"The big problem is that professional women, a lot of lawyers and GS-15 gov't workers, make the drastic choice of all or nothing. I think that women should do more to fight for a more family-friendly workplace, but I also acknowledge that it's an uphill battle. "

I guess I'm just not sensitive to the nuances here. I've been a full time WOHM by choice for 12 years. Why is choosing to continue my career after giving birth a "drastic choice"? Most men do.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As for the men who "wish" that they could SAH or who think their wives are "lucky", I will believe that when men actually start taking advantage of paternity leave and bucking the trend.

You're switching the argument again. What started this was you criticizing women who consider themselves lucky. Whether their men or you or anyone else considers them lucky is a completely different question.

It's not for you - fine. I would be just as eager to defend you against a SAHM saying that you were too stupid to realize your misfortune.

BTW, my wife works, and she's sure that she would be miserable as a SAHM. If we could do it over again, though, we'd probably have me stay at home, at least until full-day school. I'd have no problem with that.

Re the other stuff with which you challenge men, that's just a bunch of generalizing. There are men who work for women's rights and for family friendly policies.

In any case, a lack of support for families isn't sexism. It's still a choice whether to have kids. If you don't want the career impact of having kids, don't have them or arrange beforehand for your mate to lead in childcare.

I didn't switch the argument. I was responding to 22:38 who claimed that "working" (presumably outside the home in a paid job) sucks.

As for what you mean by "generalizing," I don't know what you mean. I stated my opinion of what I would like to see. I work in a male-dominated field, I can only name ONE man I know personally who took full advantage of stated paternity leave policy. I can name at least a dozen women, OTOH, who took full advantage of parental leave policies, and a half-dozen who quit their careers altogether.

Lack of support for families is sexism. Because the vast majority of people who end up giving up health insurance, retirement savings, and income to take care of children while they are young are WOMEN. Men have long been able to maintain their careers while having children, but women still struggle with this. Why do you think this is?!?

Anonymous wrote:As for the men who "wish" that they could SAH or who think their wives are "lucky", I will believe that when men actually start taking advantage of paternity leave and bucking the trend.

You're switching the argument again. What started this was you criticizing women who consider themselves lucky. Whether their men or you or anyone else considers them lucky is a completely different question.

It's not for you - fine. I would be just as eager to defend you against a SAHM saying that you were too stupid to realize your misfortune.

BTW, my wife works, and she's sure that she would be miserable as a SAHM. If we could do it over again, though, we'd probably have me stay at home, at least until full-day school. I'd have no problem with that.

Re the other stuff with which you challenge men, that's just a bunch of generalizing. There are men who work for women's rights and for family friendly policies.

In any case, a lack of support for families isn't sexism. It's still a choice whether to have kids. If you don't want the career impact of having kids, don't have them or arrange beforehand for your mate to lead in childcare.

10:28, I like to work. I work by choice.

"as a dad, I would LOVE to be able to stay at home. There is a reason they call it "WORK", because it SUCKS. Not everyone is career obsessed. And talk about female privilege. Do you realize the stress that men are under in this economy? To be the breadwinner when so many traditional male jobs are disappearing. It is soulcrushing. "

Why are you assuming the male is the breadwinner? My DH earns 45% of the household income. If you don't like to work, you should have married a career oriented gal.

Also, I'm willing to bet that to you SAH is synonymous with "not working." Would you really do all the household work that SAHMs do if you were unemployed?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't get the point. Women have it worse than men? Duh.

I think I would have started with physical weakness, bleeding genitals, hormonal fluctuations, and the burdens of pregnancy and breastfeeding.

To the people who think it's sad that some SAHMs think they're lucky...Jesus - could you be more bigoted?

I wouldn't say bigoted, as in intolerant, but I would certainly say that for many SAHMs on DCUM, the decision to SAH came about because they were unable to find a way to negotiate a working situation that accommodated young children. It was difficult to secure part-time work or to transition back to the office as if nothing had changed. They are now utterly financial dependent upon their partners, who hopefully, but may not always have their best interests in mind. They have given up the promise of education, both college and graduate, from some of the most selective schools in the country and given up a decade or more of professional experience to be at home with young children, cook, and clean.

I'm not saying that being at home with kids isn't deeply satisfying, but I would hardly describe the process as "lucky." Lucky, perhaps, to be married--at the moment--to someone who can support such a lifestyle, but certainly not fortunate to have to give so much up, including one's independence and one's identity outside the home.

as a dad, I would LOVE to be able to stay at home. There is a reason they call it "WORK", because it SUCKS. Not everyone is career obsessed. And talk about female privilege. Do you realize the stress that men are under in this economy? To be the breadwinner when so many traditional male jobs are disappearing. It is soulcrushing.

It's only soulcreushing if you don't like to wor.

who likes to work?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't get the point. Women have it worse than men? Duh.

I think I would have started with physical weakness, bleeding genitals, hormonal fluctuations, and the burdens of pregnancy and breastfeeding.

To the people who think it's sad that some SAHMs think they're lucky...Jesus - could you be more bigoted?

I wouldn't say bigoted, as in intolerant, but I would certainly say that for many SAHMs on DCUM, the decision to SAH came about because they were unable to find a way to negotiate a working situation that accommodated young children. It was difficult to secure part-time work or to transition back to the office as if nothing had changed. They are now utterly financial dependent upon their partners, who hopefully, but may not always have their best interests in mind. They have given up the promise of education, both college and graduate, from some of the most selective schools in the country and given up a decade or more of professional experience to be at home with young children, cook, and clean.

I'm not saying that being at home with kids isn't deeply satisfying, but I would hardly describe the process as "lucky." Lucky, perhaps, to be married--at the moment--to someone who can support such a lifestyle, but certainly not fortunate to have to give so much up, including one's independence and one's identity outside the home.

as a dad, I would LOVE to be able to stay at home. There is a reason they call it "WORK", because it SUCKS. Not everyone is career obsessed. And talk about female privilege. Do you realize the stress that men are under in this economy? To be the breadwinner when so many traditional male jobs are disappearing. It is soulcrushing.

It's only soulcreushing if you don't like to wor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't get the point. Women have it worse than men? Duh.

I think I would have started with physical weakness, bleeding genitals, hormonal fluctuations, and the burdens of pregnancy and breastfeeding.

To the people who think it's sad that some SAHMs think they're lucky...Jesus - could you be more bigoted?

I wouldn't say bigoted, as in intolerant, but I would certainly say that for many SAHMs on DCUM, the decision to SAH came about because they were unable to find a way to negotiate a working situation that accommodated young children. It was difficult to secure part-time work or to transition back to the office as if nothing had changed. They are now utterly financial dependent upon their partners, who hopefully, but may not always have their best interests in mind. They have given up the promise of education, both college and graduate, from some of the most selective schools in the country and given up a decade or more of professional experience to be at home with young children, cook, and clean.

I'm not saying that being at home with kids isn't deeply satisfying, but I would hardly describe the process as "lucky." Lucky, perhaps, to be married--at the moment--to someone who can support such a lifestyle, but certainly not fortunate to have to give so much up, including one's independence and one's identity outside the home.

what a sad outlook. Most SAHMs I know (actually, all) are doing it by choice, sacrificing less money because they get much more enriched from spending time with their children during these formative years.

Ah, but what limited choices.

I'm guessing that you are friends with moms of young children. Once the children get older and are in school full-time, the regret is not having had the "choice" to work part-time and keep their professional identity and financial security.

The big problem is that professional women, a lot of lawyers and GS-15 gov't workers, make the drastic choice of all or nothing. I think that women should do more to fight for a more family-friendly workplace, but I also acknowledge that it's an uphill battle.

As for the men who "wish" that they could SAH or who think their wives are "lucky", I will believe that when men actually start taking advantage of paternity leave and bucking the trend. I'd also like to see men who are in management positions fight to make changes for parents like holding jobs for parents who take parental leave, establishing childcare centers in the workplace, etc., etc. I'd also like to see husbands contribute to their SAH wives' retirement and savings accounts as if their SAH wives had kept their jobs, rather than reinforce their wives' financial dependence. Dads, including my own DH, were afraid to take advantage of on-the-book policies because of unwritten rules about what is acceptable for men to do. I think that compared to the risks that their wives take, leaving their careers altogether, taking paternity leave is a relatively small sacrifice that sets an important precedent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't get the point. Women have it worse than men? Duh.

I think I would have started with physical weakness, bleeding genitals, hormonal fluctuations, and the burdens of pregnancy and breastfeeding.

To the people who think it's sad that some SAHMs think they're lucky...Jesus - could you be more bigoted?

I wouldn't say bigoted, as in intolerant, but I would certainly say that for many SAHMs on DCUM, the decision to SAH came about because they were unable to find a way to negotiate a working situation that accommodated young children. It was difficult to secure part-time work or to transition back to the office as if nothing had changed. They are now utterly financial dependent upon their partners, who hopefully, but may not always have their best interests in mind. They have given up the promise of education, both college and graduate, from some of the most selective schools in the country and given up a decade or more of professional experience to be at home with young children, cook, and clean.

I'm not saying that being at home with kids isn't deeply satisfying, but I would hardly describe the process as "lucky." Lucky, perhaps, to be married--at the moment--to someone who can support such a lifestyle, but certainly not fortunate to have to give so much up, including one's independence and one's identity outside the home.

what a sad outlook. Most SAHMs I know (actually, all) are doing it by choice, sacrificing less money because they get much more enriched from spending time with their children during these formative years.

This sounds like something out of a textbook and I can't take it seriously. Life, and people, are complex. I stayed home for five years and my SAHM friends and I all talked about how nice it would be to do something more flexible and PT for a while. I knew no one who just gave up their career and never looked back. And that's not sad, that is life, just like when I returned to work there were moments of looking back. That's perfectly normal, and very things in life are so black and white. For my circle it wasn't as simple and cliche as you lay out, at all. And there is a reason many women go back to work at some point. They often WANT to.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't get the point. Women have it worse than men? Duh.

I think I would have started with physical weakness, bleeding genitals, hormonal fluctuations, and the burdens of pregnancy and breastfeeding.

To the people who think it's sad that some SAHMs think they're lucky...Jesus - could you be more bigoted?

I wouldn't say bigoted, as in intolerant, but I would certainly say that for many SAHMs on DCUM, the decision to SAH came about because they were unable to find a way to negotiate a working situation that accommodated young children. It was difficult to secure part-time work or to transition back to the office as if nothing had changed. They are now utterly financial dependent upon their partners, who hopefully, but may not always have their best interests in mind. They have given up the promise of education, both college and graduate, from some of the most selective schools in the country and given up a decade or more of professional experience to be at home with young children, cook, and clean.

I'm not saying that being at home with kids isn't deeply satisfying, but I would hardly describe the process as "lucky." Lucky, perhaps, to be married--at the moment--to someone who can support such a lifestyle, but certainly not fortunate to have to give so much up, including one's independence and one's identity outside the home.

what a sad outlook. Most SAHMs I know (actually, all) are doing it by choice, sacrificing less money because they get much more enriched from spending time with their children during these formative years.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't get the point. Women have it worse than men? Duh.

I think I would have started with physical weakness, bleeding genitals, hormonal fluctuations, and the burdens of pregnancy and breastfeeding.

To the people who think it's sad that some SAHMs think they're lucky...Jesus - could you be more bigoted?

I wouldn't say bigoted, as in intolerant, but I would certainly say that for many SAHMs on DCUM, the decision to SAH came about because they were unable to find a way to negotiate a working situation that accommodated young children. It was difficult to secure part-time work or to transition back to the office as if nothing had changed. They are now utterly financial dependent upon their partners, who hopefully, but may not always have their best interests in mind. They have given up the promise of education, both college and graduate, from some of the most selective schools in the country and given up a decade or more of professional experience to be at home with young children, cook, and clean.

I'm not saying that being at home with kids isn't deeply satisfying, but I would hardly describe the process as "lucky." Lucky, perhaps, to be married--at the moment--to someone who can support such a lifestyle, but certainly not fortunate to have to give so much up, including one's independence and one's identity outside the home.

as a dad, I would LOVE to be able to stay at home. There is a reason they call it "WORK", because it SUCKS. Not everyone is career obsessed. And talk about female privilege. Do you realize the stress that men are under in this economy? To be the breadwinner when so many traditional male jobs are disappearing. It is soulcrushing.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:To the people who think it's sad that some SAHMs think they're lucky...Jesus - could you be more bigoted?[/b]

I wouldn't say bigoted, as in intolerant, but I would certainly say that for many SAHMs on DCUM, the decision to SAH came about because they were unable to find a way to negotiate a working situation that accommodated young children. It was difficult to secure part-time work or to transition back to the office as if nothing had changed. They are now utterly financial dependent upon their partners, who hopefully, but may not always have their best interests in mind. They have given up the promise of education, both college and graduate, from some of the most selective schools in the country and given up a decade or more of professional experience to be at home with young children, cook, and clean.

I'm not saying that being at home with kids isn't deeply satisfying, but I would hardly describe the process as "lucky." Lucky, perhaps, to be married--at the moment--to someone who can support such a lifestyle, but certainly not fortunate to have to give so much up, including one's independence and one's identity outside the home.

Maybe you wouldn't, but the point is whether they do, whether they're grateful for the opportunity. And it is an opportunity, BTW - if you don't think so, ask the many mothers in marriages in which both parents have to work. You talk about those who were relatively stuck with SAH, but presumably those aren't the ones calling themselves lucky.

To treat their evaluation of their circumstances - circumstances of which you presumably know very little first hand - is the essence of bigotry, which is less about intolerance and more about narrow-mindedness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Most of the poor in this country are women. It's not a coincidence. "

Agree, it's not. There are several systemic reasons why women, and especially women with kids, are way more at risk for poverty. But still, the list only applies to low income women. So there is a entire population of women who that list doesn't apply to.

There are a lot of women who are well educated high-earners who notice a disparity between men and women with regard to expectations for childcare. This seems to be what many, many DCUM women struggle with--whether to WOTH or SAH, being mommy-tracked, finding a job that will accommodate young children, arguments with DH over "menial" work at home, the need to take a break, etc., etc.

While poor, uneducated women have things particularly bad, please don't close your eyes to the fact that even privileged women have to face struggles that men do not. Most men I know do not seriously contemplate giving up their career to stay at home with the kids. Virtually all the women in my peer group (educated professionals) have struggled with this.

I agree with you, but I guess I don't see the point od this thread. People seem to be bitching and whining. I'm all for advocating for change, but just listing that men can have orgasms every time they have sex and they aren't expected to multi-task...sorry but I'm just not seeing the male privileges being discussed. All I can do is like I said, advocate for change. I work outside the home at a cause that is important to me, I have a husband who is a true partner and does the second shift with me, I am somewhat politically active. Seems more productive to me than just piling on how great men have it.

Privileged men kind of have it shitty too in other ways. My husband got laid off last year and got sought out by another company and had a better job in a week, but rather than relishing in that accomplishment, and just acknowledging that his whole team got laid off, he went into a serious funk - so much so that he actually started seeing a therapist because he had the foresight to see he was struggling with depression. I just don't think it would have hit me like that, and I did a bunch of reading on men and lay offs etc., and it opened my eyes. It was an interesting perspective on a stress I just don't have to the same degree. And I am now watching my own dad attempt to be the world's greatest grandfather, because he has so much pain and regret about what kind of dad he was. He was a good dad but he was always working and he missed a lot, and he's paying for it now. So we joke that men get to "babysit" etc. but it affects some of them. It is not ideal. It is nothing to be proud of or say they are privileged over.

I consider myself a feminist and I get outraged sometimes at the unfairness - the mommy tracking, wage disparity, all the things you mentioned. So I get that. But this thread is nothing but a weird pity-party and I don't see the point in going there.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't get the point. Women have it worse than men? Duh.

I think I would have started with physical weakness, bleeding genitals, hormonal fluctuations, and the burdens of pregnancy and breastfeeding.

To the people who think it's sad that some SAHMs think they're lucky...Jesus - could you be more bigoted?

I wouldn't say bigoted, as in intolerant, but I would certainly say that for many SAHMs on DCUM, the decision to SAH came about because they were unable to find a way to negotiate a working situation that accommodated young children. It was difficult to secure part-time work or to transition back to the office as if nothing had changed. They are now utterly financial dependent upon their partners, who hopefully, but may not always have their best interests in mind. They have given up the promise of education, both college and graduate, from some of the most selective schools in the country and given up a decade or more of professional experience to be at home with young children, cook, and clean.

I'm not saying that being at home with kids isn't deeply satisfying, but I would hardly describe the process as "lucky." Lucky, perhaps, to be married--at the moment--to someone who can support such a lifestyle, but certainly not fortunate to have to give so much up, including one's independence and one's identity outside the home.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like women do get the short end of the stick at times but ultimately I think women are stronger and can handle a lot more than men. I juggle working and parenting better than my husband and I've adapted to parenthood better. He's a good guy and I love him and all, but damn.

11:45, come on! Women develop these traits because society expects them to do so. I love my hubby, he is a good guy, but he is also a product of white male privilege as is every white male in our society. Some fare better than others because of class, but they still accrue privileges due to their gender and race.

Change starts with us. I've whittled away at my husband's privileges by working with him to be a real parent, not just a "dad" or a "babysitter." Fortunately, he has realized that some things will not happen if he does not do them (and he acts). Most times he is okay with that, but there are some moments when I know he wants me to do it all. And I won't.

Definitely think you misunderstood, or are projecting. I just don't agree with you, but I have no complaints. I am in awe of some of the women I know. I think women are strong. Society doesn't enable you to become pregnant, bear kids, give birth, and then feed your baby from your breasts - nature does. My husband is not a babysitter dad. He is awesome, and his job enables him to be with our kids probably more than me (he has more flexibility and does sick days etc.) But I'm better at multi-tasking, which is a huge parenting skill, and, I don't think he could have breast fed for a year (I'm not saying physically, I'm saying even if he were able I don't think he could have stuck it out).

I agree we get the short end of the stick on many things, but overall, I wouldn't want to be a man just because they have it easier. It's just how I feel. I'm a girl's girl, and though it would have been cool to have boys, I'm thrilled to be raising two daughters and excited to see what they are going to offer the world.