Wealthy, stay-at-home moms are a cultural lightning rod for anxieties about wealth and privilege.
The point is not that we should feel sorry for women with a personal chef and a house in the Hamptons. Rather, my goal is to illuminate who gets to be both wealthy and morally worthy in our society. In the modern-day US, our concept of meritocracy is inherently gendered. This means that women bear the brunt of negative judgments about wealthâand raises questions about what women âdeserve,â and on what basis, that cut across social class.
âŚ
Not bringing in money left some of these women feeling vulnerable. A parenting expert told me, of the wealthy stay-at-home moms she worked with, âThey feel so guilty that theyâre wasting their degrees⌠They feel so âless than.ââ
Helen (a pseudonym, like all other names in this piece), who had been an investment banker and had left her career reluctantly, told me, â[Iâm] well-educated. I had a career. You know, where is all that now?â She said she sometimes felt like she was âworking forâ her husband. She added, âThere are power dynamics, where heâs the breadwinner now, and Iâm really not. And yet, I do so many things for the family that you canât put a number on it.â Her unpaid labor is hard to measure, and therefore hard to appreciate.
Bridget worked part-time, bringing in much less money than her husband did. She said he gave her âa hard timeâ about spending but felt free to buy what he wanted. She put this dilemma succinctly, saying, said, âI canât make enough money to impact our life. And how am I ever going to make enough money to deserve something, if I donât just say I worked for this and I made this money?ââ By bringing in the money, men often get the power to decide how it is spent. Equally important, they also get the right to feel like they âdeserveâ what they have.
The other reason wealthy stay-at-home mothers are vilified is that they are imagined to be excessive and self-indulgent consumers, in a world where over-the-top consumption is often seen as a moral failing. Women, more associated with consumers in general, bear the brunt of this kind of judgment, especially when they are thought to be spending only on themselves.
âŚÂ Â
Stephanie prided herself on being an attentive mother, making Halloween costumes for her son and baking âbeautifully decoratedâ cookies for his school. She also explained in detail the stresses of managing their home in Manhattan and their weekend home, saying, âIâm the one that deals with all of it.â But, she said, her husband âthinks that Iâm, you know, eating bon bons all day. Itâs hard.â He also hassled her about spending too much, though she protested that she bought clothes at Target and cut her own hair and nails, while he splurged on expensive meals for his friends.
When the roles were reversed, women did not exert the same judgment over their husbandsâ spending. The women I interviewed who earned more than their husbands, or who brought the bulk of the money into the household through inheritance, described this state of affairs as threatening to their husbands. Rather than control their husbandsâ expenditures, they went out of their way to make men feel like they were contributing too, by letting them control the familyâs investments or by legally turning over some sum of money to them. So the power dynamic here is about masculinityânot just about who brings home more of the bacon.
i feel like reading this article is a good way to test whether or not you have fully accepted that misogyny does not get canceled out by anything, including obscene wealth
