So have we talked about this SAHM in Arlington Profile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimate hypocrisy. “The future is female” - so I’ll stay home while a man pays.

I had a lengthy conversation with a sahd yesterday. Feel better?

Was he at home with a son, a woman supporting them both, and crowing “the future is male!?”

I’d say no different were that the case.

If you don’t see the irony in that quote from the article, I can’t help you.

When one person takes care of the children and homefront, that allows the partner to work, including travel, unfettered by childcare and other home-based concerns. There is huge value in that, and it’s the partnership that allows it. They are both supporting the entire family unit. No irony.

Maybe in some SAHM situations. In my case, I see my child as my daytime occupation. If I throw in laundry or dishes, fine, but I’m not home slaving away at the house while DH sits back. He gets home and helps with dishes and laundry and takes the trash out we hire cleaners to come once every 2-3 weeks so neither of us has to scrub toilets. Once DH isn’t home for the night, child duties are split between us, most of the time more heavily in DH’s direction as he often does both bath and bed.

Meant to say once DH *is home* for the night, childcare is split... I wouldn’t say DH is unfettered by child and home concerns.

What I meant by that is that the partner earning an income can travel for work, stay late for meetings, head to the office when a kid is sick, not have to come home to meet a contractor, etc. Unfettered in that sense.

This attitude is ridiculous. The kid is not a lump of clay. A child should not be a "datime occupation". This mindset is an issue. Staying home is not. Moms like this are honestly creating monsters and a real PITA themselves. Its not rocket science and hell yeah, you should be doing the laundry. How TF would you not have the time? I have WOHM, SAHM and worked partime and so has my spouse and the one home with the kid does this stuff. That is how it is done. No, it is not fair to refuse to do household chores when you are not earning any income because your child is an "occupation". GTFO yourself.

I don't see my time with my kids as an "occupation" but I also don't see that I'm automatically responsible for more of the general household chores. I'll do them if I can, but they certainly aren't my "job" either.

I don't know what I think about that. I think as a general rule that stuff should be done by the person who has the time, or cares more. I don't see how the former would not usually be the SAHM. If I am really busy at work and my husband is off for any reason, I certainly expect him to do the household chores. I don't see why that would not be the general assumption. Your "job" is not staring at your kid all day, and anyone should be able to handle having a small child and doing the laundry. Sorry if that isn't popular, but come on.

To that end, everyone I know that employs a caretaker for young kids expects that they will do the dishes and do the laundry for the kid. Why would you not expect the same from a SAHM? Seriously, that's just a crappy deal if not. I would not take it. Sorry.

Sure, nannies are expected to clean as they go for kid related things- make lunch for kid, clean up, play with toys, clean up, but are they expected to vacuum the whole house and mop and do the husband’s laundry? I don’t know of any nanny who is expected to do this.

Yeah, the whole point is, a SAHM is not the nanny. The nanny goes home and does her own laundry and cleaning. Why would the SAHM not be doing both jobs? You can't have it both ways, all I am so busy, and yet...not even doing a normal person's job.

Didn't we all just say that SAHM is not a "job"?

A "job" has a negotiated salary/rate for predetermined responsibilities. A nanny position is a "job". A SAHM is not a "job. It's not a negotiated "deal".

There is childcare and related tasks. There are household responsibilities. They are not necessarily related.

[Anonymous]

Wow. The article is so insightful! No woman before her has struggled with these issues or articulated them in such a way.

Mind.Blown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimate hypocrisy. “The future is female” - so I’ll stay home while a man pays.

I had a lengthy conversation with a sahd yesterday. Feel better?

Was he at home with a son, a woman supporting them both, and crowing “the future is male!?”

I’d say no different were that the case.

If you don’t see the irony in that quote from the article, I can’t help you.

When one person takes care of the children and homefront, that allows the partner to work, including travel, unfettered by childcare and other home-based concerns. There is huge value in that, and it’s the partnership that allows it. They are both supporting the entire family unit. No irony.

Maybe in some SAHM situations. In my case, I see my child as my daytime occupation. If I throw in laundry or dishes, fine, but I’m not home slaving away at the house while DH sits back. He gets home and helps with dishes and laundry and takes the trash out we hire cleaners to come once every 2-3 weeks so neither of us has to scrub toilets. Once DH isn’t home for the night, child duties are split between us, most of the time more heavily in DH’s direction as he often does both bath and bed.

Meant to say once DH *is home* for the night, childcare is split... I wouldn’t say DH is unfettered by child and home concerns.

What I meant by that is that the partner earning an income can travel for work, stay late for meetings, head to the office when a kid is sick, not have to come home to meet a contractor, etc. Unfettered in that sense.

This attitude is ridiculous. The kid is not a lump of clay. A child should not be a "datime occupation". This mindset is an issue. Staying home is not. Moms like this are honestly creating monsters and a real PITA themselves. Its not rocket science and hell yeah, you should be doing the laundry. How TF would you not have the time? I have WOHM, SAHM and worked partime and so has my spouse and the one home with the kid does this stuff. That is how it is done. No, it is not fair to refuse to do household chores when you are not earning any income because your child is an "occupation". GTFO yourself.

I don't see my time with my kids as an "occupation" but I also don't see that I'm automatically responsible for more of the general household chores. I'll do them if I can, but they certainly aren't my "job" either.

I don't know what I think about that. I think as a general rule that stuff should be done by the person who has the time, or cares more. I don't see how the former would not usually be the SAHM. If I am really busy at work and my husband is off for any reason, I certainly expect him to do the household chores. I don't see why that would not be the general assumption. Your "job" is not staring at your kid all day, and anyone should be able to handle having a small child and doing the laundry. Sorry if that isn't popular, but come on.

My "job" isn't watching the kids just like my "job" isn't washing my DH's underwear.

So, you have no actual responsibilities? I could care less, honestly, I am just interested in how people view this stuff. It is such a new and unfamiliar viewpoint for me.

Is being a dad a "job"? In the sense of how the word "job" has been used on this thread?

Responsibilities <> "job"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimate hypocrisy. “The future is female” - so I’ll stay home while a man pays.

I had a lengthy conversation with a sahd yesterday. Feel better?

Was he at home with a son, a woman supporting them both, and crowing “the future is male!?”

I’d say no different were that the case.

If you don’t see the irony in that quote from the article, I can’t help you.

When one person takes care of the children and homefront, that allows the partner to work, including travel, unfettered by childcare and other home-based concerns. There is huge value in that, and it’s the partnership that allows it. They are both supporting the entire family unit. No irony.

Maybe in some SAHM situations. In my case, I see my child as my daytime occupation. If I throw in laundry or dishes, fine, but I’m not home slaving away at the house while DH sits back. He gets home and helps with dishes and laundry and takes the trash out we hire cleaners to come once every 2-3 weeks so neither of us has to scrub toilets. Once DH isn’t home for the night, child duties are split between us, most of the time more heavily in DH’s direction as he often does both bath and bed.

Meant to say once DH *is home* for the night, childcare is split... I wouldn’t say DH is unfettered by child and home concerns.

What I meant by that is that the partner earning an income can travel for work, stay late for meetings, head to the office when a kid is sick, not have to come home to meet a contractor, etc. Unfettered in that sense.

This attitude is ridiculous. The kid is not a lump of clay. A child should not be a "datime occupation". This mindset is an issue. Staying home is not. Moms like this are honestly creating monsters and a real PITA themselves. Its not rocket science and hell yeah, you should be doing the laundry. How TF would you not have the time? I have WOHM, SAHM and worked partime and so has my spouse and the one home with the kid does this stuff. That is how it is done. No, it is not fair to refuse to do household chores when you are not earning any income because your child is an "occupation". GTFO yourself.

I don't see my time with my kids as an "occupation" but I also don't see that I'm automatically responsible for more of the general household chores. I'll do them if I can, but they certainly aren't my "job" either.

I don't know what I think about that. I think as a general rule that stuff should be done by the person who has the time, or cares more. I don't see how the former would not usually be the SAHM. If I am really busy at work and my husband is off for any reason, I certainly expect him to do the household chores. I don't see why that would not be the general assumption. Your "job" is not staring at your kid all day, and anyone should be able to handle having a small child and doing the laundry. Sorry if that isn't popular, but come on.

To that end, everyone I know that employs a caretaker for young kids expects that they will do the dishes and do the laundry for the kid. Why would you not expect the same from a SAHM? Seriously, that's just a crappy deal if not. I would not take it. Sorry.

Sure, nannies are expected to clean as they go for kid related things- make lunch for kid, clean up, play with toys, clean up, but are they expected to vacuum the whole house and mop and do the husband’s laundry? I don’t know of any nanny who is expected to do this.

Yeah, the whole point is, a SAHM is not the nanny. The nanny goes home and does her own laundry and cleaning. Why would the SAHM not be doing both jobs? You can't have it both ways, all I am so busy, and yet...not even doing a normal person's job.

Didn't we all just say that SAHM is not a "job"?

A "job" has a negotiated salary/rate for predetermined responsibilities. A nanny position is a "job". A SAHM is not a "job. It's not a negotiated "deal".

There is childcare and related tasks. There are household responsibilities. They are not necessarily related.

You are being obtuse and overly formalistic. For most people, having a spouse stay home is precisely that, a negotiated or agreed upon "deal", as in, we care about this enough for you to stay home. The actual truth for 99% of families, like the one about whom this very article was written, is that is occurs as a result of one partner's income being too low to justify child care. That is, regardless of what you want to label it, a "deal" - a trade off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimate hypocrisy. “The future is female” - so I’ll stay home while a man pays.

I had a lengthy conversation with a sahd yesterday. Feel better?

Was he at home with a son, a woman supporting them both, and crowing “the future is male!?”

I’d say no different were that the case.

If you don’t see the irony in that quote from the article, I can’t help you.

When one person takes care of the children and homefront, that allows the partner to work, including travel, unfettered by childcare and other home-based concerns. There is huge value in that, and it’s the partnership that allows it. They are both supporting the entire family unit. No irony.

Maybe in some SAHM situations. In my case, I see my child as my daytime occupation. If I throw in laundry or dishes, fine, but I’m not home slaving away at the house while DH sits back. He gets home and helps with dishes and laundry and takes the trash out we hire cleaners to come once every 2-3 weeks so neither of us has to scrub toilets. Once DH isn’t home for the night, child duties are split between us, most of the time more heavily in DH’s direction as he often does both bath and bed.

Meant to say once DH *is home* for the night, childcare is split... I wouldn’t say DH is unfettered by child and home concerns.

What I meant by that is that the partner earning an income can travel for work, stay late for meetings, head to the office when a kid is sick, not have to come home to meet a contractor, etc. Unfettered in that sense.

This attitude is ridiculous. The kid is not a lump of clay. A child should not be a "datime occupation". This mindset is an issue. Staying home is not. Moms like this are honestly creating monsters and a real PITA themselves. Its not rocket science and hell yeah, you should be doing the laundry. How TF would you not have the time? I have WOHM, SAHM and worked partime and so has my spouse and the one home with the kid does this stuff. That is how it is done. No, it is not fair to refuse to do household chores when you are not earning any income because your child is an "occupation". GTFO yourself.

I don't see my time with my kids as an "occupation" but I also don't see that I'm automatically responsible for more of the general household chores. I'll do them if I can, but they certainly aren't my "job" either.

I don't know what I think about that. I think as a general rule that stuff should be done by the person who has the time, or cares more. I don't see how the former would not usually be the SAHM. If I am really busy at work and my husband is off for any reason, I certainly expect him to do the household chores. I don't see why that would not be the general assumption. Your "job" is not staring at your kid all day, and anyone should be able to handle having a small child and doing the laundry. Sorry if that isn't popular, but come on.

My "job" isn't watching the kids just like my "job" isn't washing my DH's underwear.

So, you have no actual responsibilities? I could care less, honestly, I am just interested in how people view this stuff. It is such a new and unfamiliar viewpoint for me.

Is being a dad a "job"? In the sense of how the word "job" has been used on this thread?

Responsibilities <> "job"

I absolutely think of it as "work" and yes, as one of my husband's "jobs." Yeah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimate hypocrisy. “The future is female” - so I’ll stay home while a man pays.

I had a lengthy conversation with a sahd yesterday. Feel better?

Was he at home with a son, a woman supporting them both, and crowing “the future is male!?”

I’d say no different were that the case.

If you don’t see the irony in that quote from the article, I can’t help you.

When one person takes care of the children and homefront, that allows the partner to work, including travel, unfettered by childcare and other home-based concerns. There is huge value in that, and it’s the partnership that allows it. They are both supporting the entire family unit. No irony.

Maybe in some SAHM situations. In my case, I see my child as my daytime occupation. If I throw in laundry or dishes, fine, but I’m not home slaving away at the house while DH sits back. He gets home and helps with dishes and laundry and takes the trash out we hire cleaners to come once every 2-3 weeks so neither of us has to scrub toilets. Once DH isn’t home for the night, child duties are split between us, most of the time more heavily in DH’s direction as he often does both bath and bed.

Meant to say once DH *is home* for the night, childcare is split... I wouldn’t say DH is unfettered by child and home concerns.

What I meant by that is that the partner earning an income can travel for work, stay late for meetings, head to the office when a kid is sick, not have to come home to meet a contractor, etc. Unfettered in that sense.

This attitude is ridiculous. The kid is not a lump of clay. A child should not be a "datime occupation". This mindset is an issue. Staying home is not. Moms like this are honestly creating monsters and a real PITA themselves. Its not rocket science and hell yeah, you should be doing the laundry. How TF would you not have the time? I have WOHM, SAHM and worked partime and so has my spouse and the one home with the kid does this stuff. That is how it is done. No, it is not fair to refuse to do household chores when you are not earning any income because your child is an "occupation". GTFO yourself.

I don't see my time with my kids as an "occupation" but I also don't see that I'm automatically responsible for more of the general household chores. I'll do them if I can, but they certainly aren't my "job" either.

I don't know what I think about that. I think as a general rule that stuff should be done by the person who has the time, or cares more. I don't see how the former would not usually be the SAHM. If I am really busy at work and my husband is off for any reason, I certainly expect him to do the household chores. I don't see why that would not be the general assumption. Your "job" is not staring at your kid all day, and anyone should be able to handle having a small child and doing the laundry. Sorry if that isn't popular, but come on.

To that end, everyone I know that employs a caretaker for young kids expects that they will do the dishes and do the laundry for the kid. Why would you not expect the same from a SAHM? Seriously, that's just a crappy deal if not. I would not take it. Sorry.

"A crappy deal"? You are negotiating your family's approach to childcare?

Every single family that has ever discussed this has negotiated their approach to child care. If you are not talking about it, you are...what, exactly? Yes, when my husband took a job that paid much more and required more hours, I said I would need to cut back to drive the kids around and I would do the dishes and laundry so he could work more and we could save more. I fail entirely to see how coming up with an arrangement that seems fair and workable is bad?

We decide together the best childcare for our kids. Household chores do not enter the conversation. It's not "a deal".

[Anonymous]

I feel sorry for her - seems like she is trying to convince herself. She talks about how motherhood is so fulfilling and all she needs right now, yet she clearly positioned herself to write blog articles. I predict MLM is next so she can say she is a "marketing director" on Facebook for a skincare line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimate hypocrisy. “The future is female” - so I’ll stay home while a man pays.

I had a lengthy conversation with a sahd yesterday. Feel better?

Was he at home with a son, a woman supporting them both, and crowing “the future is male!?”

I’d say no different were that the case.

If you don’t see the irony in that quote from the article, I can’t help you.

When one person takes care of the children and homefront, that allows the partner to work, including travel, unfettered by childcare and other home-based concerns. There is huge value in that, and it’s the partnership that allows it. They are both supporting the entire family unit. No irony.

Maybe in some SAHM situations. In my case, I see my child as my daytime occupation. If I throw in laundry or dishes, fine, but I’m not home slaving away at the house while DH sits back. He gets home and helps with dishes and laundry and takes the trash out we hire cleaners to come once every 2-3 weeks so neither of us has to scrub toilets. Once DH isn’t home for the night, child duties are split between us, most of the time more heavily in DH’s direction as he often does both bath and bed.

Meant to say once DH *is home* for the night, childcare is split... I wouldn’t say DH is unfettered by child and home concerns.

What I meant by that is that the partner earning an income can travel for work, stay late for meetings, head to the office when a kid is sick, not have to come home to meet a contractor, etc. Unfettered in that sense.

This attitude is ridiculous. The kid is not a lump of clay. A child should not be a "datime occupation". This mindset is an issue. Staying home is not. Moms like this are honestly creating monsters and a real PITA themselves. Its not rocket science and hell yeah, you should be doing the laundry. How TF would you not have the time? I have WOHM, SAHM and worked partime and so has my spouse and the one home with the kid does this stuff. That is how it is done. No, it is not fair to refuse to do household chores when you are not earning any income because your child is an "occupation". GTFO yourself.

I don't see my time with my kids as an "occupation" but I also don't see that I'm automatically responsible for more of the general household chores. I'll do them if I can, but they certainly aren't my "job" either.

I don't know what I think about that. I think as a general rule that stuff should be done by the person who has the time, or cares more. I don't see how the former would not usually be the SAHM. If I am really busy at work and my husband is off for any reason, I certainly expect him to do the household chores. I don't see why that would not be the general assumption. Your "job" is not staring at your kid all day, and anyone should be able to handle having a small child and doing the laundry. Sorry if that isn't popular, but come on.

To that end, everyone I know that employs a caretaker for young kids expects that they will do the dishes and do the laundry for the kid. Why would you not expect the same from a SAHM? Seriously, that's just a crappy deal if not. I would not take it. Sorry.

"A crappy deal"? You are negotiating your family's approach to childcare?

Every single family that has ever discussed this has negotiated their approach to child care. If you are not talking about it, you are...what, exactly? Yes, when my husband took a job that paid much more and required more hours, I said I would need to cut back to drive the kids around and I would do the dishes and laundry so he could work more and we could save more. I fail entirely to see how coming up with an arrangement that seems fair and workable is bad?

We decide together the best childcare for our kids. Household chores do not enter the conversation. It's not "a deal".

This makes no sense. How do you decide who does what chores? Having a conversation about it isn't some kind of bad thing. You sound defensive and ridiculous, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimate hypocrisy. “The future is female” - so I’ll stay home while a man pays.

I had a lengthy conversation with a sahd yesterday. Feel better?

Was he at home with a son, a woman supporting them both, and crowing “the future is male!?”

I’d say no different were that the case.

If you don’t see the irony in that quote from the article, I can’t help you.

When one person takes care of the children and homefront, that allows the partner to work, including travel, unfettered by childcare and other home-based concerns. There is huge value in that, and it’s the partnership that allows it. They are both supporting the entire family unit. No irony.

Maybe in some SAHM situations. In my case, I see my child as my daytime occupation. If I throw in laundry or dishes, fine, but I’m not home slaving away at the house while DH sits back. He gets home and helps with dishes and laundry and takes the trash out we hire cleaners to come once every 2-3 weeks so neither of us has to scrub toilets. Once DH isn’t home for the night, child duties are split between us, most of the time more heavily in DH’s direction as he often does both bath and bed.

Meant to say once DH *is home* for the night, childcare is split... I wouldn’t say DH is unfettered by child and home concerns.

What I meant by that is that the partner earning an income can travel for work, stay late for meetings, head to the office when a kid is sick, not have to come home to meet a contractor, etc. Unfettered in that sense.

This attitude is ridiculous. The kid is not a lump of clay. A child should not be a "datime occupation". This mindset is an issue. Staying home is not. Moms like this are honestly creating monsters and a real PITA themselves. Its not rocket science and hell yeah, you should be doing the laundry. How TF would you not have the time? I have WOHM, SAHM and worked partime and so has my spouse and the one home with the kid does this stuff. That is how it is done. No, it is not fair to refuse to do household chores when you are not earning any income because your child is an "occupation". GTFO yourself.

I don't see my time with my kids as an "occupation" but I also don't see that I'm automatically responsible for more of the general household chores. I'll do them if I can, but they certainly aren't my "job" either.

I don't know what I think about that. I think as a general rule that stuff should be done by the person who has the time, or cares more. I don't see how the former would not usually be the SAHM. If I am really busy at work and my husband is off for any reason, I certainly expect him to do the household chores. I don't see why that would not be the general assumption. Your "job" is not staring at your kid all day, and anyone should be able to handle having a small child and doing the laundry. Sorry if that isn't popular, but come on.

My "job" isn't watching the kids just like my "job" isn't washing my DH's underwear.

So, you have no actual responsibilities? I could care less, honestly, I am just interested in how people view this stuff. It is such a new and unfamiliar viewpoint for me.

Is being a dad a "job"? In the sense of how the word "job" has been used on this thread?

Responsibilities <> "job"

I absolutely think of it as "work" and yes, as one of my husband's "jobs." Yeah.

From above:
A child should not be a "daytime occupation". This mindset is an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimate hypocrisy. “The future is female” - so I’ll stay home while a man pays.

I had a lengthy conversation with a sahd yesterday. Feel better?

Was he at home with a son, a woman supporting them both, and crowing “the future is male!?”

I’d say no different were that the case.

If you don’t see the irony in that quote from the article, I can’t help you.

When one person takes care of the children and homefront, that allows the partner to work, including travel, unfettered by childcare and other home-based concerns. There is huge value in that, and it’s the partnership that allows it. They are both supporting the entire family unit. No irony.

Maybe in some SAHM situations. In my case, I see my child as my daytime occupation. If I throw in laundry or dishes, fine, but I’m not home slaving away at the house while DH sits back. He gets home and helps with dishes and laundry and takes the trash out we hire cleaners to come once every 2-3 weeks so neither of us has to scrub toilets. Once DH isn’t home for the night, child duties are split between us, most of the time more heavily in DH’s direction as he often does both bath and bed.

Meant to say once DH *is home* for the night, childcare is split... I wouldn’t say DH is unfettered by child and home concerns.

What I meant by that is that the partner earning an income can travel for work, stay late for meetings, head to the office when a kid is sick, not have to come home to meet a contractor, etc. Unfettered in that sense.

This attitude is ridiculous. The kid is not a lump of clay. A child should not be a "datime occupation". This mindset is an issue. Staying home is not. Moms like this are honestly creating monsters and a real PITA themselves. Its not rocket science and hell yeah, you should be doing the laundry. How TF would you not have the time? I have WOHM, SAHM and worked partime and so has my spouse and the one home with the kid does this stuff. That is how it is done. No, it is not fair to refuse to do household chores when you are not earning any income because your child is an "occupation". GTFO yourself.

I don't see my time with my kids as an "occupation" but I also don't see that I'm automatically responsible for more of the general household chores. I'll do them if I can, but they certainly aren't my "job" either.

I don't know what I think about that. I think as a general rule that stuff should be done by the person who has the time, or cares more. I don't see how the former would not usually be the SAHM. If I am really busy at work and my husband is off for any reason, I certainly expect him to do the household chores. I don't see why that would not be the general assumption. Your "job" is not staring at your kid all day, and anyone should be able to handle having a small child and doing the laundry. Sorry if that isn't popular, but come on.

To that end, everyone I know that employs a caretaker for young kids expects that they will do the dishes and do the laundry for the kid. Why would you not expect the same from a SAHM? Seriously, that's just a crappy deal if not. I would not take it. Sorry.

"A crappy deal"? You are negotiating your family's approach to childcare?

Every single family that has ever discussed this has negotiated their approach to child care. If you are not talking about it, you are...what, exactly? Yes, when my husband took a job that paid much more and required more hours, I said I would need to cut back to drive the kids around and I would do the dishes and laundry so he could work more and we could save more. I fail entirely to see how coming up with an arrangement that seems fair and workable is bad?

We decide together the best childcare for our kids. Household chores do not enter the conversation. It's not "a deal".

This makes no sense. How do you decide who does what chores? Having a conversation about it isn't some kind of bad thing. You sound defensive and ridiculous, sorry.

Household chores are a separate conversation and much more fluid. Not related to kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimate hypocrisy. “The future is female” - so I’ll stay home while a man pays.

I had a lengthy conversation with a sahd yesterday. Feel better?

Was he at home with a son, a woman supporting them both, and crowing “the future is male!?”

I’d say no different were that the case.

If you don’t see the irony in that quote from the article, I can’t help you.

When one person takes care of the children and homefront, that allows the partner to work, including travel, unfettered by childcare and other home-based concerns. There is huge value in that, and it’s the partnership that allows it. They are both supporting the entire family unit. No irony.

Maybe in some SAHM situations. In my case, I see my child as my daytime occupation. If I throw in laundry or dishes, fine, but I’m not home slaving away at the house while DH sits back. He gets home and helps with dishes and laundry and takes the trash out we hire cleaners to come once every 2-3 weeks so neither of us has to scrub toilets. Once DH isn’t home for the night, child duties are split between us, most of the time more heavily in DH’s direction as he often does both bath and bed.

Meant to say once DH *is home* for the night, childcare is split... I wouldn’t say DH is unfettered by child and home concerns.

What I meant by that is that the partner earning an income can travel for work, stay late for meetings, head to the office when a kid is sick, not have to come home to meet a contractor, etc. Unfettered in that sense.

This attitude is ridiculous. The kid is not a lump of clay. A child should not be a "datime occupation". This mindset is an issue. Staying home is not. Moms like this are honestly creating monsters and a real PITA themselves. Its not rocket science and hell yeah, you should be doing the laundry. How TF would you not have the time? I have WOHM, SAHM and worked partime and so has my spouse and the one home with the kid does this stuff. That is how it is done. No, it is not fair to refuse to do household chores when you are not earning any income because your child is an "occupation". GTFO yourself.

I don't see my time with my kids as an "occupation" but I also don't see that I'm automatically responsible for more of the general household chores. I'll do them if I can, but they certainly aren't my "job" either.

I don't know what I think about that. I think as a general rule that stuff should be done by the person who has the time, or cares more. I don't see how the former would not usually be the SAHM. If I am really busy at work and my husband is off for any reason, I certainly expect him to do the household chores. I don't see why that would not be the general assumption. Your "job" is not staring at your kid all day, and anyone should be able to handle having a small child and doing the laundry. Sorry if that isn't popular, but come on.

To that end, everyone I know that employs a caretaker for young kids expects that they will do the dishes and do the laundry for the kid. Why would you not expect the same from a SAHM? Seriously, that's just a crappy deal if not. I would not take it. Sorry.

"A crappy deal"? You are negotiating your family's approach to childcare?

Every single family that has ever discussed this has negotiated their approach to child care. If you are not talking about it, you are...what, exactly? Yes, when my husband took a job that paid much more and required more hours, I said I would need to cut back to drive the kids around and I would do the dishes and laundry so he could work more and we could save more. I fail entirely to see how coming up with an arrangement that seems fair and workable is bad?

We decide together the best childcare for our kids. Household chores do not enter the conversation. It's not "a deal".

This makes no sense. How do you decide who does what chores? Having a conversation about it isn't some kind of bad thing. You sound defensive and ridiculous, sorry.

Household chores are a separate conversation and much more fluid. Not related to kids.

Yeah, I don't get this. The spouse AT HOME where the freakin laundry and yard and dishes ARE LOCATED who has young kids who presumably nap and lets see, no other "job" presumably has more time and access to said chore locations. Why would they not do the chores? Why would you not think you should do most of the chores?

[Anonymous]

"Student", "Stay at home Mom", "Head widget installer"

However you occupy time is what your title is.

[Anonymous]

Today my cleaning lady came for the weekly cleaning. She and her associate, worked along side me for 3 hours, to change sheets, clean the fridge, sweep the garage, water plants and bring them inside, clean the pantry, clean the kitchen and bathrooms and mop the floors. Obviously this meant that I dusted all rooms. removed and shook all the rugs, did the laundry, arranged the dressers and closets, swept the floors and vacuumed. I pay them by the hour and I am a SAHM.

I suddenly realized that I have never really not worked when they have come to clean my house. It is a 9 man-hour marathon, where they stand-in and do the work that ordinarily my DH and kids would have done. When I see how hard my DH and my kids work and how much they achieve, I know that I am their logistical support person.

I do not have any existential crisis, because some days goes in helping my children with their studies, some days go in looking after our finances and paperwork (tax, immigration, investments, credentials), some days go in social obligations and some days in school, church, or just relaxing.

We all have 24 hours. No one is doing more work than the next person. I obviously am not looking at a computer for as long as a working woman in an office job is, but I am able to do enough work on the computer that works for my family. The working woman is not doing the amount of domestic work that a household requires, but she is able to do enough to get every one fed, clothed and keep the house running.

[Anonymous]

If she lives in Arlington this was likely the Pentagon City Costco where there is no small talk, only chaos.

[Anonymous]

I have a flexible job. I run errands on weekdays with and without kids, in casual clothes. I drop off and pick up my kids in casual clothes. No one has ever asked me what I do.
I live in Arlington. I’m in MONA. No one has ever asked me where I work or what I do.