"We don 't believe in that [WOHM]"

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2005
"We don 't believe in that [WOHM]"
2078
Mon, 01-09-2006 - 11:31am

On Friday, as I was driving hom from work, I stumbled across an interview with the wife of the one surviving miner from the collapse in WVa. In the course of the interview, someone asked her if she worked.

Her response was that they don't believe in that. She explained that her husband was very proud of the fact that he was the sole supporter of the family, and that he didn't need her help in supporting them. She explained that they just don't believe in women working after they have kids and husbands, and that they believe her place is at home with the kids.

My heart really goes out to her, and this post isn't about her, but about the sentiment that women shouldn't work because their place is at home. And being a real man, even if it means working in dangerous conditions, long hours, holding two jobs and being a step away from poverty at every turn, means that your wife doesn't work.

I suppose this is the first time that I've heard someone, not a movie character or a character in a book, express this sentiment. I don't understand why anyone would be proud to limit their spouse's potential. Or why be proud that you live right on the poverty line?

If they didn't see the dangers of their POV before, surely that entire community, and even the whole country, has now seen the risk that we talk about on here all the time, the risk that suddenly the SAHM will need to find a way to financially support the family. I wonder if anyone will re-think what they believe in.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
I have never heard of a jurisdiction where entering solo into a possible felony situation, not knowing if you have a suspect inside, not knowing whether that suspect is armed, and possibly putting your victim into greater jeopardy was considered a good idea. I am glad I do not live in that jurisdiction, frankly.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Let's clear this up. I would never have received a call with information stating that somebody thought that a kidnapped child was inside a certain house and sent one cop to go knock on the door and find out what was going on. That is the kind of information that calls for a field sergeant to set up a coordinated response to. And if necessary, to get a warrant. Of course a dispatcher doesn't tell a police officer whether to go into a house or not.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
I understand the impulse, I really do. Problem is, you could get the child killed if the pervert has a weapon and panics.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
How come the guy can't be restrained if he poses that much of a danger? I've seen potentially violent suspects restrained in court before.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thank you so much.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
You birthed little hunks.

Mondo

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2005

Do you have a link to any of this misinformation? I'd love to see something reliable saying that 51% of Americans can't find their home state on a map. It is true that at the start of the Iraqi War, most citizens couldn't distinguish Iraq from Iran, but there's no surprise there. On the "news" last night, there were stories about Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Anniston. Probably 1 minute was spent on the Iraqi War. People retain what information is relevant to them, and the Iraqi War is apparently of very little relevance to US citizens.

Americans are taught in school about our founding brothers and fathers, so you're wrong there. What people choose to *retain* is a different story. Such as someone reading a survey and inaccurately culling from that the notion that Americans can't locate their home states.

PNJ's mom clarified "federalism" was the wrong term for the reason States may or may not have different laws. So, basically, unless you've got some sources, you've given Americans less credit than they're entitled to.

Avatar for ahlmommy
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
His civil rights would be violated. The accused has the right to appear before the court during jury selection without being restrained. So when we appears next week he will walk in unrestrained with two US Marshal's guarding him.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2005
No. That's not what she was asking you at all.
Avatar for ahlmommy
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
I didn't say it was relevent...I just said I didn't think it was a personal attack. You said it was a personal attack. I just didn't think it was.

Pages