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.
I hate to break it to you, but the employer decides what constitutes the job, not the random bystander. Since you aren't the SAHM CEO or HR person, you don't really get to define the job.
Wrong. Not even a CEO gets to modify the definition of a job like this type of SAHM thinks she has the right to.
Job definitions are largely driven by some form of societal consensus.
If the husband simply allows the wife to stay at home and just do whatever she pleases - that is his prerogative.
But is he a dupe for allowing this kind of status quo? I argue yes.
Is he agreeing to lowered financial well-being in the long run, for him and his family? Yes, he does.
How many CEO-s did you hear about who redefined "accountant" to mean "sales" activities?
With such a heavy duty full time career, 2 children, a husband and all that cooking from scratch (including shopping economically, prepping and cleaning up) I'm shocked you find time to put so much thought into other people's business.
You have seriously got to be joking. Either that or you've never stayed home with small children.
I have a friend who has a baby that NEVER sleeps, who's husband is away on business for extended periods of time, who has a preschooler that also never sleeps and who has at home speech therapy, who is exhausted beyond measure, and has EXACTLY no time for herself, AT ALL. And she doesn't have ultra special needs children or any of the other challenges that other mothers face on a regular basis.
This poseur, pseudo intellectual type of judgmental ridiculous assessment of other people's lives and how they live them is entirely out of order.
And, before you throw out how "vitriolic" people get in response to your threads, perhaps you could take a good look at what you post and ask why that is.
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 hadn't really thought about it till you brought up something similar in another thread.
I may be a single guy, but I cook, clean, do laundry, and work 75-90 hours a week.
The woman I'm seeing is being daring by baking a frozen lasagna.
But she teaches part time at a college, and is a CPA.
IF we do stay together, I have no issues doing the cooking and a large part of the cleaning, but I'd be irate if she did nothing constructive other than babysitting. I have (much) younger siblings... It's not THAT much work.
(yes, I've changed my share of diapers, vomit, sick kids etc)
Wrong. Not even a CEO gets to modify the definition of a job like this type of SAHM thinks she has the right to.
Job definitions are largely driven by some form of societal consensus.
If the husband simply allows the wife to stay at home and just do whatever she pleases - that is his prerogative.
But is he a dupe for allowing this kind of status quo? I argue yes.
Is he agreeing to lowered financial well-being in the long run, for him and his family? Yes, he does.
How many CEO-s did you hear about who redefined "accountant" to mean "sales" activities?
Ok, now I am confused. You bash SAHM repeatedly but you seem to lack basic knowledge about working for pay if you think society defines jobs. At every job I've ever held, the person giving the paycheck defines the job.
To be honest, I wish I had your type of job. I work a lot of hours and don't have the free time to constantly bash SAHM on the internet and warn the duped husbands of the world about their terrible sugar daddy status.
You have seriously got to be joking. Either that or you've never stayed home with small children.
I have a friend who has a baby that NEVER sleeps, who's husband is away on business for extended periods of time, who has a preschooler that also never sleeps and who has at home speech therapy, who is exhausted beyond measure, and has EXACTLY no time for herself, AT ALL. And she doesn't have ultra special needs children or any of the other challenges that other mothers face on a regular basis.
This poseur, pseudo intellectual type of judgmental ridiculous assessment of other people's lives and how they live them is entirely out of order.
And, before you throw out how "vitriolic" people get in response to your threads, perhaps you could take a good look at what you post and ask why that is.
So would you be able to explain how SAHM-s of the past did all the above AS WELL AS cooking from scratch?
Did their children ALWAYS sleep? Was that "angel" status a guarantee for 1950's babies?
Yes, I stayed at home with babies as well as cooked from scratch.
I also worked full-time WHILE staying at home with babies.
Yes, the kind with severe colic, difficult personalities, etc.
The vitriol is coming from you: a violent knee-jerk reaction that says something.
If you cannot come up with a cohesive and reasonable argument as to why it is OK for one spouse to always have to maximize production while the other feels free to maximize consumption as she pleases...then how about try to at least control the knee jerk reaction?
I have tremendous respect for SAHM-s who actually work with their husbands to raise a healthy and financially stable family.
I have zero respect for women who hide behind the loosely defined "SAHM" label simply to be able to get away with a minimum amount of work and a maximum amount of consumption, all while taking advantage of a husband way too scared by those who exploit feminist tenets to even utter a word about the arrangement.
Just because you don't like such aspects discussed/debated/questioned ... does not make them taboo.
And, do I really need to point out that if you aren't growing your own vegetables, baking your own bread, cutting the heads of your own chickens or milking your own cows, then no - you aren't cooking "from scratch" either.
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.
