S/O Why do you care if moms stay home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, you seem to forget that civic America used to run on... sah moms! Church groups, league of women voters, all kinds of volunteer organizations, etc. Educated women who had the time and attention to engage with society. Is it really better for society to have every parent scrambling bt work and childcare, with no time for reading, community activism, etc?

Yes. I find it sick that you think women providing unpaid labor for the benefit of society is a good thing.

That’s not what I said. I am responding to PP’s suggestion that women can only influence society by being part of the paid workforce. And notice I said “parents,” not moms.

It’s pretty clear you were talking about women. Men rarely volunteer or are that involved in providing charities with TIME.

Sure women can help society through unpaid work. Is it a good thing for women? No. It keeps us second class citizens.

I personally would never make the decision to quit my job and SAH based on what is best for "society". That is such a highly personal choice and I think that women are more than capable of choosing these types of things for themselves.

[Anonymous]

The women’s movement was about giving women opportunity and choices in life.

It was not about turning them into make worker bees.

[Anonymous]

Male not make

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

Mic drop, girl. And this is the fundamental issue I have with SAHMs. They are so freaking selfish and narrow-minded. THIS IS WHAT THE WOMEN WHO CAME BEFORE US FOUGHT FOR. but they can’t see the societal consequences (which you so brilliantly outlined).

But couldn't all of these issues be dealt with just as well if we had a more open-minded attitude toward older women re-entering the workforce, or more open-minded attitudes to both men and women working less while their children are young? Do all the doctors, police offers, CEO's, and legislators have to be women/parents with young children? Over half the people in this country are childless or have older children. More and more women are choosing to be childless. Can't THOSE people handle the police departments, hospitals, science labs, etc. for just a little bit while I take care of my child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

Mic drop, girl. And this is the fundamental issue I have with SAHMs. They are so freaking selfish and narrow-minded. THIS IS WHAT THE WOMEN WHO CAME BEFORE US FOUGHT FOR. but they can’t see the societal consequences (which you so brilliantly outlined).

LOL

[Anonymous]

Crazy idea. What if we lived in a society where people didn't have to scramble all the time, so they could work AND contribute to their communities. And what if women AND men had the flexibility to do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crazy idea. What if we lived in a society where people didn't have to scramble all the time, so they could work AND contribute to their communities. And what if women AND men had the flexibility to do that?

Here's a crazy idea, if a family can afford to have one parent home and chooses it, why not support it. Reality is some jobs can be very flexible and others cannot. I quit mine as mine was not flexible and I had a horrible boss who wouldn't even let me go to the doctor for an emergency. The boss was a woman. Women are far more difficult (in general) to work for. My husband has always had reasonably flexible jobs. We had a child with SN and my income would barely cover child care so it made sense for me to stop working. Here's another idea: by raising healthy, happy well cared for children, you are contributing to your community. You presume its best for everyone that all men and women work. You can contribute in many ways without a paid job. If my child comes out ok and happy and can function on her own/go to college and have a good life. Then, I have been successful and contributed to my community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

Mic drop, girl. And this is the fundamental issue I have with SAHMs. They are so freaking selfish and narrow-minded. THIS IS WHAT THE WOMEN WHO CAME BEFORE US FOUGHT FOR. but they can’t see the societal consequences (which you so brilliantly outlined).

LOL

Lol? Written by a 20 year old with no clue. You think it's funny that women couldn't vote a few generations ago? Some women really should just be breeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

If your infant or toddler is in daycare of with a nanny, then that person is your child's primary care giver, not you. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

If your infant or toddler is in daycare of with a nanny, then that person is your child's primary care giver, not you. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just a fact.

Here are my facts =
24 hrs in a day x 7 days a week = 168
I don’t consider 40/168 to be primary and I think that’s a fact

I certainly don’t think we should discount night hours. I don’t know about you, but I did a lot of middle of the night parenting to my infants and toddlers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

If your infant or toddler is in daycare of with a nanny, then that person is your child's primary care giver, not you. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just a fact.

Here are my facts =
24 hrs in a day x 7 days a week = 168
I don’t consider 40/168 to be primary and I think that’s a fact

I certainly don’t think we should discount night hours. I don’t know about you, but I did a lot of middle of the night parenting to my infants and toddlers.

Alright fine, I am saying I want to be the primary caregiver during my child's WAKING hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, you seem to forget that civic America used to run on... sah moms! Church groups, league of women voters, all kinds of volunteer organizations, etc. Educated women who had the time and attention to engage with society. Is it really better for society to have every parent scrambling bt work and childcare, with no time for reading, community activism, etc?

Yes. I find it sick that you think women providing unpaid labor for the benefit of society is a good thing.

That’s not what I said. I am responding to PP’s suggestion that women can only influence society by being part of the paid workforce. And notice I said “parents,” not moms.

It’s pretty clear you were talking about women. Men rarely volunteer or are that involved in providing charities with TIME.

Sure women can help society through unpaid work. Is it a good thing for women? No. It keeps us second class citizens.

No, it doesn't keep women second class citizens. Giving woman the choice is what is important, if they can afford it. My mom has a horrible time with me not working and yet she wasn't willing to step in and help get my child to therapies and appointments. You do far more harm imposing your values on what is best for others.. My mom insisted I be a clone of her and that wasn't happening so now we don't talk. Her loss, not mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

I'm the PP that you quoted. I get the primal desire to be with your kids, I also stayed home when my kids were very young, my post is more about people who leave the workforce entirely or who seem to think that there are no consequences down the line if women on the whole start dropping their careers because they're conned into thinking they have to or they can't combine the two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a WOHM, and SAHMs don't bother me one bit. What is annoying is all the husbands of the SAHMs at work who make comments about how they would never trust a daycare/nanny with their children, when they know that most of the women in our office are mothers in dual-career families.

But if you trust your child care, why do you care that someone else wouldn't and prefers parent care?