Women and Mustachianism (Take 2)

[Zamboni]

No worries.  We're all brainwashed into having the same racially, culturally, and sexually biased schema.  Recognizing it and trying to step outside of it is half of the battle (although you definitely can't declare victory in the war at that point.)

[stripey]

I have to say, I am enjoying this thread (requirements for moderator's edits aside). Lots of food for thought.

I'm not sure I have much profound (or even non-profound!) to add.

I suppose I think that the idea of Mustachianism (? in the sense of financial independence and/or financial security) is empowering to anyone. I also suspect if/how it may help as an 'equaliser' between male and female is more dependent on the society one lives in, and in what part of that society. Women's rights, or attitudes towards women working, staying at home, being financially savvy, etc. do differ quite markedly between even different Western cultures (I travelled quite a bit internationally this year, and it has given me lots of food for thought). For the record, I am a feminist and a relatively conservative Christian, my partner is a feminist too (he is probably more passionate than I). Luckily, where I am in life I don't directly encounter much of the inequality that Mustachianism could help alleviate- I am in a field which was traditionally male-dominated but is now female-dominated and it pays well. I am surrounded in life by strong independent women who have always just done what they wanted- and who are largely crisis and divorce resistant anyway. If partner and I were to become married he would probably be the stay-at-home one- it suits him better.

[melalvai]

To the OP -- I hear what you are trying to say, and I do tend to agree with you, but you're also focusing, I believe, on post-FI. To get to FI, however, one mostly must compromise with the systems in place.

Yes, that's partly right, that I am focusing on post-FI. I agree that there are unique obstacles for women in getting there. I've experienced some of those myself.

As far as "getting there", I don't recall reading anything in the MMM articles about how to achieve financial independence that strikes me as having a negative effect on gender equality. Sure, men might have an easier time of it than women (for a variety of reasons) in doing their own construction projects and negotiating a fair price on a used car, but I can't say women would experience a reversal of fortune for having attempted such things, or engaged in frugality in ways that men might find more challenging (such as cooking or crafts).

As I say that, I'm remembering a few frustrating experiences where I attempted DIY projects and failed, ultimately having to outsource them to a plumber, a mechanic, and a factory. My attempts at frugality don't always work out, for reasons that are related to my gender (in a social sense), but the attempts didn't set me back compared to where I was before I made the attempt. The failures bruised my ego a bit, but humility is a better character trait anyway.

The other half of "getting there" is income, and while women may have more of a challenge here, it's hard to argue that seeking a higher income is bad for women.

[galaxie]

Seeking a higher income is also harder for women, though: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101229711

Also, do y'all think that the tone of MMM's blog (all the muscles, mustaches, badassity, and ass-kicking) is more inviting to men than women?   I mean, he's a man, so it makes sense.  But I wonder if maybe that's why more of the readers are men, too (at least according to the poll).

Post-FI, I think many of the inequality issues even out.  The math of compounded interest is gender-neutral.  I can think of one way that women might have an easier time in the post-FI stage: an FI woman might appear to the world as a SAHM, but a lot of men on this forum have said they plan to save face by saying they're "consulting."

[CommonCents]

Also, do y'all think that the tone of MMM's blog (all the muscles, mustaches, badassity, and ass-kicking) is more inviting to men than women?   I mean, he's a man, so it makes sense.  But I wonder if maybe that's why more of the readers are men, too (at least according to the poll).

Agreed.  I was almost turned off by the "vocabulary" of MMM initially but luckily perservered.  Now I just tune it out to a degree and "translate" it in my head for something that works better for me.

ETA: I do not mean to imply that MMM is hostile to women, only that he has a very male tone (which is his perogative).

[impaire]

Zamboni and impaire, I think we're saying the same thing, I didn't mean to 'discount' the achievements of anyone. If anything, the criticism was directed at myself.

Oh, no worries--I slightly misread your tone, 'tis true, but I mostly understood what you meant. Sorry for jumping on my soapbox, it wasn't meant aggressively.

As far as "getting there", I don't recall reading anything in the MMM articles about how to achieve financial independence that strikes me as having a negative effect on gender equality.

That's interesting, because I completely agree with you here... But I sometimes feels that insistence on self-reliance and "no whining allowed" is read by some as a way to deny (or at least ignore as irrelevant) the specific challenges of some social positions. As I said, I don't think it's inherent to the 'Stache doctrine, but it may be one of its less developed chapters, and the void of relevant tenets may allow some apostles to extrapolate a little wildly. [I hope you enjoyed my religious vocabulary here, though I'll disclaim that there is no point I wish to make by it!]

Also, do y'all think that the tone of MMM's blog (all the muscles, mustaches, badassity, and ass-kicking) is more inviting to men than women?   I mean, he's a man, so it makes sense.  But I wonder if maybe that's why more of the readers are men, too (at least according to the poll).

Personally I read it with a good dose of humor, and I really enjoy it for this reason (a slightly OTT performance of comedy masculinity which parodies the "boy network"/"no nonsense" of other financial gurus), but I don't have a guess how the majority feels.

[rubybeth]

I find this very interesting. Not sure I have a lot to add except personal experience that leads me to believe that financial independence would lead to a woman feeling more empowered. My parents always encouraged my sister and I to get a good education so we could take care of ourselves. We both have graduate degrees. She's single, I'm married, both with good careers. I am very grateful that we got this support at an early age. If my DH wanted a divorce, he'd likely suffer more than I would, since I out-earn him by almost double. He just started grad school this fall, though, so will have the potential to out-earn me at some point, but we both hope to call it quits in about 10 years anyway, and maybe just work part-time if we want to. I'm the money manager in the family because I have the interest, aptitude, and patience. I'd say my DH and I had very realistic expectations about marriage, which have helped us to always have shared goals to work toward, esp. re: money.

Edited to add: Also, I can't speak for other women, but I really dislike personal finance blogs or articles "for women," because they often presume that the women isn't as good as managing money, and suggest inane things like DIYing your own highlights and manicures. Shit, I have never had a professional manicure or highlights in my life, and I recently started cuttings my own hair since I was tired of paying $20-$40 every couple of months. I appreciate the extreme nature of MMM because it appeals to my own extreme nature. If I'm going to do something, I go all in. Here's hoping I never actually grow a mustache, though!

[Elaine]

I think learning about personal finance and investing can absolutely be used as a feminist tool. Any time I am learning something that helps me cultivate my own independence and allow me to better take care of myself I find that feminist. I actually commented about inequality on the last thread and didn't even go back to check it because I don't enjoy arguing about these things. I think the attitude against women is less prominent on this forum than on many others, I mean, it's not Reddit- but it's definitely still here. I suppose I just assumed that it has to do with the tone of MMM (I love MMM for what I've learned, but he definitely has a male voice, that sort of "well I did it so OBVIOUSLY ANYONE who doesn't is a TOTAL IDIOT WITHOUT EXCEPTION, you know what I mean). I think that combined with the job category of most people in this forum (math, tech, science) explains the male dominance here, and the general attitude- as a woman working in STEM I find this attitude pretty prevalent (more so than in other fields I have worked in), so I think that probably has something to do with it.

Though again, I would say that this forum is about a thousand times better than others, I have quit even commenting or reading many forums because they were so hostile to women. I also have gender ambiguous user names on most forums to deter the aggressive knee jerk stuff, but here the stupid sexist comments are at least non-violent/not everyone.

[Phoebe]

I can think of one way that women might have an easier time in the post-FI stage: an FI woman might appear to the world as a SAHM, but a lot of men on this forum have said they plan to save face by saying they're "consulting."

To me that's actually a negative.  I feel that if a man retires everyone knows he kicked butt at work, saved like a pro and now get's to enjoy his spoils and work at his hobbies.  I feel like if I were to retire most people would assume I wanted to stay home to raise kids (and some would even assume I couldn't hack it at work).

[brewer12345]

I can think of one way that women might have an easier time in the post-FI stage: an FI woman might appear to the world as a SAHM, but a lot of men on this forum have said they plan to save face by saying they're "consulting."

To me that's actually a negative.  I feel that if a man retires everyone knows he kicked butt at work, saved like a pro and now get's to enjoy his spoils and work at his hobbies.  I feel like if I were to retire most people would assume I wanted to stay home to raise kids (and some would even assume I couldn't hack it at work).

Generally, able-bodied men who are under 55 and claim to be retired (or "consulting") are either considered to be unemployed losers, mentally unstable, or have a substance abuse problem.  It ain't any better if you are a man.

[Roses]

Some people have addressed my question despite my muddling of it, and raised the concern that mustachianism could be seen as promoting stay at home moms, or SAHMs, and discouraging women in the workplace. Specifically:

The women in my family have all decided to be stay at home wives, they see the men as the breadwinners, and they follow the Christian mindset that the man should be the head of the household.  I do not personally agree with this gender role division, and thus I do like the idea of working and being a role model for our future children.

However, becoming financially independent doesn't mean you have to stay at home, so I don't see a problem. You can choose to work, even if you can afford not to.

Not sure if I'm reading into this because I'm a SAHM but it sounds like there is an assumption that being a SAHM is not as good as being a career woman.  What is wrong with choosing to stay at home?  If women who've reached FI choose to keep working just so they don't look like a SAHM then we really haven't reached any gender equality.  True gender equality is when people respect a woman's choice to be a SAHM and realize that just because she isn't getting a paycheck her 'contribution' to the family is every bit as valuable as the husband's.  There are many ways in which this is true but to stick with just the financial reasons: First off, the woman can do a lot with the family income by managing it well and investing well (what I do).  Also, as MMM has said many families will reach FI sooner (saving on daycare, driving, food, work clothes, etc) if one person stays home.  Since women still generally make less than men it is often financially advantageous for the man to keep working and the woman to stay home.  I'm not saying it should be that way but it is the reality for most women.  My husband makes 4x what I used to make so for me it was a no-brainer that I should stay home but that doesn't mean I don't pursue my own projects and intellectual activities.  Some of those activities allow me to keep up with my field and be ready to go back if I want to in the future (some also make me money but to keep this simple let's say I'm a traditional no-income SAHM).  But that's not my goal.  Our goal is for neither of us to work in the very near future.  I could care less if people think I don't work because I'm a SAHM or a christian or whatever (I'm not a christian, not conservative and consider myself quite modern ;)

Here's where I think mustachianism could be an equalizer:  If people recognize that staying home after having kids is actually a help to the family and that SAHM's can become very financially literate and great investors (stocks, real estate, etc) - better than a man who is working 40 hours a week and doesn't have the time/mental energy after work to think about investments for long.  In other words if a person's worth is no longer determined by their job title this will tend to help women because for now they are still in lower-paid positions.  If a husband and wife both work their asses off but nobody is watching where that money goes (how often does that happen?) much less investing wisely, buying real estate, planning for the future... what good is that?  Certainly a lot of men do this very well as do working women, single women, etc.  But since I'm specifically speaking of SAHM's here, it is a very good division of labor if one person can make that their full time 'job'.

[TrMama]

I really wanted to know, can mustachian principles reverse gender inequality?

In my own case, it's certainly been a step in the right direction. Although I've always been interested in personal finance and tend pretty strongly towards mustachianism, since discovering the blog I've made some important improvements.

I was always fairly decent at budgeting and not wasting money on illogical things, but I was pretty stereotypically crap at investment and salary negotiation. Since discovering MMM, I've improved my investment knowledge (and portfolio) and advocated for a salary increase at work. These are things I never would have done otherwise.

[Phoebe]

Some people have addressed my question despite my muddling of it, and raised the concern that mustachianism could be seen as promoting stay at home moms, or SAHMs, and discouraging women in the workplace. Specifically:

The women in my family have all decided to be stay at home wives, they see the men as the breadwinners, and they follow the Christian mindset that the man should be the head of the household.  I do not personally agree with this gender role division, and thus I do like the idea of working and being a role model for our future children.

However, becoming financially independent doesn't mean you have to stay at home, so I don't see a problem. You can choose to work, even if you can afford not to.

Not sure if I'm reading into this because I'm a SAHM but it sounds like there is an assumption that being a SAHM is not as good as being a career woman.  What is wrong with choosing to stay at home?  If women who've reached FI choose to keep working just so they don't look like a SAHM then we really haven't reached any gender equality.  True gender equality is when people respect a woman's choice to be a SAHM and realize that just because she isn't getting a paycheck her 'contribution' to the family is every bit as valuable as the husband's.  There are many ways in which this is true but to stick with just the financial reasons: First off, the woman can do a lot with the family income by managing it well and investing well (what I do).  Also, as MMM has said many families will reach FI sooner (saving on daycare, driving, food, work clothes, etc) if one person stays home.  Since women still generally make less than men it is often financially advantageous for the man to keep working and the woman to stay home.  I'm not saying it should be that way but it is the reality for most women.  My husband makes 4x what I used to make so for me it was a no-brainer that I should stay home but that doesn't mean I don't pursue my own projects and intellectual activities.  Some of those activities allow me to keep up with my field and be ready to go back if I want to in the future (some also make me money but to keep this simple let's say I'm a traditional no-income SAHM).  But that's not my goal.  Our goal is for neither of us to work in the very near future.  I could care less if people think I don't work because I'm a SAHM or a christian or whatever (I'm not a christian, not conservative and consider myself quite modern ;)

Here's where I think mustachianism could be an equalizer:  If people recognize that staying home after having kids is actually a help to the family and that SAHM's can become very financially literate and great investors (stocks, real estate, etc) - better than a man who is working 40 hours a week and doesn't have the time/mental energy after work to think about investments for long.  In other words if a person's worth is no longer determined by their job title this will tend to help women because for now they are still in lower-paid positions.  If a husband and wife both work their asses off but nobody is watching where that money goes (how often does that happen?) much less investing wisely, buying real estate, planning for the future... what good is that?  Certainly a lot of men do this very well as do working women, single women, etc.  But since I'm specifically speaking of SAHM's here, it is a very good division of labor if one person can make that their full time 'job'.

I totally agree with you Roses.  This was just one sentence from my original post.  I said that being a SAHM is an admirable choice, I just want my kids to see many different options and in my extended family I happen to be the only woman who works (this is because I come from a traditional Christian family, and I'm the only one not living to the expectations that the man be the breadwinner and head of household).  It just gives me a bit of personal pause in my journey, because I want my kinds to see that women can do whatever they want (whether that is to be a SAHM, work, or something else).

[Roses]

Some people have addressed my question despite my muddling of it, and raised the concern that mustachianism could be seen as promoting stay at home moms, or SAHMs, and discouraging women in the workplace. Specifically:

The women in my family have all decided to be stay at home wives, they see the men as the breadwinners, and they follow the Christian mindset that the man should be the head of the household.  I do not personally agree with this gender role division, and thus I do like the idea of working and being a role model for our future children.

However, becoming financially independent doesn't mean you have to stay at home, so I don't see a problem. You can choose to work, even if you can afford not to.

Not sure if I'm reading into this because I'm a SAHM but it sounds like there is an assumption that being a SAHM is not as good as being a career woman.  What is wrong with choosing to stay at home?  If women who've reached FI choose to keep working just so they don't look like a SAHM then we really haven't reached any gender equality.  True gender equality is when people respect a woman's choice to be a SAHM and realize that just because she isn't getting a paycheck her 'contribution' to the family is every bit as valuable as the husband's.  There are many ways in which this is true but to stick with just the financial reasons: First off, the woman can do a lot with the family income by managing it well and investing well (what I do).  Also, as MMM has said many families will reach FI sooner (saving on daycare, driving, food, work clothes, etc) if one person stays home.  Since women still generally make less than men it is often financially advantageous for the man to keep working and the woman to stay home.  I'm not saying it should be that way but it is the reality for most women.  My husband makes 4x what I used to make so for me it was a no-brainer that I should stay home but that doesn't mean I don't pursue my own projects and intellectual activities.  Some of those activities allow me to keep up with my field and be ready to go back if I want to in the future (some also make me money but to keep this simple let's say I'm a traditional no-income SAHM).  But that's not my goal.  Our goal is for neither of us to work in the very near future.  I could care less if people think I don't work because I'm a SAHM or a christian or whatever (I'm not a christian, not conservative and consider myself quite modern ;)

Here's where I think mustachianism could be an equalizer:  If people recognize that staying home after having kids is actually a help to the family and that SAHM's can become very financially literate and great investors (stocks, real estate, etc) - better than a man who is working 40 hours a week and doesn't have the time/mental energy after work to think about investments for long.  In other words if a person's worth is no longer determined by their job title this will tend to help women because for now they are still in lower-paid positions.  If a husband and wife both work their asses off but nobody is watching where that money goes (how often does that happen?) much less investing wisely, buying real estate, planning for the future... what good is that?  Certainly a lot of men do this very well as do working women, single women, etc.  But since I'm specifically speaking of SAHM's here, it is a very good division of labor if one person can make that their full time 'job'.

I totally agree with you Roses.  This was just one sentence from my original post.  I said that being a SAHM is an admirable choice, I just want my kids to see many different options and in my extended family I happen to be the only woman who works (this is because I come from a traditional Christian family, and I'm the only one not living to the expectations that the man be the breadwinner and head of household).  It just gives me a bit of personal pause in my journey, because I want my kinds to see that women can do whatever they want (whether that is to be a SAHM, work, or something else).

Gotcha.  And I think you're right, your situation is unique (making so much more than your husband) and that is a good example for the kids.  If that were my situation it would be my husband staying home! :)

[JessieImproved]

This blog/forum seems to be male dominated because it's written by a man.  Men like to follow men NOT women; women don't care, it's the message that counts.  Yup, gender bias.

You know what, as abrasive as this is, it got me thinking: I'm struggling to find female role models.

Erica @ nwedible.com.  She's my hero, and she's on the forum. :-)

[Albert]

I wonder how well the model "a man stays home with kids and the woman works" operates. I've read about such cases of course, but never met any such couple in real life. Anyone here?

[CommonCents]

I wonder how well the model "a man stays home with kids and the woman works" operates. I've read about such cases of course, but never met any such couple in real life. Anyone here?

Nope, but my brother in law contemplated it seriously.  They do know some that did it, but from circumstances (lost job) not choice. 

All of my friends except one are dual earning couples.  In two cases, the wife has a stay at home job.  Unfortunately for one of those two, her husband does not value her 40+hr/week job and he expects she'll do all of the chores because she's home - with two kids, mind you.  In a third case, the wife worked at home for approximately 9 months immediately following the birth of a child.  She was exclusively breastfeeding though, so going back to work and having to deal with pumping issues/longer work hours as a result while her husband stayed home wasn't really feasible for them.  So to sum up, I only know one SAHM.  Of the ones who work from home, 50% do a full-time job plus 100% of the childcare and 100% of the household chores.  Seems a pretty bad deal.

[Elaine]

My cousin and her husband do it (and always have, they have two daughters now 17 and 15). He always stayed home and she always worked. Her career was important to her, he never LOVED his job. She was super ambitious/competitive, and he was more comfortable doing the house stuff. It has worked for them very well!

[avonlea]

I wonder how well the model "a man stays home with kids and the woman works" operates. I've read about such cases of course, but never met any such couple in real life. Anyone here?

Well, I'm not in that situation myself, but two of my closest friends are a couple where the wife works--she's my husband's colleague--and the husband stays at home with the kids.  She likes to work at the office, whereas my husband prefers to work at home.  Other than that, I would say that our family lives are pretty parallel.  The stay-at-home dad and I get together with the kids for playdates about once a month or so.  Having playdates with him feels the same as having a playdate with any other stay-at-home parent.  Neither my husband nor I ever talk about their situation really.  Based on their personalities, it seems so obvious that they are taking on the roles that suit them best.  I don't know of anyone commenting about their set-up in a negative way, but I would imagine that they have probably heard off-putting remarks at times.  But I do know one guy that goes out of his way to mention their situation to others b/c he thinks it's just so amazing that they are breaking the norms of society.  Anyway, the life they have works really well.

[Zamboni]

One of my good friends and former colleagues left a lucrative job to be a SAHD.  That was more than 10 years ago and he's still at it although he's rattling around the idea of formal employment again now that their youngest is nearly in kindergarten.  He has a doctorate in a STEM field from Stanford, and he voluntarily left a high paying job.

My brother works complementary hours to his wife so that someone is always on childcare duty.  He works ~6am through lunch.  She works after lunch until it's time for dinner at about 6pm.  They all eat lunch together at home and evenings and weekends they are all together.  It's a pretty awesome set up.  They are both self employed with business locations on the same property as their house.

[Albert]

Nope, but my brother in law contemplated it seriously.  They do know some that did it, but from circumstances (lost job) not choice. 

All of my friends except one are dual earning couples.  In two cases, the wife has a stay at home job.  Unfortunately for one of those two, her husband does not value her 40+hr/week job and he expects she'll do all of the chores because she's home - with two kids, mind you.  In a third case, the wife worked at home for approximately 9 months immediately following the birth of a child.  She was exclusively breastfeeding though, so going back to work and having to deal with pumping issues/longer work hours as a result while her husband stayed home wasn't really feasible for them.  So to sum up, I only know one SAHM.  Of the ones who work from home, 50% do a full-time job plus 100% of the childcare and 100% of the household chores.  Seems a pretty bad deal.

Interesting… When I grew up I didn't know any SAHM's at all. It just wasn't socially acceptable, my mother also always worked and at some periods earned more than my father. Now when I live in Switzerland I know many couples with a woman staying home with kids. Among my male work colleagues alone there are half a dozen with SAHM's as partners. There are a lot of push factors for it financially - salaries are high enough that it's easy to live from one income and childcare is very expensive.

[CommonCents]

Nope, but my brother in law contemplated it seriously.  They do know some that did it, but from circumstances (lost job) not choice. 

All of my friends except one are dual earning couples.  In two cases, the wife has a stay at home job.  Unfortunately for one of those two, her husband does not value her 40+hr/week job and he expects she'll do all of the chores because she's home - with two kids, mind you.  In a third case, the wife worked at home for approximately 9 months immediately following the birth of a child.  She was exclusively breastfeeding though, so going back to work and having to deal with pumping issues/longer work hours as a result while her husband stayed home wasn't really feasible for them.  So to sum up, I only know one SAHM.  Of the ones who work from home, 50% do a full-time job plus 100% of the childcare and 100% of the household chores.  Seems a pretty bad deal.

Interesting… When I grew up I didn't know any SAHM's at all. It just wasn't socially acceptable, my mother also always worked and at some periods earned more than my father. Now when I live in Switzerland I know many couples with a woman staying home with kids. Among my male work colleagues alone there are half a dozen with SAHM's as partners. There are a lot of push factors for it financially - salaries are high enough that it's easy to live from one income and childcare is very expensive.

My brother-in-law's first time meeting my (now) husband, he asked my husband what he thought of women earning more - and of women not taking the husband's first name.  It was an awkward moment as we had only been dating two months and I earned twice what he did.  He answered well though, namely that it didn't matter to him.  We found out later it was because my BIL was contemplating staying at home, but at the time it felt like rather early (and personal) questions given the newness of our relationship.

[Albert]

One of my good friends and former colleagues left a lucrative job to be a SAHD.  That was more than 10 years ago and he's still at it although he's rattling around the idea of formal employment again now that their youngest is nearly in kindergarten.  He has a doctorate in a STEM field from Stanford, and he voluntarily left a high paying job.

Brave guy, deserves a lot of respect for going through with it. I'm sure there was some societal pressure against such an unusual arrangement.

[Jamesqf]

Well, I'm not in that situation myself, but two of my closest friends are a couple where the wife works--she's my husband's colleague--and the husband stays at home with the kids.  She likes to work at the office, whereas my husband prefers to work at home.

Seems like these are two quite different things: the SAHParent who does just childcare & housework, vs the Work From Home parent who also does childminding/housework because s/he is at home.

From my quasi-liberated POV, it seems that much of the SAHP objection is to the waste of potential: e.g. when someone (most likely female) overcomes obstacles/gender barriers to a career, then abandons it for child-rearing, it's almost a betrayal.

[avonlea]

Hmmmm...not really.  My husband doesn't do the childminding and housework when he is working from home.  He joins us for lunch and snack.  So we enjoy that extra time with him.  But when he is working, I'm taking care of the household.  He helps with childcare and housework when he is not at his job, though--same as his female colleague.

[avonlea]

Forgot:

As for waste of potential, most SAHPs do not feel that investing their time, energy, knowledge, and love into their children is a waste.  It's sad that much of society believes that is so however.

[EK]

I wonder how well the model "a man stays home with kids and the woman works" operates. I've read about such cases of course, but never met any such couple in real life. Anyone here?

My dad was a STAD from the time I was 8, while my mom worked.  She made more money and my dad had a job he hated so it made the most sense.  18 years ago when he started staying home  it was certainly an unusual arrangement, but it never phased me or my sister. 

When I was out of the house and my sister was older, he tried to look for work again in his field, really just to get out of the house and have something to do, but being so long out of work and especially in a technology driven field like he was, there were no options for him and I think the workplace is even less forgiving of returning stay at home dads than it is of stay at home moms.

These days he describes himself as retired.

[Albert]

When I was out of the house and my sister was older, he tried to look for work again in his field, really just to get out of the house and have something to do, but being so long out of work and especially in a technology driven field like he was, there were no options for him and I think the workplace is even less forgiving of returning stay at home dads than it is of stay at home moms.

That's the greatest risk for that kind of arrangement, for a woman too but for man even more. Had the marriage of your parents failed for whatever reason he would have been in a deep trouble...

[brewer12345]

When I was out of the house and my sister was older, he tried to look for work again in his field, really just to get out of the house and have something to do, but being so long out of work and especially in a technology driven field like he was, there were no options for him and I think the workplace is even less forgiving of returning stay at home dads than it is of stay at home moms.

That's the greatest risk for that kind of arrangement, for a woman too but for man even more. Had the marriage of your parents failed for whatever reason he would have been in a deep trouble...

Oh I am sure the divorce courts would have treated him well...

[Jamesqf]

As for waste of potential, most SAHPs do not feel that investing their time, energy, knowledge, and love into their children is a waste.  It's sad that much of society believes that is so however.

I could agree, except that this sort of SAHP has invested much in becoming skilled in whatever field, then abandons it to pursue a field - child-rearing - in which they are at best unskilled labor; at worst, completely unskilled amateurs who in an ideal world would be allowed only casual contact with anyone's kids. 

[avonlea]

From my quasi-liberated POV, it seems that much of the SAHP objection is to the waste of potential: e.g. when someone (most likely female) overcomes obstacles/gender barriers to a career, then abandons it for child-rearing, it's almost a betrayal.

As for waste of potential, most SAHPs do not feel that investing their time, energy, knowledge, and love into their children is a waste.  It's sad that much of society believes that is so however.

I could agree, except that this sort of SAHP has invested much in becoming skilled in whatever field, then abandons it to pursue a field - child-rearing - in which they are at best unskilled labor; at worst, completely unskilled amateurs who in an ideal world would be allowed only casual contact with anyone's kids. 

I believe that MMM and his wife did this.  And I'm pretty sure that arebelspy and his wife are hoping to do the same, as well as grantmeaname.  MMM and his wife may have hit FI before becoming SAHPs (and yes, I know that they had part-time jobs when their son was young) but leaving his high profile career to become an "unskilled amateur" was what MMM thought was the best thing for him to do.  A FIRE forum is not where I would expect to hear someone lamenting about people giving up careers too early and losing out on their potential in the workforce.

[BlackRat]

I think working towards FI and having good financial literacy helps towards gender equality. I do feel some pressure (self imposed) to continue work, especially if it was in an engineering type role, just to be a female presence/role model since women are underrepresented, and I like the idea of making it normal to have equal numbers in these fields.
I guess my concern is that I don't want to be seen as not working (once I get there) due to lack of competence... because to uniformed observers it may appear that way, and reflect badly on my gender.
I'd like the world to be the sort of place where people are judged on their merit, rather than a stereotype of their situation. This isn't just because of gender issues... for instance why people call themselves 'retired' or 'consultants', as opposed to just 'jobless'.
Which is tricky, because a lot of the stereotypes aren't baseless.

On another note, I do have trouble finding other female friends who are as interested in being frugal of taking control of their money. I'm not sure why.

[Roses]

From my quasi-liberated POV, it seems that much of the SAHP objection is to the waste of potential: e.g. when someone (most likely female) overcomes obstacles/gender barriers to a career, then abandons it for child-rearing, it's almost a betrayal.

As for waste of potential, most SAHPs do not feel that investing their time, energy, knowledge, and love into their children is a waste.  It's sad that much of society believes that is so however.

I could agree, except that this sort of SAHP has invested much in becoming skilled in whatever field, then abandons it to pursue a field - child-rearing - in which they are at best unskilled labor; at worst, completely unskilled amateurs who in an ideal world would be allowed only casual contact with anyone's kids. 

I believe that MMM and his wife did this.  And I'm pretty sure that arebelspy and his wife are hoping to do the same, as well as grantmeaname.  MMM and his wife may have hit FI before becoming SAHPs (and yes, I know that they had part-time jobs when their son was young) but leaving his high profile career to become an "unskilled amateur" was what MMM thought was the best thing for him to do. A FIRE forum is not where I would expect to hear someone lamenting about people giving up careers too early and losing out on their potential in the workforce.

Ha!  No kidding!  That one made me chuckle :)  Anyway, in many cases the parent staying at home hasn't been able to break down any barriers and even if they have there is SO much that can be done with skills beyond working a traditional job - you know, like what MMM talks about all the time.  When I decided to stay home after my son was born I didn't feel like I gave anything up other than a whole lot of stress, ridiculous office politics (with all male bosses where women and minorities were constantly passed over for promotions) and a very measly salary which was less than what daycare would cost.  Still, I use those skills in other capacities now and I am hatching plans to make way more money on my own than I ever did working for someone else - and in the meantime I get to do the most important/fulfilling job of all - raising my own kid (which I would not call unskilled labor, but that's another story).

On the SAH Dad front, my husband has a couple of female coworkers who I'm friendly with and their husbands stay home.  It's a very high paying industry/company so it just makes sense for a lot of the employees to have their spouses stay home once they have kids.  The majority of the employees are men and some of their wives stay home.  But of the few women who work there there are some whose husbands do too.  My husband kind of envies them.  Luckily he is very happy with his job right now but his long term plans definitely involve staying home 2-3 days a week while I work on other ventures and then eventually we'll both be home.

[Jamesqf]

A FIRE forum is not where I would expect to hear someone lamenting about people giving up careers too early and losing out on their potential in the workforce.

I think you misunderstood.  I am not really lamenting it myself (though I do stand by my opinions on unskilled child rearing & various forms of parental toxicity), I am just trying to explain/understand why a lot of not-necessarily mustachian people might see it as a sort of betrayal.

I'll also add that what a person thinks is best, and what a more objective opinion might think, can be quite different.  For instance, I'm sure that all the parents waiting in the quarter-mile long line of idling SUVs to drop off/pick up their kids at the local elementary school think the are doing what's best for the kids, but is it really?

[Roses]

A FIRE forum is not where I would expect to hear someone lamenting about people giving up careers too early and losing out on their potential in the workforce.

I think you misunderstood.  I am not really lamenting it myself (though I do stand by my opinions on unskilled child rearing & various forms of parental toxicity), I am just trying to explain/understand why a lot of not-necessarily mustachian people might see it as a sort of betrayal.

I'll also add that what a person thinks is best, and what a more objective opinion might think, can be quite different.  For instance, I'm sure that all the parents waiting in the quarter-mile long line of idling SUVs to drop off/pick up their kids at the local elementary school think the are doing what's best for the kids, but is it really?

Well, a lot of non-mustachians think a lot of crazy things.  So all we can do is our best and hope to lead by example or just not give a shit.

Regarding parenting.  Do you have a kid, jamesfq?  Truly just wondering.  I had a lot of opinions about child rearing before I had one.  Boy am I eating my words now!

[impaire]

Regarding parenting.  Do you have a kid, jamesfq?  Truly just wondering.  I had a lot of opinions about child rearing before I had one.  Boy am I eating my words now!

I don't know if jamesfq has kids, but I have to say that I wouldn't consider it to necessarily be a qualification to talk about education... Counterexamples are plentiful enough. Of course I'm childless, so feel free to disqualify this comment :)

And I have to say--I do see the points that while SAHM is a perfectly wonderful choice for any individual women, the fact is that the chance for more women to objectively explore not staying at home, and for men to explore being SAHD, does not really exist (except for exceptionally independent-minded individuals) as long as the entire social structure makes it more logical and acceptable for the woman to be the one who stays at home. Again, this is on the level of the group, not of any individual, but that is why I totally sympathize with Phoebe's struggle to "deprive" her children of any model of working women, and that's how I understand the "betrayal" notion hypothesized by jamesfq.

[smalllife]

FIRE can also present an alternative to leaving the workplace other than having children (I know quite a few people who had kids merely so they could become a SAHP - kids not to have kids but to have an excuse not to work).  I think that would do a great deal for gender equality, as it removes motherhood from the equation and gives another viable alternative to working your life away.  The frugality portion would also cut down on the number of working parents who would rather be at home but feel they can't on the others salary.  Side benefit: those of us still working would have reduced stress and drama because we wouldn't have to hear them complain about how they never see their kids.  Everyone's happy :-)

(Mostly tongue in cheek for those not fluent in internet sarcasm)

[Anatidae V]

One of my good friends and former colleagues left a lucrative job to be a SAHD.  That was more than 10 years ago and he's still at it although he's rattling around the idea of formal employment again now that their youngest is nearly in kindergarten.  He has a doctorate in a STEM field from Stanford, and he voluntarily left a high paying job.

My brother works complementary hours to his wife so that someone is always on childcare duty.  He works ~6am through lunch.  She works after lunch until it's time for dinner at about 6pm.  They all eat lunch together at home and evenings and weekends they are all together.  It's a pretty awesome set up.  They are both self employed with business locations on the same property as their house.

This sounds fantastic, and the kind of setup my partner and I will be aiming for when we have kids. I expect kids to elongate our FI plans as I don't want to wait much longer for them, but we have discussed a 50/50 split almost since we started dating! Glad to know there's people already making it work.

[avonlea]

FIRE can also present an alternative to leaving the workplace other than having children (I know quite a few people who had kids merely so they could become a SAHP - kids not to have kids but to have an excuse not to work). 

I know that you said that your post was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, but I just wanted to say that if someone simply wants to leave the workplace, becoming a stay-at-home parent isn't the most stress-free or cost effective way to do so. 

Regarding parenting.  Do you have a kid, jamesfq? 

No, he doesn't.

A FIRE forum is not where I would expect to hear someone lamenting about people giving up careers too early and losing out on their potential in the workforce.

I think you misunderstood.  I am not really lamenting it myself (though I do stand by my opinions on unskilled child rearing & various forms of parental toxicity), I am just trying to explain/understand why a lot of not-necessarily mustachian people might see it as a sort of betrayal.

I'll also add that what a person thinks is best, and what a more objective opinion might think, can be quite different.  For instance, I'm sure that all the parents waiting in the quarter-mile long line of idling SUVs to drop off/pick up their kids at the local elementary school think the are doing what's best for the kids, but is it really?

I am pretty sure that you are trolling, Jamesqf.  You are bringing issues into the conversation that I have mentioned on this forum before (respect for childcare workers and parents who drive their kids short distances when it would be best to walk), and you are twisting them in a way to make an argument that doesn't really make sense.  Do I think it's best for a parent to be the one taking care of an infant full time if possible?  Yes.  If a parent chooses to work and has a childcare provider take care of his/her baby, should that paid caregiver be trained properly and also given a fair wage?  Yes.  I never said that new parents should hand their children over to paid professionals because that would be best for the children.  There is not a lot of objective data supporting that idea either.  So I don't know if your opinions are any more objective than mine or just more different. 

[galaxie]

FIRE can also present an alternative to leaving the workplace other than having children (I know quite a few people who had kids merely so they could become a SAHP - kids not to have kids but to have an excuse not to work).  I think that would do a great deal for gender equality, as it removes motherhood from the equation and gives another viable alternative to working your life away.  The frugality portion would also cut down on the number of working parents who would rather be at home but feel they can't on the others salary.  Side benefit: those of us still working would have reduced stress and drama because we wouldn't have to hear them complain about how they never see their kids.  Everyone's happy :-)

(Mostly tongue in cheek for those not fluent in internet sarcasm)

Frugality might also help take care of the folks who complain about How Expensive Kids Are [because you have to buy them iPhones and a pony].

[ace1224]

my partner was a sahd for 2 years.  he went back to work when the kid went to school and he was bored.  he got a lot of shit for staying home, but learned to roll with the punches about being a "kept man"
i think he may want to stay home again soon for no other reason than he HATES working.  i don't really care if he stays home or not, i rather like coming home to a clean house and child who's already done his homework.  staying home is hard work, i'll take my lab any day.

[Roses]

Regarding parenting.  Do you have a kid, jamesfq?  Truly just wondering.  I had a lot of opinions about child rearing before I had one.  Boy am I eating my words now!

I don't know if jamesfq has kids, but I have to say that I wouldn't consider it to necessarily be a qualification to talk about education... Counterexamples are plentiful enough. Of course I'm childless, so feel free to disqualify this comment :)

And I have to say--I do see the points that while SAHM is a perfectly wonderful choice for any individual women, the fact is that the chance for more women to objectively explore not staying at home, and for men to explore being SAHD, does not really exist (except for exceptionally independent-minded individuals) as long as the entire social structure makes it more logical and acceptable for the woman to be the one who stays at home. Again, this is on the level of the group, not of any individual, but that is why I totally sympathize with Phoebe's struggle to "deprive" her children of any model of working women, and that's how I understand the "betrayal" notion hypothesized by jamesfq.

I didn't think jamesfq was talking about education.  He mentioned the skills a parent needs to be a primary care giver and he would have no idea about that if he doesn't have kids.  I mostly replied because he added something like 'parental toxicity' and that's where I think the judgmental tone is especially unwarranted.  Sure, some parents get their kids iphones and ponies and drive them a half mile to school in an SUV, but most don't - mustachians don't anyway.  Before you're a parent you have all sorts of ideas about what is the 'right' way to raise kids.  You have mental lists of things you'd never do and you think your kids will only eat broccoli and tofu, never watch TV until they're teens, etc, etc... Once you actually have the kid you get a whole new appreciation for what parents go through and you 'judge' their decisions a lot less harshly.

Your point about SAHMs being more common than SAHDs I think has a lot more to do with finances than we think.  Yes, people still raise their eyebrows at a SAHD while they don't think twice about a SAHM.  But usually they think it's 'cool' to be a SAHD and kind of pathetic to be a SAHM.  Regardless, I see the issue being more financially motivated.  When women start earning equal salaries to men in the workplace and when we have equal numbers of women across all industries, then the decision for a man to be a SAHD will make a lot more sense for the individual family.  And then it will become more accepted.  As of now, the examples of women like Phoebe who make more than their husbands are, sadly, very few.

[smalllife]

Personally I think that equality will be reached when children are no longer a part of "Women and Mustachianism" type posts, nor are they the second theme of "women and finance" "women and ____" anything.  When we can talk about women as women and not as mothers/potential mothers, then women will have become men's equal.  How long does it take for male questions to get to this discussion, if ever? 

[Albert]

Your point about SAHMs being more common than SAHDs I think has a lot more to do with finances than we think.  Yes, people still raise their eyebrows at a SAHD while they don't think twice about a SAHM.  But usually they think it's 'cool' to be a SAHD and kind of pathetic to be a SAHM. Regardless, I see the issue being more financially motivated.  When women start earning equal salaries to men in the workplace and when we have equal numbers of women across all industries, then the decision for a man to be a SAHD will make a lot more sense for the individual family.  And then it will become more accepted.  As of now, the examples of women like Phoebe who make more than their husbands are, sadly, very few.

That's because they think being SAHD is definitely guys own choice and in a sense a brave one, being SAHM is more likely to be involuntary. Sometimes they are right…

[randymarsh]

My girls know that they should be able to have the option of staying at home with their kids. My boys know that they should select jobs that could support an entire famy should that be their future situation.

This sounds like you're saying women should have the choice of whether to work or not and men should make sure they pick a high income occupation in case their partner wants to stay home? That doesn't really line up with the rest of your post, so I'm sure that's not what you meant?

[Luck better Skill]

  Yes, financial independence will bring about more equality.  To rephrase it is much easier to do the right thing if your job is not a shackle.  If/as more people reach FI more examples will be set.  I would expect that to have a positive motivation on society and the social structure.

 
 

[goodlife]

I wonder how well the model "a man stays home with kids and the woman works" operates. I've read about such cases of course, but never met any such couple in real life. Anyone here?

I have to chime in on this because I know so many! Virtually ALL of my female friends who are married and have kids have stay-at-home husbands. This may strike you as odd, but I work on the very high end of the finance industry. All of us females out-earn our husbands by a factor of 5-10. I outearn my fiance by that factor as well. When we have kids, he will definitely be the stay-at-home parent. Well, we will probably be FI by then anyways, so this might not really matter anymore by then (I am in my late 20s and around 2 years from FI). I find it interesting that for most people the model of a man staying home is still seen as weird because I see it all the time. For women like myself and my female colleauges it would be statistically difficult to find a husband who makes more than us and hence it just makes financial sense.

Having said all this, we still get comments that show that even today there is a lot of bias in this world. For example, we (as in women like me), often get comments from other women who are SAHMS that we made bad decisions in chosing our spouses because we make so much more than them and we won't ever be able to be SAHMS and in general we should re-consider our careers because it will put too much strain our marriages because we out-earn our husbands. I usually ignore such comments. None of our husbands have any problem that we make more....I mean, someone has to earn more than the other, who cares who makes more?

Another funny comment that I recently had to endure myself as I got engaged was the question what my new last name would be! Aside from the fact that this particular "custom" is not practiced in my cultural background and that more than 50% of the world population doesn't do this.....I also wonder why people are so intersted and why they react so shocked that I won't change my last name! I have a global career with bank accounts, real estate and other assets in different countries! I have work visas, permanent residencies and what not. Changing my last name would be a seriously difficult thing to pull off! Not to mention that I have a successful career and it would be quite weird to suddenly have a different last name at work. However, especially men that are 10 years or more older than me often feel almost offended to the idea that I won't change my last name. I just ignore that...but it does get annoying at times.

Overall, I think Mustchianism would appeal to a lot of women because it gives you a lot of choices. Many women (myself included) don't really feel at home in the still very male dominated corporate world. I am not discriminated against, I know that I am paid just as much or more as my male colleagues. I am very sucessful. But I also know that I will never "fit in" the way that my male colleagues fit into this environment. It is mainly for this reason that I plan my exit and FI will give me that flexibility to just walk away. But I also feel that for women like myself who could make it big in the corporate world, there are a lot of other pressures. On the one hand you are told to "lean in" and make it to the very top. And if you walk away, this makes you feel almost like you are letting all other women down by not "succeeding" any further. There is also some undercurrent of disdain for those who walk away and become SAHMS....as if that is some inferior or morally wrong choice. On the flipside though, there is a large part of society that puts up their noses at sucessful women like my friends whose husbands stay at home with the kids while they progress their career. They get a lot of fake pity comments or sometimes outright aggressive comments to the extent that they are bad mothers who are selfish and neglect their children. Of course if the roles were reversed, men would never get such comments. I work with a lot of men who see their kids once a week for an hour (seriously) and somehow that is seen as normal, even admirable among certain men!

Women just don't have it easy....doomed if you do and doomed if you don't. As for myself, I try to not give a rat's ass about what other people say. But it's not always easy. You are constantly exposed to it and it is hard to tune out those little voices. I am a sucessful woman and I will pursue my career for as long as I please. I am 2 years from FI and I may walk away at that point and pursue more meaningful things with my life. What I find very sad though is that in my observation, women are often the ones who are the most judging of other women. I wish we could all just accept everyone's choices and care less about other people's lives. Yes, right now I am a high-earning banker, but I also plan to take a whole year off and travel. And when I have kids, maybe I won't want to work and by then I will be FI and will have that choice. But maybe I will find out that I won't like being at home with my kids all day, I have friends who did realize exactly this! So maybe I will work full time or work part time or start my own business, who knows! We all just get this one life and should make the choices that will be best for us. But resisting all those opposing societal pressures is not that easy.

[goodlife]

Your point about SAHMs being more common than SAHDs I think has a lot more to do with finances than we think.  Yes, people still raise their eyebrows at a SAHD while they don't think twice about a SAHM.  But usually they think it's 'cool' to be a SAHD and kind of pathetic to be a SAHM. Regardless, I see the issue being more financially motivated.  When women start earning equal salaries to men in the workplace and when we have equal numbers of women across all industries, then the decision for a man to be a SAHD will make a lot more sense for the individual family.  And then it will become more accepted.  As of now, the examples of women like Phoebe who make more than their husbands are, sadly, very few.

That's because they think being SAHD is definitely guys own choice and in a sense a brave one, being SAHM is more likely to be involuntary. Sometimes they are right…

I agree with that. SAHDs are often seen as "brave" for their choice while SAHMs are more likely to be pitied because a lot of people assume that this is the default "choice" anyways and that a lot of women may not have had a real choice in the matter (my younger self was certainly guilty of this assumption). This is definitely still true for a lot of women, but definitely not for all. But I think SAHDs also don't have it easy. I think it's becoming more common in my generation, but older generations - men in particular - often think that this is not acceptable choice to make for a man. I have a friend who is a SAHD and his wife earns a very very high income. He doesn't get much criticism from his peers, but his own dad thinks that his choice is unacceptable and that he is not being a good husband. Quite sad.

[Albert]

This thread is interesting just for the different perspectives from people of various backgrounds. I work in a very male dominated field (chemical R&D). We have a lot of female lab technicians (30-40%) including some with young children, but higher up very are few women (only 12% among those with PhD's). There are various reasons for that - social conservatism of the society (not in a religious way like in Southern US), perceived difficulty of combining this job with motherhood (SAHD's still unheard off here) and generally much lower percentage of women studying chemistry. Our number of female scientists is however up from complete zero just 13 years ago and we would like to increase it further albeit not by hiring inferior candidates.

[Zamboni]

I have come to pity the white male in fact.

This is interesting in light of how much advantage white males are still given in the workplace.  Higher pay, more mentoring, rated as significantly "more competent" by both male and female resume reviewers looking at identical resumes with the only difference being a male or a female name.  Study after study after study confirms this, including those conducted this year.  One study using Princeton students posing as job seekers showed that white males had to write a felony conviction on their applications before the rate of their hiring was lowered to a level equal that of black males with a clean record who listed all other identical qualifications.  An anecdote here and there to the contrary does not erase white male advantage.  At my institution people like to point fingers at "underqualified" minority students who are admitted, many of whom have overcome tremendous obstacles, but in truth we probably have at least as many "underqualified" legacy-status admits, and they are 100% white.  Nobody seems too concerned about that latter part.  Reverse discrimination is not nearly the problem that some like to claim.  I don't want to derail the thread, though.

I do think the comments about women being the harshest critics of the choices of other women is right on target.   The chance to find like-minded women and men on this board is one of the many advantages of mustachianism.