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 - 12:33pm
I agree. I suspect that women who have less flexibility are more likely to quit and those who can work their way into more flexible positions are more likely to stay in the work force. IME, militants were often women who had little in the way of flexibility who seem to feel they had to choose career over family. I think a lot of the misunderstanding stems from not being able to comprehend that with flexibility, motherhood and careers can mix.

I have an ex coworker whom I don't speak to anymore because she's become militant since quitting work. I used to get the impression that moms who worked bothered her because she coudln't do it. While she and I had the same job at the time we had our first babies, she had kids who slept a lot while I had kids who slept a little and she had a long commute while I had a short one which resulted in me having plenty of time with my kids in spite of WOH and her barely having any. She can't understand why I choose money over my kids, lol. The problem is, she can't see that I don't. My situation is not the same as hers. Especially since I stayed with the company and was able to work into a mom friendlier position when dd#2 was born.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 12:49pm
I don't think it's ridiculous. But then, I didn't see the post as an insinuation that a dual WOHP family can accomplish everything a family w/a SAHM can with the "same ease."

I thought the post was pointing out that dual WOHP families CAN do these same things, just in a different manner then a SAHM family (i.e. maintaining a home, running errands, being home for repairmen or workers...taking the children to the park, beach, museums, library, volunteering at their kids school, etc.)

Perhaps the home is cleaned by a housekeeper, errands are run at lunch or before/after work, kids are taken to the park, beach, museum, etc. on weekends or after work, the volunteering still occurs - a WOHP just must figure this into their work schedule.

I thought your post insinuated that dual WOHP families cannot do these things, which simply isn't true.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 12:51pm
i'm not sure where you got the impression that i've not worked ft. i spent a stint of less than a year sah and gradually taking on freelance and pt work before i landed a ft job after we moved, but i've woh ft for more than five of the six years since my oldest was born. i have never in that time had a conflict with my dh over staying home with a sick child, and i can count on one finger the number of times either one of us had any reason at all (and not an especially compelling one, at that) not to sah with a sick child. both of us also take time off for school events and other reasons without hesitation or conflict.

part of the reason we have no sick-day conflicts is because we've chosen not to take work that creates them and to only take jobs that facilitate this (thus, my period of unemployment after the move), but the main reason we have no conflicts is because neither one of us would for a moment consider a day or two of work more important than our children's comfort. i know some people believe that their workplaces would fall apart, their industries would crumble, if they took a day or two off, but i see the same people taking business trips that more interfere with the day-to-day work they consider more essential than their children's needs in illness (and in health) and other breaks, and i have yet to see anyone but a small business owner whose daily presence was anywhere near that important.

that you have more time to do these things is meaningless unless it takes more time to do them than a dual-income family normally has. i don't see an epidemic of families who can't have a parent stay home with a sick child and who don't have time to keep their houses clean or to let repairmen in, and the rest, so, while i'll grant that you might enjoy not having to struggle with a personal decision whether your job or your sick child is more important to you or having more time to put into household maintenance, i don't agree that most or even many families need more flexibility or time than a dual-income couple has to do them comfortably.

your posts reek of “dh and i couldn’t cut it, so no one else could.” if it’s so much effort, why are so many people doing it, and why do so many posters here seem so comfortable with it?


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 1:09pm
Slim, I think your situation is different than many others though. Your DH has a very demanding, inflexible career. I can see where if YOU were in a similar type of career it would be very difficult for your family to get everything done sanely.

However, most dual WOHPs I know are not both in "high-powered" demanding, inflexible careers. Even though my DH & I are both attorneys, my job is definitely less demanding (except February thru April!) than his. If we were both working at Mega-Firm on the partnership track, things would be different. But we, as many others, don't opt for this route.

Your "presentation/Atlanta" scenario just isn't the norm for most people. Why do you think that b/c someone hasn't done that routine that they don't have children?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 1:13pm
Totally OT, but is the 2004 traditional IRA dollar limit still $3,000 or will it go up?

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 1:19pm
last winter, The Lion King came to the IMAX theater in Hartford (about 1 hour away). As we were settling into the theater, we were talking about parts of the movie and jenna looked confused. I said, what's wrong, you've seen this before ---- haven't you? her answer -- no mom, i haven't. We ROFLOL realizing that in fact, she never had seen it because by the time she came along (5 years later) there were NEW disney movies.

It was bittersweet watching it because it was the first movie we ever took andrew to (he was 3 years old)...and it was the first time my munchkin had seen it.

I think we're going to try to go see the Black Stallion, also in IMAX, sometime soon.

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 1:22pm
Yeah, that IS totally OT! :)

It's still 3k through 2004. It will go up to 4K in 2005.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 1:26pm
We've had plenty of "who will stay home when" conversations but we have *never* had a problem with one of us absolutely not wanting to stay at home with a sick child or work being more important (I have to admit, I kind of like those snuggly days at home with the kids when they are sick, and so does dh :-)). We just always aim for a balance with each other's experiments so that a week or two's worth of work isn't lost if possible ;-). I take some days off, dh takes other days off, we often split the days and if there is a conflict, something gets dropped at work and oh well...work is the first thing out the window in those cases. What is the big deal with this? I will, and often have, scheduled work needs around school events, doctors' visits, illnesses, days off from school/dc etc.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 1:26pm
I think you know exactly what I mean, but you are purposely being obtuse (you ARE good at that!).

A person can be capable of earning a high income, but their income is not NEEDED for the family-or other things might be needed MORE than more money. To say someone is *capable* of earning *enough* means that they would not have the ability to earn enough money to make a *difference*. But if the family income is already in the 6 figures, and mom is *capable* of also earning 6 figures, what benefit would their be to the children to add in those 6 additional figures?

You cannot say that a person not working is not *capable* of earning enough to make a difference, when there might already BE enough money. Its not a matter of capability in that regard.

dj

Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 12-30-2003 - 1:29pm
That isnt always true. I retired from a job that offered a great deal of flexibility. I could have moved between ft and pt whenever I wanted, had as many days off without pay as I could afford, 6 wks vacation a year, plus all health benefits and sick leave. But it was better for OUR family to have a sahp for a time.

dj

Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

Pages