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
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 1:48pm
LOL, I play quite well thank you. Admittedly, Beethoven probably rolls over every time I attempt the third movement of the Moonlight Sonata but I'm told I play the first two very well. There's more to teaching music than just playing yourself. I had dd#1 in private lessons, with a man who was quite experience with kids, before we found out about Yamaha school. I was STUNNED six months after she started Yamaha. She progressed more in that 6 months than she had in the previous 1.5 years in private lessons. To quote the director of the program "Many people are willing to teach kids but few actually know how". Yamaha is all about HOW to teach them.

Dd#2 had the benefit of starting Yamaha at 3. At 6 she can sit at the piano and play Christmas carols by ear. Admittedly, using only chord shells or broken base but that's only because she has very tiny hands and isn't physically capable of full chords. There is no way my dd would be where she is now if I had taught her. After sitting in on classes for the last 4 years for both of my girls I wouldn't attempt to teach it myself.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 1:59pm
Good for you. Can't you imagine how SAH contributes to those factors, or conversely, that WOH would decrease those factors, for some people?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 2:02pm
Financial stress is not the only type of stress. There is also "lack of time" stress. This is why I work PT instead of FT.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 2:03pm
There are many types of stress besides financial.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 2:08pm
But this "longer life" of which you speak would be lived with a slightly lower SES. Therefore the extra years would be worthless. Money is more valuable than time. Money is also more valuable than health. Ask anybody who is deathly ill and they will tell you that they would give anything to die sooner but with more money.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 2:11pm
You are assuming that money is the only thing that can stack the deck in a child's favor. But this is an example where parental time spent supervising the child would stack the deck more in his favor than parental time spent earning money.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 2:20pm
And of course there is a balance between living through financial stress vs. emotional stress. The best point to achieve that balance will be shifted in different directions depending on individual circumstances in individual families. In family A, one person might be earning so much that there simply is no financial stress in the family: long-term goals are set, financial future is taken care of, etc. In that family, the working person may have very little job flexibility, long hours and a lot of travelling. The second person working would not help with financial stress at all because there is none, but the emotional stress of trying to balance two jobs and a family when one of those jobs is extremely demanding and difficult may well be excessive. In that case, having a SAHP is a benefit for the whole family (including children) because it reduces overall stress. In another family, the income of one person is not enough to ensure financial stability so having the second income, while causing some emotional stress, will ease greatly the financial stress resulting in overall less stress in the end....also a good thing for that family. In yet another family (family C :-)?), it may well be that having one person work pt is enough to reduced the financial stress, without causing additional emotional stress. Each family works to achieve the lowest stress possible but comes up with different solutions to the problem (SAH, WOH, WOHPT), thus each state can be, in and of itself, a benefit to the whole family. Stress reduction that comes with having a SAHP can be seen as a benefit.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 2:24pm
I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about my kids! How does my reducing stress result in benefits to them?
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 2:25pm
Yes, but no benefit to WOH doesn't result in benefits to SAH. When there is no benefit, you just choose what you like.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 2:26pm
LOL, but children of WM's have parental time. Working for a living doesn't mean the parents are AWOL.

Pages