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: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:25pm

You can't lump all those people together.


1969Jets and Cocoapop had high paying careers, but they are married to high income earners.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:29pm
Isn't cyndiluwho's postulate that 50% or more of families are better off with dual WOHPs?

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

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:33pm
I guess you think we are all home sitting on our butts while our kids find other places to hang out.

WRONG!

My house is the hangout. I have 5 here right now. Friday I had 7 (ages 4-13). The kids love to come here, have something to eat or drink and someone around to chat with. I don't spend every second monitoring their conversations and I let them lead the conversations.

I have learned an awful lot about middle schools around here simply by being around to give the kids drinks and snacks and listening in on (and sometimes participating in) conversations. My presence doesn't seem to discourage the kids from being here. I don't spend every second listening in to their conversations. Right now ds#1 is playing Risk with a friend in his room, dh#2 is playing a video game in his room with a friend and ds#3 is watching tv, waiting for me to be done with the computer so we can build a lego fire truck together.

My neighbor across the street has teen daughters (15, 17). She is always home and the kids spend lots of time home with thier friends. I think the trick is to be available, and around, but not suffocate the kids. You need to give them privacy and space while still remaining around. Keeping them scheduled every minute of the day doesn't work, nor does suffocating them. You need to find a balance with kids.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:51pm
Yes, but they are things that can be done. And in many cases they are the preferred things. The amount of stress a person feels often has internal origins. They would feel stressed regardless of their situation. While the stress could be, temporarily, relieved by a change in situation, it simply returns in a different form once the newness of the change wears off. Happiness works the same way. We seem to return to some preset happiness level within a year of any major change beit good or bad. Sometimes when you change a situation to reduce stress you just find something else to stress out over. For example, trading stressing over time for stressing over money if you quit your job to SAH and relieve time stress. Far better to try exercise, meditation and hobbies before you go making any major changes because you may very well find that all you changed was the source of your stress. Of course if you don't have time for exercise, meditation and hobbies, I suppose the change might be beneficial, lol.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:53pm
Never said any such thing. Simply pointed out that being home isn't enough to deter anything. It's not the time you have, it's what you do with the time you have.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:54pm
And what would those ways be? What is the benefit that most SAHM's bring to their family that is akin to the financial benefit most WM's bring to theirs?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:54pm
Because she may be doing a better job of bettering her children's lives by staying at home....for whatever reason dependent on the family circumstances, goals and needs? It certainly was a great deal better for our family overall for me to SAH when I did than any monetary contribution I could have made at that time as a WOHM.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:55pm
Butting in to say that there isn't a job that could pay me enough to not spend my days w/DS. Period. We could have all the money in the world, but it wouldn't be worth it to me, b/c in MY CASE, my given "career" is as a SAHM.

Despite the income I could bring in, the only effect my WOH would have on my family would be me being a bigger b*tch than I am now, which couldn't possibly be a good thing! (Hey, there's a reason I was working p/t 3 years before having DS...) ;)

Anyhoo...ITA w/you Slim. In our case, the effect on our SES would be negligible and certainly not worth the havoc it would wreak on our lives.

JMHO, of course! C

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:55pm
Yes, I'm talking about the current class of WM's and what they ARE doing. Not the wealthy. It really doesn't matter what they do. If we were all weatlhy, there'd be nothing to debate.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Mon, 12-29-2003 - 1:57pm
That is my point. Most WM's benefit their families via increased income. There is no equivalent statement for SAHM's.

Pages