52. Who Supports Whom? Breadwinner vs. Stay-at-Home Parent

Send us a text

Financial autonomy for stay-at-home parents means having options and being able to exercise them without justification or permission, even when you're not collecting a paycheck. We examine how historical patterns like the law of coverture have evolved into modern expectations that devalue domestic labor while romanticizing the stay-at-home parent role.

• Economists estimate the unpaid labor of stay-at-home parents is worth over $100,000 annually
• The narrative of who's "supporting" whom needs to be flipped - the stay-at-home parent enables the working parent's career
• Financial autonomy doesn't undermine partnership but strengthens it by creating equality
• Access to separate accounts, having your own money, and retirement savings are practical steps toward autonomy
• Teaching financial literacy to children, especially daughters, helps break intergenerational patterns
• Both spouses deserve financial autonomy regardless of who's bringing home a paycheck
• Feeling resentful about finances often signals a boundary violation that needs addressing

Your work is valuable, and your contribution is real whether you're getting a paycheck or not. Share your thoughts on social media, and join us next time as we discuss what to do when your partner won't play fair.

Links

The Way We Never Were American Families and the Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz

Domestic Dialogue: Flipping the Labor Script

Notes on Project 2025 by Rachel Hurley

End the Dysfunctional Cycles in Your Relationship and Stay in Love for Life (Terry Real)

If we empower women to work outside the house without expecting men to work inside the house…

The Fair Play Book | Fair Play Life by Eve Rodsky 

The Documentary | Fair Play Life

THE EMOTIONAL LABOR SERIES: Let's Talk Emotional Labor and Mental Load - Bare Marriage

Thanks for listening! Connect with us via

• Facebook: Uncovered: Life Beyond
• Instagram: @uncoveredlifebeyond
• Email: [e-mail]
• Website: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2171591

Subscribe (for free) to Uncovered: Life Beyond on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts so you'll never miss an episode!

What topics at the intersection of education, high-demand religion, career, parenting, and emotional intelligence are of interest to you? Help us plan future episodes by
like to veer off the pathassigned to us.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
We've juggled motherhood, marriage, college
and career, as we questioned ourfaith traditions while
exploring new identities andways of seeing the world.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
Without any maps for either of us to follow.
We've had to figure things outas we go and appreciate that
detours and dead ends areessential to the path Along the
way, we've uncovered a fewinsights we want to share with
fellow travelers.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
We want to talk about the questions we didn't know
who to ask and the options wedidn't know we had.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
So, whether you're feeling stuck or already shaking
things up, we are here to cheeryou on and assure you that the
best is yet to come.
Welcome to Uncovered LifeBeyond.
Hello everyone, Welcome back toUncovered Life Beyond.

(01:08):
This is Naomi and this isRebecca.

Speaker 2 (01:11):
So here we are, bright and early.
It is kind of early this time.
Change is just.
It's always just a gift thatyou kind of want to give back.
I refuse.

Speaker 1 (01:23):
I refuse.
I'm lucky that it fell at thebeginning of my spring break, oh
yeah, you know.
So it hasn't been hitting me ashard and I still need to change
a few clocks around the house.

Speaker 2 (01:36):
But yeah, we'll get there I get it.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
So I was thinking we haven't really paid attention to
all our stats.
We haven't talked about reviewsand ratings and that kind of
thing very much on the podcast.
So I was surprised a littlewhile ago to find that we had
this incredibly generous reviewon Apple Podcasts.
This is months ago.

(01:59):
So whoever that was, thank youso much.
And also I saw on Spotify,where you can't do reviews but
just ratings, that I think wehave like five, five star
ratings.
Really, I didn't know this.
I was so tickled.
So thank you.
Clearly.
They love us Clearly, obviously.
And the haters haven't found usyet.

Speaker 2 (02:21):
So Sometimes I wonder how I got so lucky to have like
this collection of people wholove me and now they found me us
on the podcast.
So that's kind of cool.
It's like this collection justgrows and it's humbling.

Speaker 1 (02:39):
It is.
It is when I look at thelocations where our podcast is
being downloaded and I see those, some of those towns, the
cities, again and again, episodeafter episode.
That's a good feeling to knowthat it's not just a one-off,
but that it feels, even thoughthe conversation is still

(03:02):
one-sided, it shows some kind ofconnection and that connection
is what really really makes itmeaningful.
And I just wanted to give ashout out to a few folks Itai
and Pat in Oklahoma.
Thank you for listening andthank you so much for your

(03:22):
encouraging messages.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
And then we have Beth in Idaho and we always love
hearing from you.

Speaker 1 (03:30):
Oh, I love her emails .
I know I would love to sit downand have a cup of coffee with
her.
I think we could talk for hours.
And then there's Ruth, an oldfriend who discovered our
podcast not too long ago, andDorothy in Dorcas, in.

Speaker 2 (03:46):
Pennsylvania, and then we have my dear friend
Tricia in Ohio.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
And then there are a couple of downloads from
Missouri and I'm pretty surethat's Caroline and Jackie, and
shout out to both of you Hopeyou're doing well.
So we love you guys, and yourencouragement, your feedback, is
what keeps us going.

Speaker 2 (04:09):
It's such an honor that, out of all the options out
there, you all choose to tunein and we value that, we
appreciate that and trust mewhen I say every message of
feedback, encouragement,ideas're kind of talking about
financial freedom maybe not inthe way that that term is often

(04:52):
used, and we're talking moreabout financial autonomy, I
think.
I think so too.

Speaker 1 (05:00):
We're talking about the value of a stay-at-home
parent.
Often, this role is one thatgets romanticized.
We hear people say they feellucky to be a stay-at-home
parent.
We hear the stay-at-home parentbeing spoken of as supported by
the working parent.
We say that no, they don't work, even though they're probably

(05:22):
working 18-hour days, and thiscan make it really difficult for
that stay-at-home parent tohave financial autonomy.
And we want to talk about someother ways of looking at this
situation and talk about whetherfinancial autonomy is possible
for stay-at-home parents, whoare typically women.
And we want to talk about whyit's even a thing, or why the

(05:43):
stay-at-home parents who aretypically women.
And we want to talk about whyit's even a thing, or why the
stay-at-home parent expectationis a thing, and why it's
important to be thinking about aperson's financial autonomy,
especially now.
What do you think of when youthink of financial autonomy?
What does that term mean to you, rebecca?

Speaker 2 (06:05):
For me, financial autonomy means having access to
funds and I kind of joke thatevery good housewife should have
and I joke saying housewife,but probably every person.

Speaker 1 (06:22):
Ironically, yeah, oh, okay yeah.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
Yeah, Should have access to $200 or $300 cash that
no one else knows about, and tome that has always been really
important.
Probably part of it offers ameasure of security for me, but
it also gives me a sense of I'mnot sure if option is the right

(06:49):
word.

Speaker 1 (06:50):
That's the word that comes to my mind.

Speaker 2 (06:51):
Yeah, it gives me options.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
Cash gives you options.
Cash gives you mobility, and itcan give you mobility, can get
you out of a bad situation, orit can get you to someone who
needs you, or you can give it tosomeone who needs it.
Right, exactly, there's optionsthere.

Speaker 2 (07:11):
Yes, yes.

Speaker 1 (07:12):
Which is where that autonomy piece comes in, doesn't
it?
Autonomy is about not onlyhaving options, but being able
to exercise them.

Speaker 2 (07:20):
And I think a lot of this conversation is going to
boil down to this notion of areyou a team in your relationship
or is there a hierarchy?
And I think so often when Ithink about the marriage books
that I used to read.
It almost dumbs the female downto the role of a child who just

(07:44):
works really, really hard.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
And I think some of the extreme patriarchal voices
say the quiet part out loud andsay that a wife is the first
among his daughters.

Speaker 2 (07:55):
Right right.
So I think we need to be verycareful about those voices and
even what it does to us on asubconscious level.
It took me a really long timeto understand that, regardless
of what Matt and my relationshiplooked like, I had a lot of

(08:19):
these messages.
He had a lot of these messagesthat we had never taken the time
to look at, and I thinksometimes we just run on what we
know without pausing to decideif that's really something that
we want to own Right, and thisin no way is to shame a

(08:44):
stay-at-home parent or to shamea working parent oh no.
In any way.
But at the end of the day, isthis set up to be a team effort
with equal value, or is theregoing to be this sense of
hierarchy and this sense ofindebtedness because you're

(09:05):
working off of his paycheck?

Speaker 1 (09:07):
Right, right, and this is totally off topic, but
just this weekend I listened toan audio book by someone called
Terry Real and I hope we cantalk more about it later, but
what I loved about his.
So his book is aboutrelationships and I love how he
gave practical ways to deal withthat hierarchy in relationships

(09:28):
in a nuanced and liberating waythat's respectful to everybody
involved.
Fierce Intimacy is the name ofhis book.
If anybody is interested it'son Hoopla.
But he gets at what it lookslike to shift a relationship
from hierarchy to team and Ithink that's huge.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
And I think it would really behoove us to take this
seriously and to really thinkabout it, because I think our
best form of resistance comeswhen we can teach our kids to be
different.
Teach our kids to be different,to show up differently.

(10:10):
What expectations do I have formy son versus my daughters?
Or what kind of financialautonomy am I giving them?
Is that something that theyexpect and is normal to them?
And if they were in arelationship where it was
removed, they would be like,well, that's weird and that's
not okay, or would that just bethe normal mode of operation for

(10:30):
them?
And so I think, when we startchanging things and creating a
new experience for our kids, Ijust think that is the most
redemptive way to make changesand to resist the hierarchy.

Speaker 1 (10:48):
Yeah, to break that cycle, and I think modeling it
is such an important part ofthat teaching, you know.
I think looking at thesedynamics in a broader historical
context can be really helpful.
Back in.
I don't know when these lawswere made exactly, but I'm
thinking around the IndustrialRevolution or maybe the

(11:10):
beginning of it, but certainlyin Europe hundreds of years ago,
women had no financialindependence.
The law of coverture in Britainsaid that when a woman got
married, she essentially had nolegal personhood, and this was
so that she couldn't be forcedto testify against her husband

(11:34):
in court.
But what this also meant thenwas like when she got married,
all her assets like she couldn'thave assets in her name they
went to her husband.
And we know about all the havocthis system wreaked on families,

(11:55):
from the Jane Austen books, theBronte sisters books, jane Eyre
, even in Bridgerton, which is amodern retelling.
But there you see how that putintense pressure on young women
to marry to marry people thatwere disgusting to them.
But if they didn't, they had nomoney to their name because

(12:21):
everything that their dad ownedwas going to the next male
relative, and that then, ofcourse, was brought over to
American law, because Americanlaw was generally based on
British law, common law, and sowe see this shifting, because
back at the time of Jane Austenand the Bronte sisters, the
stories we read are generally ofpeople who were in the upper

(12:46):
echelons of British society,where everybody else worked
Women unless they were wealthy,everybody in the family worked
women, children and men and thenAmerican society reflected that
as well.
But then, rebecca, you'vepointed out that that changed

(13:06):
after slavery was abolished.
And what changed?

Speaker 2 (13:09):
Well, the biggest change after slavery was
abolished was they didn't haveanyone to do their housework for
free, and I think we reallyneed to pay attention to how
much wealth is built off thebacks of people who are working

(13:36):
for peanuts Unpaid, yeah,underpaid labor, yeah, and if
that is what a society is builton.
I think we need to be reallycareful, yeah.
And if that is what a societyis built on, I think we need to
be really careful.
Yeah, but families now didn'thave their free black labor, so
magically they turned to thewomen.

Speaker 1 (13:57):
So what we see happening after that, then, is
that women staying home andkeeping house became
sentimentalized and valorized ina way that it hadn't before.
Now also, what was going onaround this time, I mean, I
think it, without going into theweeds too much, my sense is
that it crept downward on thesocioeconomic scale, and so now

(14:21):
you have middle-class womenaspiring to live the stay at
home life and appear to live thelives of ease of the upper
classes, but of course, theworking class everybody in the
family was working in theworking class still, of course.

Speaker 2 (14:38):
Isn't this also when the church kind of started
buying into biblical manhood andbiblical womanhood?

Speaker 1 (14:48):
Jesus and John Wayne.

Speaker 2 (14:50):
Jesus and John Wayne would be a good.

Speaker 1 (14:53):
Yes, another book that I'm sure she consulted was
the Way we Never Were AmericanFamilies and Nostalgia Trap by
Stephanie Kuntz.
This was published years ago,but, oh man, she does such a
fantastic job looking at themyths we tell about the American
family and looking at thereality of it and the data

(15:15):
behind it.
And then, yeah, jesus and JohnWayne.
The point here is not to give aplay-by-play of the history
lesson, but to point out thatthere is a broader historical
context and that we understandthat the rights women have today
, or have had until recently,were hard won and have been

(15:36):
fought for for centuries, forcenturies.
And also we need to think aboutthe ways that, because of these
conventions, because of theselongstanding traditions, that
just because something is legaldoesn't mean that everyone is
exercising that legal right andhas that financial autonomy.
Just in our last episode, wetalked about the reactions we've

(15:59):
had when we went to open a bankaccount as a single married
woman, and a married woman alone, and so I think that shows that
this is an ongoing struggle.
The thing that makes it moresalient than ever to me is
something that I've heard, andI'm going to be clear.

(16:21):
I was not able to find thereceipts on this.
So on one hand, it'sspeculative.
On the other hand, the reasonI'm mentioning it, the reason I
thought it was important to talkabout, is because it tracks
with everything we know aboutthese hyper-conservative,
patriarchal movements.
And it's been said that inProject 2025, in the first 17

(16:47):
drafts, they laid out a way tostrip women of any financial
control that money in our bankaccounts would be switched over
to the nearest male relative,accounts would be switched over
to the nearest male relative,that our property would be

(17:08):
signed over to our nearest malerelative.
And what is the policy thatwould effectively eliminate
married women from voting?

Speaker 2 (17:14):
They're trying to change it so that, in order to
vote, your ID has to match yourbirth certificate.
So most of us, when we getmarried, take on our husband's
last name, and when we do that,obviously your name doesn't
match the birth certificate.
And no one I shouldn't say noone very few people ever get

(17:39):
their birth certificate changedto reflect that, so it's putting
up roadblocks to be able tovote.

Speaker 1 (17:47):
So I think it's important to look at the way
that many of our popularnarratives, our conventional
narratives, facilitate thesekinds of changes, because there
are people in power who arefantasizing about this and it
seems unthinkable, it seemsridiculous to even think that

(18:07):
this could be a thing.
But you know what MargaretAtwood was right?
She has been right about somany other things, even Tia
Leavings talks about how thiswas a long-term goal.

Speaker 2 (18:19):
This is something Gothard was talking about for
years.
He wasn't kidding when hetalked about raising your kids
to be an army for God and to getinto the government.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
I mean, this has been something that I've heard
growing up, yeah, oh yeah, it'sbeen in the works for a long
time, yeah.
Growing up, yeah, oh yeah, it'sbeen in the works for a long
time, yeah, and it's about areversion back to back to
hundreds of years ago, the goodold days.
The good old days, yeah.
And and I think it's importantto talk about why stay at home

(18:55):
moms are especially vulnerablebecause in a scenario like that,
you know, even if someone bestcase scenario, say someone, a
stay-at-home mom has inheritedmoney and is independently
wealthy and has that financialautonomy, now a few people are
in that situation but even inbest case scenario like that, if
this kind of policies, if thesekinds of policies were put in

(19:19):
place, that person would loseaccess to all that.
I mean, like how is thatanything but a way of
disempowering women and trappingwomen in impossible situations
and limiting their options?
So I think, while I acknowledgethat, yes, those ideas were,

(19:41):
you know, have either beendismissed or been taken out on
the most current version, thefact that they were hanging out
in those first 17 drafts, or theclaim, suggests a lot about the
intentions of the writers.
And, like you said, tiaLeavings told us all about it
and I want to be clear we're nottalking conspiracy theory here.
We're not talking conspiracytheory here.

(20:04):
A conspiracy theory is where wemake up stories to explain
things that are going on in theworld, confusing things, but
when the evidence is right infront of your eyes, that's not a
conspiracy.
And looking at the evidencethat people like Tia Living's,
like these writers we've talkedabout and put before our eyes,
like the Project 2025 folks havesaid, tell us everything we
need to know.
This is not a conspiracy.
We're addressing what's rightin front of us.

(20:26):
So I think, approaching thisfrom the perspective of radical
acceptance accepting what it isand not pretending it's
otherwise, thinking about whatdoes it mean, then, to address
the situation with values,aligned action.
What does it mean to deal withthis situation in a way that

(20:47):
protects our children, protectsour daughters, and how do we do
it?
We're not rolling in tons ofmoney or tons of time.
How do we do this?
So I don't think we have ananswer to that exactly, but the
first step is to address thisquestion of who is supporting
who.

Speaker 2 (21:06):
I think something else that might be important to
note is what kind of arelationship is it if it's built
on this notion that there is noout, like if I would know that
my husband is unhappy with meand would like to leave, but
feels obligated to stay?
What kind of a relationship isthat?

(21:28):
And so, when marriages are setup so that the woman has no
choice but to stay, what kind ofrelationship is that?
Is that what we really want?

Speaker 1 (21:39):
You know, and even though that kind of thing has
been celebrated by so manypeople, that's also the basis
for citizenship in North Korea,soviet Russia, all these other
places you know.
So prison, that's how prisonworks.

Speaker 2 (21:55):
Yeah, that doesn't work in government.
That doesn't work.
And it doesn't work inmarriages.
That's not a healthy marriage.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
And it doesn't work in marriages.
That's not a healthy marriage.
Choosing to stay is one thing,but being forced to stay is an
absolute other conversation.
And it you've been astay-at-home mom for well, I
guess, depending on how you lookat it, by some definitions
you've always been or you'velong been a stay-at-home parent,
but then in other ways not.

Speaker 2 (22:39):
But you know what?
I think?
That that's representative of alot of women.
Yes, it's not just the thing ofcoordinating everything at home
.
Oftentimes it's also lookingfor ways to provide extra income
.
It's looking for ways to makemoney.

(22:59):
So, oftentimes the stay-at-homeparent has to coordinate
everything but then also runs abusiness, works outside the home
.
What have you?
And I don't think that getstalked about very much.

Speaker 1 (23:14):
No, but that reminds me of a study that I read about
some time ago that said that itwas talking about that this
whole idea of stay-at-home momversus working mom divide, this
mommy wars, as it's been called,but it's it's more trumped up
into being a thing than itactually is, because the line
between women who are, have,have children and maybe cut back

(23:37):
somewhat on work, and thenwomen who are quote unquote
staying home but are doingsomething on the side, really
makes that line very fuzzy inreality.
So I agree, but let's imagine aworld where stay at home moms
got a paycheck every two weeks.
What would you say?

(23:58):
Your stay at home salary wouldhave been just based on you know
what you were doing day to day,especially when the kids were
younger.
How much do you think thatpaycheck would be for yourself?
How do you, do you estimatethat?

Speaker 2 (24:12):
Well, isn't?
The only way to break that downis if you think about okay, so
how much would it cost to hire ahousekeeper?
How much would it cost to hirea cook?
How much would it cost to hirea caseworker?
How much would it cost to hire?

Speaker 1 (24:30):
a personal secretary.
A personal secretary, I thinkyou're making such an important
point that, while we might havea hard time putting a dollar
value on our own labor when wethink about hiring someone to do
it, for us to take these thingsoff our plate, suddenly that
seems crazy expensive.
And I think it's so interestinghow easy it is to assume that

(24:59):
when women are in the home,women are just going to take
care of things.
And I mean, I've been in asituation where I was preparing
a meal and I asked someone ifthey would come make the iced
tea while I was finishing up themeal and I was told why can't
you do it?
You're already out there.
Yeah, that was a situation whereI was also working and going to

(25:24):
school and what was hurtful tome about that response was that
it suggested that it undervalued, it undermined the effort that
I was putting into making thatmeal.
It it was really dismissive ofall that and it didn't.
It was it's one thing to say oh, I, oh, I'm not good enough you

(25:45):
know that weaponizedincompetence but to say you can
do it.
And this is this is from theperson to whom iced tea was
important.

Speaker 2 (25:54):
I think sometimes those conversations has less to
do about what is actually said.
Has less to do about what isactually said and more to do
about how it reflects theperceived value or the perceived
role that you're playing orthat you're supposed to play.

Speaker 1 (26:14):
Exactly so.
When economists break down thereal costs for hiring
professionals to do thesestay-at-home jobs so like the
ones you listed nanny, childcare, housekeeper, personal chef it
comes to $100,000 a year, evenover, over, over.
And let's be clear this is notjust the family, the private

(26:40):
sphere, as it were, that isbenefiting from that unpaid
labor, but the employer that candepend on a spouse who is going
to show up at work every daywithout any concerns about
what's going on at home, as ifthe family does not exist.
That is happening becausesomebody is at home working for

(27:02):
free.
So I think this is where wecome to the question of who is
supporting who, and the way it'stalked about is that the
stay-at-home parent is beingsupported by this hardworking
breadwinner, and we want tochallenge that.
What we see is that thestay-at-home parent is

(27:22):
supporting their partner.
The reason that partner has afull-time career is because the
other is taking on all thatunpaid labor at home, and this
situation really puts women in adouble bind.
So on one hand, women are oftendemonized for putting their
career ahead of their childrenwhen they do work outside the

(27:45):
home for pay, but then whatwe're seeing here with the
stay-at-home situation is thatthey are penalized.
Society is not compensatingthem for that work.
And I have personally seenwhere someone applies.
Someone as a mom who has been inand out of the workforce
applies for a job and this isafter her children are out of

(28:07):
the house and she's no longerresponsible for them.
But there were those gaps inher work history and that was
held against her for a churchsecretary job a church secretary
job.
So I think that becoming awareof situations of expectations

(28:28):
where women can't win or womenare going to be demonized either
way, is really important.
And oftentimes the question ofwhether someone should stay home
or not is often framed in termsof how much her salary, how her
salary compares to the cost ofchildcare, and it's like well,
if and and and, which is ahorror show.
Like the cost of childcare is ahorror show, no question about

(28:50):
that.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
It's a whole other conversation that needs to be
had.

Speaker 1 (28:53):
Absolutely.
But the thing is that it's notjust about the daycare costs.
So if, if, if a mom says, well,I'll just stay home rather than
give my whole paycheck to thedaycare costs.
So if a mom says, well, I'lljust stay home rather than give
my whole paycheck to the daycare, I can understand that argument
, except that what it's alsocosting her is prime career
building years she's not puttinginto retirement savings, and

(29:14):
you know what matters withretirement savings Time Time is
what matters and opportunitiesfor advancement when she does
come back to the workforce ifshe does, you don't just slide
right back in, as you know.
And so that financial impactdoesn't just last when they're
at home, but it penalizes them,it follows them for the rest of

(29:36):
their working lives.
And I think what is soimportant for us to realize is
that we talk about this as achoice.
You know well, women make theirchoices or they choose to stay
home or they choose to choose todo, and we ignore the economic
and policy forces that limittheir choices, that really give

(29:58):
them a yucky set of options, andwhatever option they choose,
somebody's going to be there totell them they did it wrong.

Speaker 2 (30:08):
And, just to add insult to injury, there's also
then this sense of indebtednessif the mom does decide to stay
home, because I've so oftenheard moms say but you know, I
am so grateful that I could be astay at home mom.
And I would like to suggestboth things can be true.

(30:30):
You can be grateful that youhad that opportunity because it
is true it is a certainprivilege and still acknowledge
the loss that that involved anddrop this notion of being
indebted to your husband or toyour partner for having that

(30:50):
option.
I'm trying to figure out how tosay this without belittling the
spouse or not beingappreciative of that option.
But you should feel no moreindebted to your spouse for
being because you were able tobe a stay-at-home mom than what
your spouse is indebted to youfor being that stay-at-home mom

(31:15):
and support person, because yourspouse literally could not do
what they are doing without therole you're playing.

Speaker 1 (31:24):
So it's both Right.
Right and I think that's thething that's the point we're
wanting to make here overall isthat the hierarchy valuing one
of the other is so problematic.
So how does the expectations ofwho's going to do the work at
home, whether she is working ora stay-at-home mom?

(31:47):
How does that often play out?
What have you observed?

Speaker 2 (31:51):
So I remember the twins were four when my son was
born.
The twins were four when my sonwas born, so I had three kids,
four and under.
And I remember a friend tellingme how she tries to ensure that
the first 30 minutes of herhusband coming home is a time of

(32:13):
, you know, rest and whateverfor him so he can decompress and
blah.
And I just remembered lookingat her and saying what exactly
does he do on the ride home fromwork?
Like, I don't get a ride homefrom work.
And I think it's so fascinatingthat that was literally part of

(32:36):
the core teaching.
That's what the marriage bookswere telling wives they needed
to do, that the king was cominghome to his castle and he needed
to be, you know, babied for allthe hard work he did that day.
As if the wife hadn't just donea crazy day of hard work as

(32:59):
well, and she didn't get a ridehome from work.
And this is not to devalue atall what your partner is doing
at work all day, but this is toadd value to what you're doing.

Speaker 1 (33:11):
Exactly.

Speaker 2 (33:12):
And no, I do not have to baby my spouse when he comes
home from work.

Speaker 1 (33:17):
Or what if he feels an equal obligation to baby you?
I like that better, I like thatbetter, and I think that common
narrative is that you know, yeah, if he is working a day job, he
shouldn't be expected to takeon responsibility at home.
Anything he's, anything he doesis extra and deserves applause.
But then when a stay-at-homemother starts working outside

(33:39):
the home, statistically herarely steps up, and in fact,
some studies have found thatwhen men lose their jobs or find
themselves unexpectedlyunemployed, they do even less
around the house.
Even less around the house.
And so we're not talking hereabout stay-at-home parents.
You know where.

(34:04):
This is the setup right that acouple intentionally pursues,
but when it happens unexpectedly, we find that he actually does
less.

Speaker 2 (34:09):
And I think this is a really important point, because
so often women are set up to bequote the stay-at-home parent
and then they start working 10hours, 20 hours a week for $12
an hour, just to make extramoney, to find that the load at

(34:30):
home often isn't split orreduced in any way.
So, all of a sudden, it's thisrealization of oh, it's not
about hours worked, it's aboutwho's making the most money.
And since I've now been astay-at-home parent for 20 years
, I will never be able to matchmy spouse's pay grade.

(34:55):
So therefore, I am alwaysexpected to work harder.
And I think to your point, it'sa narrative, it's an excuse
that's often given to keep thefemale in the trap of working,
of working, of working.
Because, back to your statisticand I've seen it happen, when

(35:18):
men unexpectedly lose their job,you're right, they often end up
doing less.

Speaker 1 (35:25):
I think of this quote that I've seen floating around
on Instagram and we'll link itin the show notes.
It's attributed to Farida DAuthor.
If we empower women to workoutside the house without
expecting men to work inside thehouse, then we aren't
empowering women, we'reexploiting them Boom.
So, while the labor inside thehome remains firmly the women's

(35:49):
responsibility, in thissituation that we're critiquing,
who gets ownership of the moneythat's being earned, and whose
money is it?
I have heard more men talkabout how their divorce just
eviscerated them economically,and the reality is, of course.

(36:10):
The statistics are very clear.
The data are very clear thatwomen, after the dissolution of
a marriage, women are or apartnership, economic impact on
women is much harsher than it ison men.
Women live much closer to thepoverty line than men do.
I mean?
I'm not doubting that it doesimpact them negatively, but

(36:34):
bring out the tiny violinsimpact them negatively.

Speaker 2 (36:38):
But bring out the tiny violins.
But it impacts them negativelybecause oftentimes in the
relationship it is assumed thatthe money that is there is the
males Boom.
So all of a sudden, now thatmoney has to be divvied up as it
should be and he's just gettinghis share of it.

Speaker 1 (36:55):
But he feels robbed but he feels robbed.
But he feels robbed it was allhis.
It was all his.
I think the point you made aminute ago about that the hours
worked doesn't matter as much asthe size of the paycheck in
terms of who gets priority, Ithink that reinforces this idea
that it's his money.

(37:15):
I mean, both ideas, bothconcepts reinforce each other
and I really like the idea thatthey talk about I believe it's
in Fair Play that what if,instead of comparing paychecks
or even comparing hours worked,what if we compared free time?
What if we tried to make soboth partners got relatively

(37:38):
equal?
You know what if we work towardequity let's put it that way in
free time, and I think this issomething that Eve Rodsky it
really speaks to so well in FairPlay and we'll link to the book
in the documentary.
But this is also somethingBearer Marriage, sheila Gregor
talks about on bear marriage,isn't it?

Speaker 2 (37:58):
it is and I think they actually do a really great
job talking about it.
Um, she has been actually veryvocal and, I think, insightful
about the mental load, theemotional labor that women often
end up doing and how that isdamaging to the relationship.

Speaker 1 (38:19):
Well, it looks like the episode you linked is an
interview that Eve Rodsky did onbare marriage.
Is that right, oh?
My word, it is yeah.
So what I love about that?

Speaker 2 (38:33):
I want to go funny.

Speaker 1 (38:34):
Yeah, I want to go listen to that too now because
I'm very familiar with EveRodsky.
But I'm really interested inhearing that conversation with
Sheila.

Speaker 2 (38:46):
What I think is interesting about Sheila and
again, this is just myobservation.
I don't have any evidence, butsomehow it seems that she
figures out a way to say thingsthat women have been saying for
10 years, 15 years, 20 years,and she comes up and says it and

(39:12):
somehow people pay attention.
I'm both impressed and annoyed.

Speaker 1 (39:20):
Yeah Well, she speaks evangelical, she speaks
Christian culture, she knowsthat language, she knows the
language and she knows how toframe ideas in ways that don't
force someone to choose betweentheir religious belief and what
they see in front of them, whatthey know to be true, what they

(39:41):
know to be equitable, and Ithink that's part of the magic
of what she does.

Speaker 2 (39:46):
Well, and she also does a great job of doing
statistical work to back up.

Speaker 1 (39:54):
Exactly Very data driven To back up what she's
teaching.

Speaker 2 (39:59):
And I just found it interesting because they did a
study and realized that peoplewho find themselves in these
marriages usually have some typeof come apart at about between
year 15 and 20.
I think the average was 17years.
And I know there was a guy whowas listening to it and while

(40:22):
listening to that conversationhe was like, well yeah, I
wouldn't want to be in that typeof marriage, I wouldn't want to
be that female.

Speaker 1 (40:30):
And then the next thought was well, the next
thought was well, f*** Becausesomeone close to him was in that
position.

Speaker 2 (40:38):
Right and I think the work she's doing is really
important and I would encouragepeople to listen to it.
At the same time, I'm going tosay there's parts of it that I
find triggering, and I realizedit was okay, because I think I

(41:00):
do struggle a lot with thingsthat I've been saying.
Like I've been yelling abouthow horrible the book Love and
Respect is.
I've been saying this for 20years and she comes on and has
evidence that it is really,really, really bad and I'm like

(41:21):
darn it all.
And it's a good thing.
It is a good thing.
I am celebrating this.

Speaker 1 (41:26):
Yeah, yeah.
But there's a part of me that islike it tells you you can trust
your instincts, which I thinkthat's part of what that come
apart is that you said oftenhappens in marriages, because I
think that's where enough timehas gone by that you start to
see through the pretense, thesociety Bullshit, yeah, and you

(41:52):
see that the carrots that you'vebeen chasing are plastic and
awful and nothing you actuallywant.
So, yeah, another way thisproblem plays out is that when
the money is seen as belongingto the breadwinner, who's
usually a man, often the waythen women are talked about.

(42:14):
You know, when they're talkedabout as being supported by him,
the assumption is that womenare a drain on men's bank
accounts, and to me, what thisdoes is just further devalues
the unpaid labor, thecontribution that women make to
home and to society, and I thinka lot of women then feel that

(42:35):
they need to justify theirexistence.
And to be fair, the way thingshave been talked about in the
media often has, for good reason, put stay-at-home moms on the
defensive.
Now here is a woman who iscontributing over $100,000 worth

(42:58):
of labor every year, andsociety, instead of recognizing
that and honoring it andcompensating for it, frame women
as being a drain on men's bankaccounts.
You know because, by the way, Iremember a statistic, and this
was a number of years ago, thatis it 90% of men, american men,

(43:19):
make less than $100,000.
So you know, what we're sayingis, women are contributing way
more than men are, but they arestill being called a drain, and
you know.
And it just leads to anotherone of these double binds where,
on one hand, women aren'tsupposed to let themselves go,
they're supposed to pursue youth, they're supposed to look young

(43:40):
, but they're supposed to makeit, they're supposed to do it
effortlessly and are belittledif they do spend money on
themselves.
And so you know, because that'shis money, he worked for it.
So I think it's important tosee how this ownership of the
money filters into the way wesee other things too.

Speaker 2 (44:01):
And even how.
I mean, there's a million blogsout there, there's a million
podcasts out there about how tofeed your family on a dime.
This is why I think the tradwife thing is so popular,
because women are desperatelytrying to figure out how to make

(44:21):
it work, how to buy grocerieswithout being resented for the
money they spend, or how toclothe their children and not be
resented for that theirchildren and not be resented for
that.
There's some popular reels thatare going around right now and

(44:42):
it's an older lady, like she'sin her 90s I think, but she's a
feisty little person and shetalks about how her husband was
an idiot.
So every time she went to thegrocery store she got $50 cash
back so that she could clotheher children and he never knew
about it.

(45:03):
But she needed to figure out away to make it work and both the
difficult positions oftentimesthe stay-at-home parent is put
in but also how incredibly smartwe are.
We figure this out anyway and Iwould like to suggest that the

(45:31):
more you can lean into the teampart of the relationship and
understand your value,understand his value and merge
that, the more powerful yourrelationship is going to be.
Absolutely the stronger it'sgoing to be.
I want to argue that there isspace for that and we need to do

(45:54):
a better job of finding thatRight space for that and we need
to do a better job of findingthat.
But one spouse can't get thereon their own.
Both spouses need to be engagedinto that Right right.

Speaker 1 (46:04):
Both of them have to buy into it.
I think it's also important torecognize that this situation
that many women, many Americanwomen especially, find
themselves in is not a personalchoice, as it's often framed,
but a policy choice, and everyother post-industrialized

(46:26):
country treats their women way,way better than the US does.
Whether it is free healthcareor a big box of supplies after
the birth of a baby, whether itis visiting nurses who come by
automatically, whether it issubsidized daycare that makes it

(46:47):
very affordable, whether it ispaid time off In Canada, you get
a whole year of paid leave.
Isn't that amazing you get awhole year of paid leave.
Isn't that amazing?
And here's the thing In the US,it is illegal to separate a
mother dog from her pups if theyare under eight weeks old.
And yet how many American womenhave to go back to work because

(47:10):
they're going to starve?
They're going to lose theirhousing if they don't go back to
work at two weeks.
They're going to lose theirhousing if they don't go back to
work at two weeks.
So we treat dogs in thiscountry better than we treat
women and babies.
So I think we need to get reallyclear.
Instead of getting angry at themen, let's get angry about a
system that is forcing so manyof us into no-win situations,

(47:35):
and I think the first steptoward that change is changing
the narrative and reframing theconversation.
The way we're talking abouttoday, I mean, I think men
should be glad we're only askingfor equality and not revenge
for all the decades of unpaidlabor.
And I think some ways we canflip that script is if someone

(47:57):
ever refers to you in a way thatmakes you feel like a burden.
You as a stay-at-home parentmakes you feel like a burden for
not earning a paycheck.
Let's flip that script.
No one is doing me a favor I'mthe reason this household
functions, or if you can go towork stress-free, it's because
I'm doing the invisible labor athome, and there's so many more.
In fact, we have a handout ofscripts that might be useful in

(48:24):
having these kinds ofconversations and encourage
people to at least think abouthaving them, if not actually
venturing into this stickyterritory and I think it's
important to recognize that somethings that we're changing not
just the conversation, but it'salso practicing having direct

(48:46):
conversations, instead ofhinting at things passively or
kind of implying them, which somany of us are socialized to do.
And what I love about this, too, is it's giving us an
opportunity to advocate forourselves with confidence.
And even if it's notwell-received which good chance
it won't be that's okay.

(49:07):
This is still really goodpractice.
And if those conversationsdon't go well, whether that's
with a spouse or with a familymember, that gives you good data
on what situation you are in.
That is something to payattention to and to use as you
decide what you want your lifeto look like.

(49:29):
Going forward things, verypractical things that you think
stay-at-home parents couldconsider doing, maybe in setting
up their finances to be moreequitable.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
I think at a minimum both spouses should know about
and have access to accounts.
When I hear stories about womenwho are in 15, 20-year-old
marriages and do not have accessto those accounts or have
concerns that possibly theirspouse set up accounts under

(50:07):
their names that they didn'tknow about, I'm enraged.
And guys, these are goodChristian, conservative,
mennonite situations.
This isn't out there in theworld situations.
From a practical perspective,both spouses should have access
to that, because what ifsomething happens to the one

(50:30):
spouse?
But even from a sense ofequality, this is important.
I'm also a huge fan of a womanhaving her own account.
I have my own account.

Speaker 1 (50:45):
A bank account.

Speaker 2 (50:47):
Yeah, Matt knows about it and technically has
access to it, but he doesn'tabuse that access.
But it allows me to spend moneywithout having to explain,
excuse, justify.
I can save money if I wantwithout explaining, justifying

(51:12):
what have you Right Sounds likefinancial autonomy what have you
Right Sounds like financialautonomy Exactly I also am a
huge advocate for.
If your spouse gets aretirement fund through work,
you also should be getting anIRA.
I don't care if it's $1,000 ayear.
Set up a freaking IRA, yeah.

Speaker 1 (51:35):
I think we forget.

Speaker 2 (51:37):
You don't need an employer to do that Exactly, and
I think we forget how a littlebit does make a difference.
I don't know.
10 years ago I started justputting $50 a month into certain
accounts and it's amazing howthat grows and the difference
that that makes.
It doesn't have to be a lot ofmoney, but I was feeling

(51:59):
resentful, and it's weird, but Iwas feeling resentful that Matt
was investing money through hisemployment and I had none of it
, and so I decided to take careof that problem.
And again, I think this idea offeeling resentful has been
weaponized and we've been toldto shut that down.
But I think when you startfeeling resentful about

(52:21):
something, you need to payattention, because oftentimes it
means your boundaries are beingviolated and often there's a
solution for it.

Speaker 1 (52:28):
And it might involve rocking the boat a little bit.

Speaker 2 (52:31):
It might involve rocking the boat, and it might
involve being brave and doingsomething you have no idea about
.
It might mean talking to afinancial advisor and being like
I'm not quite sure what I want,but this is what I'm thinking
about.
I don't know the terms.
Tell me the terms.
Absolutely it might meanlistening to a podcast, but I
think every spouse deserves asense of financial autonomy,

(52:56):
even, I was going to say even ifonly one is providing an income
.

Speaker 1 (53:02):
Even if only one is employed in a Correct Is getting
a paycheck.
Yes, yes, absolutely.
Susie Orman, who's a financialplan or financial advisor, kind
of like a female Dave Ramsey,without all the religious

(53:22):
baggage.
Nonsense.
Yes, and I found an articlethat she wrote for O Magazine
that's Oprah's magazine and thisis back in 2011.
So it may be a little out ofdate by now, but it's called
Susie Orman's Retirement Planfor Stay-at-Home Moms, and we'll
link it.
It's a very short article, butI think it's one.

(53:43):
If nothing else, it could be astarting point for getting
familiar with the vocabulary orfinding out, just educating
yourself about it.
And let me be clear yes, it canbe confusing and yes, there is
a lot about the financial worldand financial instruments, as

(54:04):
they're called, that I do notknow, and yet I understand
what's going on with my moneyand folks.
If you're smart enough to turnon your podcast player, you're
smart enough to figure outwhat's going on with your money
too.

Speaker 2 (54:21):
It's not that hard and you know what If you don't
understand?
If you don't understand, you'renot asking enough questions.
And if you're asking questionsand people are annoyed that
you're asking questions, findsomeone else to ask the
questions.
To Keep asking questions untilyou understand.

Speaker 1 (54:35):
Absolutely.
If they're annoyed, that's ared flag.
Either they don't want you toknow, or so they might be hiding
something, or they just I don'tknow.

Speaker 2 (54:45):
If they're annoyed, that means you should just keep
asking yes, exactly.
That means you're ontosomething, and I cannot tell you
all how important it is toteach your kids about this stuff
, especially your daughters.
Teach them financial literacy.
Let them have a checkingaccount while they're still
under your roof.

(55:05):
When the twins were sophomoresjuniors, we got them their own
checking account.
They had to pay their bills.
We made sure the money wasthere, but we taught them how to
pay those bills.
I took them in and we opened upa CD.
I wanted them and it was just asmall CD, but I wanted them to
understand how that works.

(55:25):
Teach your kids, teach yourdaughters, how to do this so
that they know the terminology,so that they have the experience
, so they aren't easilyintimidated.
Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (55:39):
Absolutely so.
In conclusion, we want to sayyour work is valuable.
Your contribution, whetheryou're getting a paycheck for it
or not, is real, and we'resaying that every stay-at-home
parent deserves financialautonomy.
So we'd love to hear from ourlisteners what would you
estimate your work is worth Ifyou're someone who has maybe

(56:01):
been in a partnership for awhile?
You look back on your youngerself.
What advice would you give toyour younger self?
We'd love if you would sharethis episode.
Share your thoughts on socialmedia.
Tag us so that we can reshareyour post.
And next time we're going totalk about what to do when your

(56:21):
partner won't play fair.
What happens when you use thesescripts?
We're going to link in the shownotes and you get stonewalled?
You get someone who hymns andhaws.
You get someone who isdefensive, who is not engaging
in good faith.
What then?
That's what we're going to talkabout next.

Speaker 2 (56:41):
And remember money should be about partnership, not
power.
So let us know what you think.
Your feedback always kind ofhelps us know what we're missing
and what we're getting right,and we always value that.

Speaker 1 (56:58):
Because there are a million and one variations.
Every situation is differentand I'm sure there's situations
we did not think about.
That would be important to talkabout and we'd love to include
that in the conversation.
So thank you all.
We love you and we'll see younext time.

Speaker 2 (57:28):
Thank you for spending time with us today.
The resources and materialswe've mentioned are linked in
the show notes and on Facebookat Uncovered Life Beyond.

Speaker 1 (57:36):
What are your thoughts about college and
recovery from high demandreligion?
We know you have your ownquestions and experiences and we
want to talk about the topicsthat matter to you.
Share them with us atuncoveredlifebeyond at gmailcom.
That's uncoveredlifebeyond atgmailcom.

Speaker 2 (57:55):
If you enjoyed today's show and found value in
it, please rate and review it onyour favorite podcast app.
This helps others find the showWhile you're there.
Subscribe to our podcast so younever miss an episode.

Speaker 1 (58:08):
Until next time stay brave, stay bold, stay awkward.