Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the end, all you guys did was pick on my personal situation and characteristics. Unfortunately, these have zero relevance to the argument itself, never mind you don't know anything about them.
So let's sum it up, granted the topic is out of the bottle.
My original intent was to see some actual behavior based on the poll.
As I expected, the results confirmed that some SAHM-s still cook from scratch, yet a good chunk of them no longer do, and some don't cook at all. Then someone pointed out that I was making "assumptions" about what the SAHM job is supposed to be. And indeed I was.
As long as you define your SAHM status as an actual job, then yes - I will assume that it is something that has a significant and positive economic impact for the ENTIRE family, in addition to the emotional benefits, largely defined as making yourself and the kids "happy". BY thy way, kids have no clue that their long-term happiness, strongly related to health, would be much better served by home-cooked meals than by constant drives to "fun" (read "often costly") places. Since when the back yard/around the house is a terrible place to be for a child while the mother is cooking?
Wasn't the yard desired for this very purpose during the house-hunt?
Now, if you're not defining your SAHM mom status as an actual job...then of course it doesn't matter what you do with your free time. It is all yours and it's not even relevant to the discussion.
Just don't sell it to the public as a full-blown "job", maybe out of decency for those who DO work actual jobs, with plates overflowing with responsibilities of all sorts - and that includes the SAHMS who do a whole lot more than "entertaining" the kids and making them "happy".
Now, I can see how this arrangement might make this type of "job" holder "happy". I just don't see how it is fair to the partner who must subsidize this kind of clearly one-sided "happiness" and how it is financially healthy for the family in the long run. That was the gist of my argument.
We are talking here about families who have mortgages and all sorts of other debts and who would surely not turn their nose up to the kind of long-term returns from the contributions of a frugal, economically productive stay-at-home spouse.
We are not talking about RICH families who can easily live off of investment income and nothing else.
I argued that this pseudo-SAHM, who DOESN'T bring any sort of income in, neither does she make any particular effort in saving some of the income the partner brings in (include same-sex partnerships here if you wish)...are engaging largely in consumption and use "raising children" as an excuse for a full-time job. I stand by my argument.
Raising children has always involved dozens of other things in addition to "entertaining" children and making them "happy" (very fuzzy, by the way).
If your child tells you it makes him "happy" to go to on the merry-go-round and lick lollipops there every day, is this how you are going to define "raising children"? Whatever makes them "happy"?
You would think you might want to include in the job description other aspects related to children's long-term well-being, including feeding them well, teaching them about household organization by modeling behavior, engaging them in household chores, teaching all sorts of life skills (and that includes cooking from scratch!). Also, did I ever leave the impression I was only talking about mothers of infants? What about those mothers with kids in school 8-3?
Instead it appears to me that what such moms ultimately teach the kids is the art of CONSUMPTION.
Happiness = fun = consumption and it should be perfectly OK to call this "a job".
The fact that so many people have come to accept such amazing BS (especially middle-class working men), all while middle class families get deeper and deeper into debt, childhood obesity rates are through the roof and cancer is all over the place...THIS is quite telling in and of itself.
When you guys ran out of any decent argument, you fired back with "but you don't know what else those mothers may be doing in the house!!".
In fact, I know very well what they are doing. They do what they said and clearly look like they do: entertain the kids when they have them around and feed them store-bought stuff.
Because if they did DO something else that is economically helpful, IN ADDITION TO the "happy" thing, then they would simply no longer qualify under the category I am discussing.
Mothers who trade stocks or sell on E-bay don't qualify under the category I mentioned. If they do that, they contribute economically. They work for pay. Just like mothers who cook from scratch, or clean the house or any other activity that would otherwise need to be financed. These moms may not work directly for pay (they are not offense players) but they save on all sorts of life costs (they are great defense players).
Here I am discussing exclusively the mothers who do very little that is economically productive (apart from saving on baby-sitting fees), whose activities with the kids during the day involve mainly consumption, and who want to get away with calling this "a job".
In the end, no surprise marriage rates are going down, singlehood is on the rise and young women are increasingly puzzled as to why guys shy away from commitment.
Could it be that some of this fear of commitment might have to do with the prospect of working until grave so he can keep a mother both "at home" as well as "happy" - "happy" being defined as "I should do whatever I please with my time"?
It would also be nice to hear some male voices. I received some "amens" in private, not surprisingly from guys.
I do understand some people hate to hear this argument. But that's life. Sometimes we hear things we don't want to hear. Sigh.
Then we shrug it off and move on with our thing.
Thanks again to those who picked an option.
It is actually overwhelming what a house of cards your argument is built upon. More than one poster has picked apart various facets of it. Perhaps in addition to the amens you've received as reps, you should also consider all of the amens those of us who disagree with your overgeneralizations, stereotypes and judgments have gotten. If we're interested in all of the information and not just what confirms preconceived notions, that is.
My DH is home this morning and I'm anxiously waiting for him to go to work. He has all of these ridiculous ideas that he can do things around here uninterrupted like open the dishwasher without a toddler trying to climb inside to grab a knife. He thinks he can walk past said toddler without her grabbing his pant leg and demanding that he pick her up. He gets grumpy when he opens the back door and toddler expects him to take her outside to swing....again. He gets grossed out when he sees me sweeping and toddler plops down in the middle of the dust pile and tries to eat things out of it. He's annoyed when he makes himself something to eat and the kids want some too. He actually thinks he can set important papers on the table without toddler reaching up, grabbing them and spreading them all over the room. The messes my 6 year old makes while she does her art projects stress him out. Her kid music CD that is currently on blast is giving him a headache. He's been home all weekend with these strange ideas that he can do what he wants without interruption are making him very grumpy. Such is the life of a stay at home mom. Just sitting around on our fat butts doing what we want, right?
Everyone is yet to explain how SAHM-s of the past dealt with children, IN ADDITION TO cooking from scratch and doing other household related tasks. It's not like I am comparing work-for-pay moms with SAHM-s; so you might want to give up on that old rhetoric ("oh, yes, we sit on our butts and do nothing all day long!!").
In fact, work-for-pay moms are not even part of the discussion here.
Did children change that dramatically that the new SAHM no longer has an oz of time to allocate to anything beyond dealing with the children's immediate demands and messes?
Oh, wait!!! Yes! They did! We allowed them to!
Truth be told, the typical SAHM of the 50's did have easier-to-handle kids. Because she was raising them that way and not indulging every one of their whims and calls for attention.
Hence more time and energy for cooking. Problem solved.
It is actually overwhelming what a house of cards your argument is built upon. More than one poster has picked apart various facets of it. Perhaps in addition to the amens you've received as reps, you should also consider all of the amens those of us who disagree with your overgeneralizations, stereotypes and judgments have gotten. If we're interested in all of the information and not just what confirms preconceived notions, that is.
Unfortunately, what you disagree with is anyone daring to critique the culture of entitlement and consumption many pseudo-SAHM-s today have woven.
Unfortunately, what you disagree with is anyone daring to critique the culture of entitlement and consumption many pseudo-SAHM-s today have woven.
Not in the least, actually. One needs to be careful about making those kind of assumptions, especially if one is not very skilled at assuming correctly. I'm not a fan of entitlement. I'm sure these "pseudo-SAHMs" as you define them exist somewhere, but I don't know any personally. What I disagree with is one poster weaving an "argument" out of very little content, a whole lot of assumption of questionable verity, and a healthy dose of condescension, then proceeding to claim some kind of debating victory over it.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 04-23-2012 at 12:17 PM..
In the end, all you guys did was pick on my personal situation and characteristics. Unfortunately, these have zero relevance to the argument itself, never mind you don't know anything about them....blah, blah
And here you are again back with the all or nothing stance. Either people cook everything from scratch, or they eat at McDonalds every night. Either they are steam-cleaning carpets every day and make all the clothes by hand, or else they are paying large amounts of money taking their children to "fun" activities. It's a very peculaiar view of the world.
Moderation is a grand lifestyle. Our family chooses to live frugally. We spend a lot of money on what we choose to. We do not spend money on things we consider a waste to us. Every family is different.
Your idea of how SAHM's spend time with children and mine could not be further apart. My kids love helping me cook, we go for hikes, bike rides, play basketball, go shopping at the thrift store, make up silly songs, talk about politics and religion, take care of the pets, play tennis, etc. All things I'm sure most of the moms stay at home or otherwise do with their families regularly.
The activities you find so disdainful have taken my children to the Telus museum, on aircraft carriers, to the opera, the ballet, spelunking, to space museums, to baseball and football games, geocaching, stargazing, making pottery, building forts.
Because you choose not to engage in fulfilling activities with your family is neither here nor there for me, but I really hope some time in the near future you find just a little bit of happiness. Seriously.
Everyone is yet to explain how SAHM-s of the past dealt with children, IN ADDITION TO cooking from scratch and doing other household related tasks. It's not like I am comparing work-for-pay moms with SAHM-s; so you might want to give up on that old rhetoric ("oh, yes, we sit on our butts and do nothing all day long!!").
In fact, work-for-pay moms are not even part of the discussion here.
Did children change that dramatically that the new SAHM no longer has an oz of time to allocate to anything beyond dealing with the children's immediate demands and messes?
Oh, wait!!! Yes! They did! We allowed them to!
Truth be told, the typical SAHM of the 50's did have easier-to-handle kids. Because she was raising them that way and not indulging every one of their whims and calls for attention.
Hence more time and energy for cooking. Problem solved.
Nah. Children of the 50s could go out all day, riding bikes, exploring in the woods, going to the library (all by themselves!) etc without having CPS called on the parents.
Truth be told, you really haven't an ounce of fact backing up your assertions. You are pulling things out of thin air.
If the primary reason a family has settled on a stay at home arrangement is to provide a parental primary care giver for the children than that does not say anything about cooking let alone cooking from scratch.
Additionally, the family has already determined that the FINANCES of the family are secondary to caring for the children. Once that is the paradigm, then your "point" becomes pointless.
Look, if the finances were the most important thing in the family than there would be no SAH parents as everyone would be working outside the home.
Additionally, YOU do not have the financial or moral high ground here. You have unilaterally decided that what YOU do is the "right" amount of cost saved per unit effort while ignoring all of the other things you could be doing. So while cooking from less prepared food may save money, it is equally valid to say that you are not saving our husband "enough" money by not growing your own food, making your own clothes, etc.
All of those things save money, yet you have decided that they are too much work, while what you do is the right amount. That is entirely subjective.
OP, I have made no aspersions on your character and only pointed out your flawed logic and inherently subjective perspective.
Because you choose not to engage in fulfilling activities with your family is neither here nor there for me, but I really hope some time in the near future you find just a little bit of happiness. Seriously.
Zimbo,
I understand you have nothing else but personal attacks, so let me indulge you. You know nothing of the activities myself and my family engages in - and this is a FACT. To diminish your fears about my "state of happiness", we do everything you self-righteously point to, and then some.
We have all the fun and fulfillment we will ever need, in addition to very good food, cooked from the mother of all scratches - thank you for worrying.
Sadly, once again, you had zero to add to an issue discussed.
Just desire to throw tomatoes at the one making the argument you hate hearing. Oh, well.
I really hope some time in the near future you find just a little bit of coherence in your arguments and just a little less desire to kick the legs when you should in fact kick the ball.
Ya know, my mom was one of those quintessential 50s housewives you seem to admire OP. She always had our house spotless. Not a thing out of place. Always had dinner on the table at 5pm, maintained her gardens and plants. You name it, she did it.
Guess what? She was ****ing miserable. So miserable that my siblings and I do not remember her ever spending time with us, save for very 3 distinct occasions. That's sad. My siblings and I would have given anything for her to just be with us. She couldn't deal with taking a second to hug us or kiss my father because she had to clean! Always had to be perfect.
While you may revere the Cult of Domesticity, those of us who lived it know how damaging it is. Not only to the SAHM, but to her husband and children, and the community at large.
I understand you have nothing else but personal attacks, so let me indulge you. You know nothing of the activities myself and my family engages in - and this is a FACT. To diminish your fears about my "state of happiness", we do everything you self-righteously point to, and then some.
We have all the fun and fulfillment we will ever need, in addition to very good food, cooked from the mother of all scratches - thank you for worrying.
Sadly, once again, you had zero to add to an issue discussed.
Just desire to throw tomatoes at the one making the argument you hate hearing. Oh, well.
I really hope some time in the near future you find just a little bit of coherence in your arguments and just a little less desire to kick the legs when you should in fact kick the ball.
Are you saying you misspoke in the multitude of other posts where you descibe your disdain for a variety of activities? I am merely repeating what you yoursef have already posted. Was none of it true?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- thank you for worrying. 
