Local writer quoted in WP saying that she "plays dumb" around SAHMs

[Anonymous]

The Washington Post has deteriorated into little more than snark passed off as analysis, and the magazine is almost the worst of it. I read The New York Times instead these days.

[Anonymous]

PP here, I'm still waiting to find out how breastfeeding for a few months after maternity leave is an absolute bar to a career in science...

The Post is an embrassment as is what passes for whit and insight on Slate. I stopped reading Slate after Hanna and her husband David posted a video of what it was like to not be more than 10 feet apart for a day or some such silly "prank". The earnest inside jokiness was mortifying to watch. Not sure the proliferation of "journalistic" outlets and the resulting space to fill is a good thing at all.

Agree that the Times seems to be holding on a bit better. Sad about the decline of the Post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I ever encounter S/W mom animosity is here. In the real world we all get along and try hard to support one another.

Agreed.

In the real world people just hide their true feelings. I have heard a very good "friend" who is a SAHM lash out about WMs to a group of other SAHMs (also my "friends") when she did not realize I was within earshot. She was talking about how sad kids with nannies seem at the playground and how WOHMs did not really know their kids etc., etc. It was not so much what she said as much as the anger and venom in her facial expression and tone if voice. I was the only WOHM there and I was shocked at the venom. I would never have guessed she felt that way since to my face she is always supportive of my WOH status and she is always telling me how she wishes she could work but did not since her earning potential as a teacher was so low. I always encourage het by saying how lucky she is not having to work. I think friends just hide their true feelings.

jealousy, I imagine

Many SAHMs I've met never had a career; they had jobs which were not fulfilling. So to them, staying at home becomes a job. I'm not saying that SAHMs have it easy. But for some, knowing that they never quite worked in a profession that was "more than a job," staying home takes on more meaning and they are the first to defend their roles. Sadly, some guilt working moms into thinking that WMs put themselves ahead of their children.

Personally, I think if a woman loves her career and comes home happy after a busy day, her children also benefit from that. Furthermore, creating boundaries with your children is healthy and instills in them a sense of independence. At least that's been my case.

Actually most SAHMs, myself included, had fantastic careers. We just decided it was more important to us to stay home with our kids. Also, we could afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I ever encounter S/W mom animosity is here. In the real world we all get along and try hard to support one another.

Agreed.

In the real world people just hide their true feelings. I have heard a very good "friend" who is a SAHM lash out about WMs to a group of other SAHMs (also my "friends") when she did not realize I was within earshot. She was talking about how sad kids with nannies seem at the playground and how WOHMs did not really know their kids etc., etc. It was not so much what she said as much as the anger and venom in her facial expression and tone if voice. I was the only WOHM there and I was shocked at the venom. I would never have guessed she felt that way since to my face she is always supportive of my WOH status and she is always telling me how she wishes she could work but did not since her earning potential as a teacher was so low. I always encourage het by saying how lucky she is not having to work. I think friends just hide their true feelings.

jealousy, I imagine

Many SAHMs I've met never had a career; they had jobs which were not fulfilling. So to them, staying at home becomes a job. I'm not saying that SAHMs have it easy. But for some, knowing that they never quite worked in a profession that was "more than a job," staying home takes on more meaning and they are the first to defend their roles. Sadly, some guilt working moms into thinking that WMs put themselves ahead of their children.

Personally, I think if a woman loves her career and comes home happy after a busy day, her children also benefit from that. Furthermore, creating boundaries with your children is healthy and instills in them a sense of independence. At least that's been my case.

Actually most SAHMs, myself included, had fantastic careers. We just decided it was more important to us to stay home with our kids. Also, we could afford it.

The article someone posted earlier showed statistics - most SAHMs did not have careers or even jobs that enable them to afford to work. I have no doubt most of your friends are not in that category, but you are a small minority and it is not realistic to presume otherwise.

But I am glad that you acknowledged you can afford it - it really is not all about choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I ever encounter S/W mom animosity is here. In the real world we all get along and try hard to support one another.

Agreed.

In the real world people just hide their true feelings. I have heard a very good "friend" who is a SAHM lash out about WMs to a group of other SAHMs (also my "friends") when she did not realize I was within earshot. She was talking about how sad kids with nannies seem at the playground and how WOHMs did not really know their kids etc., etc. It was not so much what she said as much as the anger and venom in her facial expression and tone if voice. I was the only WOHM there and I was shocked at the venom. I would never have guessed she felt that way since to my face she is always supportive of my WOH status and she is always telling me how she wishes she could work but did not since her earning potential as a teacher was so low. I always encourage het by saying how lucky she is not having to work. I think friends just hide their true feelings.

jealousy, I imagine

Many SAHMs I've met never had a career; they had jobs which were not fulfilling. So to them, staying at home becomes a job. I'm not saying that SAHMs have it easy. But for some, knowing that they never quite worked in a profession that was "more than a job," staying home takes on more meaning and they are the first to defend their roles. Sadly, some guilt working moms into thinking that WMs put themselves ahead of their children.

Personally, I think if a woman loves her career and comes home happy after a busy day, her children also benefit from that. Furthermore, creating boundaries with your children is healthy and instills in them a sense of independence. At least that's been my case.

Actually most SAHMs, myself included, had fantastic careers. We just decided it was more important to us to stay home with our kids. Also, we could afford it.

This statement often negates the "positive" reasons SAHMs give for opting for that lifestyle. And it is condescending toward those who have to work - esp. single mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The article someone posted earlier showed statistics - most SAHMs did not have careers or even jobs that enable them to afford to work. I have no doubt most of your friends are not in that category, but you are a small minority and it is not realistic to presume otherwise.

But I am glad that you acknowledged you can afford it - it really is not all about choice.

No, no, we just had a thread about that. It was "Could you support you family on your income alone?" or something like that and almost every working mom said, yes, if her spouse up and left her, she could support the family on her own, she'd just have to give up the extras. Therefore, at least one spouse in most people's families is working, not because they HAVE to, but as the extra income for the finer things in life. At least that's what I came away with from that thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The article someone posted earlier showed statistics - most SAHMs did not have careers or even jobs that enable them to afford to work. I have no doubt most of your friends are not in that category, but you are a small minority and it is not realistic to presume otherwise.

But I am glad that you acknowledged you can afford it - it really is not all about choice.

No, no, we just had a thread about that. It was "Could you support you family on your income alone?" or something like that and almost every working mom said, yes, if her spouse up and left her, she could support the family on her own, she'd just have to give up the extras. Therefore, at least one spouse in most people's families is working, not because they HAVE to, but as the extra income for the finer things in life. At least that's what I came away with from that thread!

Well the finer things in our life are quality family time

[Anonymous]

seriously, why do any of you care?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The article someone posted earlier showed statistics - most SAHMs did not have careers or even jobs that enable them to afford to work. I have no doubt most of your friends are not in that category, but you are a small minority and it is not realistic to presume otherwise.

But I am glad that you acknowledged you can afford it - it really is not all about choice.

No, no, we just had a thread about that. It was "Could you support you family on your income alone?" or something like that and almost every working mom said, yes, if her spouse up and left her, she could support the family on her own, she'd just have to give up the extras. Therefore, at least one spouse in most people's families is working, not because they HAVE to, but as the extra income for the finer things in life. At least that's what I came away with from that thread!

oh if it were all that easy...I work and make a 6-figure salary---but I work full-time from home with part-time hours. i feel i have the best of both worlds. I see my kids for huge chunks of time during the work week--never miss a field trip, etc. I could give up this job completely but it's flexibility, benefits and salary are something that would be CRAZY to walk away from. Giving up this job would be stupid because when my kids are in grade school full-time i will need zero outside childcare help and I would have something meaningful to do during the day. I could give it up completely--but then it would change our home dynamic as there would be pressure on my husband for being the full-time earner and I don't believe in placing all of my eggs in one basket. My co-worker and I agree--esp when we've seen it time and time again---sometimes the last possible man you could imagine just walks away from the family. this big anti-feminist from the 70s that encouraged woman to stay home and not have careers just came out with a new book saying 'ignore the previous book'. She has interviews with hundreds of women around the world whose husbands left them late in life and now can barely scrape by...and no means at 50+ years of age of getting into a workforce they left in their mid-20s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The article someone posted earlier showed statistics - most SAHMs did not have careers or even jobs that enable them to afford to work. I have no doubt most of your friends are not in that category, but you are a small minority and it is not realistic to presume otherwise.

But I am glad that you acknowledged you can afford it - it really is not all about choice.

No, no, we just had a thread about that. It was "Could you support you family on your income alone?" or something like that and almost every working mom said, yes, if her spouse up and left her, she could support the family on her own, she'd just have to give up the extras. Therefore, at least one spouse in most people's families is working, not because they HAVE to, but as the extra income for the finer things in life. At least that's what I came away with from that thread!

Having to support your kid because your spouse up and disappeared on you, which is what that thread was about, is very different than working for extras. That is really insulting. Yes, our combined income gives a nice, comfortable life, but we couldn't swing this in this area on DH's income alone. I refuse to believe that owning a small home in a safe neighborhood that gives us under an hour commute is having "the finer things in life." Please. I feel very fortunate, but we have two incomes for a lot of things beyond the extras, including health insurance.

In this economy, not everyone has a stable job, and some of us can only sleep at night knowing that if one of us got laid off, at least we would not go homeless. Yes, we may have to sell our house, but at least we could rent a place and buy food. Just because I could support my child on 70K a year doesn't mean I want to support my entire family on it. Many people also have student loans, etc. to pay off.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, as a working mom, I find it a little bit hilarious how many other working moms are PISSED OFF because some women choose to stay home. Why is that? Is it because you feel their choice is a silent referendum on ours? Do you feel these women are letting "the rest of us" down by doing something differently? Why? This is not a rhetorical question. Why is your CHOICE okay, but their choice not okay?

And for the sake of argument, let's just pretend all things are equal here, and that it is a choice for everyone. Never mind that some people can't afford to work and some people can't afford to stay home. Let's set that all aside and pretend it's all a great big choice. Why is it only okay to choose a very specific role for yourself, as a woman (namely, that of a wage-earner?)

I work from home, so I'm claimed by neither side. I'm sure some non wage earning moms think of me as halfassing my kids and I'm sure some wage earners think I'm shortchanging myself, womankind, or my job.

Note, by the way, that I am using the words wage-earner. I do lots of work in my life. Some work, I do for myself; other work, I do for the almighty dollar. I'm lucky that in both my career and life, I often do work that falls under both categories -- in other words, I get paid to do work that I enjoy. But the work I do that doesn't come with a salary, namely, raising my kids, maintaining my house, fixing dinner, the sink, or a broken heart, is just as valuable to me (and, dare I say it, to society) as my wage-earning work. And that doesn't even touch the volunteer work many people do.

I think there may be just one poster here who unequivocally states, on numerous posts, that unpaid work does not count. How stupid! It's just as stupid as somebody who does earn a wage saying that they're the de facto better parent because of it.

Coexist, people. It really is not that hard.

And as for Hanna Rosin, somebody summed her up on page one fairly aptly, so why pay her much more attention to that professional shit-stirrer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having to support your kid because your spouse up and disappeared on you, which is what that thread was about, is very different than working for extras. That is really insulting. Yes, our combined income gives a nice, comfortable life, but we couldn't swing this in this area on DH's income alone. I refuse to believe that owning a small home in a safe neighborhood that gives us under an hour commute is having "the finer things in life." Please. I feel very fortunate, but we have two incomes for a lot of things beyond the extras, including health insurance.

In this economy, not everyone has a stable job, and some of us can only sleep at night knowing that if one of us got laid off, at least we would not go homeless. Yes, we may have to sell our house, but at least we could rent a place and buy food. Just because I could support my child on 70K a year doesn't mean I want to support my entire family on it. Many people also have student loans, etc. to pay off.

Well, where were you on that other thread? I swear it seemed as if every parent who answered said, yes, I could support my family on one income alone, I'd just have to give up some luxuries, move to a smaller house, put the kids in private school. I was really surprised because I thought most people say it takes two incomes just to pay the basics in the DC area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having to support your kid because your spouse up and disappeared on you, which is what that thread was about, is very different than working for extras. That is really insulting. Yes, our combined income gives a nice, comfortable life, but we couldn't swing this in this area on DH's income alone. I refuse to believe that owning a small home in a safe neighborhood that gives us under an hour commute is having "the finer things in life." Please. I feel very fortunate, but we have two incomes for a lot of things beyond the extras, including health insurance.

In this economy, not everyone has a stable job, and some of us can only sleep at night knowing that if one of us got laid off, at least we would not go homeless. Yes, we may have to sell our house, but at least we could rent a place and buy food. Just because I could support my child on 70K a year doesn't mean I want to support my entire family on it. Many people also have student loans, etc. to pay off.

Well, where were you on that other thread? I swear it seemed as if every parent who answered said, yes, I could support my family on one income alone, I'd just have to give up some luxuries, move to a smaller house, put the kids in private school. I was really surprised because I thought most people say it takes two incomes just to pay the basics in the DC area.

Nope. I was there. You should read it again - a few people piped in to say what I said - just cause you could when forced doesn't mean you can. Being a single mom is also totally different than being a two parent family. Go visit the single mom discussion board sometime. Many women are trying to get by. My husband and I are doing fine on a $150K a year income, but if you cut that in half, which is basically what would happen if we were living on one income it would be a whole different deal.

I also picture all the posters who say people should live on one salary, as living off their husband's $500K a year salary. I'm sorry but I don't think you can criticize a family for earning two incomes unless you pony up what DH makes. And, if DH does make 85K, which is what mine makes, and you are choosing to stay home, you are basically saying what YOU value is more important than what I value. I value back up health insurance, savings, retirement, college funds, owing a small home close in. Why is that less okay than someone who is fine getting by on 85K? It's a value judgment and I don't like going there.

Finally, I don't feel comfortable stepping out of the workforce for 8 years, which is what I would do if we space kids 3 years a part and I stayed home until the youngest started school. That would also have a pretty big impact on earning potential and flexibility down the road. Some people are fine with that, I'm not as comfortable. Again, if someone says I should be living off one income and not worried about that, it's a value judgment - they are saying my concerns are not important. It would be one thing if I was saying all moms should work, but I'm not. Do what works best for your family. But don't pretend to know what is best for mine, which is what a lot of these threads end up becoming (from both sides).

[Anonymous]

Saving for college and retirement aren't the "finer things in life." Being old and poor is no joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I personally can't stand "Double X" and stopped reading it when she posted a video waxing the arm hair off her co-editors with a homemade formula. All of the writers were quite respected and I think that Double X is an embrassment, a mommy ghetto as it were, with lots of space to fill with garbage that would never be deemed "worthy" of male journalists.

I couldn't agree more. Double X is an embarrassment to me as a woman and as a mother. I stopped reading it because it made me gag week after week.

I have heard the Post is trying hard to attract moms to their readership. Maybe this is part of that effort. Ugh. I'm a longtime subscriber/fan and a mom of 3.5 years, and I find it obnoxious. Try something else, Post.

(The amusing truth is that I've never had more time to read the entire New York Times and Washington Post (and numerous other news sources) as when I'm breastfeeding my infant at night and all day as a SAHM. Thanks, iPhone. But if Hanna Rosin ever asks me about Afghanistan -- or Oprah -- at a playground, I'm running the hell away.)