Which came first, the title or the SAHW?
Find a Conversation
Which came first, the title or the SAHW?
| 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
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.
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.
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?
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?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
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
It's still 3k through 2004. It will go up to 4K in 2005.
Laura
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~
dj
Dj
"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~
Pages