Honey, while you’re out, could you pick up a paycheck?
Published by punkass marc July 31st, 2006 in What Patriarchy?, When Dads Go BadAccording to the NYT, as far as the workplace is concerned, some men are just saying no:
Millions of men like Mr. Beggerow — men in the prime of their lives, between 30 and 55 — have dropped out of regular work. They are turning down jobs they think beneath them or are unable to find work for which they are qualified, even as an expanding economy offers opportunities to work.
About 13 percent of American men in this age group are not working, up from 5 percent in the late 1960’s. The difference represents 4 million men who would be working today if the employment rate had remained where it was in the 1950’s and 60’s.
Ah, how generous of the American male — 4 million feminist supporters holding the door for women to take the jobs they think.. are… beneath… well, okay, the job might be a bit of a fixer-upper. But we promise it’s a great starter gig. Lots of advancement opportunities. Yep. Whoo, what time is it? I, uh, gotta go. [scampers off]
Beggerow was a steelworker, but it isn’t just the blue collar man sitting on the sidelines to help the cause of feminism:
“To be honest, I’m kind of looking for the home run,” said Christopher Priga, who is 54 and has not had steady work since he lost a job with a six-figure income as an electrical engineer at Xerox in 2002. “There’s no point in hitting for base hits,” he explained. “I’ve been down the road where I did all the things I was supposed to do, and the end result of that is nil.”
Instead, Mr. Priga supports himself by borrowing against the rising value of his Los Angeles home. Other men fall back on wives or family members.
Hey, look at that! Not only are a number of these men giving women the chance to hold jobs, but they’re also sharing the joy of supporting a family with their wives. That’s so sweet. I’m sure they’re picking up the slack back at the homestead to show their gratitude.
Today, about 73 percent of women between 30 and 54 have a job, compared with 45 percent in the mid-1960’s, according to an analysis of Census data by researchers at Queens College. Many women without jobs are raising children at home, while men who are out of a job tend to be doing neither family work nor paid work.
Err, well, um, we promise we’ll take little Johnny to the park as soon as the game’s over.
In all seriousness, though, Mr. Beggerow isn’t above looking for regular work; he just can’t stand the trappings of a crappy job anymore:
What got to him was not the work. It was the frequent furloughs, the uncertainty whether he would be recalled, the mandatory overtime and 50-hour weeks often imposed when he did return, the schedules that forced him to work every holiday except Christmas, and then, as rising seniority finally gave him some protection, a six-month strike in 1983 followed by a wage cut. His pay shrank to $13 an hour from $17, a loss he did not fully recover until those last three years.
“I was always thinking if there was some way I could get out of this, do something else,” Mr. Beggerow said. “What made me so upset was the insecurity of it all and the humiliation. I don’t want to take a job that would put me through that again.”
Fair enough. I don’t mean to make light of the unfair conditions in our evaporating blue collar workplaces. I have a big problem with it, as I’m sure we all do.
But why is this man leaving everything to his wife?
Their two incomes are not enough to cover expenses, which bothers Mrs. Beggerow, although not enough to badger her husband to take a job, any job. She respects him too much for that, she says.
Instead, she finds ways to make money herself, in activities she enjoys. She is taking in work as a seamstress, baking pastries for parties and selling merchandise for others on eBay, collecting a fee. Still, she says, she hopes to land a part-time clerical job. “The comfort of a paycheck every week would take a load off my mind,” she said.
While she is tolerant of her husband’s reluctance to work, respecting his current pursuits, she is not above looking for a job he would consider suitable.
Anyone who’s had to take part-time clerical work knows it’s hardly secure and can be at least a little humiliating. I also doubt it pays $13/hour. But hey, if she wants to seek it out while juggling 3 other small income streams and working to find him a job, Mr. Beggerow’s content to sleep his 9+ hours a night while she does.
The article presents us with only the cases of Mr. Beggerow and Mr. Priga, but if many willfully unemployed men “tend to be doing neither family work nor paid work” while they “fall back on wives” for financial support, then we may be witnessing the exploitation of women’s workforce gains by the lazy American dude.
Research tends to back up the lack of housework help:
On average, women ages 18-65 spend about 30 hours per week in paid employment and 22 hours doing housework (see also Arlie Hochschild’s, The Second Shift, 1989). Men average about ten hours per week doing housework, a figure which changes little when their wives work and they have young children in the household.
No shock there. The image of a man reclining with his feet propped up while his wife is scurrying around the house making it spotless is often pitched as the American dream, even today. Given that men have been unable to stem the tide of women entering the workplace, some of them seem happy to turn it around on them and stay in that recliner all day, every day, while the wife figures out how to handle the house, the kids, and now the paycheck.
In some senses, the destigmatization of a working wife has emboldened men to simply pile onto her one extra demand. Mr. Beggerow is happy to lounge around while Mrs. Beggerow absorbs the stress of burning through the last year of their savings while he re-mortgages their house and figures, if she’s so worried about money, it’s up to her to take the jobs he thinks are beneath him.
Kudos to some of these guys for finding inventive ways to turn women’s advances against them. A man can live a life of great privilege now that he’s relieved of the burden of wasting so much time at a job. Of course, he might not realize just how irrelevent he’s made himself in his own home, and while some women appear willing to do literally everything for their husbands, let’s hope others are not as forgiving as Mrs. Beggerow.
No one should have to overwork themselves at a thankless job for shitty pay. But if you expect your wife to do it for you, well, the vacuum’s in the closet, the detergent’s above the washer, and the kids have a dentist appointment at 10. Get. fucking. on. it.
Interesting point. It does go to show why working class male egos can be so wrapped up in anti-feminism. It’s important for the left to view ourselves as the allies of these men, though. In fact, this sort of thing might be an opportunity to agitate for higher wages and better jobs for all.
Women’s willingness to take crappy jobs and men’s unwillingness to do so might account for the wage gap to a large degree.
No question, we are allies with these men — we must improve working conditions, salaries, and benefits for all.
But some of these men aren’t trying to change the game to make it better, they’ve just quit playing, and the ones who expect their wives to pick up the slack must at least be expected to do the same around the house. That’s hardly “anti-working-man,” I should think.
No of course it isn’t. You’re 100% right about this. It’s a conundrum—men treat their wives as fallback sources of ego-boosting and it is a crutch that keeps them from seeing the big picture.
See what you’ve done, feminists? You’ve destroyed the natural will of men to support their families. Get back in the kitchen now, and if you’re lucky, your man will lower himself to get a job to feed you and the twelve kids he’s going to slip inside you when you’re not looking.
What baffles me, honestly, is why these women keep the useless assholes around. They don’t need them for a paycheck, and there’s obviously not a lot of love left in their marriages.
“They don’t need them for a paycheck, and there’s obviously not a lot of love left in their marriages.”
a) there’s no way to accurately assess remaining love level in anyone’s marriage that isn’t your own.
b) if the individuals in question didn’t choose their partners based on potential earning power, why would the joblessness of one partner lessen the affection felt by the other?
I don’t put much stock in the love of a guy who sits around all day letting his wife earn a paycheck and do all the housework. Love isn’t a bunch of pretty words.
a) Sadly, no. Or not exactly. We do know that people cling to marriage out of duty more than anything, which is actually why marriage exists. If love alone did it, we wouldn’t have a need for vows and promises.
Get. fucking. on. it.
Ugh. These fuckers are exactly like my father. He worked as a teacher and computer repair guy for part of his life. Then, when my mother got an amazing job in New Jersey, he just stopped working and now, he sits around their apartment while my mother is forced to clean and do the cooking. Sure, they don’t really need the paycheck, but he could get off his ass and help out around the house if he isn’t going to get a job. The problem is that he has gotten so used to NEVER doing any housework that the very idea of him doing work doesn’t cross his mind. I think I’m so neurotic about having a clean house because I never want to be that lazy nor can I stand it when i know there is something I could be doing to fix things. What the hell is wrong with these people? Oh wait…now I remember. Patriarchy.
why would the joblessness of one partner lessen the affection felt by the other?
The point wasn’t about joblessness, but the fact that the guy thinks he doesn’t have to contribute anything to the relationship. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you were living with someone who didn’t do his/her fair share of work around the house (whatever their fair share was) wouldn’t you be pissed? Wouldn’t you begin to not respect that person? I know I would.
I wonder how many of these *wonderful* men are also screaming “Illegal immigrants are taking all the jobs!”
The article states exactly nothing about the amount of housework done by any of the men profiled. You are just making shit up.
It does include:
He sounds pretty progressive (and unfortunate) to me …
Carty,
You say:
The article states exactly nothing about the amount of housework done by any of the men profiled. You are just making shit up.
Not about the guys profiled, but about the men in general it says:
“Many women without jobs are raising children at home, while men who are out of a job tend to be doing neither family work nor paid work.”
And I assume that unless someone names a profilee specifically, s/he is talking about the same men in general as that quote.
but the fact that the guy thinks he doesn’t have to contribute anything to the relationship.
I should have said the guys in the study. I wasn’t talking about the men specifically named (Priga and, to an extent, Beggerow), who seem to be in dire straits.
b) if the individuals in question didn’t choose their partners based on potential earning power, why would the joblessness of one partner lessen the affection felt by the other?
His joblessness isn’t really the issue, is it? It’s not like he lost his job and his wife isn’t being understanding about it, it’s that he refuses to work at some crappy job because it’s beneath him, which is all well and good and true except now they’ve got very little money coming in, his wife is all stressed out about their bills, and she’s going to have to do whatever she needs to to keep them afloat, including working at a probably even more crappy low paid job, or two, or three, and there’s no indication that he’s doing anything around the house. It’s not like they’re wealthy and she’s being greedy or prissy, so chances are it could end up taking its toll on their marriage over time.
antiprincess, how could affection not be lessened under these circumstances?
If you read the whole article, it claims that a) Mr. and Mrs. Beggerow can’t get by without his salary
b) Mrs. Beggerow did have a fairly good job when they got married ($28,000/yr) but lost it when she was hurt in a car accident. Her injuries were serious enough that she lost the job and went on disability, which may mean that her ability to get a well paid job is limited by her physical condition, in addition to age and other factors.
c) Mr. B has refinanced their home and their savings are slowly being eaten away–they’re in their late 40’s and their savings will be long gone before retirement
d) Mrs. B worries constantly about how they’ll survive, Mr. B. prefers not to worry about it
I mean, come on! Maybe you’re the most tolerant person on earth and would be fine with this. Maybe Mrs. B is too. But many people wouldn’t be, and as far as I’m concerned they’d have a right to be angry, and not because they chose their partners on the basis of potential earnings.
Marriage is a partnership, and many many couples simply couldn’t absorb the loss of one partner’s earnings when it’s by choice. If Mrs. B had a high salary job she loved that could support both of them, she’d probably cheer her husband’s decision to do what makes him happy, play the piano, read.
That’s not the case, though. Mr. B’s right that most work is humiliating and degrading. Thing is though, that’s just as true for her as it is for him. He’s not dropping out of society, making some big political point, starting a movement, trying to redefine work, suggestng they go back to the land to decrease expenses, or changing anything by his actions.
All he’s doing is shunting everything on to his wife so she’s got to pick up all of his slack.
Love doesn’t mean never saying you’re sorry for your total disregard for your spouse’s feelings and welfare.
would we condemn the lazy housewife who refuses to do dishes while her husband slaves away in the working world? would we tell her husband to ditch the slovenly cunt because obviously she doesn’t love him enough, as evidenced by her refusal to do housework? is being a crappy housekeeper evidence of lack of committment? an insult to one’s partner?
No, of course not. we know women are not put on this earth solely to do housework, to service men’s whims, etc. To suggest that the stay-home woman is somehow duty-bound or expected to do the Donna Reed thing would seem somehow less than progressive. Given such a situation (man working, woman at home), we just sort of assume that it works for them and don’t really give a shit. Then again “Stay-home Wife Refuses to Wash Socks” isn’t much of a headline.
a person’s value can - indeed should - be assessed in terms other than money. Maybe in the opinion of some on this thread, I should have given my better half the boot before he’d been jobless for over a year - but I can’t think of anyone else who would hold my hand and soothe me as the doctor tries for 45 minutes to do a lumbar puncture on my uncooperative back. Nobody else speaks my language, dissipates my nightmares, fixes my coffee, “gets me” the way he does. His lack of employment, though dismaying and at times frustrating, is simply not enough for me to toss him on the scrap heap of exhusbands. His value to me is not calculable in wages or hours or clean socks. He means more to me than a paycheck. period.
I think it is possible (maybe not common, but certainly possible) for a partner to tolerate extended joblessness with good humor and a minimum of resentment. If (deity-forbid) I should lose my job, I sure wouldn’t want my partner to conclude I am useless and should be kicked to the curb if I am unsuccessful in getting a new job right away.
Seems AP doesn’t read.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you were living with someone who didn’t do his/her fair share of work around the house (whatever their fair share was) wouldn’t you be pissed? Wouldn’t you begin to not respect that person? I know I would.
See any gender specific references in there? I don’t.
OK, OK - I stand corrected - but nonetheless I don’t think that the article itself would have been cause for remark if the issue were lazy wives.
Carty said: “”The article states exactly nothing about the amount of housework done by any of the men profiled. You are just making shit up.”
Sorry Carty, but you’s wrong on this one: see second paragraph of the story:
“So instead of heading to work, Mr. Beggerow, now 53, fills his days with diversions: playing the piano, reading histories and biographies, writing unpublished Western potboilers in the Louis L’Amour style — all activities once relegated to spare time. He often stays up late and sleeps until 11 a.m.”
Further on, the writer states that Mr. B. has now perfected his piano playing skills by being able to practice up to three hours a day! Also, he reads about two or three novels and a week and also finds the time to keep little reviews posted on Amazon.com in between writing his Great American Western Cowboy Novel. I don’t see a lot of time there for household maintenance in that schedule.
Of course, we can also understand why Mr. B. sees that he’s too good to bag groceries at the local Food Mart or mop the damn floor, he’s now an artist and a man of letters.
And AntiPrincess asks: “b) if the individuals in question didn’t choose their partners based on potential earning power, why would the joblessness of one partner lessen the affection felt by the other?”
Well, what kind of love is that which demands that:
a) one partner create all the energy needed for sustenance in the relationship (financial survival) while the other consumes it without compensation of any kind.
b) that one partner be allowed to pursue their pleasure while the other toils to keep such pleasure pursuits going.
c) that both or either partner must be placed on a path of spiraling their future financial health down the toilet.
I married a man like this when I was young, he was older than me, but had spent much time out of the job market. He had marketable skills, although some skills (mainly machining) were being phased out and in less demand. Hence, finding his other marketable skills (mechanics) beneath his level, he opted for work under the table or no work at all. Guess which he did most?
He still felt he was entitled to breed and entitled to have a woman take care of him, even if that meant that she would have to work while he sat around waiting for his ship to come in. After a while, for them, it becomes a lifestyle which is apparent with the men profiled in the story.
I booted the bum out after I grew up and got on my feet in a few years. He just drifted along until he found a woman with money who had a penchant for dysfunctional men, being quite so herself. He’s been spending her into the poor house. At least the sponge is away from me and my children.
Might I also say that many of these men, especially blue collar men who formally held high paying and highly protected union jobs, don’t feel that they should have to retrain or get any education. Much of the old union, blue collar, white male workforce really believes they are entitled to high wage low stress work and to having a ‘little woman’ at home who will pick up their slippers and cook them their roast beef every night.
I really love the focus on the new entitlement of disability benefits, finding it ironic how its ok for a man with a ‘bad back’ to lay around all day, but for a woman, lo! She’s a ho!
Antiprincess says again: “would we condemn the lazy housewife who refuses to do dishes while her husband slaves away in the working world?”
We don’t have to, popular culture and media has that job and they do it well.
“would we tell her husband to ditch the slovenly cunt because obviously she doesn’t love him enough, as evidenced by her refusal to do housework? is being a crappy housekeeper evidence of lack of committment? an insult to one’s partner?”
Again, popular culture does.
In fact, popular culture supports these men and supports the notion that no matter what a man does or does not contribute, the woman must still keep the clock going 24/7.
“If (deity-forbid) I should lose my job, I sure wouldn’t want my partner to conclude I am useless and should be kicked to the curb if I am unsuccessful in getting a new job right away.”
No one said that. But if you have a man hangin’ around the house polishing up on his writing skills, piano arts and the like while you are humping the laundry, chasing the kids and working a fulltime job and paying all the bills, then there’s problem.
A household takes a lot to run and in any household, all those who benefit by having that roof over their heads, should contribute to its maintenance in some way, whether by dipping the fingers into the dishwater or their feet into a McD’s uniform if need be.
That’s the progressive way. Holding hands and ’standing by me’ only lasts so far until the rent can’t get paid or the mortgage is always late, there’s no food on the table and the kids need school clothes.
His value to me is not calculable in wages or hours or clean socks. He means more to me than a paycheck. period.
So if he sat around the house all day only because he thought he was too good for the work he could get while you held a full-time job and did all the housework, you wouldn’t be upset?
That’s what we’re talking about here: not joblessness, not even a resistence to housework, but this guy’s expectation that his wife wait on him hand and foot.
Wow, great post, Kate.
hestia - who does housework?
I’ve been jobless and living with someone who had a job. You best believe that all the housework was done by me and all the cooking. I would have died of humiliation rather than not do everything in my power to pull my weight.
No, of course not. we know women are not put on this earth solely to do housework, to service men’s whims, etc. To suggest that the stay-home woman is somehow duty-bound or expected to do the Donna Reed thing would seem somehow less than progressive. Given such a situation (man working, woman at home), we just sort of assume that it works for them and don’t really give a shit.
Um, yeah, that’s awesome, except it’s NOT working for them. They’re heading for life in a cardboard box, she’s concerned, he doesn’t care. It’s cool though, cuz objecting to living in a cardboard box would make her a materialist who only cares about money and accesses her partner’s worth in terms of a paycheck.
I think it is possible (maybe not common, but certainly possible) for a partner to tolerate extended joblessness with good humor and a minimum of resentment. If (deity-forbid) I should lose my job, I sure wouldn’t want my partner to conclude I am useless and should be kicked to the curb if I am unsuccessful in getting a new job right away.
Again, the problem isn’t joblessness, it’s that they CAN’T AFFORD for him to not work. We’re not talking about Britany Spears telling her husband to get a job he doesn’t want and he hates because she’s too greedy to support him even though she’s a bazillionaire. We’re talking about a woman who’s currenly on disability who’s probably going to have to get three lousy jobs because her husband thinks one is beneath him even though he’s apparently able bodied, he’s taken out a second mortgage and he’s burning through their savings while she constanly worries about the future. If he genuinely believes that the culture of work is demeaning, doesn’t that apply to his wife, too? Why isn’t he concerned about the psychic wound this is going to cause her, what with her being on disability and all. Sounds like a caring non selfish partner. No insult there.
Oh, and would society condemn a woman who didn’t work outside the home, didn’t do any housework, and expected her husband who lost his job because of disability to work three jobs plus cook and clean while she spent his savings and took out a second mortgage? Um. Well.
“A person’s value can, indeed should be assessed in terms other than money.”
Yes. People should be judged on the content of their character. Nobody is criticizing Bigggerow because he’s poor. They’re criticizing him because he expects his wife to support both of them even though he’s more capable of getting a high paying job than she is but he refuses, because he doesn’t want to though they’re on the financial edge. Did you read the article? Are you an heiress? No, they can’t just eat cake if they can’t afford to buy bread.
“He means more to me than a paycheck, period.”
Everyone, I daresay, feels that way about his/her spouse. For some of us, though, there are limits to what we’re willing to put up with. Some of us have gotten attached to such modern frivolities as heat, electricity, and food, and if we couldn’t afford those things even though we’re breaking our backs working because our spouse refuses to help out, we might be selfish enough to think there’s a problem in our marriage that’s not 100% our fault.
I love my spouse more than I love heating fuel, sure, but it does come in handy when it’s 17 degrees.
Clearly I’m taking this all wicked personally, because the article paints a pretty accurate picture of my own life (minus the kids). That could absolutely be me and my husband. I don’t want people to shake their heads and feel sorry for me for being our sole support, nor do I want people to think my husband’s an asshole for being out of work.
“Are you an heiress?”
nope, I’m a receptionist. I am fortunate to work indoors and at a desk, with decent benefits. Don’t for a moment think I am blind to how privileged I am to have the job I do.
My husband’s out of work. He’s been looking for a year, BUT I’d rather he hold out for a job that doesn’t make him eat shit every day for just enough money to cover the cost of keeping the job. For us, one wage slave in the family is enough - and at the moment it’s me. (and I’m proud of that. It gives me a good feeling to know I can support us.) It’s not going to kill me to work for a living. if I were single I’d have to work anyway, eat anyway, stay warm in the winter anyway.
we manage, more or less. Some days we’re re-enacting the Siege of Leningrad, and some days we live like kings. We’re still doing better than some 90% of the world. We’ve both been worse off, and better off, but in the end, when we’re old and close to death, we won’t remember each time the gas got shut off or the time we had to eat nothing but refried beans for that week or any other period of hardship. We’ll be grateful that we have each other, god willing.
We manage to keep a roof over our heads and the wolf away from the door, most days. Isn’t that all anyone asks?
Two incomes would allow us to pay our futility bills closer to on-time. but it’s not like the bills will disappear. Two incomes would allow us to not scramble at the end of the month, maybe. But it’s not like the good life is some elusive future state based on how much money we both will make someday. we know what’s important to us.
We’re pretty close to the edge. But we manage.
I expect if we had kids it would be different. But we don’t.
Once upon a time I left a chronically-jobless-but-otherwise-great partner for a man with a job. Worst mistake of my life. But it forced me to look at what I really valued in a partner. It turns out I could give a shit what (if anything) my partner does for a living. I value other things. I know that other people see things differently - but this is what works for me.
I know - everyone’s saying “but those women in the article are struggling and it’s not fair and those guys are dirtbags for not helping out and I would never put up with/let my partner suffer/etc.” All I can say is - you never know what you’d do in any situation until you’re in it.
No one is blaming men for being out of work—the economy is in the shitter, it happens. What is upsetting is men who feel superior to women to the degree that they won’t lower themselves to do “women’s” work, whether it’s drawing a paycheck for it or just cleaning the house.
We ALL want our partners to have fulfilling, well-paid work. We L*O*V*E them ! But there is a degree of fucked-upped-ness about the premise that shitty wage-slavery is OK for women, but anethema for men. If you are going to both be in a shitty little rowboat, BOTh should ply an oar.
I have experienced this on a similar level in my youth. I am an “artist” (a musician and recording artist) and tended to date others in the same mileau. Frequently I ran across fellows of the opinion: “I am far too great a genius to work at a crappy job. It is beneath me. I let my girlfriend who supports me do that, becasue once I get famous, she’ll be on easy street!” Hey, it’s a nice fantasy plan, whatever. But If I have to bus or wait tables or wash dishes to pay the rent and utilities, Mr. Genius does too, because you know what? I am just as remarkable a genius as any man, and I have to.
Fortunately, Though this line of thinking was tried out on me several times, I did not buy. Despite the “art” trappings, it is the same as the blue collar premise. I don’t really think people should HAVE TO do work that is beneath them or get teated shitty, no matter what their sex. HOWEVER: THere is NO EXCUSE for living parasitically off people you “love”, and causing them additional hardship and stress, That applies to your spouse and your parents. Pulling your own weight is an excellent philosophy. It is dishonorable to make your spouse (or parent) do work YOU would decline to do, to pull your weight for you.
AntiPrincess: I have often read your postings and I think you are far from a fool. One difference between your spouse and the men we are discussing is that your spouse is Looking For and Intends to get a job…these guys in the article just can’t adjust to the ego-bruising of taking a crappy job, so they let their wives take the crappy job so they can nurse their egos. (Well, Mr. Beggerow anyway. The other guy’s story was quite different). ALso you say you enjoy your job, which makes a difference too. I think the crucial issue under discussion here is: Why is it OK for a woman to take a crappy, demeaning, poorly paid job, but “beneath” a man?
“your spouse is Looking For and Intends to get a job”
god willing. but I have to be prepared for the possibility that this is a long-term state of affairs, with the same net result (no job) as if he was purposely malingering. It’s been a year, after all.
It’s not like I really love the high-tech high-speed thrill-a-minute world of the front desk, and all its commensurate prestige and gravitas. But I love the fact that I’m the so-called “breadwinner” at the moment.
“Why is it OK for a woman to take a crappy, demeaning, poorly paid job, but “beneath” a man?”
because men are their jobs. still.
Um, no. You might believe that sexist bullshit, but I’m insulted at the suggestion that “men are their jobs” and women are supposed to work around that because a woman’s identity doesn’t matter.
You might be happy in your marriage. It’s your marriage and your business. Most people would expect their partners to pull their weight either by earning a paycheck or helping out around the house if they’re not, and that doesn’t make them the least bit selfish, materialistic, or unloving.
sorry, Junkscience. I was unclear and posting hastily.
I don’t think men are their jobs, but I think that many people think men are their jobs.
I apologize for the confusion on that. I didn’t mean to be insulting.
“It’s your marriage and your business.”
Well, that’s the thing. I think the folks interviewed were judged pretty harshly based on how their marriages looked to outsiders, through the very narrow lens of this particular issue. And the point I was trying to make was that marriages are way more complex than simply “he’s a jerk and she’s a saint” or “he’s taking advantage and she’s a fool to put up with it.” On the one hand, the interviewees put their lives out there to be read and dissected and commented on, but on the other hand, it’s their marriage and their business and outsiders can’t claim to understand the subtleties of a relationship based on an article in the Times.
“Most people would expect their partners to pull their weight either by earning a paycheck or helping out around the house if they’re not, and that doesn’t make them the least bit selfish, materialistic, or unloving.”
neither does being a crappy housekeeper make one selfish or unloving, which was another point I was trying to make. in my case, I can’t in good conscience get on my husband for not “helping out around the house” when I know that I myself am a blue-ribbon slob who just doesn’t give a shit about housekeeping.
I didn’t mean to insinuate that people who have higher standards are selfish/materialistic/unloving. I can see where I might sound that way, but that wasn’t my intention.
I will try to be clearer in the future.
“I don’t really think people should HAVE TO do work that is beneath them or get teated shitty, no matter what their sex.” [Kathy McCarty]
No-one should be treated badly at work, I’m with you on that. But this idea of a job being ‘beneath’ someone - what’s that actually mean? You’re too educated or overqualified for the skills it requires? That’s irrelevant if you need the money it’ll pay you, and you can’t find anything else that fits your talents better. Part of being an adult is being responsible for yourself, it’s looking after your own needs instead of hurting someone else (financially or otherwise) by sponging off them when they can’t afford it. I can quite accept that people might not *like* such work, but again, part of being a grown-up is doing unpleasant necessities even if they’re not much fun.
To say, “This job is beneath me,” also implies an enormous arrogance. By and large, an activity is a job because it needs doing - people value its completion, and this is expressed economically. Thus even less desirable jobs, such as cleaning toilets or working in a slaughterhouse, need to be done by somebody. You’re no better than anybody else; if it’s ‘beneath’ you it’s beneath everyone, and that kind of attitude’s invalid as it leaves an awful lot of essential tasks undone! It also implies a rather fragile sense of self-worth… It’s disappointing not to be working at one’s full capacity, perhaps, but being a dustbin man’s not morally inferior to being a CEO…
“Clearly I’m taking this all wicked personally, because the article paints a pretty accurate picture of my own life (minus the kids). That could absolutely be me and my husband. I don’t want people to shake their heads and feel sorry for me for being our sole support, nor do I want people to think my husband’s an asshole for being out of work.”
Well, I apologize if you’re taking anything I said personally.
I have to confess that I take the piece personally, too, because I see a lot of my parents’ situation in the Biggerows (except in my case my father would be Mrs. Biggerow and my mother Mr. Biggerow, but whatever).
It’s not that anyone thinks a guy is an asshole for being out of work or automatically feel sorry for anyone who’s the family’s sole support, or that not doing housework makes a person uncaring and selfish *IF* neither one of them cares about it and it’s not adding any extra stress to either party, it’s just certain attitudes in the article. The wife is very very concerned about what’s going to happen to them, and he really doesn’t seem to want to deal with their reality. She’s frustrated, he thinks everything is perfect. What’s worse is that he feels entitled to a fulfilling job, which I think we all agree everyone should be, but he used to have a fulfilling job, she probably never even had that opportunity from what we can gather from the piece, and it doesn’t seem to enter his head when he’s thinking about jobs and personal fulfilment that maybe it would be nice if SHE could have a fulfilling job, too. Maybe it would be nice if she weren’t so stressed out about how they’re going to survive.
Maybe there should be more to her life than having to go off to work, come home and do all the housework, and still have to reassure him that he deserves a job and a life better than anything she can hope for, maybe he could do some thinking about what would make her happy and what he could do to make her life happier and easier since they’ve both given a lot of thought to what would make him happy. One thing that bugged me is that Mrs. Biggerow is sympathetic to her husband and doesn’t want him to take a job he hates, but he doesn’t seem to have anything to say about her and what she has to put up with, it’s all about him and his feelings with no empathy at all for how worried she is or what a bad position she’s in or if she gets a lot of personal satisfation out of her job and her life.
I just can’t see someone coming to the reasonable conclusion that most work is so demeaning as to be beneath him and not give a second thought to his partner, who’s seemingly faced with an even bleaker, less fulfilling and more demeaning situation than he was. God, I’d like to think that anyone who felt that strongly against shit work would be the one to take it on him/herself to spare his/her partner if necessary, isn’t a partnership about putting the person you love first even over yourself sometimes, being unselfish? She seems to put him first, it’s just not clear how he puts aside his feelings to consider hers. From the little that we know about their situation, she seems to be a lot more caring and concerned about him and his well being than he is about hers, and that’s what I’m reacting negatively to, personally. This apparently isn’t a decision they made that’s working well, it’s more a decision he made with little concern for how it affects her that isn’t working out but she’s going along with it without too many options.
Of course the article is slanted and doesn’t present the full picture, but still when you put yourself out there like that, it’s a fact that strangers will form opinions (and trying to present yourself in a positive light is one of the main reasons for putting yourself out there like that).
“We ALL want our partners to have fulfilling, well-paid work. We L*O*V*E them ! But there is a degree of fucked-upped-ness about the premise that shitty wage-slavery is OK for women, but anethema for men….I am just as remarkable a genius as any man….I don’t really think people should HAVE TO do work that is beneath them or get teated shitty, no matter what their sex. HOWEVER: THere is NO EXCUSE for living parasitically off people you “love”, and causing them additional hardship and stress”
That’s what I’m trying to say. I hate the fact that there are men out there who seem to think that they deserve a fulfilling and engaging job not because they’re human beings, but because they’re men. Fulfilling work is important to men. And me? Well, I’m supposed to be fulfilled just by the prospect of washing this guy’s socks and mopping floors at McDonald’s for him. I’m not saying I wouldn’t ever take a shitty job to help out someone I love, not even just a husband or boyfriend but a family member. I would, BUT I’d like to do it out of free choice based on mutual respect and the knowledge that they’d do the same for me, not because it’s just assumed that I’m not important, I don’t matter, I don’t have feelings, dreams, ambitions, great things to offer, and I was just put on Earth to facilitate someone who deserves more out of life than I do whether I agree or not.
I think the folks interviewed were judged pretty harshly based on how their marriages looked to outsiders, through the very narrow lens of this particular issue. And the point I was trying to make was that marriages are way more complex than simply “he’s a jerk and she’s a saint” or “he’s taking advantage and she’s a fool to put up with it.” On the one hand, the interviewees put their lives out there to be read and dissected and commented on, but on the other hand, it’s their marriage and their business and outsiders can’t claim to understand the subtleties of a relationship based on an article in the Times.
The problem is that a lot of people have internalized ideas about what men and women should and shouldn’t be doing for each other, and it often happens that men end up feeling entitled to have their wives support them in ways that most women would never expect from their husbands. I don’t think most people would have a problem criticizing a woman who sat on her ass all day while her husband slaved away to support her. Women get a lot of societal shame for not taking care of their homes and families whether they work outside the home or not, so it’s not very likely that we’d see an article like this written about women.
It’s not a personal attack on anyone to examine societal attitudes and beliefs about what men and women should be doing for each other. If you are truly secure and happy with the decisions you make, they will stand up to examination.
Jay–”this idea of a job being beneath smeone, what’s that actually mean?”
I can’t speak for Mr. B, but to me it means that our priorities are fucked up. Being a janitor is a hard, dirty, necessary work–and it’s compensated at $6 an hour. Being a migrant farm worker is even harder and you’re lucky to make $6 a day. Working in a slaughterhouse is the 9th circle of hell. “Beneath” doesn’t mean overqualified or overeducated. It means nobody should have to perform vital tasks under horrendous working conditions for no money with society only paying lip service to the dignity of work. No one who provides vital services should be exploited, nobody should act like because we as a scoiety need these workers, they owe us and we can subject them to conditions we wouldn’t inflict on an animal and then act like we’re being generous for not expecting them to pay us.
“part of being a grown up is doing unpleasant necessaities even if they’re not much fun”
Yeah, which is why we all take our turn at the slaughterhouse instead of exploiting immigrants who we then deport after they’ve debilitated themselves for life to provide us with steaks. How many of us haven’t done physically crippling soul sucking socially necessary labor? Then we can all talk about unpleasant necessities and being a grown up.
“being a dustbin man’s not morally inferior to being a CEO”
No, and unlike the average CEO the dustbin man’s actually necessary, so we should probably pay the dustbin man the CEO’s salary. Which would then mean that nobody would have to spend his life being a dustbin man. You could do it for a while and then move on to something that’s more interesting to you, engages your faculties and employs your fuller potential as a human being without having sacrificed your life for a lifetime of hard, physically damaging, virtually unpaid unrewarding work. Sounds good to me.
caromboard–”anyone who felt that strongly about shit work”
I think that’s key. I agree with everything Mr. B feels, and more, about the degrading nature and structure of work and system of rewards.
Thing is though, feeling that way I don’t think it’s just me who deserves better than what we currently have, I think everyone does.
I can’t see explaining to someone I love that I don’t want to be exploited or soul sucked or demeaned so I’m opting out but it’s good/necessary for him/her to do what I won’t as it benefits me.
I am appalled by the lack of work ethic that is represented in the New York times article that inspired this blog and many others. I am Mr. Priga’s oldest daughter and would like to say that “choosing” not to work and then glamorizing it in an article is reprehensible. His statements are untruthful – he was not left with custody of his 3 children from a divorce in 1996 (I believe it is public record) and his disdain for work that was beneath him; left myself, his parents (my grandparents) and my mother to care for and provide for my brother and my sister (by 1996 I was in college, living on my own AND WORKING). He did not have to quit working to care for my brother and it was not until recently that my sister (she was 22) moved back in with him because she also feels she does not “need” to work. The financial and emotional impact of growing up living with someone who does not fulfill even the most basic responsibilities is extensive and greatly impacted myself, my grandparents, my mom and the rest of the family. How can a person continually borrow money and neglect financial obligations while he waits for his “home run”. To hit a home run you have to step up to the plate. I am grateful that I had positive examples that showed me to get where you want in life and be a positive influence in society you have to work hard. I am deeply saddened to see this misreported information in a major news outlet.
Congratulations Sarah! You will be a success! I have created many learning opportunities for myself, with mistakes and errors. As a single parent of four children, I learned early that every member of our household was required to help. We still take turns with dishes, sweeping, mopping, cleaning bathrooms, taking out trash, the gender doesn’t matter. Everyone must help. Survival of the fittest….each child got jobs as soon as they were able. The value of a dollar is completely relative to how hard you worked to get it. In my opinion, learning to work, both in the home and at a job, is a trait children acquire at home. As adults, they will still value WORK. Not the type of work, but the ability to work. I know my children will be successful no matter where they end up because they will know how to work to provide for themselves, no matter what. My job, as a parent, is to provide each child with a “toolbox” full of “necessary tools”, like willingness, patience, courage, determination, communication….these skills will help no matter what job they find themselves in. Any job worth doing is worth doing well. This applies to cleaning toilets, too.
My parents always quipped little quotes at me and my siblings, some of them are worth repeating. “If you’re going to do it, make it good enough to put your name on”.