SAHM vs WOHM, why the strong feelings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about rich non-working women —come on.

The vast majority in the DMV have salaries that can’t support/justify the cost of childcare so they stay home. Period.

They aren’t living this glamorous life.

No one cares about them because they're not interesting. They care about the blonde mom, who kept her figure, who is driving around in her Range Rover on her way to Pilates after having dropped off her 3-4 kids at a Big Three private.

She's the one they can't stand.

haha yeah it's this

Since this is the stereotype that gets people going, at least on this site, I don't know how people can deny that what really upsets them is the money and the breeziness that this kind of woman displays. They're upset that she doesn't feel compelled to work and doesn't have to for the money.

Why don't we see men feeling strongly this way, about nonworking independently wealthy men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about rich non-working women —come on.

The vast majority in the DMV have salaries that can’t support/justify the cost of childcare so they stay home. Period.

They aren’t living this glamorous life.

No one cares about them because they're not interesting. They care about the blonde mom, who kept her figure, who is driving around in her Range Rover on her way to Pilates after having dropped off her 3-4 kids at a Big Three private.

She's the one they can't stand.

haha yeah it's this

Since this is the stereotype that gets people going, at least on this site, I don't know how people can deny that what really upsets them is the money and the breeziness that this kind of woman displays. They're upset that she doesn't feel compelled to work and doesn't have to for the money.

Why don't we see men feeling strongly this way, about nonworking independently wealthy men?

Probably because they're aren't that many, as it's not as socially acceptable for men to opt out of working as it is for women. For men who don't have to work for money for whatever reason (either because they have a trust fund, had a windfall earlier in their careers, or married women who are raking in money) they almost always have a side passion project that they say is their career. When asked what they do, they don't say "house husband." They say they're working on a screenplay or a novel or they're developing/shopping an app, starting up a side business, etc. etc. Even if they only do these things very part time and the reality is that they are in truth "house husbands."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about WAH?

It’s really the best of both worlds. I am here at home. I work when kids are in school. I have an incredibly flexible Fed job in my field. I have great health benefits, retirement and a GS-15 salary. I don’t need to work because my husband makes a high income, but I find it fulfilling and my parents did tell all of us to always keep a foot in the workplace. You never know what will happen in life. My mom worked and my mother-in-law worked and my dad was very involved in our lives and cooked dinners, coached teams, etc. My husband and I are proud of our mother’s careers. I think it sets a good example for my sons that both parents contribute equally at home and earn.

It really takes the pressure off from one spouse being solely financially responsible.

How is this different than a regular set up other than alleviating your commute? I have a 10 minute walk to work anyway. And then it just means that the parent who works from home has to do all the laundry, cleaning and meal prep while also somehow doing their job.

I work PT and it's the best AND worst of both worlds. My job always creeps over the 25 hours/week, but because it's PT I also do all the home stuff between the hours of 8-6. It's overrated. What would be best is if both partners can work 30ish hours per week.

i totally agree that everyone should be working 25-30 hours a week --- men and women. Before and after child-rearing, you can take two of those jobs if you want to work more.

i'm like the OP -- stayed home while the kids were babies, worked before and ramping up again now that the youngest is almost in preschool, and planning to work when they are both in school. I'm in a flexible field and will probably work 9-3 so they don't have to go to aftercare.

But I think the tension comes because many, many women question whether or not they made the right decision, and debating it is a way for them to make the argument to themselves that they did the right thing. SAH moms wonder if they are losing something by not working (independence, intellectual stimulation, and a financial safety net of their own) and WOH moms wonder if their kids are suffering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about rich non-working women —come on.

The vast majority in the DMV have salaries that can’t support/justify the cost of childcare so they stay home. Period.

They aren’t living this glamorous life.

No one cares about them because they're not interesting. They care about the blonde mom, who kept her figure, who is driving around in her Range Rover on her way to Pilates after having dropped off her 3-4 kids at a Big Three private.

She's the one they can't stand.

haha yeah it's this

Since this is the stereotype that gets people going, at least on this site, I don't know how people can deny that what really upsets them is the money and the breeziness that this kind of woman displays. They're upset that she doesn't feel compelled to work and doesn't have to for the money.

Why don't we see men feeling strongly this way, about nonworking independently wealthy men?

Probably because they're aren't that many, as it's not as socially acceptable for men to opt out of working as it is for women. For men who don't have to work for money for whatever reason (either because they have a trust fund, had a windfall earlier in their careers, or married women who are raking in money) they almost always have a side passion project that they say is their career. When asked what they do, they don't say "house husband." They say they're working on a screenplay or a novel or they're developing/shopping an app, starting up a side business, etc. etc. Even if they only do these things very part time and the reality is that they are in truth "house husbands."

my husband got very interested in the FIRE (financially independent retire early) movement, and we talked about it a lot over the years -- I came to realize that what these guys are trying to do is actually very similar to what a SAH mom does. they can home with their kids, they only work if they want to, not because they need to, they have an independent income stream that supports their lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about rich non-working women —come on.

The vast majority in the DMV have salaries that can’t support/justify the cost of childcare so they stay home. Period.

They aren’t living this glamorous life.

No one cares about them because they're not interesting. They care about the blonde mom, who kept her figure, who is driving around in her Range Rover on her way to Pilates after having dropped off her 3-4 kids at a Big Three private.

She's the one they can't stand.

haha yeah it's this

Since this is the stereotype that gets people going, at least on this site, I don't know how people can deny that what really upsets them is the money and the breeziness that this kind of woman displays. They're upset that she doesn't feel compelled to work and doesn't have to for the money.

Why don't we see men feeling strongly this way, about nonworking independently wealthy men?

Probably because they're aren't that many, as it's not as socially acceptable for men to opt out of working as it is for women. For men who don't have to work for money for whatever reason (either because they have a trust fund, had a windfall earlier in their careers, or married women who are raking in money) they almost always have a side passion project that they say is their career. When asked what they do, they don't say "house husband." They say they're working on a screenplay or a novel or they're developing/shopping an app, starting up a side business, etc. etc. Even if they only do these things very part time and the reality is that they are in truth "house husbands."

Or my personal favorite: they say they're "consultants" even though they don't consult on anything or do like one project a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about rich non-working women —come on.

The vast majority in the DMV have salaries that can’t support/justify the cost of childcare so they stay home. Period.

They aren’t living this glamorous life.

No one cares about them because they're not interesting. They care about the blonde mom, who kept her figure, who is driving around in her Range Rover on her way to Pilates after having dropped off her 3-4 kids at a Big Three private.

She's the one they can't stand.

haha yeah it's this

Since this is the stereotype that gets people going, at least on this site, I don't know how people can deny that what really upsets them is the money and the breeziness that this kind of woman displays. They're upset that she doesn't feel compelled to work and doesn't have to for the money.

Why don't we see men feeling strongly this way, about nonworking independently wealthy men?

Probably because they're aren't that many, as it's not as socially acceptable for men to opt out of working as it is for women. For men who don't have to work for money for whatever reason (either because they have a trust fund, had a windfall earlier in their careers, or married women who are raking in money) they almost always have a side passion project that they say is their career. When asked what they do, they don't say "house husband." They say they're working on a screenplay or a novel or they're developing/shopping an app, starting up a side business, etc. etc. Even if they only do these things very part time and the reality is that they are in truth "house husbands."

my husband got very interested in the FIRE (financially independent retire early) movement, and we talked about it a lot over the years -- I came to realize that what these guys are trying to do is actually very similar to what a SAH mom does. they can home with their kids, they only work if they want to, not because they need to, they have an independent income stream that supports their lifestyle.

Great point, very true.

My personal opinion is that most people would opt out of working full time (meaning 50-60 hours a week) if they could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw my mother sacrifice her career for ten years when my sisters and I were little and she never regained her footing. My dad left her and remarried a professional woman, younger woman, and my mom had nothing to call her own. My sisters and I went away to college and left her. Funny thing is - my mom was the parent with the very high IQ.

I get scared for my friends when they say they want to SAH. My issues entirely, I know, but it’s a deep feeling of fear and dread for them.

Childhood experiences or trauma often drive decisions, so this isn’t surprising in your situation. Of course, many others had entirely different experiences that are driving their choices.

NP - another personal experience driving it. My mom stayed home while we were young, and got a second degree with the plan to "flip" roles with my dad when we hit middle school. Then we had the shock of my dad passing leaving my mom with two young children the year she graduated. Trying to enter a new career field with two young children as a new widow was too much for her so she took a few years off to raise us, then was never able to enter her new career field, and was left picking low paying jobs that offered good health insurance and flexibility to be able to parent us properly.

it was very engrained in my head, never give up your career, you don't know what the future holds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about WAH?

It’s really the best of both worlds. I am here at home. I work when kids are in school. I have an incredibly flexible Fed job in my field. I have great health benefits, retirement and a GS-15 salary. I don’t need to work because my husband makes a high income, but I find it fulfilling and my parents did tell all of us to always keep a foot in the workplace. You never know what will happen in life. My mom worked and my mother-in-law worked and my dad was very involved in our lives and cooked dinners, coached teams, etc. My husband and I are proud of our mother’s careers. I think it sets a good example for my sons that both parents contribute equally at home and earn.

It really takes the pressure off from one spouse being solely financially responsible.

How is this different than a regular set up other than alleviating your commute? I have a 10 minute walk to work anyway. And then it just means that the parent who works from home has to do all the laundry, cleaning and meal prep while also somehow doing their job.

I work PT and it's the best AND worst of both worlds. My job always creeps over the 25 hours/week, but because it's PT I also do all the home stuff between the hours of 8-6. It's overrated. What would be best is if both partners can work 30ish hours per week.

i totally agree that everyone should be working 25-30 hours a week --- men and women. Before and after child-rearing, you can take two of those jobs if you want to work more.

i'm like the OP -- stayed home while the kids were babies, worked before and ramping up again now that the youngest is almost in preschool, and planning to work when they are both in school. I'm in a flexible field and will probably work 9-3 so they don't have to go to aftercare.

But I think the tension comes because many, many women question whether or not they made the right decision, and debating it is a way for them to make the argument to themselves that they did the right thing. SAH moms wonder if they are losing something by not working (independence, intellectual stimulation, and a financial safety net of their own) and WOH moms wonder if their kids are suffering.

Totally disagree with the 25-30 hour a week mandate/goal, but totally agree with the bolded.

[Anonymous]

To the poster who knows thousands of women at well paid at home jobs, there is always a catch. Either you need a very in demand skill, have previous connections not available to the public, or you were very lucky.

I am a sahm and would love a WAH job but every one I've been offered comes with a lot of strings. I haven't found any that max at 30 hours a week its usually 60+ for a well paid one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about rich non-working women —come on.

The vast majority in the DMV have salaries that can’t support/justify the cost of childcare so they stay home. Period.

They aren’t living this glamorous life.

They're not the people who get everyone all riled up, though, and what makes these threads run on to 20 + pages of attacks and rhetoric like "useless leeches".

I've definitely seen wealthy SAHMs on DCUM tell poorer working women who have to work they aren't raising their kids.

[Anonymous]

I don't know what this is ab,out either, OP. Sure there are some people who truly SAH 100% of the time. And there are some people who are WOH 60+ hours/wk + travel. But most people do something in between and are more similar than they are different.

SAHM's use an average of 15-20 hours/wk of childcare, whether it's preschool, grandparents, or a hired babysitter.
WOHM's use an average of 35 hours/wk of childcare.
All moms of young children spend an average of 100 hours/wk working in and out of the home.

Most of us are spending nearly all of our time doing the same thing. The WOHM vs SAHM debate is mostly fabricated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about rich non-working women —come on.

The vast majority in the DMV have salaries that can’t support/justify the cost of childcare so they stay home. Period.

They aren’t living this glamorous life.

No one cares about them because they're not interesting. They care about the blonde mom, who kept her figure, who is driving around in her Range Rover on her way to Pilates after having dropped off her 3-4 kids at a Big Three private.

She's the one they can't stand.

haha yeah it's this

Since this is the stereotype that gets people going, at least on this site, I don't know how people can deny that what really upsets them is the money and the breeziness that this kind of woman displays. They're upset that she doesn't feel compelled to work and doesn't have to for the money.

Why don't we see men feeling strongly this way, about nonworking independently wealthy men?

Probably because they're aren't that many, as it's not as socially acceptable for men to opt out of working as it is for women. For men who don't have to work for money for whatever reason (either because they have a trust fund, had a windfall earlier in their careers, or married women who are raking in money) they almost always have a side passion project that they say is their career. When asked what they do, they don't say "house husband." They say they're working on a screenplay or a novel or they're developing/shopping an app, starting up a side business, etc. etc. Even if they only do these things very part time and the reality is that they are in truth "house husbands."

Or my personal favorite: they say they're "consultants" even though they don't consult on anything or do like one project a year.

Women who have opted out of paying jobs say (and do) the same things, but you missed the big one: we are working for our family foundation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about rich non-working women —come on.

The vast majority in the DMV have salaries that can’t support/justify the cost of childcare so they stay home. Period.

They aren’t living this glamorous life.

They're not the people who get everyone all riled up, though, and what makes these threads run on to 20 + pages of attacks and rhetoric like "useless leeches".

I've definitely seen wealthy SAHMs on DCUM tell poorer working women who have to work they aren't raising their kids.

I've definitely seen woh moms posting here telling sahms that their husbands are/will be cheating, leaving them destitute, they are slaves, etc. Many women on this board seriously can't wrap their minds around the fact that there are loving, devoted, faithful, committed men who have a sah partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about WAH?

It’s really the best of both worlds. I am here at home. I work when kids are in school. I have an incredibly flexible Fed job in my field. I have great health benefits, retirement and a GS-15 salary. I don’t need to work because my husband makes a high income, but I find it fulfilling and my parents did tell all of us to always keep a foot in the workplace. You never know what will happen in life. My mom worked and my mother-in-law worked and my dad was very involved in our lives and cooked dinners, coached teams, etc. My husband and I are proud of our mother’s careers. I think it sets a good example for my sons that both parents contribute equally at home and earn.

It really takes the pressure off from one spouse being solely financially responsible.

How is this different than a regular set up other than alleviating your commute? I have a 10 minute walk to work anyway. And then it just means that the parent who works from home has to do all the laundry, cleaning and meal prep while also somehow doing their job.

I work PT and it's the best AND worst of both worlds. My job always creeps over the 25 hours/week, but because it's PT I also do all the home stuff between the hours of 8-6. It's overrated. What would be best is if both partners can work 30ish hours per week.

i totally agree that everyone should be working 25-30 hours a week --- men and women. Before and after child-rearing, you can take two of those jobs if you want to work more.

i'm like the OP -- stayed home while the kids were babies, worked before and ramping up again now that the youngest is almost in preschool, and planning to work when they are both in school. I'm in a flexible field and will probably work 9-3 so they don't have to go to aftercare.

But I think the tension comes because many, many women question whether or not they made the right decision, and debating it is a way for them to make the argument to themselves that they did the right thing. SAH moms wonder if they are losing something by not working (independence, intellectual stimulation, and a financial safety net of their own) and WOH moms wonder if their kids are suffering.

Careful, though. This was my life before the pandemic. So I’d get kids ready for school, work from 9–3 praying I could get everything done, pick up kids and take care of them all afternoon then cook dinner (DH cleaned up usually), then bedtime until 8, then work an hour or two more. Life would’ve been a lot easier if I just worked 9-5 and had aftercare until 6 so I could prep dinner or a nanny to do it for us. I wouldn’t feel as rushed at work and I wouldn’t have lost out on a. Lot of the benefits. Part time work is actually a total racket.

[Anonymous]

Wohm guilt, anger and frustration. Usually low earning wohms in low hhi homes in DMV froth at the mouth.
Rich wohms with good careers don't have time for this shit. Most SAHMs in an expensive place like DMV are educated, former WOHMS and have high HHI.

SAHMs usually don't start these threads.