Moms and work of all sorts (ADHD, party, son, classes)
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.
My mother held her copy of Dr. Spock between two fingers and dropped it into the garbage when she figured out he was full of it.
The only good think about him was that my mother didn't believe in hitting her kids. I am thankful for her modern parenting. On the downside, I grew up with low frustration tolerance, because she felt compelled to be 'perfect". She never wanted us to be unhappy or cry and tired...etc.
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.
We don't sit on our butts all day. We are busy, just like many SAHMs of the past. Most of us cook and clean, run errands and take care of the kids. Some people make all of their meals from scratch, all the way from the vegetable garden in the backyard to the plate and some may add frozen veggies that they bought from the store into their otherwise "from scratch" casserole. Sometimes cooking healthy meals from scratch is more expensive then going through the drive through at McDonald's. It would be much cheaper for me to buy canned store brand vegetables then it would for me to buy fresh organic. I cook mostly from scratch but we still spend a lot of money on groceries because I buy a lot of organic. It's not all or nothing. Homemade fried chicken and biscuits is not going to save on health bills down the road and a bean burrito made from Rosarita beans isn't going to mean life or death. I don't know where you are getting this all or nothing idea. Your argument is pulled out of thin air and you are getting defensive because it's based on nothing. You are ignoring any post that calls you out on it and claiming victory. It's embarrassing.
What about this? Why are you making the SAHM responsible for making or breaking the family budget when there are two partners involved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy
OP, if you're going to accuse SAHMs of breaking the family budget, decimating their family's retirement funds and duping their husbands because they use pre-peeled carrots in their meal preparation instead of peeling them themselves then how would you feel about a husband who chooses a career such as a business professor when he could have made so much more money if he had chosen to start his own business instead? Would you say that husband is lazy since professors do have a lot more free time then someone running their own business and they make an awful lot less money as a professor then they could if they would just put the time, energy and effort into running a successful business? Were their wives duped?
As of now, 15 out of 19 SAHMs answered your poll that they mostly cook from scratch. What percentage were you expecting? Also, please define what you mean when you say, "from scratch" if you buy bread and canned tomatoes at the store is that "from scratch"?
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.
I don't think either statement is true. Most of us were a handful.
Originally Posted by syracusa 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.
Okay, let's take this seriously for a minute.
1) They often had outside help. Mrs Brady didn't have Alice for nothing, you know.
2) The butcher, grocer, and milkman delivered.
3) They often had a larger family, hence more (girls) to babysit and chop and prepare vegetables, do a lot of the chores.
4) It was okay to have a huge Martini (or two) at dinner, a diet pill at lunch, and a nice sleeping pill
for a nightcap.
5) You didn't have to drive kids anywhere. I know you're aghast at this modern development, but if
you try and tell me YOU don't actually drive your kids anywhere I'll eat my hat.
6) The children were never home. They all ran around the neighborhood in huge ravenous packs, looting and pillaging wherever they went. Or something like that.
6) The children were never home. They all ran around the neighborhood in huge ravenous packs, looting and pillaging wherever they went. Or something like that.
Pretty much it.
We straggled home when the street lights came on.
Or when the police cruiser dropped us off. Whichever came first.
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?
I cannot see why you would assume that. If you look at the definition of the word job, one legitimate definition is
anything a person is expected or obliged to do; duty; responsibility:
The family can decide for itself what value that duty/responsibility brings to them
Quote:
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.
Well for one thing, I can't support your defining job this way as above's definition makes it clear that your definition is by no means universally accepted. But the intent is for *everyone* to be happy including the poor abused husband who also values the wellbeing of his children.
Snip a bunch of stuff that seems nothing more than bitterness.
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 pretty much what you did to SAHMs correct?
Your assumptions as outlined below are just those. Assumptions on the lives of others, whom you do not know.
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.
I'm sorry you saw my post as a personal attack. It really wasn't meant to be. It was simply an observation. Much like your observations of others. It may be correct, it may not be.<shrugs> It just seems, in my experience, those people who spend an inordinant amount of time scrutinizing the lives of others, simply to pick them apart, are usually unhappy about something in their own lives. If that's not the case with you, then I'm truly pleased to hear it. I was pointing out that "health" includes mental health as well as physical health and that mental health and overall satisfaction in one's life (since you have issues with the word "happy" I'll use satisfaction) does have a positive impact on one's physical health also. Most every post I read of yours ends up with you standing and pointing accusatory fingers downward at others who make decisions regarding their lives that you disagree with philosophically. That just doesn't appear to me to be the actions of a woman satisfied in her life. I was suggesting that if you allowed yourself a little leeway, a little break on your scale of perfection, you might let some of that go. If that's not the case, and you felt attacked, then I do apologize.
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.
I didn't do that at all. In fact I pointed out several ways SAHMs save the family money that don't involve cooking, not the least of which is saving $15-$20,000 per year on child care. That is a significant contribution. You ignored everything I pointed out.
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?
Why is it all or nothing with you? Can you not fathom that me might take the kids to the museum, and they might play in the yard for hours on end, too?
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.
Well, you're the one who made the assumption that we all think of it as a "job" and applied your own job description to it. No one else said any of that.
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've said repeatedly that our husbands are happy with our arrangements for a variety of reasons. You are the only one who sees it at one-sided happiness. How financially healthy it is depends entirely on the individual family's income, COL, priorities, etc. There is no way you can judge this one aspect of life, cooking, w/o knowing the entire situation.
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.
There is a whole big area in between those 2 types of families. I bet every single poster here falls between these 2 extremes.You could pick anything at all that a family spends money on, and say it isn't smart, or frugal. It makes no sense to choose only one thing, food, and base your whole opinion of their spending. Maybe the mom who doesn't like to cook makes up for it by buying all second hand clothes. Who knows? Not you.
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.
What is a pseudo SAHM? How a person chooses to spend their money doesn't make them any more or less of a SAHM, except maybe in some super extreme cases where the mom is at the salon all day every day and the kids are taken care of by a nanny. those would be the super rich you said you aren't talking about.
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"?
Why all or nothing? Why do you seem blind to the fact that most people fall in the middle? What's wrong with merry go rounds and lollipops on some days, and home cooked meals on others? Or play int he morning and cooking in the afternoon?
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?
No one said we don't do those things. I do. My kids know what a balanced meal looks like. They like to watch and help cook. They have chores. I oversee them wiping down their bathroom...
Instead it appears to me that what such moms ultimately teach the kids is the art of CONSUMPTION.
I tell my kids "no it costs too much" all the time. Just this morning I told my 6 yo we couldn't go out to lunch because it costs too much. the park is free. The museum has free days. Last week we went to the botanic gardens on a free day. Believe me, they are learning about being thrifty.
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.
Then start a thread about poor money management, or poor nutrition, don't attack a bunch of people who aren't at the culinary extreme that you are. BTW, a lot of scratch cooking is very fattening.
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".
Almost all of the moms in my circle stay home. Some of them work on the side, but most don't. they are all still married and seem to be happily so. Care to explain?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa;23989769[B
]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.[/b] 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!!").
What does it matter? I don't see how that is pertinent to the argument
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.
And there it is! The same thing at the heart of all of your parenting threads. the over-indulgence of the kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
I find OPs deliberate inattention to several posts directed to him/her very telling. Oh well...
It certainly is. That's how i know i made a good point.
I see that 4 times as many SAHM's cook from scratch as don't. Pretty much does away with your whole argument. somehow, we manage to both entertain the kids AND cook from scratch. We're a talented group of ladies!
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.
) does have a positive impact on one's physical health also. Most every post I read of yours ends up with you standing and pointing accusatory fingers downward at others who make decisions regarding their lives that you disagree with philosophically. That just doesn't appear to me to be the actions of a woman satisfied in her life. I was suggesting that if you allowed yourself a little leeway, a little break on your scale of perfection, you might let some of that go. If that's not the case, and you felt attacked, then I do apologize.
