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: 03-27-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 10:27pm
Oh come on now Cyndi. Considering that the median age used to be something like 19, it shows a TREND (as you said) that the *average* woman is delaying childbirth. I remember when a friend of mine had her first baby at 25 and she commented that she and her dh were the YOUNGEST ones in their lamaze class. I have very few friends or aquaintances who had kids before 30. That *average* takes into account women OVER 26 and women UNDER 26-as you fully know. It shows that OVERALL women are having children later than they used to.

dj

Dj

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 10:28pm
If dad did 100%, it would be signifcant but small but he does less than half. That's an increase from doing 35% of the parenting to 40% of the parenting. You need to consider your basis. .4/.35 = 0.14. I'd say moving 5% closer to dad being an equal parent is worth going after.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 10:33pm
It's the percentage of parenting that dad does. Dads do 35% of the parenting when mom SAH and 40% when she WOH. Unfortunately, the way the data is presented it's not possible to talk about the change in total time for dads in this study except as averaged over 18 years. While you can split the total difference by preschool/post preschool years you can't figure out how the percentage/total for dad changes throughout the years. I've played with the numbers and used an iterative process to come to what I think are reasonable numbers but that's not something I would offer up for debate.

The study in question holds that when one parent SAH both do 7.7 hours of parenting a day and when both WOH they both do 7.3 hours of parenting a day with fathers doing 35% and 40% respectively. For what it's worth, that's an increase from 2.7 hours a day to 2.9 or something slightly higher than a 7% increase in actual time spent with the kids by dad, however, that number has to be take with a grain of salt since it's an 18 year average with no way to split out the preschool years from the rest so you have to go with dads being an average of 7% more involved when moms WOH from the time babies are small.

When mom goes to work after the kids start school, dads involvement only rises to 36% from 35%. Assuming all of the difference occurs during the school years, it works out to 36.5%, for the school years. Assuming the total hours are the same when moms WOH regardless of when she starts WOH (assuming that 100% of the difference is accounted for in the preschool years when mom starts working after the kids start school.) you get a reduction in the number of hours dad spends with the kids once mom returns to work if she SAH during the preschool years. Which leads one to conclude that dads who are uninvolved in the beginning tend to stay that way even if mom changes her working status later since you just don't see the increase in dads participation you'd expect. I find that rather interesting.




Edited 12/24/2003 10:46:07 PM ET by cyndluagain

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 10:50pm
But they haven't established that higher cortisol levels are bad. Just because you can measure a difference doesn't make it bad. One possibility is that kids who are exposed to reasonable but higher levels of stress younger may become adults who deal with stress better. After all, the brain is hardwiring to the environment. The dc invironment is similar to school/work environment with the group interaction and competition. For all we know this is a benefit. No one can say at this point but I see no reason to take a different MUST mean bad approach here.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 10:54pm
There are other ways to make sure kids are supervised and since they dont' need a parent there 24 x 7, there's no issue with WOH. Don't mistake failure to plan with working status. Just because we WOH doesn't mean our kids are left unsupervised and just because mom is home doesn't mean they are. We've got two troubled kids running our neighborhood who have a SAHM. The police have talked to her but it falls on deaf ears. She may be home but she's an absentee parent.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 10:56pm
So what will happen to your kids because you SAH? Speaking statistically or otherwise.


Edited 12/24/2003 10:56:43 PM ET by cyndluagain
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 10:59pm
It shows that we have fewer teen pregnancies. It shows that women are more likely to graduate from college before having kids. It does NOT show that women are establishing careers prior to having children en masse. Most kids are still born to moms in their 20's by far.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 12-24-2003 - 11:17pm
Actually, they have.

I'll post the documention if you want.

You can only seem to equate benefit with finances. I am trying to show you that unhappiness = dollars. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevent. Unhappy kids are big dollars these days and one reasons kids are unhappy is because they were in daycare during part of their lives. That is what they tell their parents and their shrinks anyway.


iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Thu, 12-25-2003 - 12:08am
Yes please. What kinds of negative results did they see as a direct result of the higher cortisol levels?
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Thu, 12-25-2003 - 12:17pm
Um, so if all these WM's aren't improving their family's standard of living, why are they WOH??? While some are WOH because that's what they want to do, I'd hazard a guess the rest are WOH BECAUSE OF the increase in income their WOH brings. While the actual dollar amounts may vary from the census data, it is highly doubtful that WOH results in a lower standard of living. I'll wager it's the extra income the vast majority of those moms are working for. Any way you slice it, I'm in good company.

Pages