How does this relate to the debate?
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 08-20-2003 - 7:56pm |
Something occurred to me earlier and I wanted to see how others thought it might relate to the whole "which is harder SAH/WOH" portion of the debate that crops up so often.
I think that, when you look at either group *as a whole*, the WOHs might have it harder. And this is why ...
There are virtually no SAHMs who SAH because they "have to". There are virtually no SAHMs who are forced to SAH. A woman that SAH wants to SAH.(I'm sure there's a few exceptions out there; controlling dhs who MAKE their wives SAH, disabled children, etc) A woman that SAH doesn't hate her "job", or else she'd go get a WOH job. A woman that SAH is generally getting what she wants.
There are LOTS AND LOTS of WOHMs who WOH because they "have to". A single mom, or one whose dh doesn't make enough to support the family, or one with a disabled dh, whatever the case may be ... she may long, with all her heart, to SAH, but *can't*. Many WOHMs hate their jobs, but can't quit.
Anyhoo ... just wanted to stir up something new
Hollie

Pages
Do you use outline view? I ask because you so often don't seem to remember what posts people are addressing.
This particular sub-thread is in regards to your contention that simply validating stereotypes in no way indicated that you agreed with them. Your argument was that we all ought to KNOW that you didn't agree with particular comments, even though you gave no indication that you didn't agree with them.
Your post responding to those stereotypical remarks was unclear. It was unclear because you gave a figurative "thumbs up" to those remarks, and yet later claimed that you didn't agree with them. If you had indicated *in any way* that you didn't intend to validate the comments by claiming they were valid, then there wouldn't have been any confusion.
Of course, this is just one example, and the one that happened to spawn this particular sub-thread. There have been numerous other examples throughout this thread - enough that I mistakenly assumed you would understand the concept being addressed. My mistake - I should have been more explicit.
Looks like someone is in that corner again...
And you wondered why I asked if you were having difficulty following the board format...
Edited 8/27/2003 11:43:32 PM ET by silverunity
Pages