"We don 't believe in that [WOHM]"
Find a Conversation
| 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
Weren't rebutting? Then why did your statement start out "But I would argue ..."
<>
Before kids, these high maintenance dh's get used to having a great deal done for them. The wife is "better at" domestic life than the dh. But after kids, he has to share. Of course he prefers her to sah.
Number 1.) PNJ admitted she misunderstood the question and her answer inapposite. Are you NOW saying PNJ was wrong that she admitted she misunderstood??
Number 2.) You're wrong. The reason States may or may not have different laws is something called State sovereignty.
For all of your quoting from Wikipedia and dictionary.com, do you ever actually read the words you quote?
Gotta go for the day...
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
She admitted that she didn't need post the answer as it wasn't really a qustion of not understanding. However, what she posted was correct ... and is a correct terms for explaining how states have different laws.
I posted "In politics, federalism is the political philosophy that underlines a system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent partially self-governing political units (like states or provinces), creating what is often called a federation. The two levels of government are interdependent, and share sovereignty."
States don't have sole sovereignty. They share it with the federal government. They are interdependent. My post did not preclude State Sovereignty; in fact, the makeup of a federalist government (which we are), is what allows for State Sovereignty.
Sssshhhh.
PumpkinAngel
I love Ben.
PumpkinAngel
Depending on how your accountant decides to file your taxes, you may indeed have a business, at least according to the IRS.
PumpkinAngel
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html
PumpkinAngel
Pages