"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

How do you know what's going on anywhere?

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-03-2005
Doesn't make the point untrue .. just irrelevant.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998

I also believe that doctors, dentists, nurses and the like can provide better care for my children than myself.


If we all at some point didn't think that others could provide better care for our children, then why are there so many parenting books out there?

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998

No, but it brings me back to my question.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006

Sure I do say that no one can say what is going on when you aren't with your kids. Sure I have seen what parents do to their own children.

However I am trying my best to figure out how you or anyone else can say that the nanny doesn't waiver with the children she cares for when it reality that isn't true. I am not really sure what the videos of parents abusing their children has to do with this particular debate. I really thought that we were discussing nanny's. I think you are taking it down a different avenue.

***How do you know your dh(I don't know if you are married, just an example here) is really at work?***

I would say because if he were not at work he would not receive a paycheck.

***How do you know when your dh is working late or you are that they are really working?***

He hasn't ever worked late that I can remember. He usually brings his work home.

***How do you know what is going on at school, Sunday School, sports, scouts, field trips, etc?***

You don't know. But again, What does this have to do thinking a nanny doesn't waiver in discipline during the day?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Why is it irrelevent? To say that a nanny doesn't waiver because she is paid not to, is IMHO wrong. To say that because you trust your nanny, doesn't make her a robot that sticks to discipline consistantly. It isn't irrelevent, it is just the way it is.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Yes I believe in trust. I also know that my point that many people have trusted their nanny's. That didn't pan out so well. I will even take away the abuse issue. To think that one person is being paid to care for children does NOT mean that they won't waiver with discipline. To think otherwise is IMHO naive.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998

<>


It's called trust.


<>


It was an example to counter your example that you had seen videos of children being harmed by nannies.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006

***It's called trust.***

Trust really has nothing to do with it if you think about it. Unless those children are being cared for by Rosie the Robot (The Jetsons)I can promise you that discipline is waivered from time to time.

***It's a fact that children are more likely to be harmed by a parent than a nanny.***

I would think that is because statistically there are more children with parents than with nannies.

***Depends on what he does. If he is hourly, sure....but salary no.***

Think his boss wouldn't miss him? Or if he were the boss someone might question where he is at? Again irrelevent to this debate.

***Again, it's called trust. What does a video of a nanny, not the one in question have to do with it?***

Without a video of what your particular nanny is doing during the day you don't know what they are doing. You can trust all you want. Until she posts that Rosie is doing the job...she is just wrong.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-03-2005

<>

Goody. 'Cause I didn't say any of that.

Pages