How does this relate to the debate?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
How does this relate to the debate?
2771
Wed, 08-20-2003 - 7:56pm
Hey I rhymed! lol

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 08-24-2003 - 7:19pm
Can I just say that if CLW didn't exist, the SAHM on this board would have had to have invented her.

Cyndilu, I'm older than you are. Many doors were opened for us by those who went before us. We got to walk through them. Get over yourself.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 08-24-2003 - 7:33pm
I think that is only true for a certain group of people, which is why the bulk of the debate is focused on the upper middle classes,and doesn't necessarily reflect the average American.

I know, firsthand, plenty of people that don't work - or don't work in traditional jobs - because of the expense of daycare. They aren't the illertate hicks that this board paints them out to be, they are just average people making an average income and doing the best they can within their own parameters. Quality day care can be prohibitively expensive, so they SAH.

There may be women who SAH (and men too) because of the anxiety and the what if's of sending their children to daycare - while you may not deem that an appropriate reason, it certainly is valid and limiting to them; just as confining and limiting as the people who want to SAH but WOH when they do have the means to SAH but are limited by their fears of layoffs, market dips, diminshed income when they return to the job force.

I also know more than a few women in the unfortunate scenario of male domination that you allow for and am beginning to wonder how uncommon that is.

I think that there is enough familial, religous, societal and economic pressure to have created a group of SAH who want to WOH but can't. I also think that this group would never be uncovered by a survey or research because while it is commendable for a woman to bemoan her place in the workforce in favor of SAH, it certainly is not true of the opposite.

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 08-24-2003 - 7:36pm
How many?? I know more SAHMs with the "things" you describe than I do WOHM. Does that make them somehow worse than the WOHM now? Is having nice things only inherently bad if it requires a dual WOHP? If so, why?

Does "doing without" make you a better parent or more able to raise children?

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Sun, 08-24-2003 - 7:37pm
Actually, i don't have a "problem" with what you said, you can say whatever you like -- and in this forum disagreement is the name of the game. However, it stands to REASON (and logical thinking) that if 3-4 people ALL misunderstood what you wrote, then what you wrote was unclear. It just so happens that from that "misunderstanding" (of course, it might behoove you to write just a tad clearer) it was not a stretch to think that you're in the MSAHM camp. You were the one who said that it was "condescending" that CLW thought her provider was an asset...how IS someone (you know, like a WOHM who uses a provider) SUPPOSED to take that?

your opinion is not useless, no one's is. However, your post was UNCLEAR and yeah, kind of useless if you have a problem with me referring to my dcp as an asset.

Thanks for the exercise, but in response to your post, it was hardly a bunny hop.

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-01-2003
Sun, 08-24-2003 - 7:41pm
how could have i missed this...rotflol~

"of course if that wasn"t what you meant, that's not our fault".

Stop it already, why do you continue to try think you are thinking for me to make your point? This should be cryatal clear eileen, what i said is, it is EXACTLY what i mean just like my first post to this board and i stand by it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Sun, 08-24-2003 - 7:43pm
What about if the wohp of a sah parent family is working for those "extras"? Would they be judged so harshly? Somehow i doubt it. I guess it's okay to vilify dual-wohps -- even those who don't work FOR those things, but can afford some of those things because they work.

<>

AWWW, it's that "martyr thing again, isn't it?

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 08-24-2003 - 7:43pm
Does this mean that the only career your dd's will choose are engineers? And that they will SAH for a bit while their children are young (didn't you?) and then opt out of engineering and teach as soon as their dh's earn enough?

Isn't that what you have modeled? If the only thing options that children have are those that are modeled how did we get where we are today?

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 08-24-2003 - 7:49pm
So then your pursuit of the higher SES - emphasis on the E part of that - is just that a WANT and not debatable.

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Sun, 08-24-2003 - 7:50pm
<> in reference to this statement....<>

If that is truly what you meant, that is just plain sad. So much for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, huh???

Any wonder someone might park you in the MSAHM camp???

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 08-24-2003 - 7:54pm
That's why I moved away from such an area. We live on around 30k a year, however, we made closer to 75k a year doing the same exact thing living somewhere with a high COL, without ever having a hope of owning a home or affording the electric bill. Now, I'm 24 yrs old and I own a home that has increased in value at least 35% since I bought it, and I would never say I'd rather be making 75k a year because I'd have to live in a godawful place like the bay area... or LA.. or New York.. or any metropolitan area.

Pages