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.
Hmmm...I am thinking simply in terms of economic fairness.
When a man and a woman marry, the assumption is that they will BOTH pull together, each in their own way, to contribute to the economic well-being of the family. Am I too far off here?
However, when the woman ends up staying at home and her daily activities involve mainly "consumption" but very little "production" (aka activities that SAVE some of the money the husbands makes), then how is this even remotely fair to the guy?
If a spouse's daily job is reduced largely to consumption and some baby-sitting...then we might have a bit of an "equitable"-ness problem in the relationship.
If I were a man, I, personally, would be very frustrated if I worked all day long only to come home and realize my wife hardly did anything during the day that POSITIVELY impacted the family budget.
But then again, that's just me.
I do however understand that many SAHM-s today very much prefer to NOT have anybody "define" what the responsibilities of a SAHM should be.
Whatever she wants them to be, that's what they should be...as long as the (often dupe-able) husband agrees.
After all, all other occupations get to define their own job responsibilities...why not the SAHM, right?
A doctor may want to define "fishing" as doctor's work, a janitor may see "dancing" as part of the job...why not?
I don't think you are too far off in thinking in terms of "economic fairness." But I don't think it is necessarily correct to equate cooking from scratch with saving money. Fresh produce is expensive. If plans change and a meal doesn't get cooked for a few days, ingredients get wasted.
There are ways to save money that don't involve cooking, and there is a lot more to staying home than saving money.
It isn't "baby sitting" when they are your own kids! And that alone is worth about $15,000-$20,000/year for 2 kids.
Taking my kids to the park or the museum is worth a lot more to me, and I'd guess my husband, than chopping veggies.
** if you want a man's opinion, my husband just said "WTF? who cooks from scratch anymore?"
Before you think I feed them fast food every night, I want to say that I don't remember the last time we had fast food.
I'm not a SAHM so I can cook. I stay home to take care of the kids which includes a lot more than feeding them.
I cooked from scratch a lot more when I had just one child. Now that I have two, one who I am homeschooling plus a toddler, I don't cook from scratch as much. That doesn't mean that I'm pulling frozen dinners out of the freezer and popping them in the oven. It means that I might crock pot a chicken one night and use some of the chicken with rice and vegetables for dinner, use some for homemade chicken soup the next night, chicken enchiladas (sauce, tortillas are not made from scratch) the next evening and what's left to top off a salad. I don't buy frozen pizza but I buy (not make) pita bread, top it with jarred sauce (I know how to make sauce but this is way quicker) add some toppings, grate some cheese and there ya go, pizza. I rarely soak and cook beans because it's way more convenient to just use canned and it's not cost prohibitive.
Most of my "from scratch cooking" these days revolves around the use of a crock pot. I know how to cook, I like to cook but sometimes the time and energy put into it is too much. I suspect that most mothers of young children fall somewhere between 100% from scratch and 100% pre made dinners.
Regarding the OP's comments about the stay at home wife's role. My husband works a lot. It's not uncommon for him to work 7 days a week, 10 + hours a day. If I manage to stay sane by the end of the day and the kids are fed and reasonably happy then it was a good day. I know the OP is not a SAHM so it's easy for her to judge what a SAHM should do. I encourage her to try it before she passes judgement.
Well, the lady asked in bold -so I answered.
Why a SAHM should not be able to define a SAHM-s job responsibilities?
Because nobody goes around and completely redefines entire job categories. If I am a doctor I don't get to "redefine" what a doctor does. I can't say "in my book, a doctor does nail painting".
Anyone, of course, can do WHATEVER they want as long as they can get away with it; but this is not the point.
The point is that you cannot continue to present the SAHM status as an actual job, if the activities involved are hardly economically productive, save the baby-sitting fees.
Staying at home and just doing whatever you please it's one thing - and it's 100% fine.
But selling this as an actual "job" is another.
The first who would have to reject such applicants would have to be the working husband. When they don't, I simply interpret it as:
- rich man, proud to support wife not contributing economically.
or
- duped.
Taking care of children all day is a job. My husband would rather go to work then stay home all day everyday with the kids. It's not easy.
If the thread was merely to find out how many of us enjoy cooking from scratch, and how we managed to do so while taking care of the numerous other responsibilities we have as parents, it might have made for an interesting discussion.
But, once again, it will be a poster determined to tell us what our proper roles are in the household. See ya.
Whether you like cooking or not, when you refuse to cook from scratch as a SAHM in a non-rich family, simply because you think you have "no talent" (charmingly convenient), or that you "don't have to", you miss a massive opportunity to contribute to your family's financial well-being.
Short-cuts costs money, by the way.
As a husband, I would be pi**ed - whether my wife had "cooking talent" or not.
So what? there is no rule that says both parties must contribute financially. What business is it of yours if another family can afford to buy some pre-made food? My time is worth more than money. Many times (not every time) I'll choose my time over my money, and that's my business, not yours.
Whether you like cooking or not, when you refuse to cook from scratch as a SAHM in a non-rich family, simply because you think you have "no talent" (charmingly convenient), or that you "don't have to", you miss a massive opportunity to contribute to your family's financial well-being.
Short-cuts costs money, by the way.
As a husband, I would be pi**ed - whether my wife had "cooking talent" or not.
I'm glad you are not my husband. You sound rather chauvinistic.
Whether you like cooking or not, when you refuse to cook from scratch as a SAHM in a non-rich family, simply because you think you have "no talent" (charmingly convenient), or that you "don't have to", you miss a massive opportunity to contribute to your family's financial well-being.
Short-cuts costs money, by the way.
As a husband, I would be pi**ed - whether my wife had "cooking talent" or not.
Would you? As a husband? My husband values me far too much as a person to be pissed if I didn't cook.
In my book, the main "job" of a SAHM is to take care of the kids, which involves a lot more than cooking.
Now, just because we conveniently changed job titles from "housewife" to "SAHM" does not mean that the way the family works has changed all that dramatically. When a guy marries, I don't think he agrees to being kept largely out of the equation. He doesn't just sign up to be the sponsor of a woman and any kids she will give birth to.
He assumes "we will do all this together".
Don't you think the job you're talking about would be one with an awfully reduced load in a time when all other occupations get more and more responsibilities added to the plate, in addition to what the basic job responsibilities used to be?
Now, "taking care of the kids" used to mean much more than just taking kids to "mommy and me" fun time or volunteering at their school.
It used to mean taking care of their bellies as well: present bellies as well as FUTURE bellies, hopefully not ridden with cancer by the time they turn 50.
How about the husband? Does he matter? Why is it fair for him to be the ONLY economic contributor? Why shouldn't the wife be an economic contributor too by SAVING as much of the money he brings at home through her own activities? Why does she and her kids get to be consumers only and the husband must be the producer?
Explain why regular guys would want to go for such a position: keeping at home a wife who only takes care of the kids in ways that SHE gets to define and that involve consumption only.
Why can't she make efforts to maximize family's overall net worth - whether working or at home?
I very much agree. It really IS a hell of a lot of work, between "'scratch" and "clean up".
Now take this and combine it with full-time professional career.
Ouch.
If you ever want to go Amish, I'm the person to ask.
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.
