Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note: you are completely dependent on your husband when you are a SAHM. That's a fact. But the assumptions people make about wohms are rarely grounded in fact. You have no way of knowing how many hours I work, if I telecommute, if I leave at 6am and get home by 3:30, etc. See?

Fact. Not when you are an independently wealthy woman.

See?

If you are an independently wealthy woman, then you inherited money from mom and dad...way to go! That's awesome...and I'm totally jealous...but you are an outlier. You know that, right? The whole 1 percent thing should give you a clue that your situation isn't the norm.

But WOHMs are like snowflakes...each with her own story.

Candidly, if I were independently wealthy I'd probably still work...especially if I had daughters.

Me too. I don't understand staying home all day, going to yoga, going to whole foods, gossiping, shopping and taking naps.

If I had a trust fund, I'd still work but it wouldn't necessarily be at Delloite. I'd work in a charity for a cause I care about.

You're not describing the life of anyone with kids. Especially little kids.

You don't have moms groups in your area? The SAHMs most certainly do hit the gym everyday or run with friends (pushing strollers). They live in yoga clothes. They meet up at panera or Starbucks. They pay someone else to clean their home. Once they get their youngest into K, they have six hours of free time every day. It sounds amazing!

I'm curious - why does that bother you? Also, my kids have always loved getting out during the day with me and/or our friends to go on a run, meet up for playdates, the library, the park, and then then lunch at yes, Panera or Starbucks. What could be more fun? Sitting in daycare all day? Uh, no.

Anonymous wrote:Which is it OP? Are women so oppressed or are you all doing model UN and in Med school flexing your intellectual muscles?

Why not admit you are just trolling for no reason? The immigrant slant was a nice twist but really it's just another boring SAHM slam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

It isn't really about whether you have money or not. Many Pakistani-Americans I know, who come from wealthy families back home, are eager to work. They don't need the money. For them, it is a matter of pride. They go to excellent schools and are ambitious. They're the women with the highest GPAs, do Model UN, are leads in the school play, go to Ivy Leagues, write OP Eds for and think pieces in publications of their choice etc. They also tend to marry well, because their parents arrange their matches, but the women still go on to dental school or medical school and become extremely successful. To them, it is low class to not have any ambition or want to better yourself intellectually or professionally. We work, not necessarily for the money but also because as a thinking living human being,it is necessarily to flex our intellectual muscles.

And to me it's low class to not do those things first, then farm out your own children to others less educated than you and your husband during early childhood. Class has many definitions depending on how you were raised. See? The world is amazing and so diverse! Celebrate that, OP!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note: you are completely dependent on your husband when you are a SAHM. That's a fact. But the assumptions people make about wohms are rarely grounded in fact. You have no way of knowing how many hours I work, if I telecommute, if I leave at 6am and get home by 3:30, etc. See?

Fact. Not when you are an independently wealthy woman.

See?

If you are an independently wealthy woman, then you inherited money from mom and dad...way to go! That's awesome...and I'm totally jealous...but you are an outlier. You know that, right? The whole 1 percent thing should give you a clue that your situation isn't the norm.

But WOHMs are like snowflakes...each with her own story.

Candidly, if I were independently wealthy I'd probably still work...especially if I had daughters.

Me too. I don't understand staying home all day, going to yoga, going to whole foods, gossiping, shopping and taking naps.

If I had a trust fund, I'd still work but it wouldn't necessarily be at Delloite. I'd work in a charity for a cause I care about.

You're not describing the life of anyone with kids. Especially little kids.

You don't have moms groups in your area? The SAHMs most certainly do hit the gym everyday or run with friends (pushing strollers). They live in yoga clothes. They meet up at panera or Starbucks. They pay someone else to clean their home. Once they get their youngest into K, they have six hours of free time every day. It sounds amazing!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a trust fund and a great pre nup protecting my pre marital assets. I made the choice to have three children and stay at home, I won't return to full time work.

Most of my friends have chosen to SAH, and are happy with their choice. it's having the choice that made them feel grateful.

So you are not contributing at all to society, just living off the hard work of your ancestors. Bully for you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a trust fund and a great pre nup protecting my pre marital assets. I made the choice to have three children and stay at home, I won't return to full time work.

Most of my friends have chosen to SAH, and are happy with their choice. it's having the choice that made them feel grateful.

So you are not contributing at all to society, just living off the hard work of your ancestors. Bully for you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note: you are completely dependent on your husband when you are a SAHM. That's a fact. But the assumptions people make about wohms are rarely grounded in fact. You have no way of knowing how many hours I work, if I telecommute, if I leave at 6am and get home by 3:30, etc. See?

Fact. Not when you are an independently wealthy woman.

See?

Or when you call yourself a SAHM but really do a few freelance projects a year to keep a hand in your career. That's what I did for 6 years, regularly turned down job offers and quickly had a FT job when I wanted it. Yes, DH brought in 99% of the income those years but he was dependent on me to care for our children (which is why SAHMs should have life insurance too). Dependency goes both ways in a marriage, as it should. We both work now but we also both depend on each other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No wonder young American men don't want to marry. All it is is an induction into indentured servitude so wifey has a "choice" in whether to work or not. I have never met a SAHM who wasn't outraged at the suggestion she get a job when her husband got laid off.

That's ludicrous. How many SAHM's with laid-off husbands are you talking to? My DH faced a health scare a few years ago that would have forced him to leave his job. I was glad that I'm educated and have work experience and knew I could find something to keep us going if it came to that. We're a team, someone needs to work, someone needs to look after the kids. We do what we have to do.

I know two SAHMs that "accidentally" got pregnant when their youngest children were 8 and 10-years old because the husbands demanded they get a job. Neither had a job their entire lives, but some nonsense got a year or so before they started popping out kids. They have effectively never worked. It's really strange to me.

Yep. I know a SAHM who, after realizing she did not want to go back to work, adopted a tiny puppy and now talks about how he is her "baby" and she takes him to doggy daycare.

Anonymous wrote:Note: you are completely dependent on your husband when you are a SAHM. That's a fact. But the assumptions people make about wohms are rarely grounded in fact. You have no way of knowing how many hours I work, if I telecommute, if I leave at 6am and get home by 3:30, etc. See?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No wonder young American men don't want to marry. All it is is an induction into indentured servitude so wifey has a "choice" in whether to work or not. I have never met a SAHM who wasn't outraged at the suggestion she get a job when her husband got laid off.

That's ludicrous. How many SAHM's with laid-off husbands are you talking to? My DH faced a health scare a few years ago that would have forced him to leave his job. I was glad that I'm educated and have work experience and knew I could find something to keep us going if it came to that. We're a team, someone needs to work, someone needs to look after the kids. We do what we have to do.

I know two SAHMs that "accidentally" got pregnant when their youngest children were 8 and 10-years old because the husbands demanded they get a job. Neither had a job their entire lives, but some nonsense got a year or so before they started popping out kids. They have effectively never worked. It's really strange to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad I grew up in India. Women grossly outnumber men as engineers, scientists, doctors, army, pilots... you name it! Girls are rarely restricted to home and hearth unless it is their personal choice. Surprised to hear this about Pakistan.

I know. It's like saying Indians kill their baby girls, burn brides for dowries, assault them on streets, gang rape them on buses, force widows to commit satee. Oh wait . .

What century are you posting from?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool story, bro!

Of course, if you married a doctor, lawyer, or some other kind of busy professional who can't/won't help with the house and kids, then you just might choose to quit the rat race and stay home with the kids...and then you'd likely hire a nanny and housekeeper...just like lots of other American mommies in DCUMLandia. There's no shame in it.

Personally, I'd rather cut off my arm than be a SAHM completely dependent on my husband. But if a lady wants to be a SAHM, that's no skin off my nose.

And I'd rather have my eyes poked out than be a WOHM trying to carve out an hour a day for her kids. But if a lady wants to be a WOHM, that's no skin off my nose.

I bet I spend more time with my kids than you do. I'm home by 4pm everyday, and the kids are in school and on the bus until right around then.

My kids are proud of my career. They think it's cool when I go to meetings at the White House and love traveling with me when I speak at conferences.

Did you not read the post directly above mine? I was responding in kind to that PP. Some of you have great difficulty with irony.

I'm the poster you are quoting. Go read it again. I didn't say anything nasty about SAHMs...I just said I couldn't do it. Then YOU made the snarky comment about struggling to carve out an hour for the kids. Remember?

Like the old PSA: Reading is fundamental.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No wonder young American men don't want to marry. All it is is an induction into indentured servitude so wifey has a "choice" in whether to work or not. I have never met a SAHM who wasn't outraged at the suggestion she get a job when her husband got laid off.

That's ludicrous. How many SAHM's with laid-off husbands are you talking to? My DH faced a health scare a few years ago that would have forced him to leave his job. I was glad that I'm educated and have work experience and knew I could find something to keep us going if it came to that. We're a team, someone needs to work, someone needs to look after the kids. We do what we have to do.

I know two SAHMs that "accidentally" got pregnant when their youngest children were 8 and 10-years old because the husbands demanded they get a job. Neither had a job their entire lives, but some nonsense got a year or so before they started popping out kids. They have effectively never worked. It's really strange to me.

I sometimes wonder if they will encourage their daughters to do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm Pakistani but born in the US and OP, I think your characterization of Pakistan is really off. Medical schools in Pakistani and 1/2 women. Women work in all parts of Pakistan. I know of no woman there (cousins, friends) who is not doing exactly as she wishes - among my cousins, one has s Ph.D. In economics and works for the world bank, 2 doctors, 1 designer, 2 run micro loan charities... You seem to have only seen a sliver of Pakistani society.

I suggest you bring up such sweeping generalizations more thoughtfully on an anonymous board; if I didn't know better, I would think there were no working women in Pakistan.

OP here. I agree, but I was trying to demonstrate what a privilege it is to be able to work because many women in our society cannot and that is a fact. Of course there are women who do, and who come from families who foster that culture and I am part of such a family.

OP, Based on your own cultural bias think you're still still stubbornly missing the point about choice.

The problem in this kind of capitalist / work at all cost society is that the actual "privilege" of choice is becoming exactly that - a privilege for the select few who can afford the choice based on their financial standing. It's the flip side of what your experiences are - here, many women are shackled to working outside the home based on the financial need to do so, and their choice to stay home is no less a fantasy than the women you're describing from Pakistan. In addition, due to longstanding societal norms, despite working outside the home, in many homes, the burden of child rearing still falls predominantly as a "female role", so women are increasingly carrying both working outside and bearing most responsibility inside the home. Now, that's not in every case, but much like not ALL women in Pakistan are forced to stay home - the choice itself is simply not attainable for many families.