Is the SAHM the new status symbol?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Is the SAHM the new status symbol?
1697
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-02-2003 - 12:42pm
I don't know how I could be any clearer. You seem to suggest that it is more societally valuable for hired hands to fulfill contractual obligations (as does your nanny) than for people to fulfill their parental obligations by themselves. So is that it, all this contribution to society from working you're talking about is your and your nanny's effect on the GNP? Gosh, I'm disappointed, I guess I thought you had something more in mind than that. According to that logic I'm actually also doing society a disservice because by doing a serious lot of work around the house I could pay someone to have done (landscaping, stripping wallpaper, repainting.) I'm not doing my part to keep the landscapers and painters of the nation employed. Man.

I worked like a bugger for a big salary for years before having DS. I certainly imagine I will again someday. In the meantime, guess the GNP will have to muster on without me!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-02-2003 - 12:44pm
I am fulfilling my parental obligations, with help from DH, our nanny and the preschool. Why is it more societally valuable for you to do it all yourself (since your DH also works long/irregular hours)?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-02-2003 - 12:51pm
You know, I have been reading this thread trying to figure out what was bothering me besides some peoples vague definition of respect and I had an illuminating thought. Just go with me here...

Princess Diana could have been a pretty pampered princess like the SAHM's that we are talking about on this thread. She easily could have spent her days working out and attending fashion shows. She decided to use her position to help others. Now, some of that was because she had to but some of it was because she felt passionate about certain subjects. I deeply admired her focus on landmines before she died. She was a person with problems but she used her position and wealth to make a difference in AIDS education, land mines and mental illness.

When you talk about ultra-rich SAHM's with staff that spend their whole day concentrating on themselves, I don't see why you would respect them for simply living their lives. Heck, with that theory, I might as well respect Charles Manson for living his life and I think he is one of the scariest people in the world. These women have a chance to do so much more-to use their time and their money to help others. They don't and choose to live in a vacuum. I do find it sad and a terrible waste.

I do not know any women like that and I haven't seen any on the board. My sister, as I have said before and gotten in trouble, spends her whole life on herself. It is her comfort zone. She can life her live like that but I don't have to respect it.

Kristi

"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-02-2003 - 12:53pm
I'd better hang up my debate hat. This is what I've been trying to say in, like, 100 different posts on this thread.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-02-2003 - 12:57pm
I never said it was "more" valuable to society for me to do it myself than for you to employ someone to help. It's been you who has been insisting that I contribute "less" to society than your nanny and yourself contribute more to society due to the mere fact that you earn a paycheck and I don't. I don't see that at all.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-02-2003 - 12:59pm
I know. I was not trying to counterpoint you-it was just easier than going back and finding one to respond to. See, that is where laziness gets me. I was just trying to give an example of what you were saying.

Kristi

"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-02-2003 - 1:00pm
So what is your contribution to society?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-02-2003 - 1:09pm
Well, Kristi, I know that's what the original post was about, but I don't think the thread between PJM and myself has had one thing to do with whether to respect a SAH who does nothing but eat bon-bons. I certainly think that we all have an obligation to make the world a better place, and that those with more resources to do so have more of an obligation. The only thing I've been discussing is PJM's position that the mere fact of having employment outside the home qualifies as a societal contribution, and being a SAH provides no such contribution.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-02-2003 - 1:18pm
The same way a women's identity can be wrapped up in being a mom.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Thu, 10-02-2003 - 1:18pm
Great post Kristi. ITA.

Pages