The other thing I was thinking about (that was my rant, and now this is my rave) was a question of income and choices. Now, I don't want to judge others for the choices they make in life. But I do want accuracy in conversation, and that's why it irritates me so much when people mistakenly make the assumption that it has to be a certain way. I've heard this repeated many times in my life, but I've gotten it especially within this last year, when people heard that I intended to quit my job to raise my child: 'Oh, you're so lucky to be able to stay home. I wish I could, but I have to work.' And I smile politely and think, Not so!
Please don't get me wrong. I am not criticising these families' decisions. I am simply pointing out that it is, in fact, a decision they are making. With very few exceptions in today's world, there is probably no reason why any family could not live on one income. Of course it would require certain sacrifices. What these ladies really mean is that they are not willing to make those sacrifices to live on one income. Sometimes it could mean really drastic sacrifices. But it is, ultimately, a matter of priority. Basically, what they mean to say is that they cannot afford to stay home and support the lifestyle to which they are accustomed, or even one which they would prefer. I know it's not always easy, and I'm not implying that everyone two-income family has a plush and extravagant lifestyle. But I do wish to insist that it can be done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In all fairness, there are places and circumstances where it cannot be done. We loved northern Virginia but there was no way we could live on one income there. We were already driving one 13-year old car and living in a tiny 1-bdrm apartment. There wasn't any way to downsize, unless we decided to live in a cardboard box. (Or move to W. Virginia--but commuting would mean not enough time together.) But we could make the choice to move where we could make it happen. And we did. -rlr
Exactly! Actually I even thought of you when I finished posting, and I thought, 'Oh, dear, I hope Rachelle doesn't think I'm pointing at her just because she worked after Ben was born.' You weren't planning on working long-term: you made the best of the situation you were given but took such drastic measures as moving across the country so you could afford to stay home. I admired so much how you did what you could - having Mike take care of Ben, having your mom out, even taking Ben to work with you - to make sure Ben was well taken care of and not plunked off in some daycare.
I think a part of the irritation (for me) comes when these women assume that since I stay at home, we must be pretty well off for my husband to afford to support a free-loader like myself. I don't consider ourselves any better off than your average young couple starting out, but we make the best of it and don't assume we can have all the luxuries we may well enjoy when we're more established.
I think part of the problem is that too many people are accustomed to the little luxuries in life and don't view their Starbucks habit, movie-going, eating out, or even buying pre-sliced cheese as extravagant splurges. Not that there's anything wrong with any of these things; but if they're keeping you from staying at home, then you should admit that you're choosing them over staying with your kids. That's all.
Post a Comment