OP, I see where you are coming from but I think your view of this issue is heavily influenced by your own cultural experiences.

My best friend and her husband live in the U.S. but are from a country in the middle east. Despite being a nurse, she does not work out of the home. She does everything -- cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. 24/7. When I visited her, I felt trapped and could see how difficult it would be to be a SAHM in their cultural context.

I am a SAHM but my husband helps with the kids, cleans and gives me breaks from the kids. I'm not saying my culture is superior but it is different from hers so its difficult to make generalizations about life as a SAHM without this context.

Just my 2 cents.

I am an immigrant from India. While India and Pakistan - both are third world countries, women are encouraged to become educated in all fields - Humanities, Liberal Arts, STEM - in India. I am used to seeing so many professional women in India, even in fields that are traditionally male dominated (in armed forces, commercial pilots, police, STEM), that I feel the struggles of an educated, working, urban mom in India is very similar to that of a working, educated, urban mom in this country. Namely, how to balance home-work life, especially when children are involved.

OP, I am glad that you are happy working and appreciate the opportunity to be financially independent. Your feelings of gratefulness for working has been informed by the upbringing that you had where you were pigeonholed into a role. This kind of financial freedom you talk about has been afforded to women in many societies, where civil liberties are granted to people regardless of gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, disability etc. That is the purpose of a true democracy.

I know several women in Pakistan who work. I think your perspective is not representative of the entire population.

When was the last time we had a thread to bash SAHM? About two weeks ago? So thanks, immigrant working mom, for your valuable contributions. Thanks for starting another thread for the working moms to bash SAHMs on. You're so kind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I am still confused about how the ability to work outside the home and earn an income started being viewed as a chore and a burden rather than a desirable exercise of ones ability be able to use your mind and intelligence and be financially independent?

All I knew was women wanting to be more than just housewives and poop cleaners for their babies.

In the first world, its reversed. Women seem to want to go back into their kitchens.

You are being intentionally provocative.

+1

Her remarks at the end of her OP were similarly provocative. Trying to sound confused and sincere while ending with digs and looking down her nose. Typical.

I was not trying to be provocative. I am trying to put it in simple terms.

I don't understand the desire to stay home. My mother always told me to always always be financially independent and never to be dependent on a man or a burden on your parents. I'm confused as to why western women desire to be provided for. There's no dignity in that. You're dependent on someone else for your livelihood.

Interesting that it doesn't similarly bother you that your children are completely dependent on someone other than their parents for their care.

We get it. You "don't understand the desire to stay home." You don't have to understand. No one cares what your opinion is. But thanks for sharing!

When your 5 year old goes to kindergarten, who are they "completely dependent on for their care?"

+1
We're waiting.

They won't admit it. I WAH only while my kids are in elementary which includes getting picked up by the bus at 8:20am and meeting them when they get off the bus at 4:15pm in the afternoon.

Yet--somehow SAHMs think they see their school-age kids more than me.

Here's thing - how about SAHMs not tell WAH/WOHMs that they aren't raising their kids, and WAH/WOHMs not tell SAHMs that they're worthless and aren't productive members of society. This isn't that hard folks. Can't we just focus on the M part and don't sweat how other people choose to be Ms and provide for their families in different ways?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I am still confused about how the ability to work outside the home and earn an income started being viewed as a chore and a burden rather than a desirable exercise of ones ability be able to use your mind and intelligence and be financially independent?

All I knew was women wanting to be more than just housewives and poop cleaners for their babies.

In the first world, its reversed. Women seem to want to go back into their kitchens.

You are being intentionally provocative.

+1

Her remarks at the end of her OP were similarly provocative. Trying to sound confused and sincere while ending with digs and looking down her nose. Typical.

I was not trying to be provocative. I am trying to put it in simple terms.

I don't understand the desire to stay home. My mother always told me to always always be financially independent and never to be dependent on a man or a burden on your parents. I'm confused as to why western women desire to be provided for. There's no dignity in that. You're dependent on someone else for your livelihood.

Interesting that it doesn't similarly bother you that your children are completely dependent on someone other than their parents for their care.

We get it. You "don't understand the desire to stay home." You don't have to understand. No one cares what your opinion is. But thanks for sharing!

When your 5 year old goes to kindergarten, who are they "completely dependent on for their care?"

+1
We're waiting.

They won't admit it. I WAH only while my kids are in elementary which includes getting picked up by the bus at 8:20am and meeting them when they get off the bus at 4:15pm in the afternoon.

Yet--somehow SAHMs think they see their school-age kids more than me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I could easily work and support myself and kids on my salary as a GS-15 WAH Fed with benefits and flexibility.

He makes a lot more than me, but I'd survive with my $175k/salary.

It is hard for somebody that stopped working at 27-32 years old to him back in the workforce at 45+. Really hard. Don't fool yourself--especially with this economy. This is why it's wise to downscale if you have the luxury--2-3 days per week or telework, but I'd be careful about just quitting with 60-years of life left.

I had a lot of SAHM friends when we had babies and nearly all were back at work within 5 years. Yes, staying out for 15+ years is a different ballgame but those people are probably not expecting to jump back on the same career track.

My mom quit work as a secretary when she got married in the late 1960s and went back to work 16 years later. Despite having to completely learn how to work a computer, she was still hireable as an admin and ended up doing that for over 20 yrs before retiring. Life is long and circumstances and desires change. Not taking the time you want with your babies for a couple years because you worry about your employability 15 years from now seems a sad way to live.

Your mom was much younger when she re-entered the workforce and the economy for jobs for older people not good. I know several women that got to 40s, husband left and they didn't get the windfall they thought they would. In fact, they lost the house. The husband only had to pay mortgage for two years---then she had to sell or buy him out. Not pretty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I am still confused about how the ability to work outside the home and earn an income started being viewed as a chore and a burden rather than a desirable exercise of ones ability be able to use your mind and intelligence and be financially independent?

All I knew was women wanting to be more than just housewives and poop cleaners for their babies.

In the first world, its reversed. Women seem to want to go back into their kitchens.

You are being intentionally provocative.

+1

Her remarks at the end of her OP were similarly provocative. Trying to sound confused and sincere while ending with digs and looking down her nose. Typical.

I was not trying to be provocative. I am trying to put it in simple terms.

I don't understand the desire to stay home. My mother always told me to always always be financially independent and never to be dependent on a man or a burden on your parents. I'm confused as to why western women desire to be provided for. There's no dignity in that. You're dependent on someone else for your livelihood.

Interesting that it doesn't similarly bother you that your children are completely dependent on someone other than their parents for their care.

We get it. You "don't understand the desire to stay home." You don't have to understand. No one cares what your opinion is. But thanks for sharing!

When your 5 year old goes to kindergarten, who are they "completely dependent on for their care?"

+1
We're waiting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I could easily work and support myself and kids on my salary as a GS-15 WAH Fed with benefits and flexibility.

He makes a lot more than me, but I'd survive with my $175k/salary.

It is hard for somebody that stopped working at 27-32 years old to him back in the workforce at 45+. Really hard. Don't fool yourself--especially with this economy. This is why it's wise to downscale if you have the luxury--2-3 days per week or telework, but I'd be careful about just quitting with 60-years of life left.

I had a lot of SAHM friends when we had babies and nearly all were back at work within 5 years. Yes, staying out for 15+ years is a different ballgame but those people are probably not expecting to jump back on the same career track.

My mom quit work as a secretary when she got married in the late 1960s and went back to work 16 years later. Despite having to completely learn how to work a computer, she was still hireable as an admin and ended up doing that for over 20 yrs before retiring. Life is long and circumstances and desires change. Not taking the time you want with your babies for a couple years because you worry about your employability 15 years from now seems a sad way to live.

Totally agree with this. But your mom lived in another generation. Now your mom would not be employable, having been out of the workforce for 16 years. There is too much other competition. But taking off for a few years when kids are young and then going back part time or full time seems like a good compromise that most moms I know are making.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I could easily work and support myself and kids on my salary as a GS-15 WAH Fed with benefits and flexibility.

He makes a lot more than me, but I'd survive with my $175k/salary.

It is hard for somebody that stopped working at 27-32 years old to him back in the workforce at 45+. Really hard. Don't fool yourself--especially with this economy. This is why it's wise to downscale if you have the luxury--2-3 days per week or telework, but I'd be careful about just quitting with 60-years of life left.

I had a lot of SAHM friends when we had babies and nearly all were back at work within 5 years. Yes, staying out for 15+ years is a different ballgame but those people are probably not expecting to jump back on the same career track.

My mom quit work as a secretary when she got married in the late 1960s and went back to work 16 years later. Despite having to completely learn how to work a computer, she was still hireable as an admin and ended up doing that for over 20 yrs before retiring. Life is long and circumstances and desires change. Not taking the time you want with your babies for a couple years because you worry about your employability 15 years from now seems a sad way to live.

Me me me me me. Time I want. What about the pressure on your husband being the sole breadwinner? The lack of contributions to retirement, to college? But hey, as long as you get your time at Starbucks and Little Gym, who cares?

Anonymous wrote:

I could easily work and support myself and kids on my salary as a GS-15 WAH Fed with benefits and flexibility.

He makes a lot more than me, but I'd survive with my $175k/salary.

It is hard for somebody that stopped working at 27-32 years old to him back in the workforce at 45+. Really hard. Don't fool yourself--especially with this economy. This is why it's wise to downscale if you have the luxury--2-3 days per week or telework, but I'd be careful about just quitting with 60-years of life left.

I had a lot of SAHM friends when we had babies and nearly all were back at work within 5 years. Yes, staying out for 15+ years is a different ballgame but those people are probably not expecting to jump back on the same career track.

My mom quit work as a secretary when she got married in the late 1960s and went back to work 16 years later. Despite having to completely learn how to work a computer, she was still hireable as an admin and ended up doing that for over 20 yrs before retiring. Life is long and circumstances and desires change. Not taking the time you want with your babies for a couple years because you worry about your employability 15 years from now seems a sad way to live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I am still confused about how the ability to work outside the home and earn an income started being viewed as a chore and a burden rather than a desirable exercise of ones ability be able to use your mind and intelligence and be financially independent?

All I knew was women wanting to be more than just housewives and poop cleaners for their babies.

In the first world, its reversed. Women seem to want to go back into their kitchens.

You are being intentionally provocative.

+1

Her remarks at the end of her OP were similarly provocative. Trying to sound confused and sincere while ending with digs and looking down her nose. Typical.

I was not trying to be provocative. I am trying to put it in simple terms.

I don't understand the desire to stay home. My mother always told me to always always be financially independent and never to be dependent on a man or a burden on your parents. I'm confused as to why western women desire to be provided for. There's no dignity in that. You're dependent on someone else for your livelihood.

Interesting that it doesn't similarly bother you that your children are completely dependent on someone other than their parents for their care.

We get it. You "don't understand the desire to stay home." You don't have to understand. No one cares what your opinion is. But thanks for sharing!

When your 5 year old goes to kindergarten, who are they "completely dependent on for their care?"

Working and staying at home both have their downsides. Working feels like a rat race you can't easily escape from. Staying at home feels like you're stuck too but at least your time is your own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many DCUM women will have you believe they work because they love it.

For the most part, they lie. They work because it's necessary for their family. Many would quit in a heartbeat if their financial way of life would not be affected.

+1
You will only see women on DCUM claiming they "love" their jobs. It's hysterical.

Why are you both so threatened by women who claim to like working? For many women it may not be about loving the work, it's about getting out of the house, being forced to think and use your intellect, getting skills like public speaking, having time to yourself, having a team of colleagues, having the chance to go out for a coffee and getting paid to do all of the above. That's me, and my actual "work" is not all that interesting, but I do like working. If I had all day to myself while DC is in school, I'd end up doing nothing. Many women would quit in a heartbeat for about one or two years, and then they'd realize what it means to stay home, and they'd want to work again (I know this personally).

And the fact that you think it's "hysterical." Should all women just stay at home and never work again? Would that make you happy if we were all like you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I am still confused about how the ability to work outside the home and earn an income started being viewed as a chore and a burden rather than a desirable exercise of ones ability be able to use your mind and intelligence and be financially independent?

All I knew was women wanting to be more than just housewives and poop cleaners for their babies.

In the first world, its reversed. Women seem to want to go back into their kitchens.

+100000000

Don't even bother trying to reason with American SAHM. They use some flawed logic to justify their decision to be a SAH. To live in a highly advanced nation and chose to be less productive is just stupidity. I still think the reason for this decision is laziness. No sugar coating this. It's pure laziness. When it's divorce time they seemed surprised by the outcome when the husband takes everything.

Btw: I'm an American born and raised and fortunate to have travelled the world and witness the economical challenges women face in various parts of the world. I'm fortunate to be able to work and provide for myself and family.

Children are children for a very short time. SAHMs can always begin a career. Hell, many working adults change their careers mid-way through life.

If handing off my 6 week old to a daycare/nanny equals me being less productive at some office job, consider me less productive.

+1 And, how is me caring for my baby being less productive than a nanny caring for that baby? Life is about more than "productivity". I'll get back to billing my hours in a few years.

Exactly. Especially if that nanny is a...gasp...working Mom? Or does caring for your children only count as productive when someone else is doing it?