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
C
Rationalize what?
Forgive me, I should have been more specific: if a woman uses her husband's career to springboard her own (politics or whatever), I think it's wrong. I think it's a detriment to feminism. I mean--how did she get her "networking connections?" Sex. So then it goes back to sleeping your way to the top and that doesn't get women any more respect than we had 100 years ago. I, for one, think women should get to the top using their brains, intelligence, and hard work--not their vaginas.
And I loathe Al and Tipper as much as Bill and Hil, but I don't give a good rodents' behind that little Al got busted for possession Saturday. I know I mentioned that in the same post--he's being a teenager, big deal. I don't think you can judge parents on the actions of their teens...ANY parents!
C
How do you know?
C
c
Not true...I've conceded that Chelsea seems normal enough--but, I don't think the Bush girls are the heathens they've been portrayed as, either.
<>
More power to you. OTOH, everyone I know, did use fake IDs to get into the bar and drink underage, therefore, I look at is as more of a rite of passage than enormous crime. And as I've stated earlier, I've never understood how someone is old enough to give his/her life for our country, but can't even buy a freaking beer. Ridiculous, but that's another debate.
<>
Now, where's the fun in that?
C
Yea, and the milk and eggs
Care to comment on his (GW) declaring the combat 'over' when it very well was NOT. . .only to save money by denying soldiers there to fight the war the combat pay due them.
Personally, I'd have felt more comfortable going into this war with more international support. . .
I don't feel like it was our (the US, specifically and almost unilaterally save for the UK and now the Spaniards and the Poles) place to take out Saddam.
Pages