stay at home dad

Penelope Trunk on the Unfair, Uncertain Stigma of "Stay at Home" Labels

Thu, 2010-12-23 18:18

And speaking of Penelope Trunk, she's just got the most brilliant take on the question of what does it mean to be a stay-at-home mom?  I'm quoting a lot but it's good stuff -- if I was as brazen as she I'd quote the whole thing.

Here’s another example: Both parents work from home. Is the woman a stay-at-home mom? I think so. Because she’s at home. But if you ask them at a cocktail party, who they are, the dad will say what he does for a living. The mom? Who knows what she’ll say? Maybe stay at home mom, or maybe she’ll talk about her career.

I know that’s what I used to do. When I hung out with stay-at-home moms, that’s what they thought I was. When I hung out with working moms, that’s what they thought I was. I heard both sides talking about the other. And you know what? It’s insane. Women don’t even know what to label themselves, let alone each other.

To people in Darlington, WI, where I live, I'm a mom with a big career. To my friends who live in the city and work 100 hour weeks, I'm a stay-at-home mom. So much of the labeling, I think, is not about the woman and the live she leads, but what that life looks like relative to the people around her.

It's impossible to have a venture-backed startup and work less than 100 hours a week (which is why so few women do it). So, those of you who are working 40 hour weeks, I wonder—should you say you are working outside the home? Maybe not. Maybe you are stay-at-home moms. If you want to be.

Maybe the only people who are not stay-at-home moms are the ones who do not have custody of their kids. Or the ones who travel all month. But wait. What if you are gone one week of the month, but home the whole rest of the month? Stay-at-home or not? Because you are more at home than a part-time working mom.

So let’s just stop using these labels. They are not useful. What would be really productive is to get some language that helps women to convey what they are doing with their lives.

Source: Penelope Trunk's Brazen Careerist

As a stay-at-home dad this is a pretty good answer!  At different points, all while being a primary caregiver, I've been a) the major breadwinner, b) an equal contributor with my just-as-stay-at-home-mom partner, c) a make-ends-meet-while-my-partner-was-in-school-er, and these days d) completely dependent on my partner's income.

And believe me, you think it's any easier for a man to climb back out of the "daddy track" than it is for a woman to get out of the mommy track you've probably got another thing coming.  The stay-at-home-parent track is an issue no matter who takes time off.  It's definitely still women who bear the brunt of this phenomenon (oh yeah) but it's not specifically about biological sex.

On that issue I'd just add one more snipped from Trunk

Maybe the truth is that the words we were using – stay at home mom, working mom – these were all patronizing words and what we should have used was more straightforward: adult.

Sounds good to me.

Why In the Future More Hetero Couples Will Be More Likely Seek Women Partners With Higher Earnings

Tue, 2010-01-26 00:29

Hugo Schwyzer says

The blogosphere and the mainstream media have … had much to say about the Pew study released Tuesday that shows that more than ever before, men are likely to marry women with more education and earning potential than they themselves have. From the Times story:

“Men now are increasingly likely to marry wives with more education and income than they have, and the reverse is true for women,” said Paul Fucito, spokesman for the Pew Center. “In recent decades, with the rise of well-paid working wives, the economic gains of marriage have been a greater benefit for men.”

The analysis examines Americans 30 to 44 years old, the first generation in which more women than men have college degrees. Women’s earnings have been increasing faster than men’s since the 1970s.

He said it here.

Seems to me that part of the effect would just naturally follow from an equalization in earning rates and earnings potential. Past a certain point it just doesn’t make sense that on the one hand earnings would be approaching parity but on the other people would still be scrambling to find men who earned more than women.

I mean, yeah, I strongly suspect that urge is still there. (You can actually sort of see that effect where, for whatever reason, men in relationshps tend to be, say, taller or older than their women partners even though in aggregate there’s obviously substantially more overlap in men’s and women’s heights and ages. And I’m certainly aware of individuals who won’t consider a woman partner who earns more or, in a couple of cases even more emphatically, women who won’t consider a partner who earns less. Preference has a strong pull. And I’m guessing that’s partly why why the marriage numbers aren’t already closer to aggregate earnings ratios.

Still, past a certain point a lot of marriage-inclined heterosexuals are going to have to, well, “settle” for relationships where close to 50% of the time the woman earns as much as or more than the man. Not that that’s the end of the world — 50% of men would by-definition also be earning the same as or more than the woman.

Or am I missing something here?

The best thing from my perspective would be that since women who have children still spend some time out of the workforce (in my experience three months for the rarely mentioned “fourth trimester” isn’t unreasonable) and therefore put some fraction of their earnings potential on hold (at least till we get solid progressive family leave policies) then it makes sense that women ought to at least start out with higher incomes. (It makes sense that their partners would also support that.)

The advantages are considerable: there’s be no particular intra-family earnings imbalance due to children, there’s be no strong incentive for the partner who stayed at home with the first child to stay at home with the next, etc. And if the family did decide to go the “traditional” avenue where the woman stays home with succeeding children she’d still have an easier path towards reaching income parity when she chooses to return to the workforce.

Yeah, it doesn’t have to be that way As we see in parts of Scandinavia for instance a really strong public/private/family network can be pretty powerful. But at least for now it is that way. And so a trend towards women earning more, at least initially, at least in theory, ought to support more egalitarian — and therefore stronger — long-term relationships.

Over time people are going to stop hauling out traditionalist “silver linings” the way the article Hugo cite does, and instead start noticing that the end results are more egalitarian. I’m guessing it’ll take one more generation but I’m pretty sure we’ll see the first articles discovering the virtues before then.

—-

One other thing, by the way. The article Hugo quotes in turn quotes political economist Stephanie Coontz

“We’ve known for some time that men need marriage more than women from the standpoint of physical and mental well-being,” said Stephanie Coontz, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and research director for the Council on Contemporary Families, a research and advocacy group. “Now it is becoming increasingly important to their economic well-being as well.”

I’m… kind of curious whether the well-documented tendency for married men to be healthier and happier in marriage than women is an artifact of them having what amounts to a stay-at-home personal caregiver. And consequently I’ll be curious if those numbers hold up when divisions of labor equalize inside as well as outside the home. My intuition would be yes. Although based on personal experience and those I’ve seen of other relationships with lower-earning and stay-at-home dads is that their partners really are going to have to give up the traditional and/or “second shift” notions about who establishes and enforces domestic standards and practices. Also based on experience this will have a lot more to do with when working women stop being judged by themselves and others on domestic decor, schedules, etc., even when it’s very, very clear it’s not their responsibility. (For instance how often are working men judged personally when their stay-at-home partner doesn’t iron the sheets?)

Tuesday Recipe: Basic Tomato Sauce

Tue, 2008-04-29 05:58


Photo on Flickr by… hey, me! Used under a Creative Commons license.

So last week I mentioned a tomato sauce I often make and people asked for the recipe. Here you go.

Seriously, while I never make sauce exactly the same way I like to take a little tip from Indian cooking and cook the spices right into the olive oil before I toss in chopped onions and garlic into a big skillet. If I’m cooking with meat I’ll toss in either ground beef or Italian sausage and let it brown a bit. When I’m not using meat and I’m planning to cook everything down, I’ll use chopped up eggplant which substitutes nicely.

Once the onions and garlic are in I’ll usually them that go till they just starts to get translucent before throwing in all the other chopped veggies. Veggies vary but I always a red or green bell pepper, almost always some carrot, celery if my kids and partner will let me get away with it, and then either the regular white or brown mushrooms. Every now and then I remember to soak dry porchini mushrooms but I almost never plan to put it in pasta sauce.

Lately once the veggies are all piled in and cooked just a bit I’ve started doing this trick I heard from some Italians where you “sweat” the vegetables, covered, on low for up to half an hour. That works as a nice alternative to deglazing the pan with wine… though I usually do that anyway.

I’m not a big wine snob… or drinker (about once a year I give away all the bottles well-intentioned people bring over.) I keep a couple bottles of high-quality vermouth — one sweet and one dry usually — plus some really expensive port and (a staple for Asian cooking) Chinese rice wine. For pasta sauce, unless I’m using something really beefy as the (optional) meat I’ll deglaze with the dry vermouth with has a nice, fruity sweetness that to my ignorant palate nicely complements tomatoes.

Then into the pan I toss however many cans of mixed (almost always that great organic brand) tomato stuff — diced, whole, crushed — to mostly fill the skillet. Then I’ll usually top off with herbs, black pepper, and salt, a little tomato paste, sometimes a little anchovy paste, and a pinch of sugar.

Then depending on what’s what I’ll either cook it just above a simmer for 15-20 minutes, or else I’ll move it into a big pot and simmer it on low till it gets this really thick, glossy, almost syrupy quality that’s really cool.

After that I usually boil pasta, grate parmesean, throw together a salad (I use olive, flaxseed, or sometimes a nut oil plus unseasoned rice vinegar as the dressing base with salt and pepper always, but then a little brown mustard or mayo or maybe a little crumbly bleu cheese to help emulsify it and fresh or dried herbs.) Whack up slices of crusty bread and yell for someone to set the table. Cleanup the big stuff while they’re doing that, then serve up, say whatever feels appropriate to you, and dig in.

Update: SugarMag observed that I’d neglected, um, times and measurements. Which, as she said, is fine if you’ve already made it hundreds of time (in the last five years I’d guess 250 for me?) but not so hot if you’ve never done it before. So while I still think it’s hard to go too wrong as long as there are tomatos in it and nothing burns I’ll add some starter details.

For an 11 inch wide, 2.5 inch deep skillet: – One medium onion, chopped – One green pepper, chopped – A medium carrot and a medium stalk of celery, chopped – Half pound of ground beef or italian sausage (bulk is cheaper but sliced up links are fine too.) – If not ground beef then a medium-small eggplant peeled or unpeels and cut into cubes. – As much garlic as you and yours enjoy – One to two tablespoons of your choice or combo of dried oregano, basil, marjoram, or “italian seasoning” herb blend. – A quarter teaspoon of black pepper or to taste – A teaspoon of salt or to taste – Maybe a teaspoon of sugar – Maybe a tablespoon of balsamic vinegar or a teaspoon of (stronger, more acidic) wine vinegar – As little as a tablespoon of olive oil and as much as a quarter cup (it’s healthy, flavorful, and filling, so if you’re worried it’s beter to skimp on the meat instead.) – Up to a quarter cup of wine, water, or some kind of broth for deglazing. – The equivalent of three 14.5 oz (411g) cans of tomato “stuff,” (stewed, diced, crushed, sauce, whole, etc.) – A tablespoon or more (to desired consistency) tomato paste – A teaspoon or less of anchovy paste – A quarter teaspoon red chile flakes or to taste.

1) Sear ground meat on high heat till it gets a little brown around the edges and a little browning starts sticking to the pan too (disregard the sticking part if you use teflon.) It’s ok if the inside of the crumbles isn’t quite done because it’ll finish cooking in the sauce. Transfer meat to a bowl. Pour off any accumulated fat. Don’t clean up the browned stuff on the bottom of the pan.

2) Add olive oil to pan over medium high or high heat, let warm till fragrant, then sprinkle seasonings over the oil without stirring, wait another few moments and throw in garlic and onion. Turn down the heat if necessary to prevent scorching, and stir occasionally, one to three minutes, till the onions are translucent.

3) Turn the heat back up and start tossing or stirring in all the other veggies. Once the heat’s stabilized again turn down heat enough to prevent scorching and let it carmelize a bit. Maybe five to fifteen minutes. Note: depending on moisture in the veggies you may wind up with too much juice for it to brown properly. Life in the big city, it’ll still be good.

4) If you’ve got good browning, turn the heat back up to high, throw in your quarter cup of liquid and stir, making sure you get all the carmelized juices and scrape-y bits loose and into the liquid. If you don’t have good browning, again, life in the big city — add the wine anyway if you like, or, I guess, drink it if you’re ok with that. If you do then let it simmer for three to five minutes (till the steam stops smelling like there’s raw alcohol in it.)

5) Add the tomato stuff and stir. Add tomato paste, anchovy paste, and anything else still out on the counter. :-) Stir to mix.

6) Simmer very low, stirring occasionally, for up to 20 minutes or

6a) Transfer to a large pot or (my choice) crock pot and let cook for the rest of the day.

User login