Are mega hours ok if you have a SAHP?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Are mega hours ok if you have a SAHP?
1499
Wed, 06-18-2003 - 11:00am
This is kind a a spin off from the equalty and careers thread. I have been reading many posts from the thread about SAHPs who have spouses who work lots of hours. Is it OK for one spouse to work 80 hours a week (assuming it's his choice), as long as there is a SAHP with the kids? Is it OK to to be a workaholic or career driven and come home at 10pm and leave the house at dawn because you have career goals that require those kinds of hours? Is that fair to the kids and ultimately fair to the relationship between dad and the child to assume the position that as long as mom is home, dad can be gone all the time?

Personally, it would make me crazy to have my dh at work 100 hours a week, regardless of my employment status. Crazy because I wouldn't want to have to handle everything that pertains to home and kids and crazy worrying that the kids were not developing a close relationship with dad. There is something to be said, IMHO, for dad beng the one to show up at some of the parent meetings, events, etc.

My bro commutes to NYC daily. He leaves at 4:30am and doesn't get home til 8-9pm every night. He misses just about everything having to with his kids and does not even get to eat one meal with them during the week. That would make me nuts.

Is it ok to have an absent parent if the other parent is a SAHP?

Susan

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 07-03-2003 - 2:45pm
You were snarky well before the implications of whore.

I'm staying out of the snarkiness of these posts, or trying to, but I had to put my two cents in on the above.

Hollie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 07-03-2003 - 2:47pm
Lest you forget, YOU started this by saying that WOHMs that worked for stuff are bad. The WOHPs are simply responding back that your dh working as many hours as many dual WOHPs doesn't give you much of a pedestal on which to stand and judge. As far as I'm concerned, I don't see much of a difference there. It's 6 of one, half dozen of another.

Susan

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Thu, 07-03-2003 - 2:48pm
I didn't ignore it, I just didn't feel like beating a dead horse since we obviously aren't going to agree. I made a judgement about someone I know, IRL, and I am intimately acquainted w/her finacial situation. You're making judgements about me based on the very small slice of life I've given you and then arguing that I'm wrong for making a judgement of someone I've known for 10 years and know a great deal about (ie--how much she makes, how much her DH makes, how much the house and cars cost). I don't have to energy to keep beating a dead horse with you...you're making it out to be soooo much more than it is. C
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Thu, 07-03-2003 - 2:49pm
Ah, but isn't that what you all are doing to me? So it's wrong for me to judge someone I'm intimately acquainted with IRL, but not wrong for you to judge me? Come on! C
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Thu, 07-03-2003 - 2:49pm
Really...can you show me where? C
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Thu, 07-03-2003 - 2:50pm
But I didn't say that they're all bad, just a certain group...and certainly not the majority of them.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 07-03-2003 - 2:57pm
well, now, the problem with revisionism in this forum is that there is a record of what you said and when you said it, so the "na-na, boo-boo, she called me a name first" routine won't fly. you said some very ugly things before anyone lashed out at you, and also to several posters who never lashed out at you. unless you're in the mood to go back and revise or erase your previous posts, let's just allow that you weren't the only one who crossed the line.

as to the rest, if your post was only about one person you know irl, then you shouldn't have suggested that it had something to do with wohps--eh? because if all you are talking about is a single individual, then how can you rope unrelated people (in this case sahms) into it? i suppose she's also white, but you didn't put off her materialism on her race, eh? i suppose she's also protestant, but you didn't put off her materialsm on her religion, eh? and on and on. either you are talking about one person, or you are talking about a category of people, and you can't--as you have in this thread--switch back and forth as it conveniences you. it was pointed out that your dh fits the same standard of material-grabbing as you accuse your friend of, but rather than use that information to feed insight you lashed out with insult.

but more than that, it seems worth pointing out that your "friend" apparently has a dh. why is she materialistic and he immune from your judgement. again, many people here, unlike you, feel that a father is an important person in a child's life. forgive the psychoanalysis here, but it seems obvious that your "friend" and wohms "like her" isn't the topic you are exploring here at all. it's not that she works, but that her work gives her something that you begrudge her--eh? otherwise, wouldn't you care more that your own children's father spends twice the time away from his own child than that your "friend"--someone who isn't even part of your household--spends away from children totally unrelated to you and yours?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 07-03-2003 - 3:03pm
but then when it was pointed out that your own dh obviously fits into the group you claim to be describing (she works 40h/w she doesn't "need to" for undefined material things, and he works 40h/w he doesn't "need to" for better-defined--retirement savings, college savings, etc.--material things) you back peddaled--hard. you are only talking about a category of people so long as you aren't carving out convenient exceptions.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Thu, 07-03-2003 - 3:06pm
She's white, but she's not protestant, she's Catholic. I didn't discuss her DH b/c he never came up. He's not the one looking wistfully at DS while saying HE wishes he could afford to stay home all day with him. I thought I had been clear from the get-go that I made a judgement call based on a case I had seen IRL. I was NOT grouping all WOHMs into that category, quite the contrary and I've said that more than once. Apparently though I haven't been clear enough on that, and I do apologize for that.

I don't think I lashed out when someone called my DH materialistic, but I do think I pointed out his motivation for working the hrs he works. Nonetheless, I continue to have insults piled upon me for my lifestyle and my OPINION.

I'm not jealous of my friend at all. I LOVE MY LIFE! I'm grateful that I'm able to stay home w/my DS and consider myself very lucky that I can. I said in my OP that I didn't understand why anyone would want to work when they could SAH with their kids (which brought the "you've never had a meaningful job then" arguement, and yes, I have, but it wasn't as meaningful as raising DS--nothing is). So again, I go back to the different strokes theory. However, I do think that my IRL friend is wrong and I won't back down from that. Do I think ALL WOHMs are wrong and EEEVIL? Of course not, and I've never said that I do. C

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 07-03-2003 - 3:07pm
Yep I can. The "whore" post was number 712. And the earliest allusion to your dh being a bad father (which no one said, btw, at least I don't think so) was number 635

Post 578. <
And, how do you know what my husband's priorities are? PPPFFFFFFTTTT. Are insults all you can come up with? Try harder next time...and maybe I'll take the bait. >>

Post 586. <>

Shoot, even yoru first post seemed a bit snarky to me, what with all the emphasis on teh word WANT and FT.. Post 45. <>

Post 629. <>

Post 697. <>

Post 642. <>

Post 596. <>

Post 613. <,A zillion? Really, was it a zillion? Because, *sigh*, funny, I don't remember seeing it ONCE in all the post that I have read from you. Seems if you said it a zillion times it would have been in at least one that I read. oh well....sigh.... >>


Need I research more? All of those have an air of snarkiness about them, IMO. Some obviously more than others.

However, I do say that you're being snarky doesn't make anyone else's being snarky right.

Hollie


Pages