Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think being a stay at home mom is useless because you aren’t earning money and maybe not volunteering or doing much that is intellectual: what constitutes a “useful” life and why is that important? Can people with disabilities that prevent them from doing those things lead useful lives?

Exactly, and apparently nannies and daycare workers are "useless" as well, since they are doing the same thing as a SAHM, except for the pay.

No, it’s SAHMs of school-age kids who are pretty much useless. If you have young kids at home, that’s a lot of work. Often more work than an office job.

Well again, what makes us useless, and what implications does that have for the broader question of what constitutes a “useful” human being? How utilitarian do people want to get here? Because I don’t think this goes down a pretty path.

Frankly I think that so many women have been indoctrinated by capitalist theory, especially as articulated by second-wave feminism.

You’re completely right of course although it might be better to call it a stalled revolution. If we had quality part time job opportunities more moms of school aged kids would work.

That’s true. I hope things are getting better in terms of those things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think being a stay at home mom is useless because you aren’t earning money and maybe not volunteering or doing much that is intellectual: what constitutes a “useful” life and why is that important? Can people with disabilities that prevent them from doing those things lead useful lives?

Exactly, and apparently nannies and daycare workers are "useless" as well, since they are doing the same thing as a SAHM, except for the pay.

No, it’s SAHMs of school-age kids who are pretty much useless. If you have young kids at home, that’s a lot of work. Often more work than an office job.

Well again, what makes us useless, and what implications does that have for the broader question of what constitutes a “useful” human being? How utilitarian do people want to get here? Because I don’t think this goes down a pretty path.

Frankly I think that so many women have been indoctrinated by capitalist theory, especially as articulated by second-wave feminism.

Stop with the intellectualizing mumbo jumbo. You have a life of leisure and you know it, you like it that way, won’t change and hence you are and choose to be useless.

See, this is fascinating and just what I’m talking about! We have been lead to believe that too much leisure is bad. I do have a good amount of leisure time that I fill with intellectual pursuits (the horror!), working out, playing with my kids, teaching my kids, etc., and I don’t apologize for it. I’m grateful for it. I think everybody could stand to enjoy more leisure time (I especially like John Stewart Mill’s thoughts about the matter). I do a good amount of non-leisure activities like cleaning toilets and laundry and meal planning, and so one could say that I lead a useful life, but I refuse to believe that is what makes my life valuable, even if society decides that’s what they care about.

I am disabled and I can’t work a regular job so I imagine people want to give me a pass, but practically speaking what I do is no different than what lots of able-bodied SAHM moms do, and I am not more useful or valuable than they are.

Now there is the issue of living a rewarding life and when you are home with kids it is easier to slip into habits that don’t lead to a rewarding life. But that’s a different story than the idea of somebody being useless or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in this case that person was Barak Obama.

I just heard an interview with him on an NPR podcast, and he said something about how Michelle’s mom had stretches where she was “just” a SAHM, and too often it’s women who make that sacrifice when they really should be working.

I really like Obama, and I’m a feminist, but seriously?

Especially after Covid I’m just not convinced that I’m the one making a “sacrifice”. Maybe my DH is the one sacrificing family time in order to work? And he likes his job but it’s hardly a “calling”, and it sure as heck isn’t a hobby. As far as I can tell I chose to SAH, I wasn’t suckered into it. There are good things and bad things about SAH, and there are good things and bad things about working. I wish our policies encouraged women AND men to SAH for stretches (a year or two) with young kids, and facilitated that choice with family leave policies or tax breaks (while also facilitating affordable day care for parents who want to work).

Anyway. I’m happy with my choice 90% of the time but it’s sucks to hear someone I admire denigrate my choices.

Yeah and I wish single people were paid by the government to take a year off and discover what they want to do with their life.

Pay for your own years of SAHP.

This is the most nonsensical comment. What a ridiculous argument. Go back to bed.

NP. No, it's not. Why should people get paid to stay home for a year or two with kids? What about people who don't have kids? What do they get?

Nothing. Know why? They’re not helping to raise the next generation who will support the millennials in their old age.

Yes and no.

I'm a nanny, homeschool educator and tutor. I am helping raise the next generation, and I directly influence more children than a SAHP.

However, I don't have any children of my own. I don't need time off. I don't want time off (my choice, but there it is). Moreover, if I had time off, it would not be in furtherance of increasing the population or caring for a child. That is the key here. We need to give time off in recognition that we need to keep a stable or increasing population, because societies with negative population growth for too long die.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think being a stay at home mom is useless because you aren’t earning money and maybe not volunteering or doing much that is intellectual: what constitutes a “useful” life and why is that important? Can people with disabilities that prevent them from doing those things lead useful lives?

Exactly, and apparently nannies and daycare workers are "useless" as well, since they are doing the same thing as a SAHM, except for the pay.

No, it’s SAHMs of school-age kids who are pretty much useless. If you have young kids at home, that’s a lot of work. Often more work than an office job.

Well again, what makes us useless, and what implications does that have for the broader question of what constitutes a “useful” human being? How utilitarian do people want to get here? Because I don’t think this goes down a pretty path.

Frankly I think that so many women have been indoctrinated by capitalist theory, especially as articulated by second-wave feminism.

You’re completely right of course although it might be better to call it a stalled revolution. If we had quality part time job opportunities more moms of school aged kids would work.

Anonymous wrote:

No, it’s SAHMs of school-age kids who are pretty much useless. If you have young kids at home, that’s a lot of work. Often more work than an office job.

I do think this is a key distinction. The desire to stay home with young children (esp 0-3) is a different thing from staying home with your kids til they're 18.

And in some ways, yes, I think someone who is content to vacuum or sit around reading/whatever all day while their kids are at school is maybe a little lazy.

However, I am not sure how many SAHM's of school age children literally do nothing all day. I've never met a person like this. I've met ones who are really involved in school, or have spotless houses, or hobbies, or they volunteer. OR they might do part-time work from home and you don't know it. I do 8-10 hrs of freelance work during my kids' naptimes, and I really don't tell anybody about it because it never comes up. I'm sure people think I just sit around during naptimes.

Also, would you say this same thing about someone who retires at 55? Those people are often admired/envied, even though they do even less than SAHM's of school age children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think being a stay at home mom is useless because you aren’t earning money and maybe not volunteering or doing much that is intellectual: what constitutes a “useful” life and why is that important? Can people with disabilities that prevent them from doing those things lead useful lives?

Exactly, and apparently nannies and daycare workers are "useless" as well, since they are doing the same thing as a SAHM, except for the pay.

No, it’s SAHMs of school-age kids who are pretty much useless. If you have young kids at home, that’s a lot of work. Often more work than an office job.

Well again, what makes us useless, and what implications does that have for the broader question of what constitutes a “useful” human being? How utilitarian do people want to get here? Because I don’t think this goes down a pretty path.

Frankly I think that so many women have been indoctrinated by capitalist theory, especially as articulated by second-wave feminism.

Stop with the intellectualizing mumbo jumbo. You have a life of leisure and you know it, you like it that way, won’t change and hence you are and choose to be useless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think being a stay at home mom is useless because you aren’t earning money and maybe not volunteering or doing much that is intellectual: what constitutes a “useful” life and why is that important? Can people with disabilities that prevent them from doing those things lead useful lives?

Exactly, and apparently nannies and daycare workers are "useless" as well, since they are doing the same thing as a SAHM, except for the pay.

No, it’s SAHMs of school-age kids who are pretty much useless. If you have young kids at home, that’s a lot of work. Often more work than an office job.

Well again, what makes us useless, and what implications does that have for the broader question of what constitutes a “useful” human being? How utilitarian do people want to get here? Because I don’t think this goes down a pretty path.

Frankly I think that so many women have been indoctrinated by capitalist theory, especially as articulated by second-wave feminism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think being a stay at home mom is useless because you aren’t earning money and maybe not volunteering or doing much that is intellectual: what constitutes a “useful” life and why is that important? Can people with disabilities that prevent them from doing those things lead useful lives?

Exactly, and apparently nannies and daycare workers are "useless" as well, since they are doing the same thing as a SAHM, except for the pay.

No, it’s SAHMs of school-age kids who are pretty much useless. If you have young kids at home, that’s a lot of work. Often more work than an office job.

Anonymous wrote:I would never ever say this IRL but... I just think SAHMs are kind of dumb and useless . Like all they can talk about is their children. And most of them, even the ones with kids in school, don’t do anything for the community. They’re pretty lazy TBH. I dunno, if you enjoy the life, great. It seems like kind of a waste though

You could say every single part of this about most working people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think being a stay at home mom is useless because you aren’t earning money and maybe not volunteering or doing much that is intellectual: what constitutes a “useful” life and why is that important? Can people with disabilities that prevent them from doing those things lead useful lives?

Exactly, and apparently nannies and daycare workers are "useless" as well, since they are doing the same thing as a SAHM, except for the pay.

Right. It’s clearly work. I pay for my child to attend preschool so I can work at my job teaching high school. Why do I make a decent salary that’s more than twice what they make? Why is that work worth pay if it’s done in a daycare but not by a parent at home? It’s clearly work.

I would love to teach very part time but we need my salary. Our corporate overlords have us trained very well.

Some of you should add Bullshit Jobs to your reading list. Raising children is not a bullshit job, yet it pays nothing if done by the parent? Yet the corporate litigators take it in objectively making the world worse.

Capitalism sits a helluva drug.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think being a stay at home mom is useless because you aren’t earning money and maybe not volunteering or doing much that is intellectual: what constitutes a “useful” life and why is that important? Can people with disabilities that prevent them from doing those things lead useful lives?

Exactly, and apparently nannies and daycare workers are "useless" as well, since they are doing the same thing as a SAHM, except for the pay.

All these women have internalized the idea that childcare, housework, and family organization are inherently unimportant. They are apparently not intellectual enough to understand that these jobs are devalued because they are traditionally viewed as the the work of women and the poor. They are devalued because they are hard, and rich white aristocrats didn’t want to do hard work, so they made women do it, or enslaved people to do it, or conscripted immigrants into indentured servitude to do it.

People who clean and care for children all day are lazy? Read a book, ok?

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you. It bothers me because the talk around universal preK is really a push to not tackle the real issue: most families cannot afford to live without two working parents. I wish they'd tackle housing costs, college costs, wages, etc. that would allow people to make the best decision for their family, whether that's working or staying home.

I disagree. The best choice for preschool is the choice that gives the child the best in terms of socialization, education and family relationship. For some children, they will thrive more at home with a parent or nanny. For others, they need a preschool environment (due to better education and/or socialization). A parent who is not concerned about teaching their child any letters or numbers is handicapping them.

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think being a stay at home mom is useless because you aren’t earning money and maybe not volunteering or doing much that is intellectual: what constitutes a “useful” life and why is that important? Can people with disabilities that prevent them from doing those things lead useful lives?

Exactly, and apparently nannies and daycare workers are "useless" as well, since they are doing the same thing as a SAHM, except for the pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just hope you never get divorced.

Or widowed early without really good life insurance.

Women who mommy track or sahm often get really screwed by divorce.

Watch out a bunch of women are about to tell you:

1. I'm SUPER RICH and NEVER needed to work!

or

2. DH is SUPER RICH and I'll be fine with 50%!

or

3. We have a PRENUP that says I get EVERYTHING.

or

4. DH PROMISED that I'll be SUPER RICH if we divorce or if he dies!


Any woman who has been left holding the bag is a dumb dumb. The majority of women are less well off after divorce or death, but I'M DIFFERENT.

LOL this so accurately captures the SAHMs with high earner husbands on this board.

Lots of people just need to get a post-nuptial agreement.