Which came first, the title or the SAHW?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Which came first, the title or the SAHW?
1695
Fri, 12-19-2003 - 9:04am
Last night I attended my husband's work Christmas party. I sat with the CEO, CFO, CTO, COO (Chief operations officer, I didn't know that acronym, I had to ask), Creative Director, Marketing Director and their wives. Near the end of the evening it was just we wives chatting mostly about kids. I made the observation that even though all the wives were intelligent, educated and accomplished women, not a single one (except me), woh. They are all SAHM's.

Any thoughts on why that might be? I have my own opinion but I'd like to hear from everyone else first. Do you think they sah because of their husbands jobs or their husbands have their jobs because the wives stay home? Or doesn't it matter?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 11:12am
Nope. Go back and read what I wrote. I said my sitting on my butt at home (to emphasize that simply being home does nothing) wouldn't do any good. You have to actually do something. It's not where you are but what you do.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 11:13am
Either they're capable of making enough to make a difference or they are not. And no, I don't understand why a mom who could benefit her family by WOH wouldn't.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 11:14am
I didn't say you were lacking anything. I said I didn't understand why mom wouldn't give her kids the benefit of her WOH *IF* her WOH would be a benefit.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 11:19am

"Pooh it all you like, the fact of the matter is, when there is a sahp, there is a person who has 40-60 more hours every week to do all those tasks that wohps have to squeeze in after work."


First off, I grant you that the SAHP frees up some time for everyone else in the family.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 11:20am
The problem is that you are sticking YOUR definition of benefit into the equation. Every parent needs to make a decision about their own life.

We have always enjoyed the finer things in life and dh and I have always been able to provide them for ourselves. When we had children we naturally wanted to provide some of those things to our children. If staying home meant that we had to give up ALL the finer things in life (I could give up some, just not all) then I would go to work. It would be a benefit to ME and MY family. I consider travel, dinners out and the like to be a benefit to my family. We enjoy them and we make many happy memories going out to different places as a family. We also value education and want to provide our kids with a college education. That is not something all families aspire to, but we do. If I needed to work to provide these things I would. I have in the past.

However, not all people see the things we value as a benefit to their family. They do not care about these things and the most important thing for them is to be with their kids all the time. You cannot look at another family that has differnt goals and say that having the mother return to the work force would be a benfit to THEM. Only they can make that decision. Others see vacations, dinners out and college educations as frills that are not necessary for a happy life. That is part of the natural variation of people.

Jenna

Avatar for mygriffin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 11:25am
Oh, don't be sad for that woman. I'm sure she's much happier spending time with her kids than she was cleaning floors all week.

<>

Too bad for your kids. Spending time with them must not have been your REASON for SAH.

<>

It took you longer because you don't do it on a daily basis. Can anyone just start a new job and perform like someone who's been doing it for years? I think not. I'm good at time management, better at it now that my priority is spending time with the kids. Because most SAHMs have at least 8 hours more per day with their non-school-aged kids, even time spent IN the house, but not directly interacting with them, gives an edge over a WOHM who has maybe 4 hours with kids after work with the endless chores that need to be done within that time frame.

<>

Wow, sounds like it's REAL fun to be a WOHM. Less sleep, dirty house, no hobbies and shabby friendships. I think I'll add the opposite of all of those to my "Benefits of being a SAHM list."

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 11:28am
Ok, I am thinking I might be completely misunderstanding you so can I ask a question? Am I correct in assuming that you are talking solely and strictly the monetary benefits coming from mom's working? In other words, you mean to say that if the income brought by the second person working would actually be a significant part of the budget and would have an actual monetary effect on the family (say, the difference between living in an apartment and a house or something similar), you would expect that the mother should automatically opt to work and that any benefit coming from having that parent SAH would be far outweighed by the monetary benefits that would be possible if that parent were WOH?

I could have significantly monetarily benefitted my family had I WOH in the early years, but the contributions I made to our family and our long-term goals by being at home were more important than the very real monetary gains we stood to make had I WOH. We weighed up the benefits and disadvantages to both possibilities and made our decisions accordingly. It was never a question of no additional benefits to be gained from my WOH. I strongly suspect that is what most families do, and the results (everything from SAH to WOH to WAH to PTWOH to seriously cutting back hours or taking a lower paying job) reflect the many different ways that families come to find the best balance for them.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 11:31am

Do you mean a benefit, or a benefit greater than having a SAHP?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Avatar for mygriffin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 11:32am
So you're saying that you agree that more money isn't necessarily a benefit....Or are you saying that we have differing opinions on what constitutes a benefit? Or are you saying that more money is ALWAYS a benefit?

And please speak to your own experience and answer the second question I posted. Why did you SAH for (was it) 3 years? Wouldn't your working have given your kids some type of benefit? If not, why not?

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 11:35am
Either they are capable of making enough to make a difference or they're not. If their working would make a difference, no, I don't understand why they wouldn't. If I know something would benefit my kids, there'd be no question. I'd do it.

Pages