"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
So what is wrong with saying it's was about you and how you felt alone and had nothing to do with your child at all?
PumpkinAngel
<>
Nope. I don't base my life on what is best for my kids. I do it on what is best for the family as a whole.
And sometimes, I even do what is *gasp* best for ME. It might not have been best for my dd to give up a sleepover with her GS friends, but she did .. so that I could go out on a date with my husband. I do things like that all the time. Just like I give up what I want to do what's best for them at times too.
I never said you were wrong in what you feel either, just that working status shouldn't really matter much in how one parents.
PumpkinAngel
Me personally?
PumpkinAngel
What is it that Spock says?
PumpkinAngel
<<>>
One's child can be cared for wonderfully. However for me personally...I think I will always be a better option for caring for my children.
<<>>
So you are saying that all WOHM have a choice? I disagree here totally.
<<>>
We aren't talking about medical issues here. We are talking about their activities and their general daily lives. We had this issue yesterday...My son wanted to go play with his friend when we got home from the beach. I said NO...he thought it was ok to go play...I however knew that riding a motorscooter on the sidewalk of the neighborhood with no parental supervision at age 6 wasn't in his best interest.
<<>>
Really? Because you just posted that if one wants something bad enough they will make it happen. Can you elaborate here?
<<>>
She feels differently. She said that she feels like her child is better off because she SAH. I guess in reality we have no way of ever knowing which is which. How would you know what your kids would be like if you SAH? No one can really say that their status does or doesn't change the outcome of their child because they don't get to do it both ways.
"One's child can be cared for wonderfully. However for me personally...I think I will always be a better option for caring for my children."
But IMO parental care has to be more than incrementally better to forego six figures a year.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Pages