"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: 06-27-1998

My kids start at 8.10....I am home, unless I go work out by 8.40ish.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998

I just said it, I don't recall ever having said it before nor reading it.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Really nuts. You wonder how folks like that even have the judgment to be parents.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
That's not much better, imo. The problem is that work status really has nothing whatsoever to do with raising one's kids because we raise them regardless.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005

<>

But, would you be raising them well if you were miserable at what you were doing? Anyone can 'raise" a child. However, I know that I did not feel like a good parent when I worked b/c I was miserable. I tried to be happy once I got home but I wasn't. My dd was only a few months old at the time but I am sure she felt me being upset. I think the same would also apply if you WOH and were miserable. You might not be as effective a parent if you are not happy.

So, in a round about way, I think your work status can effect you raising your children.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
It just confuses the debate to posit a miserable parent. Of course that's no way to give a kid a good foundation, but WOHPs hold no monopoly on misery.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
I think we can safely leave misery out of it. Anyone can be miserable. Work status has nothing to do with it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005

That is not what I stated at all. I was directly linking work status (or lack of) to a parents well-being and how they feel. I stated how I was miserable b.c of my work status and how I felt it affected my parenting.

How is that not relevant?




Edited 1/13/2006 7:25 pm ET by mom2megandemily
Avatar for ahlmommy
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
NO it shouldn't be...but people are human and their daily lives affect their ability to do many things.
Avatar for ahlmommy
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003

Ok she clarified her position on her DH but I still think it is silly. I also think that it is silly that one would believe that a man that wanted his wife to SAH with their children is weak.

TO clarify...

What's the difference if a women while in college and still dating tells her date that SHE WILL SAH when they have kids while he works to support them?>>

Was your statement to me...I just forgot to put the thingies around it.

<<>>

This is sort of redundant. I think that is pretty much what I said, when I said she flipped her statement.

Pages