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

[Anonymous]

Having a sahm parent is a lifestyle, just as having both parents woh is a lifestyle. There are pros and cons to both. My mother ran a business out of our home and I feel I had the best of both. I loved seeing her when
I got home from school and I am also grateful to have grown up in a financially secure home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that "Why go to college if you aren't going to use your degree?" is the compliment to "Why have children if you aren't going to raise them?"

+100000. Perfectly put.

+100001. Love that!

Can someone just be responsible for reposting this every time one of these wars comes up?

OMG those things are not equivalent. A little dig about not using your degree, I will grant you, is a stupid and insensitive thing to say. However, it is not equal to saying someone doesn't care about their children, which is exactly what the other one is saying, and the latter is a downright cruel thing to say. If you can't see the difference, your ego is talking.

They are equivalent. Just one offends you personally and one doesn't. Think of others besides yourself.

Love how PP coins it "a little dig" Saying that a SAHM has wasted her education, intellect and contribution to society. Sure, that is just "a little dig." Come on, be honest with yourself and own your choices.

One hurts your ego. The other hurts your heart and soul. So, yeah, the latter is worse. Be honest with *yourself* and maybe downsize the ego.

You don’t get to decide that an insult you hurl at others is “just a little dig” and then cry that their retaliation hit below with belt. That is being the worst kind of bully.

I've never hurled that insult and wouldn't think of it, so save your baseless accusations as a way to deflect from what's really happening here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that "Why go to college if you aren't going to use your degree?" is the compliment to "Why have children if you aren't going to raise them?"

+100000. Perfectly put.

+100001. Love that!

Can someone just be responsible for reposting this every time one of these wars comes up?

OMG those things are not equivalent. A little dig about not using your degree, I will grant you, is a stupid and insensitive thing to say. However, it is not equal to saying someone doesn't care about their children, which is exactly what the other one is saying, and the latter is a downright cruel thing to say. If you can't see the difference, your ego is talking.

They are equivalent. Just one offends you personally and one doesn't. Think of others besides yourself.

Love how PP coins it "a little dig" Saying that a SAHM has wasted her education, intellect and contribution to society. Sure, that is just "a little dig." Come on, be honest with yourself and own your choices.

What is worse is subjective. You act like you are the sole authority on what hurts the heart and soul. Instead of telling others to downsize their ego so as not to be hurt by your insults, why not take your own advice and downsize your insecurities and defensiveness? You know you love your kid, so your heart and soul should be intact.

One hurts your ego. The other hurts your heart and soul. So, yeah, the latter is worse. Be honest with *yourself* and maybe downsize the ego.

I've never said these stupid insults to a SAHM, as I told the other PP. This isn't me defending something I've said. Both insults are equally stupid but one is more hurtful and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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).

What’s so freaking selfish is that the women of young children who go back to work pay nannies and daycare workers and preschool teachers pathetically low salaries to take care of their precious children so that they can save them from the societal consequences caused by the selfish SAHMs you speak of. What does that say about the “value” you assign to those working in the childcare industry? Are their contributions so unimportant that they should get paid so little for yes, raising your children, while some professions like big law bill clients out at over 500/hour?
I have a college degree and worked as a preschool teacher before having kids and on and off since. In my case, I ended up losing money going back to work while having to pay for childcare for my own children. So are you saying I should have kept working to take care of other peoples children while losing money to pay someone else to take care of my own? Don’t assume that everyone’s situation is so black and white.

[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).

What’s so freaking selfish is that the women of young children who go back to work pay nannies and daycare workers and preschool teachers pathetically low salaries to take care of their precious children so that they can save them from the societal consequences caused by the selfish SAHMs you speak of. What does that say about the “value” you assign to those working in the childcare industry? Are their contributions so unimportant that they should get paid so little for yes, raising your children, while some professions like big law bill clients out at over 500/hour?
I have a college degree and worked as a preschool teacher before having kids and on and off since. In my case, I ended up losing money going back to work while having to pay for childcare for my own children. So are you saying I should have kept working to take care of other peoples children while losing money to pay someone else to take care of my own? Don’t assume that everyone’s situation is so black and white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that "Why go to college if you aren't going to use your degree?" is the compliment to "Why have children if you aren't going to raise them?"

+100000. Perfectly put.

+100001. Love that!

Can someone just be responsible for reposting this every time one of these wars comes up?

OMG those things are not equivalent. A little dig about not using your degree, I will grant you, is a stupid and insensitive thing to say. However, it is not equal to saying someone doesn't care about their children, which is exactly what the other one is saying, and the latter is a downright cruel thing to say. If you can't see the difference, your ego is talking.

They are equivalent. Just one offends you personally and one doesn't. Think of others besides yourself.

Love how PP coins it "a little dig" Saying that a SAHM has wasted her education, intellect and contribution to society. Sure, that is just "a little dig." Come on, be honest with yourself and own your choices.

What is worse is subjective. You act like you are the sole authority on what hurts the heart and soul. Instead of telling others to downsize their ego so as not to be hurt by your insults, why not take your own advice and downsize your insecurities and defensiveness? You know you love your kid, so your heart and soul should be intact.

One hurts your ego. The other hurts your heart and soul. So, yeah, the latter is worse. Be honest with *yourself* and maybe downsize the ego.

I've never said these stupid insults to a SAHM, as I told the other PP. This isn't me defending something I've said. Both insults are equally stupid but one is more hurtful and you know it.

Why are you choosing to die on this sword? I've never asked a WOHM why she had children, I've never even thought it and never would. Both insults are horrible and hurtful and unproductive and you DON'T GET TO DECIDE that only one of them is truly hurtful. Hurt is in the heart of the beholder.

[Anonymous]

This is a silly discussion. Some women choose to stay at home to raise their children and some do not. It's a choice that works for them. I personally belong to the WOH crowd, but would not judge the SAHM crowd. I actually appreciate the SAHM crowd when it comes to my older kid and sports activities. I can't be there to volunteer all the time, but the SAHM crowd can. It is a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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).

What’s so freaking selfish is that the women of young children who go back to work pay nannies and daycare workers and preschool teachers pathetically low salaries to take care of their precious children so that they can save them from the societal consequences caused by the selfish SAHMs you speak of. What does that say about the “value” you assign to those working in the childcare industry? Are their contributions so unimportant that they should get paid so little for yes, raising your children, while some professions like big law bill clients out at over 500/hour?
I have a college degree and worked as a preschool teacher before having kids and on and off since. In my case, I ended up losing money going back to work while having to pay for childcare for my own children. So are you saying I should have kept working to take care of other peoples children while losing money to pay someone else to take care of my own? Don’t assume that everyone’s situation is so black and white.

Ok crazytown... And for what it's worth, us big law partners bill WAY more than $500 an hour. We also paid our nanny over $75,000 post-taxes and not including benefits last year, so stop yelling at all working moms like they're the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that "Why go to college if you aren't going to use your degree?" is the compliment to "Why have children if you aren't going to raise them?"

+100000. Perfectly put.

+100001. Love that!

Can someone just be responsible for reposting this every time one of these wars comes up?

OMG those things are not equivalent. A little dig about not using your degree, I will grant you, is a stupid and insensitive thing to say. However, it is not equal to saying someone doesn't care about their children, which is exactly what the other one is saying, and the latter is a downright cruel thing to say. If you can't see the difference, your ego is talking.

They are equivalent. Just one offends you personally and one doesn't. Think of others besides yourself.

Love how PP coins it "a little dig" Saying that a SAHM has wasted her education, intellect and contribution to society. Sure, that is just "a little dig." Come on, be honest with yourself and own your choices.

What is worse is subjective. You act like you are the sole authority on what hurts the heart and soul. Instead of telling others to downsize their ego so as not to be hurt by your insults, why not take your own advice and downsize your insecurities and defensiveness? You know you love your kid, so your heart and soul should be intact.

One hurts your ego. The other hurts your heart and soul. So, yeah, the latter is worse. Be honest with *yourself* and maybe downsize the ego.

I've never said these stupid insults to a SAHM, as I told the other PP. This isn't me defending something I've said. Both insults are equally stupid but one is more hurtful and you know it.

Why are you choosing to die on this sword? I've never asked a WOHM why she had children, I've never even thought it and never would. Both insults are horrible and hurtful and unproductive and you DON'T GET TO DECIDE that only one of them is truly hurtful. Hurt is in the heart of the beholder.

NP. Multiple people, be it trolls or actual SAHMs have actually said that very thing on DCUM so many times. You're either pretending to be dumb about that or you somehow seriously haven't seen it. Also, PP never said that only one of them is truly hurtful. She said one is worse than the other. And it is.

[Anonymous]

the way I see it is that one choice has a financial cost. That is an expense I am willing to bear for obvious benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the way I see it is that one choice has a financial cost. That is an expense I am willing to bear for obvious benefits.

They both have a financial cost. I don't even know to which one choice you are referring to.

[Anonymous]

Jealousy.