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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're so condescending, yet still so wrong. By working outside the home and unnecessarily reducing the amount of time you spend with your children, you're buying into "societal forces" as much as anyone else; the only difference is that you think you're in the right because you're following the more socially-accepted path.

Why is it ok for men to unnecessarily reduce the amount of time they spend with their children for the "greater good" of the family? And why must it always be the mom?

Who said it was OK for men to do that? The fact that it's commonly done doesn't mean it's right. And I don't see anyone saying that always needs to be the norm, either. Not everything is a competition between the sexes.

I can't be so wrong if people are reacting so viscerally to this. It reminds me of when my MIL vehemently proclaims that she's not racist after saying something about interracial marriage being icky.

Sometimes you're wrong just because you're wrong. And I'm saying this as someone in an interracial marriage.

[Anonymous]

I don't think most women have an issue with those who stay home and do the unpaid work of caring for family members and running the household. Most understand how much work it is and how much value it has.

When you devalue it, you are mindlessly identifying with power and sources of status that the patriarchy defines. Glorify money, power, and property, and devalue (and control) everything else. Downplay, divide, and overburden those you want to control. And that's where modern women get stuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're so condescending, yet still so wrong. By working outside the home and unnecessarily reducing the amount of time you spend with your children, you're buying into "societal forces" as much as anyone else; the only difference is that you think you're in the right because you're following the more socially-accepted path.

Why is it ok for men to unnecessarily reduce the amount of time they spend with their children for the "greater good" of the family? And why must it always be the mom?

I can't be so wrong if people are reacting so viscerally to this. It reminds me of when my MIL vehemently proclaims that she's not racist after saying something about interracial marriage being icky.

Because women want to be married to men with good careers and make good money. Even if they have their own money they still want this. Women have the power to choose men who would be happy to be more involved at home. There are actually a lot of these men around. Usually they are looked over on the dating market because they aren't go getters with prestigious jobs. It's really VERY simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think most women have an issue with those who stay home and do the unpaid work of caring for family members and running the household. Most understand how much work it is and how much value it has.

When you devalue it, you are mindlessly identifying with power and sources of status that the patriarchy defines. Glorify money, power, and property, and devalue (and control) everything else. Downplay, divide, and overburden those you want to control. And that's where modern women get stuck.

+1.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

"Because women want to be married to men with good careers and make good money. Even if they have their own money they still want this. Women have the power to choose men who would be happy to be more involved at home. There are actually a lot of these men around. Usually they are looked over on the dating market because they aren't go getters with prestigious jobs. It's really VERY simple."

Yeah, and this obsession with marrying men who make a lot of money and enable you to stay at home (because THAT'S HOW IT IS!) is what I have issues with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you think anything else isn't? Come on. You sound really naive here. We are all historical actors. No one is operating completely free of our time period's mores and values.

And yet plenty of people choose to. Even more elect to not regress back into the mores and values that our predecessors fought so hard to break us free of.

This is so ridiculous. I should make MY life miserable because a bunch of women were miserable back in 1960? No f***ing way. You're out of your mind if you think I should let that influence how I live my ONE life.

+ 1

The fact is, we're all free to choose now. So you choose for yourself and I'll choose for myself. Live and let live. I'm happy with my choices and I'm not putting you down. So why do you feel the right to do that to me?

I'm not putting you down. [b] I'm just saying you are buying into societal forces rather than fighting them.[b] It's ok if you don't want to be that political in your personal life, or if it's not a priority to you, or if other circumstances make other more equitable arrangements not the best choice for your individual family. But it signals your values to your children, just as other choices you make do. And you have to be ok with that. It doesn't mean you are a bad person. It just means that you don't walk the walk on this part of your life if you care about women and men having equal roles in society. And I'm sure some of you don't care.

We all make choices on what values we compromise on. It's ok if this is your compromise.

You're so condescending, yet still so wrong. By working outside the home and unnecessarily reducing the amount of time you spend with your children, you're buying into "societal forces" as much as anyone else; the only difference is that you think you're in the right because you're following the more socially-accepted path.

THIS! Such a capitalist notion. We all must be producers and grow the economy. Open your eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think most women have an issue with those who stay home and do the unpaid work of caring for family members and running the household. Most understand how much work it is and how much value it has.

When you devalue it, you are mindlessly identifying with power and sources of status that the patriarchy defines. Glorify money, power, and property, and devalue (and control) everything else. Downplay, divide, and overburden those you want to control. And that's where modern women get stuck.

X 100

[Anonymous]

Jealousy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you think anything else isn't? Come on. You sound really naive here. We are all historical actors. No one is operating completely free of our time period's mores and values.

And yet plenty of people choose to. Even more elect to not regress back into the mores and values that our predecessors fought so hard to break us free of.

This is so ridiculous. I should make MY life miserable because a bunch of women were miserable back in 1960? No f***ing way. You're out of your mind if you think I should let that influence how I live my ONE life.

+ 1

The fact is, we're all free to choose now. So you choose for yourself and I'll choose for myself. Live and let live. I'm happy with my choices and I'm not putting you down. So why do you feel the right to do that to me?

I'm not putting you down. [b] I'm just saying you are buying into societal forces rather than fighting them.[b] It's ok if you don't want to be that political in your personal life, or if it's not a priority to you, or if other circumstances make other more equitable arrangements not the best choice for your individual family. But it signals your values to your children, just as other choices you make do. And you have to be ok with that. It doesn't mean you are a bad person. It just means that you don't walk the walk on this part of your life if you care about women and men having equal roles in society. And I'm sure some of you don't care.

We all make choices on what values we compromise on. It's ok if this is your compromise.

You're so condescending, yet still so wrong. By working outside the home and unnecessarily reducing the amount of time you spend with your children, you're buying into "societal forces" as much as anyone else; the only difference is that you think you're in the right because you're following the more socially-accepted path.

THIS! Such a capitalist notion. We all must be producers and grow the economy. Open your eyes.

^ +1.

[Anonymous]

THIS! Such a capitalist notion. We all must be producers and grow the economy. Open your eyes.

It's not all about capitalism. It's about contributing to society in various ways. I think men should contribute more to "caring" roles--women shouldn't be defaulted into it, it should be everyone's responsibility.

[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?

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:THIS! Such a capitalist notion. We all must be producers and grow the economy. Open your eyes.

It's not all about capitalism. It's about contributing to society in various ways. I think men should contribute more to "caring" roles--women shouldn't be defaulted into it, it should be everyone's responsibility.

So you acknowledge that homemaking and cari g for a family IS a form if contributing to society. Good. Women AND men who want to take on caring roles should do so. End of discussion. Live and let live. You make your choices and I'll make mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THIS! Such a capitalist notion. We all must be producers and grow the economy. Open your eyes.

It's not all about capitalism. It's about contributing to society in various ways. I think men should contribute more to "caring" roles--women shouldn't be defaulted into it, it should be everyone's responsibility.

So you acknowledge that homemaking and cari g for a family IS a form if contributing to society. Good. Women AND men who want to take on caring roles should do so. End of discussion. Live and let live. You make your choices and I'll make mine.

Exactly. Live and let live.

[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?

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!