women who don't work or raise kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is making me ill.

At first i thought I was jealous, but even if I had the option to stay home and do nothing, I have way too much pride to do that.

I'd like to be a decent role model for my daughter--I want to teach her that her goal shouldn't be to marry "well," but it should be to fulfill her potential rather than just take the easy/lazy way out. Seriously, ladies, you stay home without kids to raise? Your husbands are going to get tired of that real fast. I know I'd kick my man to the curb if he decided to do that (and we didn't have 2.5 kids, which we do). Why do you as women get that luxury, but your husbands don't?

You have half a kid?

Yes.

Someone who has never been pregnant - wouldn't get that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster, and I absolutely consider myself a feminist, and here's why I personally care about what you do when you stay at home for no reason at all: because, as a few other posters have pointed out, you're an embarrassment to the women's movement that fought to have the right to go to work, the right to advance in a career, the right to NOT have to stay at home and cook, clean, shop. Your complete lack of purpose and dependence on the man on your life for EVERYTHING makes you the epitome of the stereotype that our mothers, grandmothers, and - in some cases - great-grandmothers fought against.

I hate you. Yes, I hate you. Not because you're pitiable, which you are (unless you have a trust fund, many of you will find yourselves in the position of being up s**t creek without a paddle one day when your husband meets someone more interesting than you); not because you're boring, which you are (you shop all day and likely have nothing intelligent to contribute to a conversation); not even because you're a drag on society, which you are (having apparently nothing of value to contribute, although I should thank you for spurring the retail economy) - but only because you make an employer less likely to hire me and my kind - women that actually want to break glass ceiling, want to make a difference in the world, want to be good role models for our daughter.

And make no mistake - you are pathetic role models for your daughters. I don't say that out of jealousy (we have lots of $$, although not trust fund money); I say that as a mom who desperately wants my daughter to grow up with a sense of value and wanting to contribute something wonderful to the world. I want her to be Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Meg Whitman, Sheryl Sandburg (all of whom also have millions - or billions - of dollars, but still seem to find the value in working). And your presence tarnishes my hope to expose her only to strong, powerful, wonderful, smart, valuable women.

I hate you - and care that you are as pathetic as you are - because you make men think that women are dependent cling-ons with little value on their own. That's why you - with your sad little lives - make all of us worse off. You are the anti-feminists. I can only hope that as we get further and further away from finding this kind of lifestyle acceptable as a society that there will be fewer and fewer of you around to model yourselves for our childen.

Yikes! Scary

Well, what's fundamentally anti-feminist about pp's argument is that it completely marginalizes the role women have played throughout most of history (and continue to play in many parts of the world.) Feminism should be all about ensuring *opportunities* for women, not forcing them into the same role as men. We should see value in both traditional feminine activities/responsibilities (which can now be done by men as well, thanks feminism!) and traditional masculine responsibilities, and open our daughter's eyes to the amazing concept of choice.

Now, I agree with pp that some employers have biases based on getting burned by women who quit to stay home, etc. Well that's enabled by sexism, as I'm sure they've equally been burned by men who left for other types of greener pastures. It's their sexism that causes them to generalize and try to take it out on another generation of women. So, we should work on fixing that insidious sexism problem!

signed- working mom in a traditionally male field

[Anonymous]

I really don't care what other women do. If you want to stay home and do housework and cook dinner and read books, good for you! If you want to volunteer and do junior league (is it still called that?), good for you! If you want to work, good for you!

For me, I want to work. I can't imagine staying home - with nothing to do all day. I hope my daughter chooses that path as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster, and I absolutely consider myself a feminist, and here's why I personally care about what you do when you stay at home for no reason at all: because, as a few other posters have pointed out, you're an embarrassment to the women's movement that fought to have the right to go to work, the right to advance in a career, the right to NOT have to stay at home and cook, clean, shop. Your complete lack of purpose and dependence on the man on your life for EVERYTHING makes you the epitome of the stereotype that our mothers, grandmothers, and - in some cases - great-grandmothers fought against.

I hate you. Yes, I hate you. Not because you're pitiable, which you are (unless you have a trust fund, many of you will find yourselves in the position of being up s**t creek without a paddle one day when your husband meets someone more interesting than you); not because you're boring, which you are (you shop all day and likely have nothing intelligent to contribute to a conversation); not even because you're a drag on society, which you are (having apparently nothing of value to contribute, although I should thank you for spurring the retail economy) - but only because you make an employer less likely to hire me and my kind - women that actually want to break glass ceiling, want to make a difference in the world, want to be good role models for our daughter.

And make no mistake - you are pathetic role models for your daughters. I don't say that out of jealousy (we have lots of $$, although not trust fund money); I say that as a mom who desperately wants my daughter to grow up with a sense of value and wanting to contribute something wonderful to the world. I want her to be Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Meg Whitman, Sheryl Sandburg (all of whom also have millions - or billions - of dollars, but still seem to find the value in working). And your presence tarnishes my hope to expose her only to strong, powerful, wonderful, smart, valuable women.

I hate you - and care that you are as pathetic as you are - because you make men think that women are dependent cling-ons with little value on their own. That's why you - with your sad little lives - make all of us worse off. You are the anti-feminists. I can only hope that as we get further and further away from finding this kind of lifestyle acceptable as a society that there will be fewer and fewer of you around to model yourselves for our childen.

Yikes! Scary

Well, what's fundamentally anti-feminist about pp's argument is that it completely marginalizes the role women have played throughout most of history (and continue to play in many parts of the world.) Feminism should be all about ensuring *opportunities* for women, not forcing them into the same role as men. We should see value in both traditional feminine activities/responsibilities (which can now be done by men as well, thanks feminism!) and traditional masculine responsibilities, and open our daughter's eyes to the amazing concept of choice.

Now, I agree with pp that some employers have biases based on getting burned by women who quit to stay home, etc. Well that's enabled by sexism, as I'm sure they've equally been burned by men who left for other types of greener pastures. It's their sexism that causes them to generalize and try to take it out on another generation of women. So, we should work on fixing that insidious sexism problem!

signed- working mom in a traditionally male field

This is very well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster, and I absolutely consider myself a feminist, and here's why I personally care about what you do when you stay at home for no reason at all: because, as a few other posters have pointed out, you're an embarrassment to the women's movement that fought to have the right to go to work, the right to advance in a career, the right to NOT have to stay at home and cook, clean, shop. Your complete lack of purpose and dependence on the man on your life for EVERYTHING makes you the epitome of the stereotype that our mothers, grandmothers, and - in some cases - great-grandmothers fought against.

I hate you. Yes, I hate you. Not because you're pitiable, which you are (unless you have a trust fund, many of you will find yourselves in the position of being up s**t creek without a paddle one day when your husband meets someone more interesting than you); not because you're boring, which you are (you shop all day and likely have nothing intelligent to contribute to a conversation); not even because you're a drag on society, which you are (having apparently nothing of value to contribute, although I should thank you for spurring the retail economy) - but only because you make an employer less likely to hire me and my kind - women that actually want to break glass ceiling, want to make a difference in the world, want to be good role models for our daughter.

And make no mistake - you are pathetic role models for your daughters. I don't say that out of jealousy (we have lots of $$, although not trust fund money); I say that as a mom who desperately wants my daughter to grow up with a sense of value and wanting to contribute something wonderful to the world. I want her to be Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Meg Whitman, Sheryl Sandburg (all of whom also have millions - or billions - of dollars, but still seem to find the value in working). And your presence tarnishes my hope to expose her only to strong, powerful, wonderful, smart, valuable women.

I hate you - and care that you are as pathetic as you are - because you make men think that women are dependent cling-ons with little value on their own. That's why you - with your sad little lives - make all of us worse off. You are the anti-feminists. I can only hope that as we get further and further away from finding this kind of lifestyle acceptable as a society that there will be fewer and fewer of you around to model yourselves for our childen.

I personally think "hate" is too strong a word, but I agree with everything else you've said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster, and I absolutely consider myself a feminist, and here's why I personally care about what you do when you stay at home for no reason at all: because, as a few other posters have pointed out, you're an embarrassment to the women's movement that fought to have the right to go to work, the right to advance in a career, the right to NOT have to stay at home and cook, clean, shop. Your complete lack of purpose and dependence on the man on your life for EVERYTHING makes you the epitome of the stereotype that our mothers, grandmothers, and - in some cases - great-grandmothers fought against.

I hate you. Yes, I hate you. Not because you're pitiable, which you are (unless you have a trust fund, many of you will find yourselves in the position of being up s**t creek without a paddle one day when your husband meets someone more interesting than you); not because you're boring, which you are (you shop all day and likely have nothing intelligent to contribute to a conversation); not even because you're a drag on society, which you are (having apparently nothing of value to contribute, although I should thank you for spurring the retail economy) - but only because you make an employer less likely to hire me and my kind - women that actually want to break glass ceiling, want to make a difference in the world, want to be good role models for our daughter.

And make no mistake - you are pathetic role models for your daughters. I don't say that out of jealousy (we have lots of $$, although not trust fund money); I say that as a mom who desperately wants my daughter to grow up with a sense of value and wanting to contribute something wonderful to the world. I want her to be Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Meg Whitman, Sheryl Sandburg (all of whom also have millions - or billions - of dollars, but still seem to find the value in working). And your presence tarnishes my hope to expose her only to strong, powerful, wonderful, smart, valuable women.

I hate you - and care that you are as pathetic as you are - because you make men think that women are dependent cling-ons with little value on their own. That's why you - with your sad little lives - make all of us worse off. You are the anti-feminists. I can only hope that as we get further and further away from finding this kind of lifestyle acceptable as a society that there will be fewer and fewer of you around to model yourselves for our childen.

+100000!!!! Yes to this.

[Anonymous]

New poster, and I absolutely consider myself a feminist, and here's why I personally care about what you do when you stay at home for no reason at all: because, as a few other posters have pointed out, you're an embarrassment to the women's movement that fought to have the right to go to work, the right to advance in a career, the right to NOT have to stay at home and cook, clean, shop. Your complete lack of purpose and dependence on the man on your life for EVERYTHING makes you the epitome of the stereotype that our mothers, grandmothers, and - in some cases - great-grandmothers fought against.

I hate you. Yes, I hate you. Not because you're pitiable, which you are (unless you have a trust fund, many of you will find yourselves in the position of being up s**t creek without a paddle one day when your husband meets someone more interesting than you); not because you're boring, which you are (you shop all day and likely have nothing intelligent to contribute to a conversation); not even because you're a drag on society, which you are (having apparently nothing of value to contribute, although I should thank you for spurring the retail economy) - but only because you make an employer less likely to hire me and my kind - women that actually want to break glass ceiling, want to make a difference in the world, want to be good role models for our daughter.

And make no mistake - you are pathetic role models for your daughters. I don't say that out of jealousy (we have lots of $$, although not trust fund money); I say that as a mom who desperately wants my daughter to grow up with a sense of value and wanting to contribute something wonderful to the world. I want her to be Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Meg Whitman, Sheryl Sandburg (all of whom also have millions - or billions - of dollars, but still seem to find the value in working). And your presence tarnishes my hope to expose her only to strong, powerful, wonderful, smart, valuable women.

I hate you - and care that you are as pathetic as you are - because you make men think that women are dependent cling-ons with little value on their own. That's why you - with your sad little lives - make all of us worse off. You are the anti-feminists. I can only hope that as we get further and further away from finding this kind of lifestyle acceptable as a society that there will be fewer and fewer of you around to model yourselves for our childen.

+1000!

This is a great post, except for the hate part. I don't hate them. I just dislike them.

[Anonymous]

I'm only chiming back in because of the surprising support for the "hate" poster. You realize she said she hates SAHWs because their presence tarnishes her hope to expose her daughter only to strong, powerful, wonderful, smart, valuable women.

Really? What a closed-minded, unrealistic world you will bring your daughter up in. What about dumb as rock, but hardworking women who make a better life for their own children than they had? No lessons to be learned there?

I actually believe that part of the power that men still hold over us is that they don't hold themselves, as a group, to a standard like this. All the boy/girl math discrepancy studies are leading us to understand that boys do better at math because they don't care about blurting out the wrong answer occasionally. As women, we will be stronger if we recognize we don't all have to do the same thing (i.e. be the power-hungry biatch that pp is).

[Anonymous]

What's "strong" about choosing voluntarily to do something our female ancestors HAD to do?

[Anonymous]

What's smart about rejecting something just because our female ancestors HAD to do it? There is subtlety in this argument, so I get why it may not float. And certainly, in terms of recent history, I GET why first wave feminists wanted to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We (our recent ancestors) had to fight hard to get the rights women today enjoy (in this country). But now is a time to be reflective and support one another and pick what will work best for each individual. And I certainly don't believe that an individual woman's choice to stay home is a "strong" choice but that both the freedom to choose that, and demanding respect for the unavoidably feminine things we do (childbearing, for example) will make us more capable as a whole. I truly believe that.

[Anonymous]

"And I certainly don't believe that an individual woman's choice to stay home is a "strong" choice but that both the freedom to choose that, and demanding respect for the unavoidably feminine things we do (childbearing, for example) will make us more capable as a whole. "

Too subtle.

And what's wrong with rejecting a choice just because it was the only choice? Reinforces the male perception that that choice is the "natural" choice and women who WOH in high powered jobs are doing it "wrong" or "unnaturally." There is absolutely nothing wrong with a dual WOHP household.

[Anonymous]

Are we still talking about SAHW's or are the latest threads also referring to women who stay home with their children?

[Anonymous]

I accept that women should have the rights and ability to be SAHW. I support it 100% and will fight anyone who says they shouldn't. It is our choice as women to work, be SAHM or SAHW.

However, inside, I think SAHW (not SAHM) are substandard, vapid and a basic waste of space. You are nothing but a trophy for your husbands.

But, I will continue to verbally support your choice to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's "strong" about choosing voluntarily to do something our female ancestors HAD to do?

In regards to the pp 14:36 post, strength is doing something that many people think you shouldn't do. Just because all my friends are climbing up the corporate ladder and bringing home a big pay check does not mean that I have to do the same thing. For me, I thought outside the box. I asked myself, what is the best thing for me, and the best thing for my family? If the best thing was to be a housewife, I'll be a housewife. If the best thing was to work FT, I'll work. If it's something else, I'll do that. All families have different needs, so there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this.

To the "hate" poster - if you want to blame me for you not landing a job, go ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is making me ill.

At first i thought I was jealous, but even if I had the option to stay home and do nothing, I have way too much pride to do that.

I'd like to be a decent role model for my daughter--I want to teach her that her goal shouldn't be to marry "well," but it should be to fulfill her potential rather than just take the easy/lazy way out. Seriously, ladies, you stay home without kids to raise? Your husbands are going to get tired of that real fast. I know I'd kick my man to the curb if he decided to do that (and we didn't have 2.5 kids, which we do). Why do you as women get that luxury, but your husbands don't?

You have half a kid?

Yes.

Someone who has never been pregnant - wouldn't get that.

Umm, someone who's never had a brain wouldn't get that.