Let me preface this by saying that I will probably have kids someday. But I worry. I worry that having a family will conflict with following my dreams.
A friend once told me that part of his dream for his life was to get married and have a family. So, in other words, to him, having a family and living his dreams wasn't a conflict. I think this is how it should be, ideally speaking.
Of course, for men, having a career and having a family isn't usually seen as a potential conflict. This rests on the assumption that the wife will do most of the child rearing. I don't think that's terribly fair. But then there are plenty of women who want most of all to be wives and mothers, which I find completely valid. I'm just not one of them.
But why, when I bring up my desire to have a career and a family, does a guy my own age feel comfortable telling me, "Well, you probably won't feel that way after you have kids," as if motherhood miraculously transforms all women into selfless beings with no ambitions of their own.
I can remember bringing up in a women's Bible study once that I didn't want to JUST have a family. I was quickly reassured that I didn't have to have a family, I could always not get married or have kids--you know, focus on my career.
But I didn't mean it as an either/or proposition.
So to return to my original point, two things: One, I think that having kids should be part of life, but not life itself. While I agree that parents should love their children self-sacrificially, I also believe that there's more to life than raising kids.
Two, in my ideal world, the husband would be just as involved in raising and nurturing children as the wife. This might not mean that he ends up doing the actual physical work of raising kids--it's more about having the mindset that it is just as much his responsibility as his wife's.
I originally asked: If men have the responsibility to support their families financially by themselves, does this mean that they should pursue careers that will enable them to do so? Or to put it another way, should this goal trump following their dreams/passions/interests etc.?
I think that this either/or mindset--either I follow my dreams or I work to support a family--can cause guys to put off getting married and starting a family--mainly because they do not wish to sacrifice their dreams. (I don't know, but it seems like in Hollywood at least, following your dreams usually means being pretty broke.)
I can relate to that sentiment, but why can't following your dreams coincide with getting married and having kids? The burden on men to be the sole providers seems to contribute to both this unnecessary dichotomy and the unnecessary extension of adolescence (Again, extended adolescence seems more prevalent in LA where the cost of living often necessitates living a college-student-esque existence long after graduating.)
Honestly, what I've seen the most here in LA (and my sample size is pretty limited) is wives making financial sacrifices for their husband's dreams. So, the wife works as a nurse/teacher/accountant/other-paying-profession and the husband writes or works part-time, generally making less money. I wish I could think of examples where the genders were reversed.
I wish this didn't bother me so much. I think the core of it is that whether the wife is working to support her husband financially or taking care of the kids, she always seems to be in service to his dream, his purpose, his aspirations. I get the same feeling when I read that a woman with amazing talent and a successful career "would throw it all out the window tomorrow" if the right guy came along.
Of course, this is reductive, and in many cases simply not true. There are many people who aspire to be teachers, nurses, and accountants, and it has nothing to do with supporting the dreams of another person.
I think our culture tends to both over-romanticize (for lack of a better word) motherhood and the self-sacrificial role that mothers play, while simultaneously denigrating all things seen as "women's work." We undervalue the work of mothers even as we heap on the sentimentality.
But to say that as a woman you value having a career just as much as you value getting married and having a family. Heresy. Flat out.
Don't believe me? Watch how almost every single romantic comedy ever made punishes women for caring about their careers. And the number one punishment? Being single, alone, and unhappy.
I think our culture tends to both over-romanticize (for lack of a better word) motherhood and the self-sacrificial role that mothers play, while simultaneously denigrating all things seen as "women's work." We undervalue the work of mothers even as we heap on the sentimentality.
But to say that as a woman you value having a career just as much as you value getting married and having a family. Heresy. Flat out.
Don't believe me? Watch how almost every single romantic comedy ever made punishes women for caring about their careers. And the number one punishment? Being single, alone, and unhappy.
I doubt whether you're so alone in that thinking. I know I share it.
ReplyDeleteWho do you know says this is "heresy"? Honestly, who do you know that says any of this? Some of this seems very generalized, and stereotyped.
ReplyDeleteYES! FINALLY. Someone disagrees with me! I was wondering what I had to do to get some negative comments over here. I just wish you were more specific, Jeff. Give me something to work with here.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about this, and I think one thing you may be overlooking is the equality factor. Saying that you want to both get married and have a career equally, this puts pressure on the guy. Because it's a 50/50 split, if he's not 100% and falls short in some way, that leaves more of a desire for the career path.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing it might not seem that way from a female perspective. As a guy, I want more than 50% in a relationship - more than simply equality with the desire for a career as well.
(This is Jason, by the way. Dr. Stu is a long story)
I don't get it. 100% of what? 50% of what? I'm confused!
ReplyDelete