Anonymous wrote:I find this silly because no one would begrudge someone who won the lottery and stopped working. Or who sold a big company at 40 and retired young. If people have enough money for one family member not to work, more power to them. People do many things of value that those of us who work all the time cannot: volunteer through their church, visit sick relatives, join boards of local organizations, etc. And yes, even if they shop all day, it's just not my business.

For those of you who feel your life only has value if you are working, how do you plan on looking yourself in the mirror when you retire? Or will it be okay then, because you "deserve" it?

Um, yeah, I started working full time at 25. If I retire at 65, I do think I "deserve" to retire. SAHMs have nothing to retire from.

I'm a woman in my mid-30's who works full-time, no kids. My parents are truly puzzled about the fact that I want to work at all. In fact, they often comment in amazement about why I would want to bother working. We don't need my salary, and DH doesn't care whether or not I work. My mother was a SAHM, and then a stay at home wife when I left for college. She never worked again once she had me. She and my father are now retired, and they do nothing all day. They're not interested in volunteering, taking classes, working part-time, etc. They just putter around the house, watch TV, and that's about it. My parents value a life of leisure and not having to work if one doesn't have to. They're from the American culture, they've just always been that way.

Is work always a "value" in life? Does the average person's job bring them that much satisfaction and truly satisfy their intellectual curiosity? I'm sure that for many of you on here that's the case - but there are many, many more who are working simply to make ends meet. There are many others who do not particularly enjoy their field and don't feel they have the skill set at that point to venture out and try something totally new. I get that a job often adds this value and fulfillment, but to speak as if it always does and without a j-o-b one must be pathetic or not curious of intellectual pursuits is just obtuse.

I'm a SAHM after working many years in a highly competitive field. The lawyer pp above stated that if she didn't need the money, she'd pursue something in the arts. I do that now and the flexibility I have has given me the opportunity to do that .... but it seems people are saying that it can only be intellectually satisfying or "legit" if I make money from it? Make a business of it?

I love having the time to take sculpting and painting workshops, and to take classes through the Smithsonian learning about the lives and techniques of great artists. I enjoy having the time to improve my french by taking a course through La Maison Francaise. I actually have the time to allow myself to be a more well-rounded person, and I've been able to immerse myself in things I was never able to pursue in my 20's due to long hours. It's very satisfying.

"For those of you who feel your life only has value if you are working, how do you plan on looking yourself in the mirror when you retire? Or will it be okay then, because you "deserve" it?"

Huh? I don't hear anyone in this thread suggesting their life ONLY has value if they're working. I do, however, hear people suggesting that it is responsible for adults to work and make independent money. I suppose you're right that lottery winners, trust fund adults, and others don't need to work for that reason, but I don't hear anyone saying that work is the ONLY value in life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this say when it applies to women who used to raise kids but now the kids are off at college? They were SAHMs but now momming does not require full-time attention.

If they stayed home for 20 years what are they expected to do, really (assuming two kids around 2 years apart)? And with women having kids a bit later in the last two decades, they may be mid to late 40s at that point. Ageism is a problem.

My mom got more involved in volunteering and continued her PT job at that point. She also traveled with my dad a bit more.

Mid to late 40's? Try 50's, honey. Mid to late forties would mean you jad your kids in your early to mid 20's.

Nope. A person could have had a child at 30 and he could be in college by the time she's 48.

I find this silly because no one would begrudge someone who won the lottery and stopped working. Or who sold a big company at 40 and retired young. If people have enough money for one family member not to work, more power to them. People do many things of value that those of us who work all the time cannot: volunteer through their church, visit sick relatives, join boards of local organizations, etc. And yes, even if they shop all day, it's just not my business.

For those of you who feel your life only has value if you are working, how do you plan on looking yourself in the mirror when you retire? Or will it be okay then, because you "deserve" it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this say when it applies to women who used to raise kids but now the kids are off at college? They were SAHMs but now momming does not require full-time attention.

If they stayed home for 20 years what are they expected to do, really (assuming two kids around 2 years apart)? And with women having kids a bit later in the last two decades, they may be mid to late 40s at that point. Ageism is a problem.

My mom got more involved in volunteering and continued her PT job at that point. She also traveled with my dad a bit more.

Mid to late 40's? Try 50's, honey. Mid to late forties would mean you jad your kids in your early to mid 20's.

Anonymous wrote:PP do you really think "every woman in history" has been a good mom and great at running a household?

It is totally legit to be proud of those skills.

(yes, I am another ex-lawyer who is now good at and gratified by being a parent and keeping a home running smoothly.

If that's all you have to be proud of in life, you're pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:What does this say when it applies to women who used to raise kids but now the kids are off at college? They were SAHMs but now momming does not require full-time attention.

If they stayed home for 20 years what are they expected to do, really (assuming two kids around 2 years apart)? And with women having kids a bit later in the last two decades, they may be mid to late 40s at that point. Ageism is a problem.

My mom got more involved in volunteering and continued her PT job at that point. She also traveled with my dad a bit more.

What does this say when it applies to women who used to raise kids but now the kids are off at college? They were SAHMs but now momming does not require full-time attention.

Anonymous wrote:I totally have your answer - having known so many women who don't work, here it is:

1) It's their culture (and there are certain white women whose culture, particularly religious background, heavily leans towards marrying well and not working.

.

Yes, cultural and religious. I remember when I was told that it is not biblical for a woman to work outside the home. A woman can work but it has to be inside the home.
eg biblical times woman working in the field was a woman working at the home

I know a childless lesbian couple where one doesn't work and the other pulls in big bucks. This isn't just a straight mom thing.

PP do you really think "every woman in history" has been a good mom and great at running a household?

It is totally legit to be proud of those skills.

(yes, I am another ex-lawyer who is now good at and gratified by being a parent and keeping a home running smoothly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who puts down SAHMs are just jealous. There is nothing difficult about what OPs problem is. If OP could stay home, she would. But she can't, nor will she ever, and she is pissed off about it and is trying to bully others into their explaining their stance to her; as if they owe her (of all people) an explanation. BS. If I could stay home, I would owe NO ONE an explanation!

I have neighbors like this who are nasty about SAHMs, especially if those SAHMs have a nice demeanor and/or have nicer houses. The jealousy oozes from the WM neighbors. You can almost smell it, it is so very obvious. Grow up, people.

If someone else is successful, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with you. Grow up.

read the subject line, please. also, your grammar is atrocious. ANYONE ARE JUST JEALOUS!!
Also, it's not the SAHM's that are successful. It's their husbands.

I'm actually a successful SAHM, just so you know it's possible. I'm good with the kids, highly efficient, run our home, finances and social life, and spend significant time working for two charities and caring for a sick relative. I also used to be a BIGLAW lawyer, then a successful in-house counsel for over 8 years. Just two different kinds of success. Oh, and I brought over $2 million into our marriage (based on my work and investments, not a trust or family gift) and have earned much more since, so don't go thinking it's all my spouse's hard work that bought our home. Good luck with your narrow mind.

Wow, you are good with kids and "run a home?" just like every woman in history?!? Keep patting yourself on the back. Those accomplishments are tough to obtain

I totally have your answer - having known so many women who don't work, here it is:

1) It's their culture (and there are certain white women whose culture, particularly religious background, heavily leans towards marrying well and not working.

2) Women who are really intellectual get bored not using their intellect in some fashion, but the average female is not highly intellectual - they do not get bored doing shopping, cooking, homemaking, gym, or nothing at all. The latter of the two describes a lot of women in my family actually - for lack of a better term, they are simple-minded. They have no real interests, or at least none that require any real amount of thought. Their lives would be EXTREMELY boring to me.

Personally, if I did not have to work, I would quit my current law job, but I would pursue something else more interesting, like writing fiction or clothes making or painting or who knows - something interesting to me, probably in the arts. I might try to write some editorial column too. . .