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
It's amusing how you like to pretend my child was never small and that I've always earned a decent income. I raised my child on a smaller income than most of the folks on this board, and in a great many cases on less than HALF the incomes most of the folks on this board have raised/are raising their kids--including the MSAHMs who like to tell me how I'm working for material goods.
My ex and I lived together until my son was 10 years old. He traveled a great deal of the time and helped his family run a video store during the hours he wasn't working or traveling. I have a GREAT deal of experience--I dare say one whole hell of a lot more than YOU do in coping with a two adult family in which one of the adults isn't around a whole lot and taking care of the childcare duties.
We STILL managed to find time for parks, museums, zoos and the library--sometimes during the week, sometimes not. Sometimes we had to tough it out like the low-class vermin you clearly consider anyone beneath your income level to be and go when there were crowds. But we also learned how to time our visits--like going to the museums and zoos when there was a major Redskins game on (nothing clears out DC like a big Redskins game).
I'm just about done with listening to you ignorant blatherings about the fact that my son is NOW full grown so therefore I've never parented a child. Limit your comments to what you know--which shouldn't leave you with much to say about me or my life.
as for 3 free periods...well i know nothing about darien high school and their schedule. i work in the middle school and do not have 3 free periods. My "free" periods consist of 1 prep period, lunch, hall duty and a team meeting -- NONE of which (except for my prep) are "free". are there days where i have things to do during lunch, grade papers during hall duty? sure. are there days where i have nothing extra to do except enjoy lunch and read a book during hall duty? sure. are there team meeting days that are lighter than others? sure. are there weeks when we have 4 parent conferences out of 5 teaching days? sure.
eileen
Me, I am jealous of teachers. I wish I had gotten certified 20 years ago when I was in college, now it'll take me as many credits as getting a masters so that's what I'd have to do. I still might do it though.
Maybe in that fabled CT neighborhood where the white picket fences are overlaid in gold, the tax base can afford to pay for enough teachers to give everyone 3 free periods a day, but here in Reality World, teachers are lucky to get 1...and usually they have to fit in much of their administrative work in that time frame, so "free" is definitely a misnomer.
Although, (and I know I'll get clobbered for this), what I'm doing now is soooo easy! I sub only at middle or high school so I'm home by 2:30 or 2:50 at the latest, and I get a minimum of 2 hours off during the day to post here during free periods. Sometimes at the high school I'll catch a day when the teacher has as many as 4 free periods. Sometimes I'm out of there before noon. It really is an easy job, but that's why they don't pay anything either.
Oh and if I did have a nanny when the boys were little, I couldn't have standed knowing even once that she was out playing with them while I was working. Not even once.
My GOD!!! The very NERVE of her. Calling her co-workers "very professional" and insinuating that they "insist everyone work reasonable hours so as not to get "burnt out"." Boy, you sure are right. I bet if her co-workers read that, they will be SO mad at how unfair she was about them.
What a great big meanie she was. Wow. Gee...
"Oh and if I did have a nanny when the boys were little, I couldn't have standed knowing even once that she was out playing with them while I was working. Not even once."
Would it have been limited to a nanny? How did you feel when it was one of your parents or other family member, or your DH, doing the playing while you were elsewhere?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Hmmm, have we now somehow redefined the whole discussion to mean "long hours" only? I thought the question was how parents working "ft" could possible have time to do things with their kids in the afternoons. I didn't realise that we were talking about both parents working 60-80 hours per week. Last I heard, ft was considered around 40 hours. In my experience, the people bragging most about the long hours they put in every day tended to be the least efficient. Not always, but often enough to create a fairly clear pattern.
Laura
Pages