Why are so many women here so angry with / resentful toward women who stay home?

[Anonymous]

To all the SAHMs on here I wish you well. The vehemence of the response sounds like you must justify your existence to strangers, to your children, and to your spouses. It can't be easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is the sum total of everyone's choices.

If you truly agree that our daughters' can aspire to achieve their greatest dreams, assuming that their dreams may not include being a SAHM along the route, then you are doing a great disservice to the next generation of women by staying at home throughout their upbringing modeling the second sex.

This is beyond economics. For many of us, it's a gender fight we chose to fight because we believe the best way to advance gender equality in society is through participating in the workforce achieving our dreams.

No one would ask similar questions from men. Men are assumed to be capable fathers with careers.

Google Fortune 100 boards and talk with your daughters during Women's History Month. March. Sadly, many schools don't even teach women's history until HS.

We have a POTUS USA placemat filled with white men, and Obama. I hope my grandchildren will see a woman on that mat one day. If you don't think this unequal representation limits little girls ambition, you are illogical.

If you think a woman's place is in the home, by all means, mentor and teach your girls to be SAHMs.

This. A 100% this!

The purpose of working whether you are male or female isn't simplt to earn a paycheck to pay bills. Since the dawn of human civilization, our culture had evolved such that the females of our species had been bound by childcare and their weaker physique to fully participate in aspects of life outside the home and family. We had no say in government, sciences, business, technology or the arts.

The only thing we were good for were child bearing and child rearing. Within the past 100 years, we finally have the opportunity to do something in addition to child bearing and child rearing. No one says raising children isn't important, it is, but so is being a fully actualized and free individual with your own thoughts, ideas and skill set. The ability to gain knowledge in fields other than home economics and to be able to apply to any job or position we want is unprecedented and a miracle considering where we've been!!

How many SAHMs in Mclean that spend their days wiping poop and getting Botox could have been the next president, or cured cancer or written the next great American novel?

This isn't about childcare, it's about blatant laziness.

It's worrisome because these SAHMs are terrible role models got little girls.

I understand what you are saying, but you are missing one very important piece. The problem is not that some women stay home to raise their kids. The problem is that, those few brave SAHDs out there notwithstanding, the *expectation* of society is that *women* will be the ones to stay home (if anyone does) and that the work of raising children is viewed as unimportant. If we reach the point where it is equally expected that a mother *or father* might stay home with the children when they are young and this time is viewed as important for those children *AND* we also start to value the work of caregivers who are not parents (nannies, day-care providers), then we will find ourselves in a much better place. You want a better society? Make sure all children are raised in a nurturing environment by people who want to be with them.

Not everyone wants to be a CEO. There are many ways for women to be a fully actualized and free individual. Many SAHMs contribute enormously to society in the volunteering work they do. I could go on, but please stop acting like there is only one way to be a valuable woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women resent SAHP because of the way they feel about themselves. If they are OH working Moms, they feel stressed and guilty about daycare or time with kids. OH working Moms are doing this BS to themselves and projecting the blame on SAHP. I am a working Mom too.

There are three ways you can handle career/parenting:

1. Have your big dream career in your twenties and thirties, invest your $, have kids and be a SAHP later in life.

2. Have your kids in your twenties and thirties, then have a dream career later in life.

3. Have your big dream career and kids at the same time

IMHO, #1 is the way to go if you can pull it off. #2 is the next best. #3 is what most of us do, and we are very busy, very stressed and honestly most days either the job or the family are not getting optimum attention. Just keeping it real.

I agree 100% with you. Thanks for posting this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel a lot of ambivalence towards SAH moms, because it's always SAH moms and not SAH parents. It's totally fine if one parent wants to step back from their career and focus on the family (and is often very good for the family!), but there is still a lot of social pressure for women to step into that role that men to not receive. When I got married in my mid 20s, I heard questions about whether I was going to step back when we had kids, whether I was going to take a lower prestige/lower pressure job so my husband could focus on his career and I could the raise kids, etc. Why didn't anyone ask my husband whether he was going to step back his career ambitions to start a family years before kids were even in the picture?

Until it's seen as an equally acceptable/normal path for men (and men decide to SAH in equal numbers), it will always be a choice that is colored by gender politics. Even if it's the best choice for your family, it still is a choice that was influenced by societal norms that women have been trying to crack for decades.

The solution is to accept that you will never get "approval" for your choices by society at large, and just block out the noise and carry on. You know, it's funny, when you carry yourself with quite, steady confidence people have a way of respecting you no matter what things you choose for yourself and your family. [/quot

People need to put down others when they're unhappy with their life/insecure with their decisions. When you're comfortable with your choices, you have a live and let live approach to life. I'm lucky to get to spend my time the way I feel it is best spent; raising my children. I don't spend a second questioning or critiquing another woman's' parenting choice. That's her decision as she is as capable as a man in deciding how she wants to spend her time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is the sum total of everyone's choices.

If you truly agree that our daughters' can aspire to achieve their greatest dreams, assuming that their dreams may not include being a SAHM along the route, then you are doing a great disservice to the next generation of women by staying at home throughout their upbringing modeling the second sex.

This is beyond economics. For many of us, it's a gender fight we chose to fight because we believe the best way to advance gender equality in society is through participating in the workforce achieving our dreams.

No one would ask similar questions from men. Men are assumed to be capable fathers with careers.

Google Fortune 100 boards and talk with your daughters during Women's History Month. March. Sadly, many schools don't even teach women's history until HS.

We have a POTUS USA placemat filled with white men, and Obama. I hope my grandchildren will see a woman on that mat one day. If you don't think this unequal representation limits little girls ambition, you are illogical.

If you think a woman's place is in the home, by all means, mentor and teach your girls to be SAHMs.

This. A 100% this!

The purpose of working whether you are male or female isn't simplt to earn a paycheck to pay bills. Since the dawn of human civilization, our culture had evolved such that the females of our species had been bound by childcare and their weaker physique to fully participate in aspects of life outside the home and family. We had no say in government, sciences, business, technology or the arts.

The only thing we were good for were child bearing and child rearing. Within the past 100 years, we finally have the opportunity to do something in addition to child bearing and child rearing. No one says raising children isn't important, it is, but so is being a fully actualized and free individual with your own thoughts, ideas and skill set. The ability to gain knowledge in fields other than home economics and to be able to apply to any job or position we want is unprecedented and a miracle considering where we've been!!

How many SAHMs in Mclean that spend their days wiping poop and getting Botox could have been the next president, or cured cancer or written the next great American novel?

This isn't about childcare, it's about blatant laziness.

It's worrisome because these SAHMs are terrible role models got little girls.

Interesting because I think these are extremely important contributions to society.

Ok, so if your important contribution to society is birthing and raising children, why should anyone have bothered to send you to school to learn to read and write? I disagree with most of what the PP said, but you're making a ridiculous straw man argument.

Well I have a career and a solid one at that. However, I would never ever discredit the role women have played in bearing and raising children. It is huge. I hope that it is recognized more and more now that we have the choice not to do so and that more men are responsible for raising children. I can't imagine holding your opinion and looking down at bearing and raising children the way you do - so much that you don't even think these women should be educated.

Also sorry but most people work for a paycheck and their jobs aren't even that fulfilling. I'm lucky that's not the case for me but you're kidding yourself if you think even Most men would work outside of the home if they didn't have to do so.

I'm the pp. I'm not the one saying women shouldn't be able to read. that's someone else.

Do you think Einstein was bored with his job? Leonardo Da Vinci thought it was too hard to paint?

Only lazy people find work and intellectual pursuits "hard"

this applies to men and women btw.

Let me get this straight - taking care of kids is not hard, and working is not hard? So we all have it easy, then!

I think the only thing this discussion has demonstrated is the extreme generalizations that characterize the anti-SAHM sentiment. Thankfully the vast majority of people aren't this cognitively inflexible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i will be honest. I have nothing at all against stay at home moms. The only thing that drives me crazy when they say they have "the hardest job in the world" or are "so busy" all the time - esp when they have school-aged kids. Seems a little clueless to say that to someone who is working 50 hours a week, plus has kids too. And for some reason at our school almost all the PTA moms are WOHM moms - not sure what the SAHMs are doing. so anyway - there's no resentment against SAHMs per se - it's just the ones who act like they are saints making a huge sacrifice for their kids that bring out my resentment. And I will add that 95% of SAHMs that I know IRL are NOT like that.

+100

My thoughts exactly. I love it when their husbands make excuses for why their wives cannot work "she's so busy she doesn't have time to work"...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is some jealous there. In the DC area, one partner has to be making a lot of money to enable the other to stay home and still maintain a nice lifestyle (nice house in a close in nabe, vacations, nice cars, pricey extracurricular activities for the kiddos, maybe private school, etc.)

To have an UMC lifestyle with a SAHP, the breadwinner has to be making 300-400k +.

On my end its less jealous and more...disbelief. I was raised to be independent and to own my own financials. When I went into my marriage I was comfortably set in a career and had two properties free-and-clear. That only helped when we made future decisions together to buy our 'dream' home. It boggles my mind that some women will rely solely on another person's generosity to live their life.

It disturbs me even further when these same women, some of them friends, were die-hard Hillary fans and very much into telling their daughters that 'this will be the first woman president, someone to look up to, someone to emulate' and yet the closest rolemodel to those daughters completely opted out of a career. How can you tell your children to aspire to be the head of NASA or a president or a multi-millionaire CEO, but you didn't bother to do anything yourself?

This last paragraph is 100% how I feel.

Both of you are simpletons then. You *really* can't understand that a woman might agree with and respect Hilary's politics and yet not want to live out her choices on a day to day basis? Talk about scoffing in disbelief. Wow.

Of course you can't see it or you deliberately choose not to. You can't admit that it's ironic for a woman who does nothing professionally - and based on this thread devalues women who do - to go on and on about how amazing it is for a woman to be considered for the most respected professional position in the country?

My favorite is the stay at home moms who push and push their daughters academically (because they have nothing left to do… Live vicariously since life basically ends for them when they push the baby out) yet do nothing using their own academic background, and set no personal professional example. Then they wonder why their daughters dont excel - and end up encouraging "the man is the plan" - and the cycle begins again. 1950s here we come!

You have to be trolling if you can't understand how you can support someone's politics without wanting to make that person's life choices.

Then you must be trolling if you can't see the irony or admit it.

There isn't anything ironic about voting for someone without modeling your life after the person unless you don't understand the meaning of the word irony.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is some jealous there. In the DC area, one partner has to be making a lot of money to enable the other to stay home and still maintain a nice lifestyle (nice house in a close in nabe, vacations, nice cars, pricey extracurricular activities for the kiddos, maybe private school, etc.)

To have an UMC lifestyle with a SAHP, the breadwinner has to be making 300-400k +.

On my end its less jealous and more...disbelief. I was raised to be independent and to own my own financials. When I went into my marriage I was comfortably set in a career and had two properties free-and-clear. That only helped when we made future decisions together to buy our 'dream' home. It boggles my mind that some women will rely solely on another person's generosity to live their life.

It disturbs me even further when these same women, some of them friends, were die-hard Hillary fans and very much into telling their daughters that 'this will be the first woman president, someone to look up to, someone to emulate' and yet the closest rolemodel to those daughters completely opted out of a career. How can you tell your children to aspire to be the head of NASA or a president or a multi-millionaire CEO, but you didn't bother to do anything yourself?

Not relying on someone's generosity. I, along with my husband, decided together how to structure our lives. If you can't trust your spouse, you need to reevaluate your relationship.

NP she never needed to trust anybody , unlike you she had her shit together with or without a husband . Try some reading comprehension , you might like it .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is some jealous there. In the DC area, one partner has to be making a lot of money to enable the other to stay home and still maintain a nice lifestyle (nice house in a close in nabe, vacations, nice cars, pricey extracurricular activities for the kiddos, maybe private school, etc.)

To have an UMC lifestyle with a SAHP, the breadwinner has to be making 300-400k +.

On my end its less jealous and more...disbelief. I was raised to be independent and to own my own financials. When I went into my marriage I was comfortably set in a career and had two properties free-and-clear. That only helped when we made future decisions together to buy our 'dream' home. It boggles my mind that some women will rely solely on another person's generosity to live their life.

It disturbs me even further when these same women, some of them friends, were die-hard Hillary fans and very much into telling their daughters that 'this will be the first woman president, someone to look up to, someone to emulate' and yet the closest rolemodel to those daughters completely opted out of a career. How can you tell your children to aspire to be the head of NASA or a president or a multi-millionaire CEO, but you didn't bother to do anything yourself?

Not relying on someone's generosity. I, along with my husband, decided together how to structure our lives. If you can't trust your spouse, you need to reevaluate your relationship.

NP she never needed to trust anybody , unlike you she had her shit together with or without a husband . Try some reading comprehension , you might like it .

You should take your own advice!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard of a third wave feminist? Well, I consider myself a fourth wave feminist. I do what I want, how I want to do it. I am equal in mental capacity to any equivalently educated male and physically dominate over a good percentage of them. If I want to work, I work. If I want to stay home and eat meat that my man makes me, I do that. I will either homeschool my kids with organic handmade toys or ship them off to Phillips Andover at 13. I don't follow the rule of some woman who spent 20 years earning the approval of her teachers and now can't function outside of an accomplishment based system. I am going to take my masters degree and troll Harris teeter in lululemon all f-ing day. My life. My choice. Period. [/quot

+1 million!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard of a third wave feminist? Well, I consider myself a fourth wave feminist. I do what I want, how I want to do it. I am equal in mental capacity to any equivalently educated male and physically dominate over a good percentage of them. If I want to work, I work. If I want to stay home and eat meat that my man makes me, I do that. I will either homeschool my kids with organic handmade toys or ship them off to Phillips Andover at 13. I don't follow the rule of some woman who spent 20 years earning the approval of her teachers and now can't function outside of an accomplishment based system. I am going to take my masters degree and troll Harris teeter in lululemon all f-ing day. My life. My choice. Period. [/quot

+1 million!

But, it's not about that. As much as you'd like it to be. It's about the money. If women were paid to stay home like they are paid to do any other job, there would be no discussion. You can't have lululemon unless someone paid for it. If it wasn't you, then you are dependent on a man. That's not feminist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is some jealous there. In the DC area, one partner has to be making a lot of money to enable the other to stay home and still maintain a nice lifestyle (nice house in a close in nabe, vacations, nice cars, pricey extracurricular activities for the kiddos, maybe private school, etc.)

To have an UMC lifestyle with a SAHP, the breadwinner has to be making 300-400k +.

On my end its less jealous and more...disbelief. I was raised to be independent and to own my own financials. When I went into my marriage I was comfortably set in a career and had two properties free-and-clear. That only helped when we made future decisions together to buy our 'dream' home. It boggles my mind that some women will rely solely on another person's generosity to live their life.

It disturbs me even further when these same women, some of them friends, were die-hard Hillary fans and very much into telling their daughters that 'this will be the first woman president, someone to look up to, someone to emulate' and yet the closest rolemodel to those daughters completely opted out of a career. How can you tell your children to aspire to be the head of NASA or a president or a multi-millionaire CEO, but you didn't bother to do anything yourself?

Not relying on someone's generosity. I, along with my husband, decided together how to structure our lives. If you can't trust your spouse, you need to reevaluate your relationship.

NP she never needed to trust anybody , unlike you she had her shit together with or without a husband . Try some reading comprehension , you might like it .

You should take your own advice!!

Says the woman whose vagina is her meal ticket . Hopefully that husband , I mean ATM of yours doesn't trade you for a younger model once your SAHM gig is up. Unlike you, I happen to have handled mine without having to use my vagina as a bargaining chip . It's always interesting and amusing when I have to interview women like you .

[Anonymous]

I thought feminism was freeng women from societal norms so they could chose who they wanted to be and not be forced by society into pre-conceived roles? So who gets to choose for the individual woman - the woman or society? Is society now choosing that women must WOH or be thought less than those who do? Just like years ago women who WOH were thought to be less than those who SAH? I thought feminism meant women got to choose for themselves. Now other women are choosing for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard of a third wave feminist? Well, I consider myself a fourth wave feminist. I do what I want, how I want to do it. I am equal in mental capacity to any equivalently educated male and physically dominate over a good percentage of them. If I want to work, I work. If I want to stay home and eat meat that my man makes me, I do that. I will either homeschool my kids with organic handmade toys or ship them off to Phillips Andover at 13. I don't follow the rule of some woman who spent 20 years earning the approval of her teachers and now can't function outside of an accomplishment based system. I am going to take my masters degree and troll Harris teeter in lululemon all f-ing day. My life. My choice. Period. [/quot

+1 million!

But, it's not about that. As much as you'd like it to be. It's about the money. If women were paid to stay home like they are paid to do any other job, there would be no discussion. You can't have lululemon unless someone paid for it. If it wasn't you, then you are dependent on a man. That's not feminist.

Bingo!!!!!!!! Bragging about Lululemon paid for by another man's sweat and equity and calling fourth wave feminism? Shitwave feminism that is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought feminism was freeng women from societal norms so they could chose who they wanted to be and not be forced by society into pre-conceived roles? So who gets to choose for the individual woman - the woman or society? Is society now choosing that women must WOH or be thought less than those who do? Just like years ago women who WOH were thought to be less than those who SAH? I thought feminism meant women got to choose for themselves. Now other women are choosing for them?

You're being purposely disingenuous