"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
Exactly! Only I was just the opposite. I sat in my office crying half the day and feeling miserable.
It is funny but when someone asks my oldest dd what her mommy did she stated "She is a nurse". Now I haven't worked in years and just passed my boards. But, she loves telling people that. They know i am going back to work and they are fine with it which surprised me. They know I love nursing and cannot wait to get back to work. It will be bittersweet for me but I am anxious.
I think our kids know when we are happy and it makes them happy.
Actually, I just looked it up. An officer cannot search without a warrant even with probable cause. Probable cause is what is used to get a warrant in the first place. They can only search without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances (evidence will be destroyed, or someone will be hurt) or if there is no expectation of privacy (things are in plain view, etc.) Otherwise, they need a warrant.
"Case law has maintained that until an arrest has occured, law enforcement are required to gain a warrant before they can effect a search. However, searches are premitted under the "plain view" and "open fields" doctrine that allow an officer to seize evidence that is located where there is no expectation of privacy. In addition, there is an exception for "exigent circumstances" where the officer reasonably believes that a suspect may destroy evidence. Otherwise, an officer can only effect a search on the basis that there is "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. What a police officer can see before an arrest is only what he/she can search. Without a warrant, the officer is breaking the laws of the constitution."
Pages