Do the existence of SAHM impede professional women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t work for men who have SAHMs. I’m an associate in biglaw with some control over who I will work for, and I just won’t do it.

Haha wow. You sound like a total weirdo with some major issues

most females in biglaw have major issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a mother from Sweden, this whole thread shocks me. Your whole mindset of motherhood and working seems so complicated and fraught, mostly do to the fact that motherhood and womanhood don’t seem to be values in your society... it must be very very difficult for you.

America has a toxic combination of modern feminism and corporate worship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t work for men who have SAHMs. I’m an associate in biglaw with some control over who I will work for, and I just won’t do it.

Haha wow. You sound like a total weirdo with some major issues

most females in biglaw have major issues

Lol. Fair point

[Anonymous]

SAHM don't impede professional women.

Own your career, ask for raises, get mentors/advocates, switch jobs if you aren't being paid what you are worth,

With that being said there is no excuse to not work 40 hours a week. Explore part-time if you are the default parent and can't put in 40 hours a week.

The whole trend of putting in more than 40 hours a week is another issue. People should quit or demand more pay in those situations instead people accept it as part of the rat race and everyone loses out except for upper management.

[Anonymous]

Impede isn't the right word.

I am at a competitive disadvantage to colleague men with SAHM counterpart because of MY choices. For example, I choose to see my kids so I go home earlier than them who choose not to see their kids during the week and thus can work longer hours. Now I could say that they are the opportunity to work longer hours because they have a wife without career pressures, but really it is their familial choices and mine that set up this dynamic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Impede isn't the right word.

I am at a competitive disadvantage to colleague men with SAHM counterpart because of MY choices. For example, I choose to see my kids so I go home earlier than them who choose not to see their kids during the week and thus can work longer hours. Now I could say that they are the opportunity to work longer hours because they have a wife without career pressures, but really it is their familial choices and mine that set up this dynamic.

Right, and if you wanted to you could have married a man willing to stay at home, or you could have married a high-earning man who would have allowed you to stay home. You chose not to do those things and more people (especially women) need to be like you and own their own choices. Instead it's always the fault of housewives, Trump or the "patriarchy".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t work for men who have SAHMs. I’m an associate in biglaw with some control over who I will work for, and I just won’t do it.

Haha wow. You sound like a total weirdo with some major issues

most females in biglaw have major issues

Lol. Fair point

sexism is hilarious!

like the men in biglaw are well adjusted? how many threads are there about the issues men in biglaw have functioning? not to mention not committing federal crimes or becoming addicted to heroin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t work for men who have SAHMs. I’m an associate in biglaw with some control over who I will work for, and I just won’t do it.

Haha wow. You sound like a total weirdo with some major issues

most females in biglaw have major issues

Lol. Fair point

sexism is hilarious!

like the men in biglaw are well adjusted? how many threads are there about the issues men in biglaw have functioning? not to mention not committing federal crimes or becoming addicted to heroin?

men in biglaw are addicted to heroin?? the worst I've ever heard is maybe they do a little coke

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would say the existence of professional women impedes SAHM more than the other way around

You mean how it ups the cost of living for everyone and drags women who wouldn’t be in the workplace in, so said woman can turn around and have to pay another woman for childcare?

[Anonymous]

Yes, and I'll bite that it does impede women.

I worked in a male dominated field where my boss didn't understand when I took sick leave for my kids because he didn't have to with a SAHM. As long as upper management didn't get it, I wouldn't get ahead. Nearly every male manager had a SAHM supporting the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SAHM don't impede professional women.

Own your career, ask for raises, get mentors/advocates, switch jobs if you aren't being paid what you are worth,

With that being said there is no excuse to not work 40 hours a week. Explore part-time if you are the default parent and can't put in 40 hours a week.

The whole trend of putting in more than 40 hours a week is another issue. People should quit or demand more pay in those situations instead people accept it as part of the rat race and everyone loses out except for upper management.

I don't know a single person that works 40 hours per week...we all work 50 to 60. More work, less pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In other words, if a man has a SAHM for a wife, does he necessarily have an advantage over his female colleagues?

The life choices of someone else should not impede anyone. If that was the case than we would stop electing white males to political office based on the incompetence of the Donald.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would say the existence of professional women impedes SAHM more than the other way around

Lol. Please elaborate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHM don't impede professional women.

Own your career, ask for raises, get mentors/advocates, switch jobs if you aren't being paid what you are worth,

With that being said there is no excuse to not work 40 hours a week. Explore part-time if you are the default parent and can't put in 40 hours a week.

The whole trend of putting in more than 40 hours a week is another issue. People should quit or demand more pay in those situations instead people accept it as part of the rat race and everyone loses out except for upper management.

I don't know a single person that works 40 hours per week...we all work 50 to 60. More work, less pay.

Yup and upper management is laughing all the way to the bank. I work 40 hours a week if you want me to work more pay me. Nothing is that important that it can't wait until tomorrow.... nothing. That includes checking email at nights and weekends. I've worked almost 15 years now and have never done it and it's never been a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Impede isn't the right word.

I am at a competitive disadvantage to colleague men with SAHM counterpart because of MY choices. For example, I choose to see my kids so I go home earlier than them who choose not to see their kids during the week and thus can work longer hours. Now I could say that they are the opportunity to work longer hours because they have a wife without career pressures, but really it is their familial choices and mine that set up this dynamic.

Right, and if you wanted to you could have married a man willing to stay at home, or you could have married a high-earning man who would have allowed you to stay home. You chose not to do those things and more people (especially women) need to be like you and own their own choices. Instead it's always the fault of housewives, Trump or the "patriarchy".

Let me guess which you did.