"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: 03-26-2003
Right, and the facts forming the basis for pc would be the justification for the warrant.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2005
I am not quite sure that 19 years is a lifetime of thinking. And the problem was his original ideas on the subject were informed by a conservative, evangical religious family. So it is suspect that his "lifetime" of thinking was anymore than a parroting of his parent's beliefs. He was in college a full year before I showed up and he was already waivering on his previously held beliefs. I would not want to be in a marriage whereI cannot have a discussion with my husband that may lead him to a different conclusion than previously held.
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003

"It isnt about being a pain in the butt. Arresting a Drunk driver isn't a pain in the butt. Writing the report is."

You don't need a warrant to arrest someone you observe driving drunk.

"Getting a warrant isn't a pain in the butt. Getting the warrant and the suspect flees is a pain in the butt."

The suspect can be brought in for questioning or followed to insure that it doesn't happen.

You assume that all LEO are smart and honest and do the right thing always. The framers of the Constitution did not. They saw the excesses of an all powerful government, so they required that before the government engages in seriously invasive procedures, it ask a neutral third party, a judge, for permission. It's just another set of eyes insuring fairness. It's very little to ask and if it's too much for LEO, they should look into another line of work.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2005
I am not sure what is not making sense. Things are not always linear. We met in college, he was already having a whole set of previously held ideas challanged and changing. We spent long nights talking about concepts, theories, philosophies, sience long before we dated. After we dated and were laviliered, I would hang around him and his brothers and they would talk about girls. And I would hear my DH's ideas on girls. I am not sure how this is not making sense. Anyways, I was just giving two examples of men (my father and husband) who do not harbor some secret desire for their wives to be home. You can try to discount this all you want, but I know my father and husband very well and they are very strong men who would have no trouble expressing their real desires and thougths, even if it leads to very heated discussions at the dinner table.
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2005

They saw the excesses of an all powerful government, so they required that before the government engages in seriously invasive procedures, it ask a neutral third party, a judge, for permission. It's just another set of eyes insuring fairness.

It's almost like they *deliberately* set up the system with a means of checking and balancing actions like that! ;)

Karen


"We are told that in , "cattle and sheep outnumber people by the millions." Which is why we're here, I suspect, given that cattle and sheep don't post spoilers on the internet, or if they do, they all just say things like, "Moo moo moo, moo! MMM! Moooo, moo. MMMMM, moo


Miss Alli @ TelevisionWithoutPity, The Amazing Race Finale

Karen

"Veronica: "I hate fake deer too. Every time I see their stupid fake-deer faces I want to grab a shotgun and go all Cheney on 'em." Sure, but since fake deer don't talk, they won't

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2005

I don't think I was clear. I beleive that many men "who do not believe in women working" have issues with women. That does not necessarily mean that men who decided with their wives that staying home is a benefit to their individual family have issues.

First, can you explain to me why women were barred from voting in this country until only 86 years ago. What was the purpose of preventing them from voting? Can you explain to me why women were only admitted to Princeton after a Supreme Court case in 1978? Can you explain to me why women are mommy tracked even thought Fortune 500 companies with women on their boards and as top executives out performed in revenue increase and had lesser rates of turnover and absentieism than companies with little or no women in top management positions. Your right there is no desire to prevent women from attaining power in this country, whether that be political or monetary.

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003

But if you were misrebale at work because you didn't get home til 6:30, how does the fact that your children are in school change that? If you have the same schedule, won't you be just as miserable? Won't your kids still go to bed early?

Susan

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
<<"That's great you're a full-time mom" and "Do you sah to raise your kids?">> True, men are apt to use these expressions, too. They're just stock phrases that people use when making conversation because they lack the imagination to come up with anything more original to ask or to say. Almost like , "Hot enough for ya?" or "So, what do you do?" They arouse no feelings in me whatsoever. But evidently lots of people feel otherwise.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004

We were talking about the phrase "SAH to raise your kids" and why some find it derogatory. The argument against was that work status has nothing to do with how well you raise your kids. To say you're miserable at work therefore crabby at home, etc., while it may be true for some, has no bearing on the argument. The fact remains, work status isn't linked to raising your kids. If you try to breastfeed and then cannot, that doesn't mean breastfeeding isn't a good idea. If you're allergic to peanut butter, that doesn't mean peanut butter is no good. If *some* parents hate WOH, that doesn't negate the fact that *in general and for the most part* work status has no relationship to how well one raises one's kids.

Not only that, but what about all the WOH dh's? I'm sure plenty of them hate their jobs and hate going out to work every day. But I bet darn few of them would say their parenting stinks because of it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005
I am changing careers and will be home afterschool. I was miserable leaving an *infant* for someone else to take care of. Once they are in school, I feel that is were they should be. Also, they go to bed later now and I will work 3 12 hr shifts. So, it will not be the same as it was for me previously.

Pages