Anonymous wrote:What percentage of St. Albans mom work? It seems like once women hit their mid-30's at all the area private schools. many choose to stay home. That's always surprising to me considering how many extremely well educated and liberal moms are at these schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should ever judge the choices made by others. Some women have fulfilling jobs that they enjoy. Others think they want to be there 24/7 for their kids when they are young. Neither is wrong. Being a stay-at-home mom doesn’t mean you are playing tennis at the club all day—mostly it means spending time with your kids, driving them around to enrichment classes, taking them to the park, wiping poopy butts, etc. Maybe that’s your thing and maybe it isn’t. Maybe you feel like a nanny could do that just as well, and maybe you don’t. To spread broad generalizations about laziness vs greed is just wrong.

Maybe when the kids are young but a lot of stay home moms with means have full time help and don't spend that much time with their kids. Their full time job is in fact social climbing. And yes, feminism is having the choice to pursue ones life goals but there is some hypocrisy in liberal moms espousing equality in the work force when many have barely worked. In essence, they should walk the line. There is some condescension in the idea that a working mother is great for the working class but somewhat declasse and appalling for the liberal elite.

You must live in a bubble ot think "a lot" of women are in that position. I don't know one.

I only joined the private school world this year (previously kid was in public) but I've lived in upper NW since my kids were born (10 years) and it's the norm for SAHM to have close to full-time help if not 40+ hours a week. Plus preschool hours. It surprised me when I first had kids but almost everyone who stays at home in NW/Chevy Chase/close-in Bethesda has a sitter/nanny for close to full time hours or more. No one is driving their own kids around to everything

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should ever judge the choices made by others. Some women have fulfilling jobs that they enjoy. Others think they want to be there 24/7 for their kids when they are young. Neither is wrong. Being a stay-at-home mom doesn’t mean you are playing tennis at the club all day—mostly it means spending time with your kids, driving them around to enrichment classes, taking them to the park, wiping poopy butts, etc. Maybe that’s your thing and maybe it isn’t. Maybe you feel like a nanny could do that just as well, and maybe you don’t. To spread broad generalizations about laziness vs greed is just wrong.

Maybe when the kids are young but a lot of stay home moms with means have full time help and don't spend that much time with their kids. Their full time job is in fact social climbing. And yes, feminism is having the choice to pursue ones life goals but there is some hypocrisy in liberal moms espousing equality in the work force when many have barely worked. In essence, they should walk the line. There is some condescension in the idea that a working mother is great for the working class but somewhat declasse and appalling for the liberal elite.

You must live in a bubble ot think "a lot" of women are in that position. I don't know one.

I only joined the private school world this year (previously kid was in public) but I've lived in upper NW since my kids were born (10 years) and it's the norm for SAHM to have close to full-time help if not 40+ hours a week. Plus preschool hours. It surprised me when I first had kids but almost everyone who stays at home in NW/Chevy Chase/close-in Bethesda has a sitter/nanny for close to full time hours or more. No one is driving their own kids around to everything

No one with their kids in private maybe.

Anonymous wrote:

How silly. True feminism is when women have the CHOICE to work or not work and can choose what is best for them without feeling societal pressures one way or the other. Get with the times. I have done both and now choose not to work and I am liberal and educated.

+1000. Feminism is about giving women the choice to do what they want with their lives. There's a significant difference between telling a woman she must stay at home versus pursue a career and allowing her to make the choice as she sees fit.

Anonymous wrote:I would agree with the 65/35 split. The Republican presence just feels more prominent because in so many other schools in this area the split is more like 90/10. Frankly, there's a real opportunity for STA to put on programs that model civil dialogue on sensitive issues for the entire community and beyond. The kids actually get some of those opportunities in the classroom, government club, etc. As for the moms, I know as many working moms as SAHMs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How silly. True feminism is when women have the CHOICE to work or not work and can choose what is best for them without feeling societal pressures one way or the other. Get with the times. I have done both and now choose not to work and I am liberal and educated.

+1000. Feminism is about giving women the choice to do what they want with their lives. There's a significant difference between telling a woman she must stay at home versus pursue a career and allowing her to make the choice as she sees fit.

No, it's not.

https://femmagazine.com/feminism-101-what-is-choice-feminism/

Additionally, it’s important to note that even if this form of the feminist movement was more inclusive, it still misidentifies the most central goal of the movement itself. The choice rhetoric only serves to distract from pursuing equality and justifies internalized misogyny. Just because there is not a singular, unified vision of what equality is, does not mean it should be rebranded as the ability to choose between mundane activities within a given power structure.

It’s this hyperfixation on the choices of individual women that derails choice feminism from the entirety of the movement. Feminism is first and foremost about gender equality, so how can this ideology really fit, if it misses the main point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should ever judge the choices made by others. Some women have fulfilling jobs that they enjoy. Others think they want to be there 24/7 for their kids when they are young. Neither is wrong. Being a stay-at-home mom doesn’t mean you are playing tennis at the club all day—mostly it means spending time with your kids, driving them around to enrichment classes, taking them to the park, wiping poopy butts, etc. Maybe that’s your thing and maybe it isn’t. Maybe you feel like a nanny could do that just as well, and maybe you don’t. To spread broad generalizations about laziness vs greed is just wrong.

Maybe when the kids are young but a lot of stay home moms with means have full time help and don't spend that much time with their kids. Their full time job is in fact social climbing. And yes, feminism is having the choice to pursue ones life goals but there is some hypocrisy in liberal moms espousing equality in the work force when many have barely worked. In essence, they should walk the line. There is some condescension in the idea that a working mother is great for the working class but somewhat declasse and appalling for the liberal elite.

You must live in a bubble ot think "a lot" of women are in that position. I don't know one.

I only joined the private school world this year (previously kid was in public) but I've lived in upper NW since my kids were born (10 years) and it's the norm for SAHM to have close to full-time help if not 40+ hours a week. Plus preschool hours. It surprised me when I first had kids but almost everyone who stays at home in NW/Chevy Chase/close-in Bethesda has a sitter/nanny for close to full time hours or more. No one is driving their own kids around to everything

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of St. Albans mom work? It seems like once women hit their mid-30's at all the area private schools. many choose to stay home. That's always surprising to me considering how many extremely well educated and liberal moms are at these schools.

Well your premise is in incorrect. St. Albans is not mostly liberal moms. It is mostly republicans in my two sons grades. The administration and Cathedral may be more liberal leaning but the current parents and boys are not. NCS, Sidwell, Holton, and GDS are where you will find more liberal moms.

This may be your experience, and I have no doubt you are relaying your experience, but it is not my experience nor my son's. We have found that there is a small, albeit vocal, minority of hard-core Republicans, and within that some Trump supporters as well as some never-Trumpers. These families often live in NoVA. Overall, however, here are far more moderate and liberal-leaning boys and families (often socially liberal but fiscally conservative). I would agree that there are few hard-core liberals at STA but the majority of families are liberal-leaning moderates. I also do agree there are more girls at NCS who are truly liberal.

If your son is in the upper school, suggest he join Gov Club. Gov Club is co-ed and gives the best snap-shot into the political disposition of the Close high school students as it requires the kids (so both STA and NCS here) declare their political affiliation. I can tell you that the liberal, Democrats camp is always much larger than the conservative group, and its not just NCS girls. There have even been instances when the "Republican/conservative group" has had to ask some "independents" (or kids who move back and forth based on issues) to stand with them to even out numbers for various exercises.

Too often people presume that the Cathedral schools have a majority of conservative families based only on appearances. This is not a good way to judge anyone's political affiliation. In Washington at least, preppy does not equal conservative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should ever judge the choices made by others. Some women have fulfilling jobs that they enjoy. Others think they want to be there 24/7 for their kids when they are young. Neither is wrong. Being a stay-at-home mom doesn’t mean you are playing tennis at the club all day—mostly it means spending time with your kids, driving them around to enrichment classes, taking them to the park, wiping poopy butts, etc. Maybe that’s your thing and maybe it isn’t. Maybe you feel like a nanny could do that just as well, and maybe you don’t. To spread broad generalizations about laziness vs greed is just wrong.

Maybe when the kids are young but a lot of stay home moms with means have full time help and don't spend that much time with their kids. Their full time job is in fact social climbing. And yes, feminism is having the choice to pursue ones life goals but there is some hypocrisy in liberal moms espousing equality in the work force when many have barely worked. In essence, they should walk the line. There is some condescension in the idea that a working mother is great for the working class but somewhat declasse and appalling for the liberal elite.

You must live in a bubble ot think "a lot" of women are in that position. I don't know one.

I only joined the private school world this year (previously kid was in public) but I've lived in upper NW since my kids were born (10 years) and it's the norm for SAHM to have close to full-time help if not 40+ hours a week. Plus preschool hours. It surprised me when I first had kids but almost everyone who stays at home in NW/Chevy Chase/close-in Bethesda has a sitter/nanny for close to full time hours or more. No one is driving their own kids around to everything

This is not at all true of our close-in McLean neighborhood. Families in both public and private, and we know very few SAHMs with nannies. They are very involved in their children’s activities, from volunteering in the classroom to running scout troops to chauffeuring their kids around. Is it really that different in Bethesda??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How silly. True feminism is when women have the CHOICE to work or not work and can choose what is best for them without feeling societal pressures one way or the other. Get with the times. I have done both and now choose not to work and I am liberal and educated.

+1000. Feminism is about giving women the choice to do what they want with their lives. There's a significant difference between telling a woman she must stay at home versus pursue a career and allowing her to make the choice as she sees fit.

No, it's not.

https://femmagazine.com/feminism-101-what-is-choice-feminism/

Additionally, it’s important to note that even if this form of the feminist movement was more inclusive, it still misidentifies the most central goal of the movement itself. The choice rhetoric only serves to distract from pursuing equality and justifies internalized misogyny. Just because there is not a singular, unified vision of what equality is, does not mean it should be rebranded as the ability to choose between mundane activities within a given power structure.

It’s this hyperfixation on the choices of individual women that derails choice feminism from the entirety of the movement. Feminism is first and foremost about gender equality, so how can this ideology really fit, if it misses the main point?

Oh take this nonsense elsewhere. I don’t think anyone cares what you think about whether they work or don’t work. I’m a liberal but if you want to say I’m not a liberal or feminist because I don’t work go ahead. I made a lot of money in the stock market in my 20s and 30s which allows me to not work and because I made a lot of money I’m also independent financially which technically makes me the “breadwinner” of the house even though I don’t report to an office. Take your nonsense elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should ever judge the choices made by others. Some women have fulfilling jobs that they enjoy. Others think they want to be there 24/7 for their kids when they are young. Neither is wrong. Being a stay-at-home mom doesn’t mean you are playing tennis at the club all day—mostly it means spending time with your kids, driving them around to enrichment classes, taking them to the park, wiping poopy butts, etc. Maybe that’s your thing and maybe it isn’t. Maybe you feel like a nanny could do that just as well, and maybe you don’t. To spread broad generalizations about laziness vs greed is just wrong.

Maybe when the kids are young but a lot of stay home moms with means have full time help and don't spend that much time with their kids. Their full time job is in fact social climbing. And yes, feminism is having the choice to pursue ones life goals but there is some hypocrisy in liberal moms espousing equality in the work force when many have barely worked. In essence, they should walk the line. There is some condescension in the idea that a working mother is great for the working class but somewhat declasse and appalling for the liberal elite.

You must live in a bubble ot think "a lot" of women are in that position. I don't know one.

I only joined the private school world this year (previously kid was in public) but I've lived in upper NW since my kids were born (10 years) and it's the norm for SAHM to have close to full-time help if not 40+ hours a week. Plus preschool hours. It surprised me when I first had kids but almost everyone who stays at home in NW/Chevy Chase/close-in Bethesda has a sitter/nanny for close to full time hours or more. No one is driving their own kids around to everything

This is not at all true of our close-in McLean neighborhood. Families in both public and private, and we know very few SAHMs with nannies. They are very involved in their children’s activities, from volunteering in the classroom to running scout troops to chauffeuring their kids around. Is it really that different in Bethesda??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should ever judge the choices made by others. Some women have fulfilling jobs that they enjoy. Others think they want to be there 24/7 for their kids when they are young. Neither is wrong. Being a stay-at-home mom doesn’t mean you are playing tennis at the club all day—mostly it means spending time with your kids, driving them around to enrichment classes, taking them to the park, wiping poopy butts, etc. Maybe that’s your thing and maybe it isn’t. Maybe you feel like a nanny could do that just as well, and maybe you don’t. To spread broad generalizations about laziness vs greed is just wrong.

Maybe when the kids are young but a lot of stay home moms with means have full time help and don't spend that much time with their kids. Their full time job is in fact social climbing. And yes, feminism is having the choice to pursue ones life goals but there is some hypocrisy in liberal moms espousing equality in the work force when many have barely worked. In essence, they should walk the line. There is some condescension in the idea that a working mother is great for the working class but somewhat declasse and appalling for the liberal elite.

You must live in a bubble ot think "a lot" of women are in that position. I don't know one.

I only joined the private school world this year (previously kid was in public) but I've lived in upper NW since my kids were born (10 years) and it's the norm for SAHM to have close to full-time help if not 40+ hours a week. Plus preschool hours. It surprised me when I first had kids but almost everyone who stays at home in NW/Chevy Chase/close-in Bethesda has a sitter/nanny for close to full time hours or more. No one is driving their own kids around to everything

This is not at all true of our close-in McLean neighborhood. Families in both public and private, and we know very few SAHMs with nannies. They are very involved in their children’s activities, from volunteering in the classroom to running scout troops to chauffeuring their kids around. Is it really that different in Bethesda??

I don't know but I'm not making this up. I moved to upper NW (as a SAHM) from elsewhere in the US and I felt like a fish out of water because I didn't have close to full time help--these were moms I met in a variety of different circles: preschool, church, sports, neighborhood, playgroups, exercise classes. They all had a ton of help. I got tired of hearing from everyone "you're so amazing for doing it by yourself". For the record, I "did it by myself" because we couldn't afford help outside of an occasional sitter. I ended up going back to work after a few years.