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

[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.

See previous post.

[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?

Interesting comments. Most of the SAHMs I know here in the DC area became parents later in life and already had successful careers - and made big financial contributions to the family - before taking time off of work to spend more time with their children. And many plan to go back to work in some capacity.

Very true. Surprised how many lawyer, doctor, mba moms opted to be SAHMs.

It's not really that surprising IMO. Work sucks. That's why we call it "work" and not play time Most people would quit if they weren't getting paid. Not all. But the vast vast majority. Don't kid yourself on that.

[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?

Interesting comments. Most of the SAHMs I know here in the DC area became parents later in life and already had successful careers - and made big financial contributions to the family - before taking time off of work to spend more time with their children. And many plan to go back to work in some capacity.

Very true. Surprised how many lawyer, doctor, mba moms opted to be SAHMs.

But this is the thing. How many men who used to be a lawyer, doctor, MBA, PhD, etc. opt out of their career "for the benefit of their children." When women do it, it's seen as positively contributing and sacrificing their career for their families. When men do it, it's considered a waste of education, money, and resources.

These aren't givens. Plenty of women in this forum and on this thread consider women who leave high status jobs to be wasting their lives. That's kind of why this thread was started to begin with.

[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!

OMG. You are a twit. I did not vote for HRC because she has a vagina. Did you really? Because your assumption that other people did is more revealing of your own beliefs in this regard, not mine. I voted for her because I support the kinds of policies she supports and because the alternative wad the kind of bumbling idiot who will get us into war. It had NOTHING to do with the fact that she would have been the first female president. You sound like a f***ing seventh grader. Did you vote for Obama because he was the first black president too? How simple are you?

Don't be disingenuous. Plenty of people voted for each candidate you name for exactly those reasons and have not been shy about exhorting others to do so, and congratulate themselves for having done so.

Well they're idiots then, clearly. It's the same as voting for GW Bush because you'd like to have a beer with him. It's stupid. No woman I respect pushed others to vote for Hillary because she was the only one in the race with a vagina. You vote for the person who you think will do the best job (and in this case, HRC was the clear winner for anyone with half a brain).

No one was disparaging or questioning your choice to vote for HRC based on her policies. The question was simple - how can you encourage your children to reflect on Hillary's accomplishments and be successful in their own aspirations in their careers and society contributions, when that wasn't a priority in your own life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See previous post.

None of your posts are worth rereading; you're trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

OMG. You are a twit. I did not vote for HRC because she has a vagina. Did you really? Because your assumption that other people did is more revealing of your own beliefs in this regard, not mine. I voted for her because I support the kinds of policies she supports and because the alternative wad the kind of bumbling idiot who will get us into war. It had NOTHING to do with the fact that she would have been the first female president. You sound like a f***ing seventh grader. Did you vote for Obama because he was the first black president too? How simple are you?

Don't be disingenuous. Plenty of people voted for each candidate you name for exactly those reasons and have not been shy about exhorting others to do so, and congratulate themselves for having done so.

Well they're idiots then, clearly. It's the same as voting for GW Bush because you'd like to have a beer with him. It's stupid. No woman I respect pushed others to vote for Hillary because she was the only one in the race with a vagina. You vote for the person who you think will do the best job (and in this case, HRC was the clear winner for anyone with half a brain).

No one was disparaging or questioning your choice to vote for HRC based on her policies. The question was simple - how can you encourage your children to reflect on Hillary's accomplishments and be successful in their own aspirations in their careers and society contributions, when that wasn't a priority in your own life?

The problem is that it's a troll question. Lots of folks have explained why. You refuse to understand why because you're trolling. There isn't an answer in the world that would "convince" you.

[Anonymous]

Q for the working moms seeking "balance": does it bother you when more driven, ambitious women tell you to suck it up and lean in? Because there are a lot of people at the top who only respect others who are willing to devote their lives to working straight out, balls to the wall, no other priorities. My boss was one such. She looks down on you the way you look down on me (SAHM).

Does that bother you? You're not "contributing" in the way she respects.

[Anonymous]

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?

Interesting comments. Most of the SAHMs I know here in the DC area became parents later in life and already had successful careers - and made big financial contributions to the family - before taking time off of work to spend more time with their children. And many plan to go back to work in some capacity.

Very true. Surprised how many lawyer, doctor, mba moms opted to be SAHMs.

But this is the thing. How many men who used to be a lawyer, doctor, MBA, PhD, etc. opt out of their career "for the benefit of their children." When women do it, it's seen as positively contributing and sacrificing their career for their families. When men do it, it's considered a waste of education, money, and resources.

These aren't givens. Plenty of women in this forum and on this thread consider women who leave high status jobs to be wasting their lives. That's kind of why this thread was started to begin with.

Some women do, which signals progress in society that we can begin hold women to the same standards as men as far as debating the responsibility one has after receiving an education to use. But on a whole, someone will still swoop to your defense, and it is considered more of an appropriate choice than if a men were to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Q for the working moms seeking "balance": does it bother you when more driven, ambitious women tell you to suck it up and lean in? Because there are a lot of people at the top who only respect others who are willing to devote their lives to working straight out, balls to the wall, no other priorities. My boss was one such. She looks down on you the way you look down on me (SAHM).

Does that bother you? You're not "contributing" in the way she respects.

It was until I switched jobs. I now work for a 'boss' who makes her family a priority but is also one of the most accomplished upper management at the company. In doing so, she models work/life balance for me. I appreciate her for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

OMG. You are a twit. I did not vote for HRC because she has a vagina. Did you really? Because your assumption that other people did is more revealing of your own beliefs in this regard, not mine. I voted for her because I support the kinds of policies she supports and because the alternative wad the kind of bumbling idiot who will get us into war. It had NOTHING to do with the fact that she would have been the first female president. You sound like a f***ing seventh grader. Did you vote for Obama because he was the first black president too? How simple are you?

Don't be disingenuous. Plenty of people voted for each candidate you name for exactly those reasons and have not been shy about exhorting others to do so, and congratulate themselves for having done so.

Well they're idiots then, clearly. It's the same as voting for GW Bush because you'd like to have a beer with him. It's stupid. No woman I respect pushed others to vote for Hillary because she was the only one in the race with a vagina. You vote for the person who you think will do the best job (and in this case, HRC was the clear winner for anyone with half a brain).

No one was disparaging or questioning your choice to vote for HRC based on her policies. The question was simple - how can you encourage your children to reflect on Hillary's accomplishments and be successful in their own aspirations in their careers and society contributions, when that wasn't a priority in your own life?

The problem is that it's a troll question. Lots of folks have explained why. You refuse to understand why because you're trolling. There isn't an answer in the world that would "convince" you.

+1

Look at the way she phrased the original question for one thing. She assumed people voting for Hillary so that she'd be the first female president. No one I know gave a f*** about that. They were more concerned about Trump's proposed Muslim ban and mocking if people with disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Q for the working moms seeking "balance": does it bother you when more driven, ambitious women tell you to suck it up and lean in? Because there are a lot of people at the top who only respect others who are willing to devote their lives to working straight out, balls to the wall, no other priorities. My boss was one such. She looks down on you the way you look down on me (SAHM).

Does that bother you? You're not "contributing" in the way she respects.

Absolutely. This contributes to issues with gender equity as well. In addition to attitudes about the role of men and women, Americans have messed up attitudes about working balls to the wall all the time, which is generally incompatible with family life. Especially if you don't make boatloads of money.

[Anonymous]

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?

Interesting comments. Most of the SAHMs I know here in the DC area became parents later in life and already had successful careers - and made big financial contributions to the family - before taking time off of work to spend more time with their children. And many plan to go back to work in some capacity.

Very true. Surprised how many lawyer, doctor, mba moms opted to be SAHMs.

But this is the thing. How many men who used to be a lawyer, doctor, MBA, PhD, etc. opt out of their career "for the benefit of their children." When women do it, it's seen as positively contributing and sacrificing their career for their families. When men do it, it's considered a waste of education, money, and resources.

These aren't givens. Plenty of women in this forum and on this thread consider women who leave high status jobs to be wasting their lives. That's kind of why this thread was started to begin with.

Some women do, which signals progress in society that we can begin hold women to the same standards as men as far as debating the responsibility one has after receiving an education to use. But on a whole, someone will still swoop to your defense, and it is considered more of an appropriate choice than if a men were to do it.

I don't see what you describe as progress. The point of an education isn't to spend the rest of your life working outside the home; it's to develop a greater understanding of yourself and of the world. The fact that you describe the purpose of an education so narrowly shows, once again, how brainwashed you've been into believing the societal (market) forces you've assumed are the optimal way to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q for the working moms seeking "balance": does it bother you when more driven, ambitious women tell you to suck it up and lean in? Because there are a lot of people at the top who only respect others who are willing to devote their lives to working straight out, balls to the wall, no other priorities. My boss was one such. She looks down on you the way you look down on me (SAHM).

Does that bother you? You're not "contributing" in the way she respects.

It was until I switched jobs. I now work for a 'boss' who makes her family a priority but is also one of the most accomplished upper management at the company. In doing so, she models work/life balance for me. I appreciate her for it.

NP. You're missing the point. Does it bother you to know that your first boss doesn't think you're much of an emp,one because you have other priorities. In other words...you're different form her and she has no tolerance for that.

[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?

Interesting comments. Most of the SAHMs I know here in the DC area became parents later in life and already had successful careers - and made big financial contributions to the family - before taking time off of work to spend more time with their children. And many plan to go back to work in some capacity.

Very true. Surprised how many lawyer, doctor, mba moms opted to be SAHMs.

But this is the thing. How many men who used to be a lawyer, doctor, MBA, PhD, etc. opt out of their career "for the benefit of their children." When women do it, it's seen as positively contributing and sacrificing their career for their families. When men do it, it's considered a waste of education, money, and resources.

These aren't givens. Plenty of women in this forum and on this thread consider women who leave high status jobs to be wasting their lives. That's kind of why this thread was started to begin with.

Some women do, which signals progress in society that we can begin hold women to the same standards as men as far as debating the responsibility one has after receiving an education to use. But on a whole, someone will still swoop to your defense, and it is considered more of an appropriate choice than if a men were to do it.

I don't see what you describe as progress. The point of an education isn't to spend the rest of your life working outside the home; it's to develop a greater understanding of yourself and of the world. The fact that you describe the purpose of an education so narrowly shows, once again, how brainwashed you've been into believing the societal (market) forces you've assumed are the optimal way to live.

+1

The fact that they don't even see it is so sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

OMG. You are a twit. I did not vote for HRC because she has a vagina. Did you really? Because your assumption that other people did is more revealing of your own beliefs in this regard, not mine. I voted for her because I support the kinds of policies she supports and because the alternative wad the kind of bumbling idiot who will get us into war. It had NOTHING to do with the fact that she would have been the first female president. You sound like a f***ing seventh grader. Did you vote for Obama because he was the first black president too? How simple are you?

Don't be disingenuous. Plenty of people voted for each candidate you name for exactly those reasons and have not been shy about exhorting others to do so, and congratulate themselves for having done so.

Well they're idiots then, clearly. It's the same as voting for GW Bush because you'd like to have a beer with him. It's stupid. No woman I respect pushed others to vote for Hillary because she was the only one in the race with a vagina. You vote for the person who you think will do the best job (and in this case, HRC was the clear winner for anyone with half a brain).

No one was disparaging or questioning your choice to vote for HRC based on her policies. The question was simple - how can you encourage your children to reflect on Hillary's accomplishments and be successful in their own aspirations in their careers and society contributions, when that wasn't a priority in your own life?

This attitude ticks me off The dismissal of child care as a meaningful contribution by whatever caregiver exists is infuriating It extends to our trwatment of daycare and preschool employees and school aged teachers too
Caring for and educating children- in any number - is a societal contribution Period