Is the SAHM the new status symbol?
Find a Conversation
Is the SAHM the new status symbol?
| Tue, 09-23-2003 - 10:36pm |
In the 70's and 80's women fought to get into the workforce (the whole Ms. magazine generation)...and then the tide turned in the late 1990's when more women started to stay home by choice. Now, it seems like being a SAHM is a status symbol....and superior to being a working mom.
Kat

Pages
I still don't understand your notion that you contribute to anything other than your own family by WOH any more than you understand my notion that SAH can be a societal contribution in its own right.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I have explained to you in detail that i feel the sterotypes you speak of are not effecting you personally, their life is actually none of your buisness and your judgments of them are irrelevant to the worthy of respect issue. These women are worthy of your respect. Otherwise imo it is a 2 way street here and as much as Iam not trying to be rude here, you are not worthy of these women and you do not deserve respect if you can not offer yours back for their choices. Perhaps that is no big deal to you. For me it is of upmost importance to be respected in my communtiy by others, no matter who they are. Poor rich or middle of the road doing everything or nothing with their lives.
So we will just agree to disagree and you may continue to disrespect women who you believe are not worthy of you b/c of theri choices... doing what they feel is fufilling even if it be nothing of importance to you...i choose to respect and hold other's worthy. I earn respect i dont demand it cuz realisticly you will never get it. you simly think you do.
Perhaps we shall just agree to disagree.
I have luxuries to attend to...see ya later~
Edited 10/2/2003 11:58:44 AM ET by silverunity
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Don't you think people who give money have a "feel good sentiment" also? It's great for Bill's publicity when people read on the front page of the paper that he gave $X million to such-and-such charity. And those individuals who donate to the arts, colleges, etc. have wings, buildings, and auditoriums named after them. I don't see this as particularly selfless.
Many "time volunteers" do mundane tasks like stuffing envelopes and answering phones, so although this isn't particularly *difficult*, it likely isn't something they enjoy either. I'm sure they can think of something "better to do", but they like giving their time to a good cause. Regardless of the tasks they're actually doing.
Don't get me wrong, I think we need both: people who donate time AND people who donate money. However, those who donate time are typically less recognized then those who give money because our society places a higher value on money.
(Plus monetary donors generally get to deduct the amount of their contribution. People donating time don't get to deduct that.)
Pages