I'm happiest in my quiet home, cleaning and making beautiful meals for my partner. I walk my dog, go to the gym, volunteer cleaning up a local forest and do things that promote tranquility. He makes enough at a tech firm to support the both of us, but I am paying my share of bills with my meager savings.... Is it wrong to ask my partner to support my quiet at-home life for the sake of my mental health?This woman portrays her plight as a "mental heath" issue. She pathologizes her desire for the kind of life women were once criticized for not wanting. It's worth exploring this woman's possible mental problems, but why doesn't Yoffe even recognize the possibility that the single-earner household with a home-based partner is a beautiful, legitimate arrangement?
Yoffe says that "unless there are extenuating circumstances, everyone should have the ability to support herself" and proceeds to give her tips about how to find a new career. Yoffe even suggests making a business out of doing homemaker things for other people:
In your tech town there are going to be those eager to outsource dog walking, meal preparation, and other domestic tasks. Talk to companies that offer these services to busy tech executives, or start your own one-woman business. Sure, preparing a meal for another family is not the same as noodling around your own kitchen. But you may discover you get satisfaction making life more pleasant for stressed-out thriving people....But she said she loved cleaning and making beautiful meals for her partner. Why can't she have her satisfaction making life more pleasant for the stressed-out thriving person she lives with and loves? Yoffe never so much as suggests that the woman talk to her partner about living together like that. Yoffe calls cooking for your own family noodling, as if it's just vague, purposeless playing. I find that terribly sad.
Long ago, Betty Friedan wrote about "the problem that had no name," which was the unhappiness women might feel when they are stuck at home. But now, perhaps, the problem is the longing for a life outside of the marketplace, in the "quiet home," making life beautiful for loved ones, and "do[ing] things that promote tranquility." What might have been troublesome when it was required and imposed on all women may be excellent as an option. How strange not even to perceive it as an option!
(I regard the single-earner household as a fine option for any couple to consider, and I think that the male can be the one who takes the home-based role.)
Posts
63 comments:
I think small part-time jobs can contribute and still leave a lot of "quality time" at home. I never expected my wife to work but inflation and Democrats have severely eroded that life-style. I repeat myself there, sorry.
Maybe I'm reading something into Yoffe's response, but her mention of "being able to support oneself" I read as more a response to the fact that this woman wasn't married to her partner and so could be left trying to support herself after getting out of the workforce. I think if this were a married couple Yoffe's advice might have been different.
I find it just as distressing that the word "marriage" was absent from the column. I would wholeheartedly support my children should they choose to be homemakers in the context of a marriage. In the context of a "partnership" though, I would tell them to keep their day jobs.
"why doesn't Yoffe even recognize the possibility that the single-earner household with a home-based partner is a beautiful, legitimate arrangement? . . . How strange not even to perceive it as an option"
Faux surprise, right? Un-prog options aren't options. Homemaking is akin to slavery. No deviation from orthodoxy can be "beautiful, legitimate."
As for marriage, it's something this couple should discuss. The woman seems to care about building their home-life together. They should be talking about this. If she's just failing to launch and hoping to hide for a while, it's a different kind of problem. I don't know why they are not talking (if they are not).
By the way, one can take a break from work and start a business or go back to school later.
I agree with t-man. Being a homemaker is fine as long as you have someone else committed to being the breadwinnner, and committed to sharing that bread with you. Without that commitment then dropping out of the workforce is a very bad idea.
It's very American of Yoffe. The prevailing attitude is, "I want to live my life exactly as I wish. And I want everybody else to have to live it that way too."
What Brando said.
Also, I don't hear that this woman's issue - not sure why you jumped to that conclusion. And mental health needn't mean "possible mental health problems", it could simply mean a search for some peace and quiet and space. Think mental or emotional well being. Her definition may not be yours.
This may sound snarky, but here's the logic I'm seeing:
"I haven't found a job I enjoy, so I'm going to position my choice to follow personal free time and free electives as a health and wellness issue and will require someone else to subsidize me."
It's severely lacking any true self-reflection. You don't have to work for money, but she's not claiming to seek something that doesn't make money. She's claiming she wants to do whatever she wants that makes her happy.
My wife and I worked her for her to be a stay at home mom these past 2.5 years. But man, I think she wishes she had stayed at work. Two kids now, one of which requires breastfeeding every 2 hours 24/7 since he was born (3.5 months old).
She is filling a very hard and very productive role. If she chooses to go back to work one day, it may be because she needs the mental health break of going to work.
Is it wrong to ask my partner to support my quiet at-home life for the sake of my mental health?
Not if you first volunteered to support your "partner" for the sake of his (its?) mental health.
"By the way, one can take a break from work and start a business or go back to school later."
One can, but there are risks to doing that and it didn't seem like the letter writer's plan. It sounded more like "is it selfish for me to quit working and be supported by my boyfriend?" and I think Yoffe probably looked at it the same way any of us would look at it if the letter writer were our daughter (or son) and was tired of their career and wanted to quit working to be a homemaker for their boyfriend/girlfriend.
In that case, I think most parents would react with "maybe don't quit your day job just yet" or "maybe find a new career" rather than "put your eggs in the basket of this person who isn't legally tied to you and can walk out any time". I didn't read it as "homemaking is for losers!"
Dear Prudence is giving bad advice here on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start, but I would start with this:
"If you could use more help, see if your boyfriend will loan you money for career counseling."
Is it wrong to ask my partner to support my quiet at-home life for the sake of my mental health?
The lady with the problem is missing the point, too. If it's truly a committed relationship, support--mutual support--isn't about bean counting, it's about whether the two are happy in the arrangement. It's much more an emotional balance than it is a fiscal one.
Eric Hines
"I didn't read it as "homemaking is for losers!""
I didn't either. I read it as not even noticing that the homemaker option existed. I think if it had been made clear, Yoffe would have made some gestures at it as being a legitimate choice under some circumstances.
"Unless I missed something, she's not currently married and therefore has no legal standing and is basically unemployed - no matter how much she prefers it. Her relationship could fall apart in a second - or not."
A marriage can also fall apart. But this couple could think hard about how they want to live and decide to marry. And in any case, you can have an arrangement that has no legal enforcement behind it. And what is your definition of "unemployed"? A married person with an employed spouse can be unemployed and many single persons without jobs can be regarded as outside the pool of persons looking for work. You're using the word "unemployed" to mean doing something wrong — should be looking for work. Why?!
What benefit would he get from marrying her?
He's already got what he wants, one enter into a one sided legal contract?
I do not think there should be "a discussion" about marriage, but more like an ultimatum: "You marry me, or I find someone who will!"
And I think her "meager savings" should be salted away for emergencies - especially her emergencies - and for their quiet life together, "cut the cloth to fit your purse," as the old saying goes.
Ann, you would be right If Prudence objected to the writer declaring that even though both partners are happy with a breadwinner/homemaker arrangement she was against it. That's not the case and I doubt she would do that after reading her for as long as I have.
Writer says she is burnt out from being a hospice social worker, a job that is not right for everyone. She says she is terrified of going back to that job so it sounds like she's avoiding things rather than dealing with knowing her chosen profession is not healthy for her. She should see a counselor about what she has dealt with and about other career options.
Also, it doesn't seem like her partner is cool with the idea, which is why she is writing in the first place. If they aren't supportive, you are not a homemaker, but a mooch.
They are not married, sorry, but legally that makes a big difference too. No legal recourse if things go south.
I concur with the sentiment that it's not exactly smart to take oneself out of the workforce just because you want to and someone else is (currently) supporting you. Kids are one thing. If he ditches you you're stuck with no job to start and a pause in employment for no other reason than selfishness.
"Is it wrong to ask my partner to support my quiet at-home life for the sake of my mental health?"
Yes, if he is a partner. No, if he is the husband.
Yoffe doesn't dismiss the notion of single-earner households with one of the partners being based at home; she just thinks it's not the time for this young woman to go that route, saying: "Even if you end up someday being a stay-at-home mother, at this point in life you need to be building work experience in a field that enriches rather than terrifies you."
"A marriage can also fall apart."
Yes, but when a couple gets married that generally indicates a mutual desire for a lifelong commitment to each other. It may not work out that way, but the intent is there. Living together is just living together. If both partners were interested in a lifelong commitment they would get married. In addition, marriage does offer some financial rights. Isn't that one of the reasons that homosexual marriage is such a big deal?
A marriage certificate may just be a piece of paper, but so are birth certificates and life insurance contracts, and leases, and mortgages, and wills. And divorce decrees.
There are no clear answers in the modern way of relationships. Like others here, marriage would be the path to her staying at home, even without getting to the point of children (god forbid-breeding). So I guess its just about how everyone feels.
She wants to be able to do as she pleases, when she pleases. Which is natural enough, as, who of us would not like that?
However, her domestic idyll will be rocked when (if) she and her partner have kids, as she will then be chained to her domestic life as she felt chained to her job, and a harder job she will be chained to than the one she was being paid for.
A one-earner household is great, if one partner wants to fill that role and they can swing it financially. Think of all the savings and efficiencies.
Lecturing feminists will always be there to shame women into "doing the right thing" - silly for a woman to expect that her choice would be respected if it isn't the same choice as would be made by her betters. Also, the government wants people engaging in taxable commercial transactions with non-family members.
That this is even being discussed shows just how bizarre life has become in the past few decades, thanks to feminism.
Ex social worker here - I can certainly relate to this letter on some level. I think her "mental health issue" is nothing more than the realization that she recently spent 4 years in college, and probably has barely made a dent in her student loans, for a career she realizes she doesn't like. She's dramatizing much to call it a "mental health problem", but that's my take on her issue.
Also, she sounds highly introverted with her love of quiet. She just needs a job with less drama, less face to face interaction with people in the throes of intense emotions. I can see this person sitting in front of a computer writing grants, massaging words for the good of nonprofit agencies.
This is sick shit, turning your personal life into an ideological literary battle.
You do the same fucking thing.
You're every bit as bad as she is.
Worse in a lot of ways. Your marriage appears to be the standard sophomore in college "cause" relationship, complete with a hangdog creep who's always apologizing for being a hetero white man. (His real purpose is to ingratiate himself with fag hags in the hope of diverting the Evil Eye to other men.) He's really the kind of weasel you only find on college campuses.
Sick shit.
I'm surprised your picture doesn't feature the feminist girl black beret.
Her boyfriend (no mention of the level of commitment/seriousness of the situation) agreed to her quitting her job "ASSUMING I would quickly find another job" - so clearly he is NOT open to supporting her at this time. So I do not think this is a question of the validity of a single-earner household.
As the parent of two similar aged daughters, AND as someone who strongly believes in the single earner household (once children are present), my answer to them would be (gasp) similar to Yoffe's.
This woman comes off as a freeloader.
Lazy also comes to mind.
My wife chose - after discussing options and effects of decisions with me - to devote her time to raising children and making a home.
After 20 or so years she chose - after discussing it with me - to pursue a late career in academia.
The freedom to focus on my career and have my evenings free to relax with our family rather than doing household chores was fine. Jointly making financial decisions with equal input was fine. Learning to cook and clean to accommodate her later choice was fine.
A new Honda every ten years instead of a BMW was just fine.
We've been content. Our children turned out. We can travel now, and make indulgent purchases every so often.
I gather we're outside the norm.
I too think she was being pragmatic here.
It's obvious that the woman who wrote doesn't have an agreement with her partner for the homemaker option, because she is still contributing to household expenses.
I think it very possible that if the woman wrote and had stated otherwise that she would have received a different answer.
She's not married, this couple doesn't have an agreement that they will merge their lives with just one income earner, and therefore it's not really an option for her. And they're young, without children, so it's time now for her to set up her life so that she can go on with all the options.
If she starts working again and then asks her partner for the option, that's one thing. But if she asks her partner for the stay-at-home non-earner role on the basis that she is mentally incapacitated when working, what kind of answer is she going to get?
Even among married couples, such a decision is not made unilaterally.
It's long past time to state out loud why Crack is no longer around here.
Yeah, he's an insane raving racist.
You kept him around for two reasons. (1) Because you really are a fan of free speech. (2) To provide cover for your "gays and women are oppressed like the niggers under Jim Crow" BS.
You've been telling that lie for so long that you've forgetten that it is a lie.
Crack was your token cover. He was dead on in his constant accusations that you were using him in this fashion. Rich spoiled lazy white woman scamming to get more shit for everybody in your family by doing the "we're just like the niggers" bit.
Even crazy people are sometimes right on the money.
I wish LEM would remove your link so that I wouldn't even know what you are doing. The only thing that can be done in relation to you is to bicker about your bullshit fantasized identity politics. There are ways in which you are an interesting intellectual, but this pretending shit is so sick I don't even want to know about it.
I don't know whether Crack got banned or whether he just got tired of being your token nigger. I guess I don't care either.
Because they weren't married? Without the legal protections of marriage, this woman would be unwise to quit her job.
Because she works for SLATE, that possibility would not occur to her.
FYI, Althouse readers. Here how sick this token nigger thing is that these morons.
About a year ago, I really started to break through with Crack and to offer him some realistic, quick ways to make a living. One of those ways was as an LPN.
It takes less than a year to certified as an LPN. With that certification, Crack could have quickly been earning $20/hr. That field is full of the same Diversity bullshit as everywhere else, but worse. The community college near where he lives would have turned itself inside out to help him.
He's not going to make a living as a musician. Just about nobody is. The digital era has wiped out most ways that musicians can make a living.
Your moron weasel of a husband got between us and told Crack that I was a white supremacist who wanted to degrade him to wiping white people's asses.
My mother went back to school in her 60s and passed her LPN boards when she was 63. She retired several years ago at the age of 83.
A young woman needs to realize that "home-maker" is a trap. Sure, a young, single, female professional is cursed to pay taxes at exorbitant marginal rates in order to support the lifestyles of her married and breeding sisters.
But, in return, she can be happy in a studio apartment, afford happy-hours, get out and about and meet all kinds of promising hi-tech male professionals.
Her mistake is to fall in love and marry one of them; then the trap is sprung.
If she should decide to resume her professional career, she will face income and payroll taxes at about double the rate she paid as a single, with the result that her man will prefer that she stay home, being that she's worth more to him as a cook and nurse than her net income would add to the marriage.
There she sits, so bored that she begs to have a kid, a dog and a couple of cats. Fine, but that all leads to the need for a bigger home and, eventually, a vicious cycle of ever more kids and pets, and ever larger homes.
While the enjoy a low income tax and a lifestyle supported by the high taxes on their single and childfree brethren, she sits at home, talking baby-talk and cat-talk, becoming a boring person, which her guy will soon become fully aware of every time he returns home after a power lunch. It's happened to many of his doctor and lawyer friends.
Divorce will follow and he will get a new, trophy wife. She will keep the house, kids, dogs and cats, but again face a high marginal tax rate should she decide to return to practice her profession. But she'll have welfare benefits to fall back on--another trap that offers an effective marginal tax rate often exceeding 100% to the woman who tries to escape to a new job.
She wouldn't have been so trapped if marriage and pro-natal tax benefits were eliminated.
And who wants to date the new divorcee with all the kids, cats and dogs, much less hire her after 10 years of baby-talk?
It's high time to abolish civil marriage and all its "benefits" in the interests of women.
A year later and I'm still furious with your dumb motherfucking husband over that shit.
Crack is now completely isolated. Nobody wants him.
And, Larry, you damned dumb fuck, you just kept telling him that he should be an angry spokesman for his race, instead of acquiring a job skill so that he could take care of his existential and psychological problems..
Look what your stupid fucking identity politics has done for him. Completely isolation.
Damn you to hell, idiot.
I'm usually not one to give Yoffe a pass, but in this case I think I do. For a 26-year old who has abandoned the career she was trained for, entering into a single income "partner" arrangement with a guy who is letter her pay her "share" out of savings is such a bad arrangement that I don't fault Yoffe for ignoring it in her short response. A handshake agreement might be fine for mature couples where no one needs to build a resume, but to have him build a career while she takes care of the homefront is a bad idea if she has no legal rights.
Emily Yoffe said, "Even if you end up someday being a stay-at-home mother, at this point in life you need to be building work experience in a field that enriches rather than terrifies you."
After noodling on this sentence in the advice response, I thought she was nuancing? that a stay-at-home might be appropriate with children, but not in this case, as girlfriend.
"Emily Yoffe said, "Even if you end up someday being a stay-at-home mother, at this point in life you need to be building work experience in a field that enriches rather than terrifies you."
Key word: mother.
Perhaps this "Modest Ambitions" person could make a secondary income writing poetry for Garrison Keilor's Writers Almanac radio show? Imagine the poem that could be written about the turtle her boyfriend thoughtlessly squashed when he backed out of the driveway!
I agree with the consensus here that married isn't the same as unmarried and husband/wife isn't the same as partner. From a revealed preferences standpoint it's tough not to infer that the committment necessary for long term one-earner relationship is missing in Modest Ambition's case.
I'm interested in the framing of her problem as a mental health issue, though. Phrasing her problem in that way makes her partner seem like a bad person if they don't go along with her desire, doesn't it? A personal preference could be seen as selfish, but once it's a matter of health, well, that partner'd better agree to what she wants, or the partner is the one not being supportive.
Yoffe says "But unless there are extenuating circumstances, everyone should have the ability to support herself" which is unobjectionable. It's perfectly reasonable to assume she could support herself by providing domestic services to her partner (current or future). There's no guarantee of stability in that "line of work," of course, but there's not necessarily much stability in lots of jobs/businesses. Imagine an agent who represents just one client--if that client dies or quits their business the agent'd be out of luck. Obviously real agents try to address this risk by diversifying their client base, but lots of businesses operate under monopsonistic environments.
The main problems I see are:
1.)the gal's not married and seems to believe her partner won't fully approve of her choice--she appears to be afraid to tell him the truth about what she wants but to obtain her desired situation she'll need to be 100% honest and forthright. Yoffe doesn't really address this. 0 points.
2.)Modest Ambitions frames her distaste for her chosen profession & working in general as a mental health problem, implicitly closing off viable alternate options (doing other kinds of paid work) and turning what might be a temporary setback and feeling into a permanent state of being. Yoffe addresses this a bit by suggesting other kinds of work, but doesn't directly challenge MA's characterization. Half a point.
3.) As Prof A points out Yoffe doesn't seem to consider the idea of MA being a homemake as an acceptable outcome and does not mention even in passing that such a choice would be OK. Yoffe says "even if end up someday being a stay-at-home mother" as though that status isn't something that could be consciously chosen--it'd just happen someday. Note too that homemaking is only mentioned in the context of children; a few commenters here also make that leap, but historically it wasn't unheard of for a partner to be a homemaker even w/o kids. 0 points for Yoffe.
It seems like only a few posts ago we were discussing the widely-discussed "problem" of young boys failing to become men in the sense that successful women want them to. In the case of those men the judgement was largely a defect in their (collective) character, so they garnered little sympathy. Perhaps those fellows should recast their desires to work little, play video games much, "hang out" with friends instead of striving for advancement and finncial gain, etc, as "seeking tranquility in their own way" and necessary for their mental health.
It's hard to believe you can't recognize that someone might not recognize not working outside the home as an option.
She's 26; there's a new zeitgeist for her generation.
That means she was probably born in 1988; she only really probably started paying attention to society and broader issues in the last 10 years; if that.
Contemplate that for a second.
I don't know how old you are Ann, but I believe you're in your early 60s; that's a big difference.
Housewife Charged In Sex-For-Security Scam
If her prospective husband is fine with it, who cares? Unless you want to be paranoid about divorce.
. I read other columns by this woman, and she seems a bit of a shrew. However, not to be contrarian, but saying that "everyone should have the ability to support [one's] self" doesn't automatically mean that she is eschewing being a stay at home mom, or a homemaker. I give this advice to my daughter, and my sons too.
t-man said...
I find it just as distressing that the word "marriage" was absent from the column. I would wholeheartedly support my children should they choose to be homemakers in the context of a marriage. In the context of a "partnership" though, I would tell them to keep their day jobs.
If it's only in the context of a partnership, isn't she then "a kept woman"?
I love that staying home sticks it to the tax man! And now it's a mental health issue.b
I would echo the sentiments of perhaps half of the posters here; the woman's choice to be a homemaker would be ideal, IF she were married. A stable FWB relationship doesn't cut it. For FWB to work, she has to retain some independence of action - independence that is totally missing in her stay-at-home relationship.
When guys stay at home and pursue their own interests - like Call of Duty, or World of Warcraft - they are condemned, whether married or not. Why does she think that she's somehow above such judgment?
Gotta say as a bachelor quondam non futurus, this woman has "accidental pregnancy" flashing in neon on her brow. Her boyfriend needs to get out or get cut or look at a lifetime of being trapped in the traditional way.
I am an evangelical Christian. I think women can have wonderful lives as stay-at-home homemakers. But the model I see working all the time takes a lot of planning and effort and often there is little appreciation by guys like me who work all day away from the home. It is a life of service to others, not service to yourself. I don't think this woman's view of life is going to serve her well.
Best comment on Slate I read was something like:
"You hate your job. There's a support group for that. It's called everybody. We meet at the bar every day at 5."
Seriously, she should work until she's married or she decreases her power and control in the relationship. She has to worry about living a basic subsistence if for any reason she displeases him and can't be thinking about whether he is the right person for her. Not a good power dynamic.
There's a subtle shirking going on when she casts the decision as something her partner should do for her -- for the sake of her mental health. It plays into the conspicuous absence of the word "marriage."
She's not casting this as a partnership where both parties benefit from reallocating resources -- say, by having a nice home, home cooking, availability for stay at home mothering, etc. The big change is that she stops paying the bills and does what she likes.
Under the circumstances, she's proposing a major life change for both parties, but without a formal commitment. Unless the partnership is closer to a common law marriage, the single breadwinner model might not be stable.
As other commenters point out, the fact that the guy is implicitly not on board with this plan makes it a bad idea. There's a lot of potential for resentment if one side feels like they got railroaded into a major life decision like supporting a stay at home partner. And 26 is too young to assume that it's a common law marriage situation -- lots of relationships break up in the mid 20s.
This situation used to to be called shacking up. She or he does not want to commit. What happens when one of them decides it is time for children? Maybe another partner would be better at that point.
Post a Comment