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
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?
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.
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.
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~
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
dj
Dj
"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~
I agree, why WOULD she deny her kids the benefit of what she can provide? She wouldn't.
Pages