Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you consider taking casual work or volunteering? A nice example of the former is working a few hours a week (usually weekend afternoons) as a sign-spinner. You stand in front of a retail location, normally on a busy thoroughfare and spin a large rectangular sign in elaborate, fast-moving ways. This type of marketing is very popular with mattress retailers, as merely one example. It's also a great workout and fun way to interact with the community

I took the trouble of extending this idea and would appreciate a response.

I'm a SAHM who does not need to work for money. I think in such a case (not needing money), it is better that such jobs are left for people who need to earn money to meet their needs. It could be college students who are putting themselves through school (cause parents are not able to afford their college), or retirees (some people did not earn enough or save enough to retire comfortably), WOH people (cause they need to work), people without insurance who have faced a catastrophic loss monetarily, or even new immigrants to this country.

Would you encourage your daughters to work? If not are you encouraging their education? Serious question.

Honestly, if only those who HAD to work for money did, our society (that you reap the benefits of) would be in a very different place.

Anonymous wrote:What woman who doesn’t need money would want to work as a sign spinner? Seriously? I don’t think people who desperately need money want to work that job.

But to answer the question, no, it wouldn’t work for me. Chances are, they would want me to work hours that would require me to find childcare. It’s easy to think you can tell a place “I can only work 8-3 and never on weekends or holidays”, but so does everyone else. Just because I have kids doesn’t make me special. Someone has to work 3-dusk, why shouldn’t it be me? And I’m not working minimum wage just so I can say I have a job to please you, when it means the money I make will go to a daycare or sitter? What’s the point?

Anonymous wrote:I would just say that people work for money and I’m doing great in that area. My time is too valuable to be spent working .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you consider taking casual work or volunteering? A nice example of the former is working a few hours a week (usually weekend afternoons) as a sign-spinner. You stand in front of a retail location, normally on a busy thoroughfare and spin a large rectangular sign in elaborate, fast-moving ways. This type of marketing is very popular with mattress retailers, as merely one example. It's also a great workout and fun way to interact with the community

I took the trouble of extending this idea and would appreciate a response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you consider taking casual work or volunteering? A nice example of the former is working a few hours a week (usually weekend afternoons) as a sign-spinner. You stand in front of a retail location, normally on a busy thoroughfare and spin a large rectangular sign in elaborate, fast-moving ways. This type of marketing is very popular with mattress retailers, as merely one example. It's also a great workout and fun way to interact with the community

I took the trouble of extending this idea and would appreciate a response.

Here is a response:

Women volunteering is essentially WORKING FOR FREE and enables the patriarchy. Women should be paid for their labor just like men. Most of the volunteers you see at museums, schools, etc are women because men will rarely work for free.

A nice example of the former is working a few hours a week (usually weekend afternoons) as a sign-spinner. You stand in front of a retail location, normally on a busy thoroughfare and spin a large rectangular sign in elaborate, fast-moving ways. This type of marketing is very popular with mattress retailers, as merely one example. It's also a great workout and fun way to interact with the community

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you consider taking casual work or volunteering? A nice example of the former is working a few hours a week (usually weekend afternoons) as a sign-spinner. You stand in front of a retail location, normally on a busy thoroughfare and spin a large rectangular sign in elaborate, fast-moving ways. This type of marketing is very popular with mattress retailers, as merely one example. It's also a great workout and fun way to interact with the community

I took the trouble of extending this idea and would appreciate a response.

I'm a SAHM who does not need to work for money. I think in such a case (not needing money), it is better that such jobs are left for people who need to earn money to meet their needs. It could be college students who are putting themselves through school (cause parents are not able to afford their college), or retirees (some people did not earn enough or save enough to retire comfortably), WOH people (cause they need to work), people without insurance who have faced a catastrophic loss monetarily, or even new immigrants to this country.

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say it to your face but I agree with her.
- Independently wealthy and working in a meaningful job

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you consider taking casual work or volunteering? A nice example of the former is working a few hours a week (usually weekend afternoons) as a sign-spinner. You stand in front of a retail location, normally on a busy thoroughfare and spin a large rectangular sign in elaborate, fast-moving ways. This type of marketing is very popular with mattress retailers, as merely one example. It's also a great workout and fun way to interact with the community

I took the trouble of extending this idea and would appreciate a response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you consider taking casual work or volunteering? A nice example of the former is working a few hours a week (usually weekend afternoons) as a sign-spinner. You stand in front of a retail location, normally on a busy thoroughfare and spin a large rectangular sign in elaborate, fast-moving ways. This type of marketing is very popular with mattress retailers, as merely one example. It's also a great workout and fun way to interact with the community

I took the trouble of extending this idea and would appreciate a response.

Anonymous wrote:Would you consider taking casual work or volunteering? A nice example of the former is working a few hours a week (usually weekend afternoons) as a sign-spinner. You stand in front of a retail location, normally on a busy thoroughfare and spin a large rectangular sign in elaborate, fast-moving ways. This type of marketing is very popular with mattress retailers, as merely one example. It's also a great workout and fun way to interact with the community

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s envious. End of story.

definitely this.

So what would you say about women who have plenty of personal money and choose to work? And also have wonderful relationships with their children?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s envious. End of story.

definitely this.

So what would you say about women who have plenty of personal money and choose to work? And also have wonderful relationships with their children?

They are liars or their children are very young. No one always has wonderful relationships with their children, no matter what their working status.

So in your opinion why donstay at home moms claim they have better relationships with / “are doing it for” their children, despite research showing no effect on kids?

Because they probably do have better relationships. There is a long way between “better” and “wonderful.”

And every study that I have ever seen shows that when families are in the situation described above (stable marriage with plenty of money), that the kids are better off with stay at home mothers.

There aren't any large, peer-reviewed studies that say that. I am familiar with the academic work that is considered accepted, valid research, and there aren't any that say the bolded.

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-6-915.pdf

You have now seen this meta analysis. You’re welcome.

Uh, that doesn't say what you think it does. Do you understand academic work?

I am not great at statistics, but I can read a discussion.

"By and large, moderator analyses indicated that early maternal employment was associated with beneficial child outcomes when families were at risk socioeconomically, particularly in the context of families with single parents and on welfare; these findings support the compensatory hypothesis of employment for these families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003). In contrast, other analyses indicated that employment was associated with negative child outcomes when families were not at risk financially (i.e., when families were middle or upper-middle class); these findings support the lost resources hypothesis for these types of families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003)."

"The results of this meta-analysis suggest that early maternal employment in sole-provider families may bolster children’s achievement and buffer against problem behaviors, perhaps because of the added financial security and health benefits that accompany employment, as well as improved food, clothing, and shelter because of increased income and the psychological importance of having a role model for achievement and responsible behavior. In contrast, early maternal employment may be detrimental for the behavior of children in two-parent families if the increases in family income do not offset the challenges introduced by maternal employment during children’s early years of life"


I am not saying that people need to make personal family decisions based on population studies. Everyone has individual factors that they need to take into account. But research does show that maternal employment has an effect on kids.

Sigh. Yes, it's clear that you aren't great at statistics. Or academics, either. I give up.

This was the statement you or a PP made:

"every study that I have ever seen shows that when families are in the situation described above (stable marriage with plenty of money), that the kids are better off with stay at home mothers."

It's just wrong. You should stop saying it, because you sound very ignorant. And I have been both a SAHM and WOHM, currently WOH but likely to SAH again, so I don't have a "side" here. Do whatever you want, but stop lying about the academic research out there to make yourself feel better. Also, just know that when you wildly exaggerate academic research, it makes you sound desperate and defensive to those people who know the literature well.