Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, you seem to forget that civic America used to run on... sah moms! Church groups, league of women voters, all kinds of volunteer organizations, etc. Educated women who had the time and attention to engage with society. Is it really better for society to have every parent scrambling bt work and childcare, with no time for reading, community activism, etc?

Yes. I find it sick that you think women providing unpaid labor for the benefit of society is a good thing.

That’s not what I said. I am responding to PP’s suggestion that women can only influence society by being part of the paid workforce. And notice I said “parents,” not moms.

It’s pretty clear you were talking about women. Men rarely volunteer or are that involved in providing charities with TIME.

Sure women can help society through unpaid work. Is it a good thing for women? No. It keeps us second class citizens.

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

Mic drop, girl. And this is the fundamental issue I have with SAHMs. They are so freaking selfish and narrow-minded. THIS IS WHAT THE WOMEN WHO CAME BEFORE US FOUGHT FOR. but they can’t see the societal consequences (which you so brilliantly outlined).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, you seem to forget that civic America used to run on... sah moms! Church groups, league of women voters, all kinds of volunteer organizations, etc. Educated women who had the time and attention to engage with society. Is it really better for society to have every parent scrambling bt work and childcare, with no time for reading, community activism, etc?

Yes. I find it sick that you think women providing unpaid labor for the benefit of society is a good thing.

That’s not what I said. I am responding to PP’s suggestion that women can only influence society by being part of the paid workforce. And notice I said “parents,” not moms.

Anonymous wrote:Also, you seem to forget that civic America used to run on... sah moms! Church groups, league of women voters, all kinds of volunteer organizations, etc. Educated women who had the time and attention to engage with society. Is it really better for society to have every parent scrambling bt work and childcare, with no time for reading, community activism, etc?

Yes. I find it sick that you think women providing unpaid labor for the benefit of society is a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:1) it doesn’t affect me on a personal level, but make no mistake it affects me from the level that when they retire, they haven’t paid into the system for however many years. Just coatailling their husband and taking money working people have put into the system through FICA.
Claiming to have “the most important and hardest” job in the world. Sorry babe, once your kids are in elementary school, you are living a life of leisure, stop pretending otherwise.
2) I don’t care other than believing they are lazy and persist on continuing the stereotype of dependence on men versus contributing to equality.

Except I actually have earned enough work credits to qualify for social security on my own and I have worked long enough to earn my own small pension. I've also been a SAHM for nearly 18 years.

What business is it of yours if the majority of my retirement income will come from my husband? Isn't that my own business?

I have stayed home and worked. I didn't like some of the playgroups I joined as a SAHM because the moms there were so nasty in their casual chatter about WOHMs (who weren't even there), so I quit those. After I went back to work, one SAHM told me that my son's dyslexia was because I worked. I also had one WOHM tell me (when I was working) that she didn't have anything to say to SAHMs and found them dull. Again I just classified those folks as people to avoid and moved on.

Other than those experiences, I don't think people have cared much one way or another. Those are a handful of experiences over nearly 17 years of childrearing so I don't think it's common.

Also, you seem to forget that civic America used to run on... sah moms! Church groups, league of women voters, all kinds of volunteer organizations, etc. Educated women who had the time and attention to engage with society. Is it really better for society to have every parent scrambling bt work and childcare, with no time for reading, community activism, etc?

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

I've never gotten any comments from SAHMs about working, though I had one SAHM friend imply that you could get by on one income if you were just thrifty enough (her DH makes around $70 K or so). She's right that it can be done, but I prefer an additional level of financial security. Both DH and I have mid level jobs that pay $60-70K per year, so we're not super rich, though we are comfortable and have money set aside, not paycheck to paycheck.

I'm also a teacher, so I'm working 75% of the year and I do get to SAH more than many working mothers.

So I question how many of these snide comments actually happen, and think maybe some of it is just people wanting to fight about stuff.

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

THIS THIS THIS

I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have feelings about other moms' work/care situations until we get to the part of the conversation that goes:

"Yeah, I felt it was really important to be there to raise my own child."

What am I supposed to do with that? It's not even about SAH vs WOH, it's about a high level of social cluelessness. Now that my child's older and goes to an urban public charter, the comment is "well, you know, we couldn't stay in the city because we needed a good school for Mortimer."

The problem is that even if a sahm doesn't come right out and say this, which I would hope most wouldn't. Truth is most of us share that sentiment. Working moms know this and of course the defensiveness is going to be there.

True. Most of DCUM SAHMs I know have the following in common -

1) High HHI - They quit their high paying jobs only because their DHs were in even more higher paying jobs that raked in much money. They do not have to worry about the basics & they do not have to worry about the luxuries.

2) Wanted more than basic care for kids - they want more than what the daycares can provide and more than what the nannies can provide. Time spent with their kids, sense of security that comes from being with a parent at home, not being woken up and bundled off to daycare, not being exposed to the continuous string of contagious string of "daycare bugs", not fretting when there is a snow day, having them spend time and interact with a mom-dad that are highly educated, being able to experience all the learning opportunities that this area has to offer - museums, parks, trails etc.

3) They would have continued working if they did not have the kids - these women liked working, liked having a career and paycheck. The decision to quit did not happen because they did not like to work, or that they were put in a caregiver role (special needs child, ill parents). The decision to quit was very deliberate because for their HHI, the quality of life and stress as two working parents and kids going to daycare was not acceptable. Moms I know quit because they did not think that with their HHI they, their spouse or their families needed to make do with an imbalanced life. These moms have retained all kinds of help and are really managers of their households, instead of the workers.

The DCUM SAHM-WOHM divide is a class divide mostly. People who are rich and wealthy assume that you will always put the interest of your "brand" first. When you are with your children 24/7, making them feel loved, secure and nurtured, giving them the advantages (these are in the KNOW women), you are raising them for success in all aspects of their lives. I have a friend who has one kid who is musically talented, another who writes and another who is a rising sports-star. She was able to spot their interest and talent when they were little and really able to nurture them and facilitate opportunities for them. These are healthy successful kids who are doing what they love to do, but frankly there is both nature and nurture in play here. I have never found her apologetic about her domestic staff, her lifestyle or her lack of a paid job and no one in her circle of friends would think that she is not taking care of her business.

The whole "How do you spend your time, SAHM?" is a pleb question. It is answered thusly by non-rich SAHMs - I get up up at 6 am , go to gym, make breakfast, drop their kids to school, do groceries, clean the house, do laundry, pay bills, volunteer, pick up kids, spend time with them, do activities, make them do homework, make dinner, have sex with their husband. etc, and then they get pooh-poohed by other non-rich WOHMs who go on to say that - I get up at 5 am to go to gym, make breakfast, drop my kids to school, go to work, pick up kids back, do groceries, clean the house, do laundry, pay bills, have sex with their husband etc. 'We do everything that you do and WORK' claim the non-rich WOHMs. 'No you don't - we are with our KIDS' claim the non-rich SAHMs.

The real richy-rich WOHMs and SAHMs on the other hand have outsource chores, have flexibility of time and place, and assume that everybody wants to give their kids an edge in life. They are not doing the laundry, grocery, yard work, cleaning. They are taking care of themselves and their family. Only the poors are squabbling.

Anonymous wrote:Enough already. You people are crazy. Live your life and stop whining about the choices other people make.

I honestly think this thread was the most productive of all the work out of home, work at home, stay at home threads.

Enough already. You people are crazy. Live your life and stop whining about the choices other people make.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) it doesn’t affect me on a personal level, but make no mistake it affects me from the level that when they retire, they haven’t paid into the system for however many years. Just coatailling their husband and taking money working people have put into the system through FICA.
Claiming to have “the most important and hardest” job in the world. Sorry babe, once your kids are in elementary school, you are living a life of leisure, stop pretending otherwise.
2) I don’t care other than believing they are lazy and persist on continuing the stereotype of dependence on men versus contributing to equality.

This exactly. I believe that they are bringing all women down by allowing companies to justify the fact that all women quit when they have kids etc. Even worse when they have daughters and push them so hard academically. SAHMs of a daughter at a fancy private school? And they don’t even see the hypocrisy.

Goes double for those who have degrees from fancy institutions that could’ve gone to someone who would actually use them.

No, I actually think it is people with attitudes like this who bring all women down. Think it through.

No way. When a girl gets accepted to college, she should be required to sign a contract stating that she will work for 40 years. Structure it as a modest proposal of sorts. Consequences should include substantial fines enough to bankrupt her. However the debt could be forgiven if the girl agrees to give birth to a child to be adopted by a fellow alumnus who is struggling with infertility.

This approach removes incentives for unambitious girls to take university spots from ambitious boys.

It also provides a pathway to motherhood for ambitious women who waited too long to have their own biological children. And of course, it gives the child a better mother who can instill a love of work and prioritizing the collective in the next generation.

Girls who do not sign the contract will be relegated to the breeding masses. We can call them proles, slaves, whatever second or third class citizens we want. We can have ethical debates about the ideal amount of non-contractual education. It has to be enough so the girl can understand the contract she’s signing BUT not so much that she can waste societal resources by taking away university spots from people who would choose work.

What kind of dystopian future is this?
What about boys? What about men who choose to retire early? What about men who go to medical school, but decide that they would rather open a Harley shop? Would they be required to go through a period of bankruptcy first? What about people with medical conditions? Cancer treatment?
What about working part time? I work 15 hours a week. Would I be required to birth a child?

Also, doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous to ask people to sign a contract when they are 18, agreeing to do something for 40 years? What do we think about people who get married that young?

Boys should have a contract too. Equality and everything.