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

Avatar for mygriffin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 11:21am
Um, I don't think anyone in their right mind who finds working and juggling stressful would just quit their job and jump right into a *different* type of stress -- having their family do without.

Moms who SAH and find that doing so lessens their stress and makes them AND therefore their ENTIRE family happier most likely CAN AFFORD to SAH without financial stress.

Do you know ANYONE who can afford to SAH and have EVERYTHING you want for your kids??? Education, enrichment activities, etc?

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 12:22pm
No, I claim that when you look at things like the census data it's clear that the current class of WM's ARE positively impacting their families finances. Can't say they all are but you can say that most are. What the top 2% of society do, I have no idea. I'm not privy to the details of their lives and I have noted before that I'm fully aware that there are some moms who are not capable of positively impacting their family finances. That being the case, who cares what they do? It's not going to matter either way.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 12:36pm
No, I don't think it has general benefits and I don't think kids turn out better if mom SAH. I think if you're going to try and make a general argument for one being better, it would be WOH because WOHM's are improving their family's finances (not to be miscontrued as my saying that all moms should WOH. All moms are not capable of imparting a financial benefit by WOH.). If you look at the census data, even taken with a grain of salt, it clearly says we ARE positively impacting our family finances as a group. Not all, but most as there is a significant jump in family income when mom WOH. Does this mean all moms should run out and get jobs? Nope. They're not all capable of making enough to make a difference.

Can SAH be a benefit over WOH? Sure, but it's situational. Just like WOH resulting in improved finances is situational. The difference here is in the sheer numbers that accomplish a benefit. Lots of WM's benefit their families via improved finances. I don't know of anything that lots of SAHM's do that benefits their families (as in actually results in a differene NOT lifestyle perks they enjoy). Finances aside, I think SAH/WOH are just lifestyle choices that usually don't make a difference one way or the other. Sometimes it is a benefit. I have a cousin with a severely autistic child who requires specialized care. Care she can't afford if she WOH even though her family could use her to. So she is trained to give him the care he needs and he benefits from this. In this case, the benefits of SAH outweigh the benefits of WOH. I never said they couldn't.

I just happen to think that it can be said that most WOHM's benefit their families through the income they generate and there is no equivalent statement of most SAHM's benefit thier families via the (fill in the blank) they impart to their families. The improved finances that WOHM's families enjoy is often overlooked because the studies correct for income when they compare SAHM's to WM's. They pretend we have the same income regardless of whether or not we work. The census, even being off, clearly shows that we DO positively impact our families finances in a significant way. I'd be willing to wager that if the researchers didn't correct for income, you'd see WOH as a benefit, on average over SAH.

However, as is always the case, individual results may vary. Obviously, it's not going to make a difference if mom can't earn enough to make a difference.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 12:36pm
sigh....You truly don't get it. It's a lost cause.

Most sahm's are CAPABLE of impacting their family's finances positively, that's not the issue. The point is, rather than impacting their families by contributing cash, they choose to positively impact their families in other, non-monetary ways.

Can't you admit that parents can make contributions to their families in non-monetary ways? I really think you can't. It would bother you too much to admit that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 12:42pm
But you forget that there are plenty of women out there who are pefectly capable of making enough money to *impact* the finances of their families, but choose not to for various reasons. Why would you assume that a parent who chooses to sah just isnt capable of earning enough money to make it worth their while?

Bottom line, even the financial contribution wohms are making to their families doesnt mean squat until you look at the individual family. There is NO INHERENT benefit to EITHER choice. NONE. You can find benefit to both choices when you take individual situations. But saying that wohms are positively impacting their families finances just means nothing-because we cannot know HOW that really affects their family without looking at the family itself.

dj

Dj

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 12:48pm
Do you mean that the family as a whole has to look at what they give up by having two WOHP?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 12:57pm
More or less. Some people value more than just money. And sometimes more money is just more money. More time can often be much more valuable to an individual family, for various reasons.

dj

Dj

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:01pm
Yeah, when I die years from now. And how does this make me a hypocrite??? Yes I work for future financial security but that is not of benefit to my kids now. It will be later when they don't have to pay for my nursing home but by then they will be raised and raising their own kids, I would hope. My 401K fund does not benefit my kids now. It may never benefit my kids. That's something I do for me. And this makes me a hypocrite how???? I never said there weren't things about WOH that I do for me.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:04pm
If mom is capable of bettering her children's lives by WOH, why wouldn't she do so? Why would a mom deny her kids a benefit she can provide?
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:07pm
Because, even if mom can earn 60K by woh, she may in fact be bettering her family's lives by SAH.

I agree, why WOULD she deny her kids the benefit of what she can provide? She wouldn't.

Pages