Stay at home moms

[SKL]

But she also has a history of making miss-the-point gaffes about economics: when Romney ran for Senator of MA he was neck and neck with Kennedy for a while until she gave an interview talking about she understood financial struggle because while Mitt was at Harvard Business School, they had to cash in some of his trust fund to continue paying their bills.

 

That's funny. I do seem to remember that. The thing that makes it funny is that it was Kennedy who got the benefit of that. You know, the poor guy living in the claim shanty. ;)

 

Far as I know, there haven't ever been any poor wives of presidential candidates. We'll just have to live with that, I think.

[momma2three]

That's funny. I do seem to remember that. The thing that makes it funny is that it was Kennedy who got the benefit of that. You know, the poor guy living in the claim shanty. ;)

 

Far as I know, there haven't ever been any poor wives of presidential candidates. We'll just have to live with that, I think.

 

The Kennedys were always very open about being very privileged. I think Romney gets mocked when he tries to act like he has experience being financially "normal." I don't know why he doesn't just "own" being super rich. Having a lot of family money didn't hurt the Bushes, and Reagan and Obama both made a lot of money and it didn't hurt them either.

[Lisbeth]

I didn't have the guts to start this thread -- but I SO AGREE WITH YOU. Rosen's implication that stay-at-home-moms aren't "in reality" enough to give opinions on women seriously bothered me.

 

Why can't I have an opinion? Why can't any SAHM have an opinion? Implying that we're all out of touch because we don't get a paycheck is ridiculous.

 

The Womens' Movement was about giving choice to women -- NOT making women feel less-than for staying home.

 

Alley

 

Agree, agree, agree. They really stepped in it with that whole statement.:lol:

[Sneezyone]

That's funny. I do seem to remember that. The thing that makes it funny is that it was Kennedy who got the benefit of that. You know, the poor guy living in the claim shanty. ;)

 

Far as I know, there haven't ever been any poor wives of presidential candidates. We'll just have to live with that, I think.

 

Well, actually, no. We have a very recent example of a first family requiring gov't-backed students loans to overcome their lack of familial assets.

 

Full disclosure: I had a SAHD for a while and LOOOOOVED IT! My dad was the only dad who was able to make each and every track meet, JV football game, whatever. He may not have been much of a cook and couldn't do my hair to save his life but he was a fantastic role model for me and my siblings and had an uncanny nack for giving us just the right advice.

[Sneezyone]

I had a working mother and grandmother - and no WAY was I going to do that to my kids. I hold my kids in high regard and wanted them to grow up knowing they are very important to me.

 

This is no better than the original statement that started the kerfluffle. Women who work outside the home also hold their children in high regard and believe their children are very important. When my mother went to law school, I was 8 years old. She attended at night and I remember how my father sabotaged her efforts out of some misguided fear of being unnmanned. He literally would hide her texts or destroy her notes. I have tremendous respect for what she accomplished while still planning our birthday parties and helping me with my Oddessey of the Mind team. The two are not mutually exclusive. And today, many years after their divorce, my mom is fully capable of supporting herself (well) and my dad was able to remarry the caretaker he always wanted. We're all better for it.

[Alphabetika]

I feel sorry for the kids of people who think staying-at-home is somehow less important than any other job out there.

 

:iagree: If we as a society and individuals are going to bear children, SOMEONE has to raise those children. Why is it wrong when their MOTHERS do that? :confused:

[horsellian]

Anne Romney does get to truly 'choose' to stay home or not. Lots of women don't. If they want to support their family, they have to work. Many women on this board are working to make ends meet. Many of us just want to work outside the home.

 

Agreed she does have a choice while others don't, but I don't have a choice whether or not to stay at home either... because I can't earn enough to be able to afford to work.

 

If I were working full time in my pre-children (graduate) job, I'd be paying 120% of my take-home for childcare. So whether I want to or not, I'm at home; working part or full time outside the home would be a net drain on our resources, and we *can't* afford that.

[Sneezyone]

:iagree: If we as a society and individuals are going to bear children, SOMEONE has to raise those children. Why is it wrong when their MOTHERS do that? :confused:

 

I don't think anyone (even Hilary Rosen) thinks it's wrong. It's just not wrong when alternatives are employed either. A previous comment mentioned the children of high-achieving students sharing a last name but that says nothing about the division of labor withing those households. It goes without saying that having two parental caregivers is more likely to result in successful offspring. Parenting is hard work!! But it does not follow that every one, or even most of those families, included a SAHM or SAHD.

[T'smom]

Agreed she does have a choice while others don't, but I don't have a choice whether or not to stay at home either... because I can't earn enough to be able to afford to work.

 

If I were working full time in my pre-children (graduate) job, I'd be paying 120% of my take-home for childcare. So whether I want to or not, I'm at home; working part or full time outside the home would be a net drain on our resources, and we *can't* afford that.

 

 

We're in the same boat- I'd probably make a little money, but not much. I wonder why this isn't the situation for more people. Considering the higher income bracket we'd be in + childcare.....we wouldn't be very much ahead.

[MrsBear]

If you *really* want to see how undervalued being a SAHP is, talk to a SAHD.

 

Wolf and I made the decision that he'd quit his dead end job he loathed, and come home to start his own business, and I'd return to health care, which I loved.

 

I worked 3-11 to accomdate both hsing, and his starting his own biz. It worked fantastically for us, up until I was hurt.

 

But you wouldn't *believe* the carp ppl spouted at us! I had other women at work tell me their dh's were too much of a man to let their wife support them, the list goes on.

 

One of the boys in DS's scout den is a SAHD...the *carp* others say to him is amazing and crazy at the same time. His wife and he are both well educated and she being a surgeon makes more than he does as a chemical engineer....they wanted a parent home, so he said he'd do it since he liked his work but didn't love it and she loves what she does. I just don't get why it's okay for a woman, but not a man?

[Leav97]

If you *really* want to see how undervalued being a SAHP is, talk to a SAHD.

 

:iagree:

 

There is one play center in town that DH (SAHD) refuses to ever visit again. Every time he took the kids he was asked if he was dropping off for Mom or the Nanny. Then he was watch to see if he was a horrible Dad or a Pedophile.

[Sneezyone]

We're in the same boat- I'd probably make a little money' date=' but not much. I wonder why this isn't the situation for more people. Considering the higher income bracket we'd be in + childcare.....we wouldn't be very much ahead.[/quote']

 

We're in the same boat too; I think it's pretty common. I love my work and I am really good at what I do. I had a median salary offer when we got here but the COL is so high that I'd only bring 40% home after taxes, clothes, food and childcare. It's just not worth the hassle. We move too much for me to move up to senior management. Maybe after DH retires and we stop moving all the time I'll get my chance.

[lea1]

Those poor Obamas didn't have the luxury for Michelle to be a SAHM.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/12/obama-we-didnt-have-the-luxury-for-michelle-to-not-work/

[SKL]

There is one theory out there that this line of dissing SAHM was an outgrowth of what appeared to be defensiveness on Obama's part, about the fact that his wife was NOT a SAHM. He made the comment that he & Michelle didn't have the "luxury" of having a stay-at-home parent (though he was earning six figures). Maybe he was advised that this was likely to be a snark-magnet during the campaign. (And maybe it is.)

 

I'm not sure why we can't just agree that SAHM/WOHM is a valid choice either way for most families, and move on. But then, there are many things about political and social divisions that I don't understand.

 

For the record, I'm a working mom and my kids are not homeschooled at this point in time. I don't feel guilty and I don't feel superior. I believe my kids are doing great, and I'd change things if I felt our lifestyle was a problem. I'm a single mom with no child support coming in, but I'd make it work somehow, because that's what moms do. And I don't look to the goverment or candidates to tell me what's right for my family.

[Sneezyone]

There is one theory out there that this line of dissing SAHM was an outgrowth of what appeared to be defensiveness on Obama's part, about the fact that his wife was NOT a SAHM. He made the comment that he & Michelle didn't have the "luxury" of having a stay-at-home parent (though he was earning six figures). Maybe he was advised that this was likely to be a snark-magnet during the campaign. (And maybe it is.)

 

I'm not sure why we can't just agree that SAHM/WOHM is a valid choice either way for most families, and move on. But then, there are many things about political and social divisions that I don't understand.

 

That may have been true, about the Obama's being defensive, but it was Hilary Rosen who made a neg. comment, not an Obama. Besides that, those who go to med school or law school (particularly at a big name school like Harvard or Yale) and don't have family money easily have 6 figure student loan debt. Those debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and lenders won't accept unemployment as an excuse indefinitely. It akes a substantial income to make those payments and still support a family.

 

 

:iagree: with the bolded tho. There are much bigger fish to fry (like figuring out how to educate our kids without saddling them with debts that can only be paid off with book deals or hedge fund manager salaries).

 

 

ETA: Woa...did the PP actualy read the comment thread on that link? Is that allowed here?

Edited April 13, 2012 by Sneezyone

[momma2three]

That may have been true, about the Obama's being defensive, but it was Hilary Rosen who made a neg. comment, not an Obama. Besides that, those who go to med school or law school (particularly at a big name school like Harvard or Yale) and don't have family money easily have 6 figure student loan debt. Those debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and lenders won't accept unemployment as an excuse indefinitely. It akes a substantial income to make those payments and still support a family.

 

 

:iagree: with the bolded tho. There are much bigger fish to fry (like figuring out how to educate our kids without saddling them with debts that can only be paid off with book deals or hedge fund manager salaries).

 

 

ETA: Woa...did the PP actualy read the comment thread on that link? Is that allowed here?

 

And reading the link, it doesn't even make sense. They earned a lot of money... but she earned most of it. If she had quit to stay home, they would have cut their income by 2/3. Yeah, it is a luxury for the primary breadwinner to be able to quit.

[LittleIzumi]

I agree that being a SAHM is a valid choice for a woman and should not be belittled.

What the issue actually is, is that an SAHM and wife to a multimillionaire might not be the ideal person to understand the economic issues that middle class women face. Which was supposed to be the point of the argument.

 

Has there EVER been a true middle-class presidential candidate, at least recently? The entire election and political process is so insanely expensive that you pretty much have to be rich to think about running, IMHO. So that would be a complaint about pretty much every candidate's wife (or candidate, in some cases) who was also SAH.

Edited April 13, 2012 by LittleIzumi

[La Condessa]

And reading the link, it doesn't even make sense. They earned a lot of money... but she earned most of it. If she had quit to stay home, they would have cut their income by 2/3. Yeah, it is a luxury for the primary breadwinner to be able to quit.

 

But his salary on its own was more than enough for a family of four to live on, even while paying off law school debt.

[Sneezyone]

But his salary on its own was more than enough for a family of four to live on, even while paying off law school debt.

 

Says you? I don't think we get to decide what someone else's standard of living should be. They had law school debt x2 (mine was $700/mo. until I went to 20-year graduated repayment). They bought a home in the city of Chicago (high COL but near her family...$3500K/mo or more). They had two kids in private school which presumably required aftercare (the public schools there are reportedly sketchy...add another $3500K/mo or more). Now add taxes, food, gas, clothing, utilities, insurance, charitable contributions, tithing, whatever else. You can argue that they didn't have to send their kids to quality private schools or purchase a home in a nice area of the city but they had enough income (because of HER, not him) to support that. She was subsidizing his political career. I know I did that for my DH. Straight out of bootcamp, he made jack squat. We traded cars in the parking lot while he worked on his BA and MA so I could I drive home with then 1yo DD. It's paid off now but that investment on both our parts took years to bear fruit (more than 7 of 'em). Plus, why is it so hard to appreciate that she might actually have enjoyed her career?

 

I just don't get why there's so much judgment. Every family's circumstances and beliefs/values are different. IMHO, happy mom=happy family.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Sneezyone

[momma2three]

But his salary on its own was more than enough for a family of four to live on, even while paying off law school debt.

 

He certainly made more than we make, but I disagree that he made more than enough for a family of four to live on comfortably in a very high priced city with substantial student loan debts. Between law school and college for both of them, I bet they had at least $2000 per month in student debts alone.

[SKL]

Says you? I don't think we get to decide what someone else's standard of living should be. They had law school debt x2 (mine was $700/mo. until I went to 20-year graduated repayment). They bought a home in the city of Chicago (high COL but near her family...$3500K/mo or more). They had two kids in private school which presumably required aftercare (the public schools there are reportedly sketchy...add another $3500K/mo or more). Now add taxes, food, gas, clothing, utilities, insurance, charitable contributions, tithing, whatever else. You can argue that they didn't have to send their kids to quality private schools or purchase a home in a nice area of the city but they had enough income (because of HER, not him) to support that. She was subsidizing his political career. I know I did that for my DH. Straight out of bootcamp, he made jack squat. We traded cars in the parking lot while he worked on his BA and MA so I could I drive home with then 1yo DD. It's paid off now but that investment on both our parts took years to bear fruit (more than 7 of 'em). Plus, why is it so hard to appreciate that she might actually have enjoyed her career?

 

I just don't get why there's so much judgment. Every family's circumstances and beliefs/values are different. IMHO, happy mom=happy family.

 

I have nothing against their CHOICE to not have a stay-at-home parent. But I don't appreciate his use of the word "luxury" because of the things it implies. I too graduated with a ton of expensive law school / business school debt, so I know what that's like; but if she was making $300K, they could have quickly paid off the student debt (assuming they actually had any), and then she could have quit if she wanted to. She did not want to and that is FINE. But it's a choice. And, it seems to me they had plenty of luxuries by most standards, but I don't have a problem with that either. I just don't like the way this stuff is being spun.

[asta]

We're in the same boat too; I think it's pretty common. I love my work and I am really good at what I do. I had a median salary offer when we got here but the COL is so high that I'd only bring 40% home after taxes, clothes, food and childcare. It's just not worth the hassle. We move too much for me to move up to senior management. Maybe after DH retires and we stop moving all the time I'll get my chance.

 

When I worked in social services with the military, I was constantly having to explain to the spouses of lower ranking personnel that, by getting a job, they would actually be putting their family in the RED -- not adding to their base income.

 

There simply weren't high paying jobs available for these spouses - even the ones with lots of experience and / or college degrees. They NEVER listened, and eventually ended up back in our office in financial trouble.

 

I understand the desire to keep up one's skill set, and also the desire to interact with adults, but (IMO) we make a choice when we have children, and part of that is that there will be some sacrifice of 'self'.

 

 

A

[asta]

 

I don't know if Hannah Rosin has children, but she was not talking about being a SAHM or about being a mother. She was talking about having a job. The issue is that in colloquial English, work has multiple meanings. She was talking about people who need to have a job to survive: something that Ann Romney has never needed to do.

 

I just read an article about Hilary Rosen. She has twins with her ex-partner, Elizabeth Birch.

 

 

Asta

[asta]

Personally, I'm sick and tired of being defined by whether or not I am in possession of a W-2.

 

 

Asta

[Lisbeth]

:iagree: If we as a society and individuals are going to bear children, SOMEONE has to raise those children. Why is it wrong when their MOTHERS do that? :confused:

 

Exactly!

[KristenR]

Anne Romney does get to truly 'choose' to stay home or not. Lots of women don't. If they want to support their family, they have to work. Many women on this board are working to make ends meet. Many of us just want to work outside the home.

 

And, as a feminist, I have never felt like my decision to stay home and teach my kids has been denigrated by other women. I think SWB has been a vocal feminist role model, showing how a woman can make a great career for herself and still homeschool her kids if she desires.

 

I'm glad you never feel the "disdain" from fellow women who feel that by staying at home you're giving up your sense of self. I'd say it's probably about half and half for me. Half the working women I meet think I'm wasting my life and not accomplishing anything and the other half envy me for doing it. But I have personally felt the scorn from plenty of working women who stick their nose in the air and ..... One woman I know just asked a close friend of mine when she planned on "joining the real world again" and working a real job.

 

If you *really* want to see how undervalued being a SAHP is, talk to a SAHD.

 

 

Very good point. And sadly very true too.

 

I agree that being a SAHM is a valid choice for a woman and should not be belittled.

What the issue actually is, is that an SAHM and wife to a multimillionaire might not be the ideal person to understand the economic issues that middle class women face. Which was supposed to be the point of the argument.

 

I don't get the point of this argument. If that was Miss Rosen's intent than I find that almost worse than flat out snubbing SAHMs. Can a person only comment or have an opinion about something personally specific to their life? How would any politician (or person for that matter) EVER be able to live such a rainbowed existence in order to reach a point where they can give their opinions on any subject? That's quite an infinite amount of shoes to be walking in.

 

Whenever I make an opinion or express my belief about something should I make a little caveat or disclaimer saying "Take everything with a grain of salt. I'm just a mealy-mouthed SAHM who should only voice opinions about things like diapers and vacuums and leave matters of the world to "real" people who work in it"?

 

Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather forgo that and have a voice in the world dialogue.

 

I'm not expecting Mitt to take everything his wife states as a golden truth but I would expect a spouse to listen to their spouse's opinions on things. I'm not offended that Michelle Obama discusses politics with her husband either. Why wouldn't you want the advice of your best friend? It doesn't mean you have to cater legislation around what they say.

 

I consider that to be insulting too. Furthermore, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who understands the economic issues faced by women in each and every level of the present economy.

 

The point was brought up that women are concerned about the economy (which is frankly a no-brainer, but whatever). The spokesperson wanted to censor this comment on the basis of whom it came from. Mind you, said censorer has also not had the life experience that most American women have had, in case that affects her right to comment.

 

It's just an example of political rhetoric, and I'm glad it was spoken so clumsily, because had it been stated artfully, more people would have taken it to heart.

 

:iagree:

[Impish]

One of the boys in DS's scout den is a SAHD...the *carp* others say to him is amazing and crazy at the same time. His wife and he are both well educated and she being a surgeon makes more than he does as a chemical engineer....they wanted a parent home, so he said he'd do it since he liked his work but didn't love it and she loves what she does. I just don't get why it's okay for a woman, but not a man?

It's not across the board ok for women either, hence the Mommy Wars.

:iagree:

 

There is one play center in town that DH (SAHD) refuses to ever visit again. Every time he took the kids he was asked if he was dropping off for Mom or the Nanny. Then he was watch to see if he was a horrible Dad or a Pedophile.

Wolf went through that, just taking the kids to the park...along w/other Dads assuming that he, too, was having visitation. He was actually asked what time he had to have the kids back, and was confused, answering that he brings them back whenever they're ready to leave...the other Dad told him he was lucky, that his ex had a fit if he was late...at which point Wolf said, "I'm still married to their mother." which seemed to boggle the other guy...why else would you have the kids at the park on a Sunday aft, unless it was visitation? *eyeroll*

[Another Michelle]

I worked part time when my kids were little. While we needed the money, it was also a huge break for me. Not only did I get paid decently--my other benefits included:

 

-listening to my own choice of radio stations w/out worrying about little ears

 

-going to the bathroom ALONE

 

-and when I needed to, not waiting until I was desperate!

 

-eating my lunch when it was hot!

 

-and not having to cut up anyone else's food or share my own.

 

I was paid very, very well, and I worked far less at my (paying) job than I ever did at home.

 

:D

:iagree: This will be the first year I won't be working part time at a paying job. It's bittersweet, but I'm excited I've always wanted to be able to devote all my time to being a SAHM, which is harder than any job I've ever had. :001_smile: