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!

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel a lot of ambivalence towards SAH moms, because it's always SAH moms and not SAH parents. It's totally fine if one parent wants to step back from their career and focus on the family (and is often very good for the family!), but there is still a lot of social pressure for women to step into that role that men to not receive. When I got married in my mid 20s, I heard questions about whether I was going to step back when we had kids, whether I was going to take a lower prestige/lower pressure job so my husband could focus on his career and I could the raise kids, etc. Why didn't anyone ask my husband whether he was going to step back his career ambitions to start a family years before kids were even in the picture?

Until it's seen as an equally acceptable/normal path for men (and men decide to SAH in equal numbers), it will always be a choice that is colored by gender politics. Even if it's the best choice for your family, it still is a choice that was influenced by societal norms that women have been trying to crack for decades.

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

Sure, but by having another family structure (having a SAH dad, or having both parents work and raise kids as equal partners) you are making a conscious choice that it doesn't have to be this way. I'm not saying it's wrong to be a SAH mom--I'm only saying it's a choice I feel ambivalence about. It models a set of norms for your kids--how does your daughter internalize that her career will be equally important in the future if you made the choice to step down from yours? There are all kinds of situations that make not having a parent SAH unfeasible (for example children with special needs or medical problems), or make having a SAH parent unfeasible (when both parents are absolutely required to work to make ends meet). But for most of the privileged situations on this board, it's a choice to not model an equal marriage.

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?

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?

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.

I'm one of those middle of the pack working moms and sure I experience that, definitely. Some of these ladies rule me out as a social contact because I am unlike them, or of no use to them in networking. They don't ask, but I am achieving my financial goals and preserving my time for my other priorities. Some of them have even told me so straight out and expect me to receive that information humbly. Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel a lot of ambivalence towards SAH moms, because it's always SAH moms and not SAH parents. It's totally fine if one parent wants to step back from their career and focus on the family (and is often very good for the family!), but there is still a lot of social pressure for women to step into that role that men to not receive. When I got married in my mid 20s, I heard questions about whether I was going to step back when we had kids, whether I was going to take a lower prestige/lower pressure job so my husband could focus on his career and I could the raise kids, etc. Why didn't anyone ask my husband whether he was going to step back his career ambitions to start a family years before kids were even in the picture?

Until it's seen as an equally acceptable/normal path for men (and men decide to SAH in equal numbers), it will always be a choice that is colored by gender politics. Even if it's the best choice for your family, it still is a choice that was influenced by societal norms that women have been trying to crack for decades.

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

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

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

+ 1

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

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

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

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

And here it is...the bullshit of the wealthy SAHM...putting down working moms for not "spending time with their children". And that is the real reason that WOH moms get sick of listening to SAHMs. Get your head out of your 1950s ass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel a lot of ambivalence towards SAH moms, because it's always SAH moms and not SAH parents. It's totally fine if one parent wants to step back from their career and focus on the family (and is often very good for the family!), but there is still a lot of social pressure for women to step into that role that men to not receive. When I got married in my mid 20s, I heard questions about whether I was going to step back when we had kids, whether I was going to take a lower prestige/lower pressure job so my husband could focus on his career and I could the raise kids, etc. Why didn't anyone ask my husband whether he was going to step back his career ambitions to start a family years before kids were even in the picture?

Until it's seen as an equally acceptable/normal path for men (and men decide to SAH in equal numbers), it will always be a choice that is colored by gender politics. Even if it's the best choice for your family, it still is a choice that was influenced by societal norms that women have been trying to crack for decades.

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

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

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

+ 1

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

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

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

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

And here it is...the bullshit of the wealthy SAHM...putting down working moms for not "spending time with their children". And that is the real reason that WOH moms get sick of listening to SAHMs. Get your head out of your 1950s ass.

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.

I know a few men who have taken time off of work for 2-10 years to be with their kids. Or went very part-time. Mostly to be supportive when their wives were making a big career move. They seemed to be semi-retired or making a career transition (starting new business, changing careers, volunteering/boards). Well, one guy seems to just travel a lot. I don't think any of them feel they are wasting anything. Just like the accomplished SAHMs I know.

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?

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel a lot of ambivalence towards SAH moms, because it's always SAH moms and not SAH parents. It's totally fine if one parent wants to step back from their career and focus on the family (and is often very good for the family!), but there is still a lot of social pressure for women to step into that role that men to not receive. When I got married in my mid 20s, I heard questions about whether I was going to step back when we had kids, whether I was going to take a lower prestige/lower pressure job so my husband could focus on his career and I could the raise kids, etc. Why didn't anyone ask my husband whether he was going to step back his career ambitions to start a family years before kids were even in the picture?

Until it's seen as an equally acceptable/normal path for men (and men decide to SAH in equal numbers), it will always be a choice that is colored by gender politics. Even if it's the best choice for your family, it still is a choice that was influenced by societal norms that women have been trying to crack for decades.

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

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

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

+ 1

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.