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.

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.

The solution is to accept that you will never get "approval" for your choices by society at large, and just block out the noise and carry on. You know, it's funny, when you carry yourself with quite, steady confidence people have a way of respecting you no matter what things you choose for yourself and your family.

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.

This is in fact what happens in most cases. Even as a former sah, however, I do think permanent sahs are a bit lame.

Really? I think they're lucky. It's like retiring at 27. I'd love to not work. There are aspects of my job that I like but if they stopped paying me, you better believe I'd stop coming in.

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.

Anonymous wrote:DH and I both had white hot careers when we had kids. We could not both continue on the same path and care for our children in the way we wanted. We decided I'd SAH. 20 years later, not a single regret. People are diffent. I don't judge your choices.

Preach.

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 is silly given we are all living on someone's generosity to live our lives. Whether it's your corporation paying your paycheck, your inheritance from your parents, your husband's paycheck, the bank providing you with a mortgage....we are all dependent on someone else. Not to mention that your husband is entirely dependent on you to be pregnant and give birth to any children of his. Would you criticize him for that?

Also many women grew up in secure homes and feel completely comfortable relying on their husband. Many spouses view their assets as joint and they are a partnership. My dad never cared if my mom worked or not and they have been happily married for years. My dad very much valued my mom's role in raising children. The fact you don't seem to value this yourself and seem to only value typical male accomplishments speaks volumes about yourself and how you feel deep down about women.

Fwiw I will be working when I have children.

Wonderful points, both on the fact that everyone depends on someone else on some level and on the fact that a secure woman in a secure marriage will be valued and will value herself whether she works inside or outside the home.

I don't understand how a woman depending on a husband for his paycheck is any better or worse than a man depending on his wife to give birth to his children and provide childcare?

This is a horrible analogy as it suggests only men can be primary wage earners. Surely that isn't what you intended.

People who look down on other people's life choices, particularly ones as benign as whether to be a WOHP or SAHP, need to figure out "why" they need to look down on someone else. That's the real issue.

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.

This is in fact what happens in most cases. Even as a former sah, however, I do think permanent sahs are a bit lame.

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 +.

+ 1

IRL, I find the SAHM very exclusionary to WOHMs, partly because they aren't part of the playground/yoga/coffee crowd at school drop off and pick up. It's not meant in a malicious way, but it is what it is. And exclusition of SAHD is somewhat intentional, because of distrust of mixed genders.

I truly don't care what others do, but I can't deny I'll be disappointed if my dd or ds decide not to have a career.

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?

^
|
|
|

Here it is folks. Here's the crazy person who derails the thread with nonsense.

I don't quite understand PP's perspective (I replied to her earlier) but I don't think she's a crazy person for sharing her views. You, on the other hand, just seem to be stirring the pot.

I am not "stirring the pot." I am pointing out that she is the first person to come in here and start disparaging other people's choices and putting them down for no reason. I don't think I have ever read a thread on these boards about this subject where both sides can agree that there are pros and cons to both choices and leave it at that. She certainly couldn't. Someone like her always comes in and starts insulting the other side. "You didn't bother to do anything with yourself" - you don't see that as an offensive statement, really?

Anonymous wrote:

NP. Honey you must be dumber than a box of rocks...

I'm just curious - are you also the person that used the phrase 'cord of firewood' recently? I see these and I'm always highly amused. What's your background?

Anonymous wrote:I'm not resentful at all. I think either option has its downsides:

1. Stay at home mom - stuck at home, not contributing to retirement, less adult interaction, dependent on husband should anything happen

2. Work out of house mom - more stressful home life and schedule, less time spent with children

Take your pick. I'm choosing #2 because I have a flexible schedule, a job I enjoy and I contribute over 50k a year (only 18k my contribution) to retirement.

so do I. You can save for retirement without a 401k you know. My husband makes a lot of money. We have more than enough to save for both of our retirements.

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?

^
|
|
|

Here it is folks. Here's the crazy person who derails the thread with nonsense.

I don't quite understand PP's perspective (I replied to her earlier) but I don't think she's a crazy person for sharing her views. You, on the other hand, just seem to be stirring the pot.