is that incredibly the main suitable element for the youngsters? And it is sexist yet i think of its real - females are greater helpful suitable to looking after youn toddlers. We only seems to appreciate them greater helpful and have greater patieice. yet each and every couple desires to return to a call who might artwork and who might stay homestead. i know countless couples that the dad stayed homestead whilst the youngsters have been youthful and mom worked! Divorce seems to return all the way down to three issues. One is a promise. Do you're taking serously the "until eventually dying do us area"? yet another is listening and understaning what what your substantial different is asserting. As for each little thing being equivalent? good luck! it is that uncommon day that each and everything is particularly equivalent. now and lower back I play all day on the same time as my substantial different is working. different days its endless laundry, errands, shuttling teenagers, artwork,and so on. You and your girlfreind will ought to return to a pair understaning on how issues would be "equivalent" . i ought to assert we concept that as quickly as we've been given married yet rapidly got here upon those old gender roles the place extremely useful. devoid of them we weren't in any respect constructive whos tunr it replaced into for what activity. ANd we've very diverse recommendations on issues must be completed. nicely an prolonged submit yet with any luck this facilitates!

Answer 7

I never thought much about having a big house or expensive material items. I was more interested in financial security and having more than one income does help a lot when one person gets fired or becomes unable to work due to injury or illness. In the past, stay-at-home mothers often ended up having to move in with relatives when their husbands died or left them. Sometimes their children were taken away from them and sent to orphanages or split up and adopted out. Real life often wasn't like old TV sitcoms where everything was resolved in a half hour.

Answer 8

It would be more of the children's desire to consume than the mother's. They might get jealous of their friends who have all the coolest stuff. I read about one 13-year-old girl who was angry at her stay-at-home mother for not being able to buy things for herself, and vowed never to turn out like her.

But consumption culture is rarely, if ever, a factor in a mother's decision to work. It's usually the financial circumstances under which they can live with only one income. The economy isn't nearly as good as it could be, thanks in no small part to Reaganomics.

Answer 9

Yes, our desire to consume way more than what we need drives people to think that they NEED 2 incomes to support a family. If you WANT to be a stay at home Mom, you can do it, but sometimes you have to be willing to make sacrifices. If you are not willing to make those sacrifices, the "need" to work develops.

Answer 10

Not really. Supposedly, the 1950s was the era of biggest growth in personal consumption in the USA. And, well, most women were housewives then.