Problems for Dual Earner Families in Poland (and rest of EU)

Since the Traditional 'male breadwinner' ideology had been eroded in Poland and Other European countries (much long ago in the West) by the rise of 'dual earner/shared care' concept, what are some problems faced by the households?

Do you support this concept? Do you think the west profitted from it? ... Did the West suffered losses from this concept? Have the family and morality been compromised?

Is money playing too much of a central issue in our lives these days? IS THIS ALL REALLY WORTH IT?

How are children affected?

How may the problems (if any) be overcome?

The problem is obviously one of change, getting used to the idea of men paying for fewer things based on the proportionality of earnings. Both have the right to work so I naturally support it. Some profitted and some didn't. It encourages pairwork but can lead to rows.

Morality is only really an issue if one of the two is a pimp. The family will get used to it, as long as they can devote enough time to their loved ones.

Unfortunately, life costs. I am being stung here so it is important, as much as I'd like to say that it isn't.

Children are so busy with schoolwork and the like. They will find things to occupy themselves with.

The problems can be overcome through discussion and finding out/respecting other peoples' time. Also, to lay emphasis on quality time when it does finally come around for those that are super busy.

Dont you think that in the dual-earner family children and jobs vie for top priority in the daily schedule. Try squeezing in time for yourself and the day ends too soon. Think about spending time with your spouse and it’s overwhelming. Most of the couples these days are suffering from a lack of time invested in their marriage. It keeps getting pushed off by other needs that appear to be more urgent, especially the priority given to the needs of the children. Yet, in the long run, there is probably nothing more important you can do for your children than to invest in your marriage. Otherwise children are likely to be exposed to excessive conflict and possibly a traumatic divorce.

No matter how much the children remain involved with school work...the need of parents is high. The constant decline of morality and values in Europe is not hidden! Let us not fool ourselves there...

The constant decay of family values ... the mad rush after money ... does it really help us?

Does marriage not consistently suffer?

In an ideal world...we will get everything that we want....But isnt the true picture of the world ALWAYS CONSIST OF A TRADE-OFF? ... You get something, you need to loose the other?

Which one do you think is getting the priority these days? ... Dont you think that we should rethink?

Everybody wants to feel a little independent, even if you have a family you love much. It's good for people's mental health.

It's also better for the children, because they get more contact, and a better relationship, with their father. This has been scientifically proven, so no one can say it's not better for the children. And there is nothing that is more important than children.

Money is not everything, but it gives more freedom to the family to do things they want together. But of course it's important to make sure that you have a lot of time for your family. There must always be a balance. But for many families it's difficult to survive if only 1 person works, if you want a decent standard of living. And most families want that.


True. And I think the children can get better moral values if they spend a lot of time with both mum and dad.

In a perfect world, with perfect people ... anything is possible.

But what you are really trying to say is ... do we think it is actually ok for the mama, who would normally have been at home looking after the babies and cleaning and cooking and looking forward to the return of the man in the evening, and turning her intelligence and energy to making the home nice for him and the meal enticing ... do we think it's ok that now she isn't there, the kids are with someone else (eg, in nurseries when they're less than a year old, catching all manner of bugs, crying and not having their nappies changed promptly) and everyone eats ready-meals and has to un-wind with a large glass of wine?

I had a very enlightened upbringing and education. Very Western, I guess. But ... sometimes I would like to live in the jungle and spend all day foraging for berries with my little daughter, and pointing out interesting creatures in the undergrowth, and lie together with her and just look at the sky, because we have time. Time is everything. I think it all moves too fast and we all try to do too much. I think there is immense value in bringing up your child yourself, rather than farming him/her out to God knows who for hours at a time. I think there is great satisfaction in being caring and looking after your home and loving your partner. I think there is a lot lot wrong with dashing out of the door at 7.45 and staggering back at 6.30 ...

But for a woman, being at home only works if the other party totally respects her input, and the fact that she could be ruling the City, but has chosen, out of love, to bake and make beds and iron and wipe runny noses and teach her/your children to speak and love and be decent people when they grow up. If even the slightest hint of disrespect enters in, the whole thing collapses into resentment and despair.

So is it ok for both parents to work full time? No, absolutely not.
Is it ok for the woman to stay at home? Yes, with conditions. And so long as she still gets time to read novels.

Thus spoke a highly-educated mother who would like to invest the time in educating her own daughter, pre-school.

Both parents working 50% is a good option.

That sounds great, theoretically, but, where are you going to find a good job that will pay well for working only 50% of the time? Most good paying jobs require 100% or more input. Two people working part time are not going to earn a lot of money.

The ideal job would be making full time money working only part.

Depends on the country and employer. In Sweden the government pays you for staying home with your child for about 1 year.

There are many solutions that are pretty good, it depends on the circumstances from family to family,

perfect ... if you can get it

Natasia, very nicely written: literate and descriptive.

It is extremely tough.

There is no doubt that across many countries the trend of the average person/family to treat real estate as a means of investment has driven the prices of property so high that now the average family can only afford a modest house with two average salaries. Once a modest house would have been the reward for a man supporting a family on an average salary, but as the gross income of a family increased and the investment in property became common place, the ability to support a family and buy a house decreased for 'average joe'.

I think it is just as poor an indictment on the later 20th and early 21st century's affects on family life as anything else.

To me in a perfect world, one parent would be home for the majority of the time (or as described above 2 sharing the load), perhaps with assistance from family as required. It is a two way street though. Once upon a time the mother would spend time with their child, talk to them, read them stories and show them how to grow, learn and become well mannered toddlers etc. Now I think many stay at home mums are more interested in catching up with what their friends are going on Facebook/My Space or any other such place. Do not get me wrong, I am not devaluing the stay at home mum, who treats it as a job of equal or even far greater importance to the family life as the working partner. I am saying that few people do it now and of those that do, a large portion of them are more interested in social networking than they are in taking care of the household duties. This is not about Poland, this is an epidemic world wide.

A fair portion of that has to be attributed to the lower class. A % of these parents would not have been great parents throughout any age, it is just that now they have something to occupy them instead of Days of Our Lives or Eastenders.

Many families with two educated parents find the lure of the buying their house or upgrading to a bigger house and the accompanying mortgage too strong for them to resist.

How though do children learn the values the parents are trying to instill? They can of course learn all the political correctness taught in pre-school even these days, but how do they learn the values that the parent consider are integral to the makeup of their children?

I strongly favour a stay at home parent as well, or one working full time and the other going back to part time when the child is at school or a family business scenario or anything along those lines where 1 parent (mother or father) is responsible for the majority of the raising of their own children. I just know that it is a harder reality to achieve for families these days.

My parents worked full time and i don't think I've lost something, I think I've gained. Every day I watched my smart, confident mother and I knew she is really independent. Very often my mother took me with her to office and showed me different things e.g. I was probably one of the first child in my town that was using computer. I also was in nursery and it wasn't bad. When I was 5 I had to resign from kindergarten and stay at home-it was a nightmare-I've missed my friends and I was bored. The scientists say that it's good for child to go to kindergarten.

Personally I wouldn't stay at home. Different thing can happen and I want to be as safe as possible. What if my husband would die or leave me? I have to be able or at least try to take care of my family by myself.

I believe its okay for both parties to work. Why? Because in this day and age its not possible financially for a family to surive on one wage. I do however think its better for the children to be minded whilst the parents at work by a family member, i.e. grandma, with at least one day in playgroup with other children in order for them to learn to interact with other kids.

People spend half their time complaining about single mothers being at home with their kids but them if a single mother goes out to work they are demonised for doing so - I know this is a different senario but its still about leaving kids with other people.

As for being a "housewife" - house work is quite easy these days, we no longer live in a Victorian age where it take 3 days to do the washing and 4 days to clean the house and do the cooking on a range, we can have it all - without much of a compromise, because we simply have more time - its just how people chose to spend that time.


I completely get where you are coming from, but (there's always a but :D) ) We know its not always possible and as I have stated, grandma or grandpa is always a good option, who better to teach your child than the person who shaped who you are today?

natasia

But it very much depends on a person. I would just go mental if I had to stay home every day for years while my husband goes to work. I don't particularly enjoy household duties. I like cooking and baking - but not day after day. I would feel like my whole education is going to waste.

So... each to his (or her!) own.

but if you are educating your child as you go, then it is being used, arguably, for one of the best purposes ...

If women have master degree in law she wouldn't use it with her kids

natasia

It's highly unlikely I'm going to teach my toddler Latin names of plants and the cell structure. Of course educating your child is a very noble task - but it doesn't mean I want it to be my sole task in life!

I'm pretty sure my kids and my husband would prefer less sophisticated dinner and happy mummy, then freshly baked cake every day and mummy frustrated and depressed.

My mother worked since I was 3, I wasn't harmed by it in any way. Now she's a happy, sociable woman with plenty of friends.

Do bear in mind that in the past (one hundred or more years ago), either both parents worked (eg they were peasants or labourers, or the husband owned a business and the wife helped out, or the wife would work as cook or seamstress or charwoman with the husband mining or whatever), in which case younger children were looked after by their older siblings or other relatives, or if the parents belonged to the upper classes, they did not work, and delegated childcare to nannies, governesses, teachers, and other domestic staff. In both cases, children were never the focus, be-all and end-all of a family. They were expected to grow up as soon as possible, and join the adults in their world of either work or intellectual and leisure pastimes, depending on the family's income. So I think that dual earner families in the modern sense of the world are not functioning properly because:

1) it is a two-tier structure only, with parents caring for children, no extended family usually involved, and all the work and care going one way - from parents to children, and

2) instead of "bringing children up" - helping them grow into adults - most parents nowadays seem hell-bent on being their children's "best friends", thus losing authority and the chance to teach them anything useful for later life, also

3) as the children grow, they are not expected to assume any responsibility for the family and its well-being: "it is enough that they do well at school".

Overall, I think the stay-at-home Happy Mom is a myth created in the 50s. Women havenever before been so isolated and left to their own devices with only a couple of toddlers for company. Been there, done that, never ever again.

Bravo, one of the best posts I have seen in such a long long time. I couldnt agree more.