6 ms·

Yes, me too. But, would you still feel the same if you had to stay home to take care of kids and a working spouse ?

wolverine876 5y ago
And having very few adults to talk to, no status, no career advancement (in fact, the opposite), and little recognition.
- ericd 5y ago
  Eh? There are plenty of other parents and nannies at the park taking their kids out, if you want to talk to someone.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    Nannies are of a different social class. Most middle class people are much less likely to have real relationships with people who can’t relate to their problems. Same as rich people tend to have rich friends. “Talking to someone” isn’t community. Colleagues provide an ersatz community for people who don’t have a real one in their life. You need a steady cast of characters and ideally repeated, purposeful interaction.
    - rjsw 5y ago
      > Nannies are of a different social class. I don't think that is true in Europe. They are probably a fair bit younger than middle class mothers which could be a barrier to being friends.
      - barry-cotter 5y ago
        If the people employing nannies didn’t have more money than their employees the relationship wouldn’t exist at all. The only way I’m familiar with middle class young women nannying is as au pairs, in other countries. But there are people who nanny for decades. They are not the same social class as their employers. My own experience of living in Europe is confined to Germany but middle class German girls mostly don’t even work part time jobs in university, never mind taking a year off before university to work as an au pair, in a foreign country. They do not nanny. Spanish friends made it sound like the same was true in Spain too. Students do not have jobs at university.
    - ericd 5y ago
      If you keep to a routine of going to the park daily and spending a couple hours there playing, you’ll almost certainly start seeing the same people over and over.
  - cgriswald 5y ago
    As a former homemaker this comes across as tone deaf. From my experience, you might as well have just said, "You can always hang out at a PTA meeting." Being a homemaker can be incredibly isolating. Homemakers need meaningful adult interaction and relationships that are not centered around their children or exclusive to their spouses.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      > Homemakers need meaningful adult interaction and relationships So go out and make them? My 2 year old goes where we are, if that activity isn't kid centered that's too fucking bad and kid is gonna have to deal; I have a life too. It's not like having all conversations centered around work at the office is especially meaningful either.
      - fn-mote 5y ago
        > if that activity isn't kid centered that's too fucking bad and kid is gonna have to deal Hilarious, and maybe it works with a 2yo, but when the kid is 5 it's "everybody else is gonna have to deal" as well. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, though.
        Talanes 5y ago
        Depends on the kid. I did plenty of quiet waiting on my single mother when I was five, and portable entertainment has gotten a lot more engaging since the mid-90's.
    - Sharlin 5y ago
      This effect is definitely amplified by suburban lifestyle. Suburbia is not a very good place to be a homemaker.
      - vkou 5y ago
        It's not a very good place for anything other than having a few hundred square feet of yard that you can choose to work on.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Most people do not care about their jobs. And they have jobs, not careers. They work because they get paid. Occasionally they get a brief flicker of satisfaction. More often they enjoy the company of their co-workers. Occasionally they hate their jobs so much that they engage in unhealthy behaviors s as a coping mechanism, like alcoholism, or they quit. Basically everyone who doesn’t stay heavily involved in their professional field after retirement was doing it almost solely for money. There are better and worse jobs, more and less enjoyable ones. But a huge majority of people have jobs, not careers.
  - cgriswald 5y ago
    Well, sure, but take a few years off of your "job" and you'll find that your prospects for another job are far fewer and for less pay. I think that's generally what people mean by a career even if they aren't particularly chasing advancement.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    I'm sorry to hear you feel that way, but those are pretty extreme and sweeping claims. Where do they come from? Here's some data from Gallup, which seems to strongly disagree with at least some aspects of the parent. It shows that every year, going back to 1993, over 80% report being completely or somewhat satisfied with their jobs. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1720/Work-Work-Place.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1720/Work-Work-Place.aspx On the Internet these days I often see contructed claims of extreme despair - about finding a partner, jobs, war, democracy, crime, etc. etc. In a way it matches an older rhetoric of making brazen, extreme, baseless statements that frame the conversation (around the baseless claims rather than the issue at hand), inflame it, and disrupt people who disagree. It's time to think about whose interests the despair serves.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      If you have low standards for what you want out of your job being completely or somewhat satisfied with your job is easy. I enjoy the company of my colleagues, have long holidays that allow me to spend a lot of time with my family and occasionally have engaged and diligent students. I’m somewhat satisfied. Would I do this for free? No. But most people have much worse jobs than I do. They get less respect, have less autonomy, less money and work longer hours than I do. They have less intellectual stimulation. Jobs that lots of people find very satisfying are badly paid, incredibly competitive or both. Actors, artists, professors, many people spend a decade or more of their life chasing that dream and never get it. If you think this is despair I suggest talking to some depressed people. Most people work for money.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  Having no career advancement is sometimes like not having cancer: a net positive. Most people have no career at all, they retire on the same job (just more "senior") they started with. For them, there is no loss. Also a stay at home wife was traditionally not isolated from society; in my family one generation ago almost everyone was in that situation and I can tell that social interactions were much stronger and more frequent than my generation. Recognition? That stuff people look for in Facebook likes, Twitter shares and LinkedIn "achievements"? That is attention seeking, not recognition.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Again, broad claims, but based on what? > Having no career advancement is sometimes like not having cancer: a net positive. I have never heard anyone express or imply that. I don't doubt you feel that way, but is there any evidence that it's widespread? > Most people have no career at all, they retire on the same job (just more "senior") they started with. That is almost certainly not true. I believe the evidence says that the great majority switch jobs many times and switch careers several times. > a stay at home wife was traditionally not isolated from society I've heard otherwise from homemakers of prior generations - the isolation was one of their primary complaints. And I'm pretty sure I've read about research showing the same. What makes your narrative true?

And having very few adults to talk to, no status, no career advancement (in fact, the opposite), and little recognition.

ericd 5y ago
Eh? There are plenty of other parents and nannies at the park taking their kids out, if you want to talk to someone.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Nannies are of a different social class. Most middle class people are much less likely to have real relationships with people who can’t relate to their problems. Same as rich people tend to have rich friends. “Talking to someone” isn’t community. Colleagues provide an ersatz community for people who don’t have a real one in their life. You need a steady cast of characters and ideally repeated, purposeful interaction.
  - rjsw 5y ago
    > Nannies are of a different social class. I don't think that is true in Europe. They are probably a fair bit younger than middle class mothers which could be a barrier to being friends.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      If the people employing nannies didn’t have more money than their employees the relationship wouldn’t exist at all. The only way I’m familiar with middle class young women nannying is as au pairs, in other countries. But there are people who nanny for decades. They are not the same social class as their employers. My own experience of living in Europe is confined to Germany but middle class German girls mostly don’t even work part time jobs in university, never mind taking a year off before university to work as an au pair, in a foreign country. They do not nanny. Spanish friends made it sound like the same was true in Spain too. Students do not have jobs at university.
  - ericd 5y ago
    If you keep to a routine of going to the park daily and spending a couple hours there playing, you’ll almost certainly start seeing the same people over and over.
- cgriswald 5y ago
  As a former homemaker this comes across as tone deaf. From my experience, you might as well have just said, "You can always hang out at a PTA meeting." Being a homemaker can be incredibly isolating. Homemakers need meaningful adult interaction and relationships that are not centered around their children or exclusive to their spouses.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    > Homemakers need meaningful adult interaction and relationships So go out and make them? My 2 year old goes where we are, if that activity isn't kid centered that's too fucking bad and kid is gonna have to deal; I have a life too. It's not like having all conversations centered around work at the office is especially meaningful either.
    - fn-mote 5y ago
      > if that activity isn't kid centered that's too fucking bad and kid is gonna have to deal Hilarious, and maybe it works with a 2yo, but when the kid is 5 it's "everybody else is gonna have to deal" as well. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, though.
      - Talanes 5y ago
        Depends on the kid. I did plenty of quiet waiting on my single mother when I was five, and portable entertainment has gotten a lot more engaging since the mid-90's.
  - Sharlin 5y ago
    This effect is definitely amplified by suburban lifestyle. Suburbia is not a very good place to be a homemaker.
    - vkou 5y ago
      It's not a very good place for anything other than having a few hundred square feet of yard that you can choose to work on.
barry-cotter 5y ago
Most people do not care about their jobs. And they have jobs, not careers. They work because they get paid. Occasionally they get a brief flicker of satisfaction. More often they enjoy the company of their co-workers. Occasionally they hate their jobs so much that they engage in unhealthy behaviors s as a coping mechanism, like alcoholism, or they quit. Basically everyone who doesn’t stay heavily involved in their professional field after retirement was doing it almost solely for money. There are better and worse jobs, more and less enjoyable ones. But a huge majority of people have jobs, not careers.
- cgriswald 5y ago
  Well, sure, but take a few years off of your "job" and you'll find that your prospects for another job are far fewer and for less pay. I think that's generally what people mean by a career even if they aren't particularly chasing advancement.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I'm sorry to hear you feel that way, but those are pretty extreme and sweeping claims. Where do they come from? Here's some data from Gallup, which seems to strongly disagree with at least some aspects of the parent. It shows that every year, going back to 1993, over 80% report being completely or somewhat satisfied with their jobs. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1720/Work-Work-Place.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1720/Work-Work-Place.aspx On the Internet these days I often see contructed claims of extreme despair - about finding a partner, jobs, war, democracy, crime, etc. etc. In a way it matches an older rhetoric of making brazen, extreme, baseless statements that frame the conversation (around the baseless claims rather than the issue at hand), inflame it, and disrupt people who disagree. It's time to think about whose interests the despair serves.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    If you have low standards for what you want out of your job being completely or somewhat satisfied with your job is easy. I enjoy the company of my colleagues, have long holidays that allow me to spend a lot of time with my family and occasionally have engaged and diligent students. I’m somewhat satisfied. Would I do this for free? No. But most people have much worse jobs than I do. They get less respect, have less autonomy, less money and work longer hours than I do. They have less intellectual stimulation. Jobs that lots of people find very satisfying are badly paid, incredibly competitive or both. Actors, artists, professors, many people spend a decade or more of their life chasing that dream and never get it. If you think this is despair I suggest talking to some depressed people. Most people work for money.
AdrianB1 5y ago
Having no career advancement is sometimes like not having cancer: a net positive. Most people have no career at all, they retire on the same job (just more "senior") they started with. For them, there is no loss. Also a stay at home wife was traditionally not isolated from society; in my family one generation ago almost everyone was in that situation and I can tell that social interactions were much stronger and more frequent than my generation. Recognition? That stuff people look for in Facebook likes, Twitter shares and LinkedIn "achievements"? That is attention seeking, not recognition.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Again, broad claims, but based on what? > Having no career advancement is sometimes like not having cancer: a net positive. I have never heard anyone express or imply that. I don't doubt you feel that way, but is there any evidence that it's widespread? > Most people have no career at all, they retire on the same job (just more "senior") they started with. That is almost certainly not true. I believe the evidence says that the great majority switch jobs many times and switch careers several times. > a stay at home wife was traditionally not isolated from society I've heard otherwise from homemakers of prior generations - the isolation was one of their primary complaints. And I'm pretty sure I've read about research showing the same. What makes your narrative true?