# 5 Sexist Assumptions We Feminists Need to Stop Making About Stay-At-Home Moms



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

5 Sexist Assumptions We Feminists Need to Stop Making About Stay-At-Home Moms ? Everyday Feminism

The article put me on notice, what are your views on this?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

The author of this article comes from a totally different worldview and perception of feminism than mine.

I have always understood feminism to be about choice, and never celebrated the single cat lady over the SAHM as some sort of superior feminist.

Feminism arose out of legal and social realities that made women the property of men, and the inferior of men. There is nothing in the challenge of these biases, the fight for equality, that says that the only way out is to stay completely away from men or children or raising a family.

On the contrary, feminism in my view is very much about empowering women in all of the spheres of life, including work, family, marriage.

I do, however, think it unfair to leave someone completely financially dependent on another. In my world, I see it from a flipped script, where I am the breadwinner, and my SO does not have his own money. This is hard on him, and I have been careful to ensure he doesn't feel beholden to me for every stupid purchasing decision.

This is similar to what my mother warned me of when I was young. She had many friends who were unable to even go out for a coffee because they needed permission from their husbands to spend so much as 10 cents. 

In a SAH situation, both parties should take care to ensure that the SAH is protected, is aware of household finances, has some say in how they are managed, and retains some independence and autonomy within a mutually agreed on set-up.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Always Alone, I totally agree with your post. My mom taught me not to depend on anyone, she experienced conflict with my dad over money when she had to be a SAHM, which caused her to return to work and take me to daycare because she wanted earning power in the marriage.

Many times I experienced SAHMs without earning power being devalued in their households because the men saw the money they earned as their money, the stereotype of the man handing over his paycheck plays into this because they see this as their money to hand over to her. They don't see their role as the breadwinner on the same level as the homemaker, they see her role as less, as if they are doing her a favor when they give her money.

This is what leads to women going out into the workplace and earning money, and going for higher paying jobs. However, this article brings us to respect the SAHM as a woman who made a choice to stay home as well, and that choice should be respected because it contributes to the family and society. 

I think this society does not respect care taking, it is paid less than other professions when the value of the field is very high, and the impact on society is significant.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

techmom said:


> I think this society does not respect care taking, it is paid less than other professions when the value of the field is very high, and the impact on society is significant.


I'd imagine that the rampant materialism that seems to have taken hold over the course of the past couple of generations has something to do w/ this.

It's a shame all around, really.

And I'm actually kind of surprised that we've not yet come up w/ a term other than "stay-at-home wife" or "stay-at-home mother" to describe wives and mothers that don't work outside the home.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

I agree @alwaysalone.

I too understand Feminism - true Feminism, to be about choice. I'm a SAHM and I'm very lucky that my husband appreciates and respects my contribution to our family. I'm lucky that I'm not married to a bully and I don't have to ask his permission to buy something (big things obviously we discuss). I'm also lucky that I have options - if I were ever at risk I can leave and support myself if need be.

This is what we want for our daughter too. She told me once that she has no idea what she wants to be when she grows up and what do we want her to be? I told her we want her to be happy. That she can be anything she wants to be - an astronaut, a SAHM, a teacher, a doctor, a vet, a nurse - we don't care, as long as she has choices and options. Education is key for this.

I agree that the world we live in today doesn't value mothering, or nurturing. Materialism also contributes...people want everything and they want it now. Sad though that the cruellest criticisms and judgements of SAHM's comes from other women, lol.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

I think some hardcore feminists are hypocrites. If they were really into equality, they would be pushing for the desegregation of sports, the raising of female entrance standards into the armed forces, the abolishment of the rank of female grandmaster in chess, etc. But they don't.

What they want are the advantages of being a man, but none of the disadvantages. They want to be treated like men, but only when it's of benefit to them.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

BioFury said:


> I think hardcore feminists are hypocrites. If they were really into equality, they would be pushing for the desegregation of sports, the raising of female entrance standards into the armed forces, the abolishment of the rank of female grandmaster in chess, etc. But they don't.
> 
> What they want are the advantages of being a man, but none of the disadvantages. They want to be treated like men, but only when it's of benefit to them.


Whelp, it didn't take long for someone to go kick that anthill.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

BioFury said:


> I think hardcore feminists are hypocrites. If they were really into equality, they would be pushing for the desegregation of sports, the raising of female entrance standards into the armed forces, the abolishment of the rank of female grandmaster in chess, etc. But they don't.
> 
> What they want are the advantages of being a man, but none of the disadvantages. They want to be treated like men, but only when it's of benefit to them.


I'm curious in what way you think feminists want to be treated like men? What advantages that are inherent to being a man are you referring to?

My ex hb once accused me of the same thing.....that I had all the privileges of being a man with none of the responsibility. I'm curious what privileges are inherently deserved because one has a penis.....considering that I work full time and take care of our kids almost all of the time and he currently pays nothing I fail to see how I get privileges that rightfully belong to men without responsibility.

FYI, I served in the military voluntarily and I could easily pass then mens' physical standards for basic training. And while you're on the subject of military entrance standards let's not forget that men of different ages also have different standards. Why is that? Shouldn't older men be held to the same standards as younger men? Yet they aren't.

Yet somehow women are the only ones criticized for any of this.


----------



## katiecrna (Jan 29, 2016)

I am feminist. Women and men are equal but different. They should have all the same rights. Women should not be forced to be in the army... Men are built that, women aren't. Women are built to bare children, men aren't. Doesn't mean men have to go to war, and it doesn't mean women have to have babies. My mom was a SAHM that did everything for my dad and she is a feminist. 
Just because we are different doesn't mean we aren't equal.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

GusPolinski said:


> I'd imagine that the rampant materialism that seems to have taken hold over the course of the past couple of generations has something to do w/ this.
> 
> It's a shame all around, really.
> 
> And I'm actually kind of surprised that we've not yet come up w/ a term other than "stay-at-home wife" or "stay-at-home-mother" to describe wives and mothers that don't work outside the home.


This is true, we also say stay-at-home dad, as if a caregiver is limited to just the home. We need to respect the role they play in society, without them none of us will be here.

Consumerism came in with industrialization, companies had to advertise their goods so every where you went you saw an ad. People were encouraged to buy products instead of making them at home, introducing chemicals into the human diet. 

Nowadays we are totally dependent on corporations to provide our basic needs, because in failing to respect our caregivers we caused people to look down on that role. Amongst the lowest paying professions are home health aides and child care workers, people who care for our children and elderly. These jobs are mostly done by women, and the highest salaries jobs are occupied by men, such as CEOs, STEM, and tech. This is the real income disparity.

Here on TAM, most male posters lament that the courts award alimony to SAHMS, without taking into consideration the sacrifices made by them to forgo their careers and care for the children. Most women don't make this decision lightly, and it takes lots of trust in their husband to go ahead with that decision.

My friends who are/were SAHMS stated that they didn't like being economically vulnerable, most of them returned to work after disputes about money. They wanted to earn their own money because they felt that even though the husband said they were valued in the home, they didn't feel their decisions about money were valued until they started earning their own paychecks.

As a feminist, I want all women respected regardless of whether they work in or outside of the home. In reality though, all women work in AND outside of the home anyway.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

I would like this thread to stay on topic, also would like SAMHS and SAHDS to participate. 

Thank you.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

lifeistooshort said:


> I'm curious in what way you think feminists want to be treated like men? What advantages that are inherent to being a man are you referring to?
> 
> My ex hb once accused me of the same thing.....that I had all the privileges of being a man with none of the responsibility. I'm curious what privileges are inherently deserved because one has a penis.....considering that I work full time and take care of our kids almost all of the time and he currently pays nothing I fail to see how I get privileges that rightfully belong to men without responsibility.
> 
> ...


I said some hardcore feminists, not all. There are women who call themselves feminists that merely want women to have the same moral rights as men, or just want to be able to work if they want to. Which aren't the women I was referring to.

So, I don't know why you're laying your ex husbands words onto me.

I don't understand how you serving in the armed forces effects my point. What I said, was that _some_ feminists push for "equality", but only in arenas that offer benefit to them. Or want the standards lowered so they can participate in something they want to participate in. I didn't say that lifeistoshort wants to be in the military, but doesn't feel obligated to work as hard as a man to get in.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I've been both a stay at home mom and a working mom, and it's been my experience that stay at home moms are by far more judgemental than working moms. I've heard all kinds of comments about how they're staying home because they'd never let someone else raise their kids.

Many women who work have been at home so we get it. The only thing I worry about is women not being able to support themselves should they have to. Beyond that they can do what they want.

I've never heard of the assumptions in that article and personally don't know anyone who thinks women with SO's or kids aren't feminist or are anti-women.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

techmom said:


> This is true, we also say stay-at-home dad, as if a caregiver is limited to just the home. We need to respect the role they play in society, without them none of us will be here.


Well, that's not really what I meant.

The term itself seems to imply a wife/mother (or, I suppose, a spouse/parent) that just... stays at home.

I've also heard it used somewhat derisively before...

"She's just a stay-at-home mom."

Like she's sitting on the couch w/ her feet up watching soaps and eating bonbons.

IOW, the term itself -- IMO -- doesn't paint an accurate picture of the contribution (and, in a great many cases, the sacrifice) made by SAHMs.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

BioFury said:


> I said some hardcore feminists, not all. There are women who call themselves feminists that merely want women to have the same moral rights as men, or just want to be able to work if they want to. Which aren't the women I was referring to.
> 
> So, I don't know why you're laying your ex husbands words onto me.
> 
> I don't understand how you serving in the armed forces effects my point. What I said, was that _some_ feminists push for "equality", but only in arenas that offer benefit to them. Or want the standards lowered so they can participate in something they want to participate in. I didn't say that lifeistoshort wants to be in the military, but doesn't feel obligated to work as hard as a man to get in.




My point is that you're making blanket statements. Do you know of anyone personally who thinks that? I hear all of these statements about what feminists think but I've never know one who thinks that. Just like I've never known a woman who voiced any of the points in this article.

Military standards are what they are out of necessity, because they have a need for people. If they raise standards I doubt any feminist would complain. They are free to do that if they have the need.

Many working moms have been stay at homes and most of us have partners. Many of the most famous, radical feminists had partners and children, and many WERE stay at homes moms because they had no other options. 

So I don't understand where the views in this article or the views in general regarding what feminists think come from.

Maybe I just haven't met any of these crazy radicals.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> The only thing I worry about is women not being able to support themselves should they have to.


Agreed.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

GusPolinski said:


> Well, that's not really what I meant.
> 
> The term itself seems to imply a wife/mother (or, I suppose, a spouse/parent) that just... stays at home.
> 
> ...


This is accurate, I heard the term used derisively as well. I choose to use the term caregiver, because that is what they do, and it covers all genders.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

techmom said:


> 5 Sexist Assumptions We Feminists Need to Stop Making About Stay-At-Home Moms ? Everyday Feminism
> 
> The article put me on notice, what are your views on this?


Personally, I just could not relate to much of anything the author said or thought in the article.

I've never thought less (or more) of myself or believed that I had to live my life or pursue any certain or have certain interests "as a woman" and if "society" or anyone around me has believed that, I've been blissfully oblivious to it.

Maybe I'm spoiled because I was born in the mid 60's and while there was still a tiny bit of sexism when I entered the workforce at age 15, it's never been enough to hold me back or make me miserable in any way. I'd say in the last 25 years I have experienced absolutely zero sexism. 

By chance, I happen to be a woman--which probably does drive some of my traits and desires. But I'm a person first. I live in America. I pursue what I want. I just assume everyone else is doing the same thing regardless of their gender. 

So I guess you could call me a "feminist" because I value the genders equally (or at least indifferently). But when I think of the people who frequently choose to announce that they are "feminists" a very annoying stereotype comes to my mind, that pretty much mirrors the way the person who wrote that article sounds.

And now I have to go look up "cisgender" - to find out what in the hell that is!


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

BioFury said:


> I think some hardcore feminists are hypocrites. If they were really into equality, they would be pushing for the desegregation of sports, the raising of female entrance standards into the armed forces, the abolishment of the rank of female grandmaster in chess, etc. But they don't.
> 
> What they want are the advantages of being a man, but none of the disadvantages. They want to be treated like men, but only when it's of benefit to them.


Sort of along the lines of the very strong push for more females in male dominated white collar careers, that is conspicuously absent in male dominated blue collar careers?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> Sort of along the lines of the very strong push for more females in male dominated white collar careers, that is conspicuously absent in male dominated blue collar careers?


Not true, as there is a push to get someone involved in blue collar trades:. Women Sing Blue-Collar Blues : Males Still Dominate in the Craft and Industrial Ranks - latimes

What is conspicuously absent is men trying to get into the women-dominated fields: maid, manicurist, clothes manufacturing, and so on.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Without going into why women are not accepted into the blue collar fields, my original premise for this thread was to discuss ways in which society can reward caregivers as much as the people in industry. We need to nurish our caregivers so that people will see those fields just as rewarding as other fields.

If the caregivers were paid on par with other careers, maybe people who were drawn to this line of work won't feel they need to sacrifice a good salary as well. This society pays lip service to caregiving, but in reality we don't respect them as much. Most home health aides still live at or below the poverty level, most of them are women. Women make up most of the caregiving fields, while men enjoy the higher paying fields such as the blue collar fields.

It is curious that some men feel that the purpose of feminism is for women to take over the "male" professions, and that we feel we must be as physically strong as men or else we don't deserve the respect of men. Women in the so-called traditional role of caregiver deserve as much respect as men who work in fields such as construction, both play vital roles to society. Historically, however, "women's work" was always secondary and subject to ridicule. Men who came home after a hard day of work propped their feet up and let the wife serve them, felt that she was probably sitting around watching soaps all day. They didn't realize that the woman in their lives made sure the home was ran and taken care of, the kids made their doctors appointments and the bills were paid. This took the burden off of him so he could work.

Women were tired of being taken for granted, so we wanted to gain the respect earned from having a career, just as men were respected. We didn't want to be considered "just another mouth to feed", we wanted to prove we were worthy. Feminism states that all genders are worthy of respect from society in all roles that they play, not just the masculine roles.

Thus, feminism also respects the women who care for their families, all choices are to be respected. Maybe if society did so, young women won't feel that they will lose their identity when they get married and become a servant for the rest of their lives, because men will respect the woman who opts to stay home as much as the woman who has a career.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

techmom said:


> Without going into why women are not accepted into the blue collar fields, my original premise for this thread was to discuss ways in which society can reward caregivers as much as the people in industry. We need to nurish our caregivers so that people will see those fields just as rewarding as other fields.
> 
> If the caregivers were paid on par with other careers, maybe people who were drawn to this line of work won't feel they need to sacrifice a good salary as well. This society pays lip service to caregiving, but in reality we don't respect them as much. Most home health aides still live at or below the poverty level, most of them are women. Women make up most of the caregiving fields, while men enjoy the higher paying fields such as the blue collar fields.


The problem, or at least one of the problems, is that caregiving is service, part of the "service industry". And service is always disrespected in an economy that worships productivity above all else.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, caregiving is taken for granted in this pull yourselves up by your bootstraps world. 

But perhaps now that we are an aging demographic that is going to require a whole lot of caregiving, we will again realize the importance of this role to overall health and well-being.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

always_alone said:


> The problem, or at least one of the problems, is that caregiving is service, part of the "service industry". And service is always disrespected in an economy that worships productivity above all else.
> 
> I agree with you wholeheartedly, caregiving is taken for granted in this pull yourselves up by your bootstraps world.
> 
> *But perhaps now that we are an aging demographic that is going to require a whole lot of caregiving, we will again realize the importance of this role to overall health and well-being.*


Exactly, my generation is the one taking care of our kids and the parents, add on top of that the fact that there are not many jobs out there for college grads, so they move back home as well. The "empty nest" is not a reality for most of us.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> The problem, or at least one of the problems, is that caregiving is service, part of the "service industry". And service is always disrespected in an economy that worships productivity above all else.
> 
> I agree with you wholeheartedly, caregiving is taken for granted in this pull yourselves up by your bootstraps world.
> 
> But perhaps now that we are an aging demographic that is going to require a whole lot of caregiving, we will again realize the importance of this role to overall health and well-being.


And not just elderly care, but child care as well. It always amazes when I see the emphasis on the world revolving around kids, and how they are the single most important everything, yet complaints about how expensive chidcare is. When broken down hourly, people paying for childcare out of their own pockets, typically are paying well below minimum wage, and those with childcare subsidies, paying even less. Then complaints about daycares and daycare workers...when many of the workers are being paid the same as the McDonalds worker.

Minimum wage typically doesn't attract high quality, well educated workers, so when it comes to valuing the SAHP, societally, there is a value already placed on it, and often the same people who complain about how being a SAHP is the most important, hardest job in the world are the same ones who complain that it's too expensive.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> The problem, or at least one of the problems, is that caregiving is service, part of the "service industry". And service is always disrespected in an economy that *worships productivity above all else*.
> 
> I agree with you wholeheartedly, caregiving is taken for granted in this pull yourselves up by your bootstraps world.
> 
> But perhaps now that we are an aging demographic that is going to require a whole lot of caregiving, we will again realize the importance of this role to overall health and well-being.


Don't forget the entertainment industry, including professional sports...quite a lot of dollars thrown onto that altar as well.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> Don't forget the entertainment industry, including professional sports...quite a lot of dollars thrown onto that altar as well.


True! What's that about do you suppose?

Surely part of it is that it is basically a giant advertisement for all sorts of merchandise. That no one needs, of course, but hey, when did that ever stop anyone from calling it productivity?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> often the same people who complain about how being a SAHP is the most important, hardest job in the world are the same ones who complain that it's too expensive.


Agreed with everything you said, except not so sure about this last part. The only people I've heard complaining about the cost of childcare are the ones who truly can't afford it. Which isn't that much of a problem if you can afford to stay home and do the work yourself, but becomes a huge problem when you can't. Then you are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and it isn't so much about begrudging other workers a living wage, but wondering what the eff to do.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Agreed with everything you said, except not so sure about this last part. The only people I've heard complaining about the cost of childcare are the ones who truly can't afford it. Which isn't that much of a problem if you can afford to stay home and do the work yourself, but becomes a huge problem when you can't. Then you are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and it isn't so much about begrudging other workers a living wage, but wondering what the eff to do.


Often times childcare takes a significant portion of a second wage, but there is a threshold, a profit margin if you will, that is the break point as to whether someone decides if it's worth it or not. The whole "Child care is so expensive, it's just not worth it for me to go to work..." thing. I know everybody has their own ideas of where that line is, and that wage coupled with profit margin then becomes the value to them of the SAHP.

There is also a running mantra through society to make childcare more affordable...seriously? At a higher end place, or in home care...$200 a week is at the higher end of the scale for cost for a single kid. 8-5 Monday through Friday care boils down to less than $4.50 per hour to watch, clean, feed, educate, entertain, keep safe a kid for the majority of the kids waking hours, and that's expensive? No wonder the SAHP work isn't valued much above that.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

If we think outside of the box, we can look at how other countries do this successfully, Sweden has universal child care:

Sweden: successful reconciliation of work and family life - European Platform for Investing in Children (EPIC) - European Union

They are dedicated to the welfare of their citizens. Problem with the US is that no one sees the education of ALL children as vital to the health of the nation, because we are too divided. No one wants someone else to get something they don't have, if you talk about raising taxes or using government money to pay for universal child care, we would be up in arms.

Everyone will benefit if we just look beyond the "what's in it for me" mentality. However, we don't look at corporate welfare, the bailouts, the military-industrial complex, and just plain old greed playing a part in keeping the rich people rich and the poor people poor.

-Some of those who oppose abortion don't look at the life of the baby after they are born, how to benefit the mothers and support them so they will be able to support their child, universal child care anyone?
-college should not be as expensive as they are today, remember when you could get a degree without ruining your credit and going thousands in debt?

These aspects of US society is killing us, we will not become a great nation without everybody pitching in together.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

techmom said:


> If we think outside of the box, we can look at how other countries do this successfully, Sweden has universal child care:
> 
> Sweden: successful reconciliation of work and family life - European Platform for Investing in Children (EPIC) - European Union
> 
> ...


If Sweden were a state in the United States, it would only be number 11 in population. One thing that we do need to consider when comparing the United States to other nations is that the United States has the third largest population in the world, and excluding Japan, the US population is four times the next closest western nation, and only other western nation in the top 20 population...Germany. The huge population difference does make various direct comparisons far more complicated.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> If Sweden were a state in the United States, it would only be number 11 in population. One thing that we do need to consider when comparing the United States to other nations is that the United States has the third largest population in the world, and excluding Japan, the US population is four times the next closest western nation, and only other western nation in the top 20 population...Germany. The huge population difference does make various direct comparisons far more complicated.


Population size is more reason why we should implement these ideas, the USA collects more taxes because of the greater population. Every person in the US pays taxes even when they have no income, sales tax anyone? When I was unemployed, I paid taxes on my unemployment. More people live here, which means more people pay for goods while here, which sales taxes go into the government coffers. Corporations make more money in the US because more people here to buy your products. 

If you want to use population size, then all small countries should be able to provide more for their citizens, no?


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

techmom said:


> Population size is more reason why we should implement these ideas, the USA collects more taxes because of the greater population. Every person in the US pays taxes even when they have no income, sales tax anyone? When I was unemployed, I paid taxes on my unemployment. More people live here, which means more people pay for goods while here, which sales taxes go into the government coffers. *Corporations make more money in the US because more people here to buy your products*.
> 
> If you want to use population size, then all small countries should be able to provide more for their citizens, no?


Not necessarily that simple. Part of why profit margins can be so high is because the costs of production are reduced by producing the good overseas with cheaper labor, which in the long run can lead to lower buying power where the goods are being sold. A pretty poor long term strategy in a lot of cases, but corporations are not particularly well known for their long term strategy.

This is not really an issue that is going to be solved on a message board because the complexities and nuances run very deep. My main point was though, the larger the population, the more difficult things become. It's like comparing a small regional chain of a few stores to a multinational corporation...both businesses, totally different animals to run and manage all together. Add to the population comparison, the fact that geographically, the United States is by far the largest inhabitable land mass of any western nation, with the accompanying infrastructure such as roads, bridges, public works, not to mention the privately held public utilities, rail roads, sea ports. Taking geography and population into account and comparing the United States to other western nations really is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> Not necessarily that simple. Part of why profit margins can be so high is because the costs of production are reduced by producing the good overseas with cheaper labor, which in the long run can lead to lower buying power where the goods are being sold. A pretty poor long term strategy in a lot of cases, but corporations are not particularly well known for their long term strategy.


Meanwhile buying power around the globe is steadily increasing and corporations float to whatever locale offers the lowest labour costs and the most favorable labour and environmental laws. And the rich keep getting richer.

A huge part of the problem is simply political will. The US fights tooth and nail against the public good. There are lots of subsidies and supports, but only for those at the top. Just ask the banks. Or Enron.

When it comes to the health and well being of its citizens though, it's all about individualism ans picking yourself up by your bootstraps.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

A corporation selling its goods would make more money in a country with a large population than a small population. This is what I meant by saying that corporations make money here, they may locate their factories in nations where there is cheap labor, but in America they make more money in retail sales. And the government makes money off of us through all kinds of taxes, sales tax is just one of them.

Why don't we find ways to make universal child care a reality, without corporations having to get their piece of the pie? Why do the voters fight so hard against making our own lives easier, and ensuring a well educated young generation? We make so many excuses as to why it can't work, without considering ways it can work. The USA is slipping behind other countries in literacy, and our young people are falling behind.

Is greed worth all of this?


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

My previous post will be my last post regarding universal child care. My original premise for this thread is to explore caregiver's lives and how we can do more as a society to give them as much respect as we do other professions, not just in words but salary and earnings as well. I feel that once we do this, caregivers will have more to give the people they care for, they deserve so much more than what we offer them.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Here is an article on how much day care workers are paid...

Small Children, Small Pay: Why Child Care Pays So Little


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Also, to all SAHMS and SAHDS, I want to hear what lead you to decide to do it, was it financial, or did the child have special needs, or did you always look forward to raising your kids at home, and/or homeschooling.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

I think the ladies have it rough. If they work and put the kids in daycare, then they are an unfit mother who is letting someone else raise their kids.
If they stay home, they are lazy bums who are milking the system for benefits while sitting around on their arse.
Perhaps some level of sequencing is the answer for moms. Work fulltime for a few years, kids 0-5 stay home, kids 5-13 work part time, kids 13+ back to full time work.

Daycare is relatively inexpensive, but should be factored in the tradeoff costs for working, in addition to wardrobe, transport, hair/make-up, business travel, business lunches,etc.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MAJDEATH said:


> I think the ladies have it rough. If they work and put the kids in daycare, then they are an unfit mother who is letting someone else raise their kids.
> If they stay home, they are lazy bums who are milking the system for benefits while sitting around on their arse.
> Perhaps some level of sequencing is the answer for moms.


Or, you know, we could just stop insulting women for every choice they make.

I personally will never choose to be a SAHM, but I would *never* even suggest that a woman raising her child(ren) is lazy, a bum, or "milking the system".


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

techmom said:


> Also, to all SAHMS and SAHDS, I want to hear what lead you to decide to do it, was it financial, or did the child have special needs, or did you always look forward to raising your kids at home, and/or homeschooling.


It was at my H's suggestion. I LOVE being a SAHM. I don't get any grief from friends/family IRL, but while I was pregnant and told my boss I wasn't going to work again she gave me a long speech about how I was making the biggest mistake of my life. And I didn't even have a "professional" career. Her assistant said the same thing basically. I didn't take it personally but their references to feminsm is why I don't consider myself a feminist.

I guess I really don't care what others think about SAHM'S because it works so well for us. My H is always expressing his appreciation for what I do so that just reinforces my love of the role.

ETA it does piss me off when family members feel I should be able to drop what I'm doing and come to their aid at a moment's notice. No I cannot go meet the cable guy, be your kid's field trip chaperone or get your delivery from the post office without prior notice.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

How about this assumption: SAHM are less likely to cheat on their husbands than their working sisters.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

katiecrna said:


> I am feminist. Women and men are equal but different. They should have all the same rights. Women should not be forced to be in the army... Men are built that, women aren't.


When one sex is forced to do something that the other is not forced to do, one has more rights than the other. That is not equality.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

techmom said:


> Always Alone, I totally agree with your post. My mom taught me not to depend on anyone, she experienced conflict with my dad over money when she had to be a SAHM, which caused her to return to work and take me to daycare because she wanted earning power in the marriage.
> 
> Many times I experienced SAHMs without earning power being devalued in their households because the men saw the money they earned as their money, the stereotype of the man handing over his paycheck plays into this because they see this as their money to hand over to her. They don't see their role as the breadwinner on the same level as the homemaker, they see her role as less, as if they are doing her a favor when they give her money.
> 
> ...


I enjoyed the article.. I wish all feminists could see what this woman pointed out...that this divide is strongly felt  by women on the other side... that we don't feel "accepted" or embraced by the majority in the movement.. as she pointed out in her #1... "They Are Purposely Unaware Of The Choices Available To Them"..

Not always true...I was aware of my choices..many a girls went to college back then.. my best friend did...that's not where my heart was at.. to this day.. I still don't regret that choice.. Oh I may feel that others are more intelligent, have more to boast about.. they ARE & they do.. but still I've living my dreams.. small as they may be in comparison....

Unlike your experiences.... I come from the other side.. I married a man who greatly values the woman's role.. he's always treated me - as himself, he wanted the traditional lifestyle, we talked about it long before we married, he would support me in anything but he personally preferred me in the home with our children... I LOVED this about him... Other woman may be offended by that.. but not [email protected]#

I've always felt he put myself & the kids before himself even....his money has always been "OUR" money... I've always handled our finances even. 

I make a fraction of what he makes...all goes to the running of our household, there has never been a His or Hers.. we see others refer to that when out & about.. even strangers will make such comments, half joking.. but we never have...

As with any issue.. what we experience growing up can affect us in profound ways.. for example.. things that happened to my mother, do to her choices with men, being used sexually & thrown away like garbage, how this tore into her emotionally & set her on a very bad path.. this I will always carry with me.. I've always had a stick up my a** (to put it mildly) about men like that...so much so... I vowed at a young age.. that was never going to happen to me! 

I guess one can compare that (in a different area, a self perserving thing)... with the effects many of you have seen growing up also.. if you've witnessed Fathers lording over Mothers, putting her down, giving her scraps...her feeling "trapped"...

That's going to stay with anyone...and we'd fight tooth & nail to have it never happen to us, or our children... 

But still...this doesn't mean that all men are like this.. I know they are not.. I've seen many good men who were breadwinners growing up.. enough that the weights were on happy marriages against seeing abuse. 

But true... if a woman longs for family, the raising of her children in the home, this her hearts desire, at least in their young yrs...she needs to be very very very very careful the type of man she invites into her life...if there is even a hint of abuse, while dating...or his being dishonest... these are red flags.. as she is placing so much dependence on this person, her future, her children's future. 

Life is a gamble.. so many choices.. sometimes we take a chance.. sometimes it all seems perfect too, and it can fall apart down the road..


----------



## staarz21 (Feb 6, 2013)

techmom said:


> Also, to all SAHMS and SAHDS, I want to hear what lead you to decide to do it, was it financial, or did the child have special needs, or did you always look forward to raising your kids at home, and/or homeschooling.


I stayed home because my husband is in the military with an MOS that leads him to deploy, often annually. He has recently been put on a status that will allow him to stay home for a minimum of 2 years. He only got that because he's deployed 7 times in the last 11.5 years. He's deployed more times than his Commander, his SMSgt, AND MSgt each, not combined. When he met the Commander and got to talking with her, she was amazed that he had been out that much. Most everyone else in his shop has only been out MAYBE 3 or 4 times and they have been in longer. 

He's has to take the spot of others out of rotation for three deployments because of (a) pregnancy of a female member, (b) someone spouting they all of a sudden have a small medical problem, and (c) one person didn't feel comfortable deploying. Yes. That man literally said he didn't feel comfortable and my H had to take his spot. 

So my H could have been home with us for those three deployments because they weren't on his rotations, but three times, people managed to weasel out of deployments and my H had to go instead - taking time away from his own family. I have huge issues with people who skip out on deployments because of this. 

Anyway, that's another rant to have another day. 

But that's why we came to me staying at home. He was literally never home. In between deployments, he had TDY's he had to go on for a few weeks at a time. We wanted a constant parent at the house. We had safeguards in place in case anything happened to him (on top of what the military gives you). 

It just seemed important to us that I was home to be able to Skype with him when he was able to while deployed. He could see the boys during that time on video. I was there to pick him up, drop him off when he needed me for deployments. I would support him from home doing what I could. Any time he needed to call and talk, I was always available because I wasn't working. Those things were important to us.

Did I like it? No. I didn't like being at home and hearing those stereotypes of SAHMs. They didn't apply to me, but it still hurt to know that the hard working SAHMs that didn't sit on the sofa all day and spent time volunteering, working events, cleaning constantly, caring for the kids, etc, etc....didn't "exist". I HATED telling people I stayed at home for that reason. I was embarrassed of it. 

In addition to those, there is the awesome "dependa" stereotype for military spouses that stay at home. It's like a double whammy. Some of the women that are called "dependas" totally deserve the title. Completely. However, there are some that are called the name and they are simply a "new wife" and they don't know better, or they are trying to support their husband, but there are HUGE stigmas on what is allowed in order to not be considered a "dependa". There are so many rules. 

I've managed to avoid all of that, but it doesn't change the way I feel when I read about it. I downright feel so bad for some of the spouses that get caught up in that (there are a few facebook pages that are completely dedicated to making fun of them). Like I said, some do deserve it, but others...just don't and it really tears them down.


----------



## nirvana (Jul 2, 2012)

BioFury said:


> I think some hardcore feminists are hypocrites. If they were really into equality, they would be pushing for the desegregation of sports, the raising of female entrance standards into the armed forces, the abolishment of the rank of female grandmaster in chess, etc. But they don't.
> 
> What they want are the advantages of being a man, but none of the disadvantages. They want to be treated like men, but only when it's of benefit to them.


Perfectly put!


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

staarz21 said:


> In addition to those, there is the awesome "dependa" stereotype for military spouses that stay at home. It's like a double whammy. Some of the women that are called "dependas" totally deserve the title. Completely. However, there are some that are called the name and they are simply a "new wife" and they don't know better, or they are trying to support their husband, but *there are HUGE stigmas on what is allowed in order to not be considered a "dependa".* There are so many rules.


 I never heard of this before.. so I googled it.. here is an article about it.. 

'Dependa' bashing: Mudslingers stun military spouses 



> Secure in their online anonymity, practitioners openly defy efforts to curb their abuse. Their crass term for their targets, "dependapotamus," speaks to a popular if twisted stereotype of dependent spouses as heavyset freeloaders motivated only to cash in on the pay and benefits of their long-suffering military spouses.


That's awful.. Yep.. some stereotypes can be very hurtful. I think it would be awfully difficult being married to a man in the military.. you'd miss him soooo badly!! Not an easy life at all.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I enjoyed the article.. I wish all feminists could see what this woman pointed out...that this divide is strongly felt  by women on the other side... that we don't feel "accepted" or embraced by the majority in the movement.. as she pointed out in her #1... "They Are Purposely Unaware Of The Choices Available To Them"..
> 
> Not always true...I was aware of my choices..many a girls went to college back then.. my best friend did...that's not where my heart was at.. to this day.. I still don't regret that choice.. Oh I may feel that others are more intelligent, have more to boast about.. they ARE & they do.. but still I've living my dreams.. small as they may be in comparison....
> 
> ...


I love this post because it illustrates how women can have different experiences which shape them. 

Men also have to be careful of who they bring into their lives, he is dependent on her emotionally as well. There are a lot of bitter men who were hurt by a woman they loved because they were looking at the outer appearance instead of sensing what is in her heart.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

techmom said:


> Also, to all SAHMS and SAHDS, I want to hear what lead you to decide to do it, was it financial, or did the child have special needs, or did you always look forward to raising your kids at home, and/or homeschooling.


When my kids were little, we had one bad daycare experience after another. It was tough on the kids. The issues themselves as well as changing caregivers. My husband was nervous about going to one income. So I opened an in home daycare. When my eldest went to school in kindergarten, he was not ready for school. He had been reading for years at that point, as well as being ahead of the game in other areas, so the topics and activities were boring to him. And he did not "get" what was expected of him. So we closed the daycare, and I home-schooled the kids for a few years. 

It was definitely not for me. I HATED the daycare. I had to put everything I had to do right by all the kids. And it took a toll on me. I did like home-schooling. But I am happy that the kids are older and prefer to be in school.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Or, you know, we could just stop insulting women for every choice they make.
> 
> I personally will never choose to be a SAHM, but I would *never* even suggest that a woman raising her child(ren) is lazy, a bum, or "milking the system".


The only way this can stop is for individuals to have the confidence in their choices to say to hell with you and your "insulting". They can insult. But I can choose not to take offense. I did what was right for my family. Anyone who did not like it could pound sand.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

techmom said:


> I love this post because it illustrates how women can have different experiences which shape them.
> 
> Men also have to be careful of who they bring into their lives, he is dependent on her emotionally as well. There are a lot of bitter men who were hurt by a woman they loved because they were looking at the outer appearance instead of sensing what is in her heart.


Thank you Techmom.. I believe this to be very true... it's why stereotyping can be so unfair, even cruel really... as many of us.. had we walked in another's shoes, may have a very different perspective even, different aspirations, different dreams....

It takes a little time to get to KNOW a person and see what they are about...what has shaped, molded and brought them to the place they are today...some make lemonade with the difficulties that have been thrown at them.. and some become bitter & they are not better people for it...and sometimes a special person walks into our lives & influences us to believe again...have hope again..

Not all circumstances are created equal..not all men , or women are the same.. it's what makes the world so interesting though.. we don't need to all think alike.. 

The diversity of experiences, at the end of the day, it helps explain alot .. if we are listening... can't we still learn something from each other? 

To be honest... I would say my husband took a big chance ON ME.... I was a "damsel in distress" in some ways when we met.. and honestly... most women like that.. once they get in a better place.. leave the white knight who helped them....

But I didn't... I am still thankful today for all he's brought to my life.. 

One thing I knew was.. having a good paying Job, being independent -but no man, romance.. kids...Let me tell you.. I'd be a bitter old Bat - envy would eat me alive.. 

Having a family was "everything" to me.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

> One thing I knew was.. having a good paying Job, being independent -but no man, romance.. kids...Let me tell you.. I'd be a bitter old Bat - envy would eat me alive..


Oh, SA isn't that the truth! That's one aspect I think gets lost in the debate. I had/have no desire for a high powered career nor spending my days in an office. Been there done that (minus the high powered aspect). Even when I was in high school my aspiration was to be a pediatric nurse. I decided to start off with training to be a CNA instead of going to college, but soon discovered I didn't have the stomach for it (literally...too nauseous ). My disappointment was tempered by having also just begun my first relationship with my now husband that was so intense and fog inducing that career and college was our of the question. 

I do regret not going to college but I don't regret exchanging a career for a family not one bit. Even through this rather difficult period in our lives it is still so worth it for me.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

MAJDEATH said:


> I think the ladies have it rough. If they work and put the kids in daycare, then they are an unfit mother who is letting someone else raise their kids.
> If they stay home, they are lazy bums who are milking the system for benefits while sitting around on their arse.
> Perhaps some level of sequencing is the answer for moms. Work fulltime for a few years, kids 0-5 stay home, kids 5-13 work part time, kids 13+ back to full time work.
> 
> Daycare is relatively inexpensive, but should be factored in the tradeoff costs for working, in addition to wardrobe, transport, hair/make-up, business travel, business lunches,etc.


When a woman didn't go to college (like me) ... I hate to call myself skill-less but given what society expects today ... I basically am, no sense in sugar coating it... what else is there to say.. 

I've been a cashier x 3, a waitress, a Dietary aid, I worked as a telemarketer (we love those don't we!), a secretary, in a factory, cleaning, catering... and soon I will be working with the handicapped in a home, since we are speaking of these low paying "service jobs".. with 2 sons in college.. we're going to need extra money..we don't want to exhaust our savings... 

What I made as a 2nd income- was never enough to realistically afford Day Care... for us.. that would have been *a minus*, basically working for nothing but the benefit of saying .... "Hey I am a worthy person, not a lazy bon bon eater... I have a job & bring in some dough!"... Just so someone who earned 5 times more than me could respect me...some things just don't seem worth it. 



techmom said:


> Also, to all SAHMS and SAHDS, I want to hear what lead you to decide to do it, was it financial, or did the child have special needs, or did you always look forward to raising your kids at home, and/or homeschooling.


For us.. a number of factors.. when we married.. I earned a little more than my husband... I remember being torn about quitting that job.. even though I wanted to be at home (he preferred it also).... I feared the loss of income..I can be a hell raiser about DEBT.. I am a saver, a planner.... 

If I even smelled "financial hardship" - I'd be working...To me...that is a noose around our necks... we had thousands saved at the time, working towards a large down payment on a country home (another dream).

I spoke to my Step Mom about it.. given our situation.. where we lived (rented off his Aunt- very cheap rent) ... but a treacherous stone driveway up a mountain basically where husband had to park at the bottom - with any hint of wintry weather... She seen no benefit in me continuing working... with the hassle of our driveway, lugging a baby up & down it in the winter -for child care....the upkeep of a 2nd car, preferably a 4x4 (for safety)...we didn't feel it was worth it.. 

These factors combined with how frugal we both were...husband likes to say I can "squeeze a dime out of a nickle".. we honestly did FINE.. we've never taken out a loan in our marriage (yet) outside of buying our house... I did work around HIS schedule -small part time jobs... He would complain I was never home .... he'd hit the door & I'd be gone with a kiss...

But I kept on -especially those years we couldn't conceive (after 1st son)... it helped me get my mind off of infertility - a bit anyway.. then when the babies started coming one after another.... then we had our house (5 more kids in 9 yrs).. he got a better job.. things just fell into place for us... 

Our house now is very similar to our 1st .. except now we live down a winding treacherous hill...750 feet off the road...... (we're a little crazy...we love places like this.... but winters are tough!)... so yeah.. when the kids were small... I can't even imagine me trying to carry & walk them up that hill -if we had to park at the top so we could get out...to get them to day care.. hoping my car would start.. scraping icy windows... not a nice thought.. 

But again.. if it ever comes to not being able to afford our bills, or getting into debt.. I'd do whatever needed done.. us being very frugal has helped immensely.. plus we have life insurances.. a good health plan to cover the whole family.... things like that.. those are very VERY important -so I feel.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

My W has been a SAHM for about 2+ years. The main reasons were financially there was zero benefit to her working (i.e. with 3 young kids it would actually cost us more for her to work). She isn't crazy about her profession, so of course that made things much easier to say goodbye to. We are fortunate as well that thanks to my career any income from her is not needed. As well, if she continued to work either a) we would need to hire someone to help with the kids (get them on/off the bus, drive them to after school activities, etc... the latter which I would have a big problem with) or b) arrange it so my W worked on the weekends when I was home, which would mean my W and I would never see each other. There is absolutely nothing positive about this scenario.

For me, it is very important, and I make it clear to my wife, that the money I bring home is OUR money, not mine. She has full access to do with as she pleases, the only condition being big purchases/decisions we must decide on together (the same condition applies to me).

She does have interest in pursuing some different career paths down the road when the kids get older, so that path will always be available (and in a worse case scenario, she would have zero issues getting a job in her old career). Honestly, this is a source of pride for me that I have been able to give my W this flexibility, even if it means for me working long hours every day for another 20+ years.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Somewhat related, and although not entirely female specific, I have noticed this happen a lot more with females vs males, where females are quicker to tear each other down (not all of them of course, and just purely from my observations so maybe take that with a grain of salt) when they should be supporting. A couple of specific examples that come to mind on the SAHM side. My Mom has had a very accomplished career. When my wife moved to part time after our 2nd and then eventually transitioned to SAHM after our 3rd, my Mom would subtly grill her about when she was going back to work (you could tell by the tone that there was a bit of disapproval). On the other side, my wife had a few SAHMs who took digs at her b/c these women felt that you needed to be 110% immersed in the whole "SAHM" role, and when my wife was overwhelmed with everything these women took it as the opportunity to talk about how awesome they were, all the things they do for their kids, etc...

With my Mom you would think she would have been ecstatic/supportive b/c my W being home meant my W and not some stranger would be raising her grandkids (the best thing for our family), but my Mom has some preconceived idea of what role a woman should have (my Mom managed to work full time and raise her kids, so every woman should be able to do the same). With the other SAHMs they should know full well the challenges faced, but with my W instead of being supportive they saw it as an opportunity to instead build themselves up.

IDK, in both cases it just seems like very strange and counter productive behavior.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

thefam said:


> Oh, SA isn't that the truth! That's one aspect I think gets lost in the debate. I had/have no desire for a high powered career nor spending my days in an office. Been there done that (minus the high powered aspect). Even when I was in high school my aspiration was to be a pediatric nurse. I decided to start off with training to be a CNA instead of going to college, but soon discovered I didn't have the stomach for it (literally...too nauseous ). My disappointment was tempered by having also just begun my first relationship with my now husband that was so intense and fog inducing that career and college was our of the question.
> 
> I do regret not going to college but I don't regret exchanging a career for a family not one bit. Even through this rather difficult period in our lives it is still so worth it for me.





EllisRedding said:


> Somewhat related, and although not entirely female specific, I have noticed this happen a lot more with females vs males, where females are quicker to tear each other down (not all of them of course, and just purely from my observations so maybe take that with a grain of salt) when they should be supporting. A couple of specific examples that come to mind on the SAHM side. My Mom has had a very accomplished career. When my wife moved to part time after our 2nd and then eventually transitioned to SAHM after our 3rd, my Mom would subtly grill her about when she was going back to work (you could tell by the tone that there was a bit of disapproval). On the other side, my wife had a few SAHMs who took digs at her b/c these women felt that you needed to be 110% immersed in the whole "SAHM" role, and when my wife was overwhelmed with everything these women took it as the opportunity to talk about how awesome they were, all the things they do for their kids, etc...
> 
> With my Mom you would think she would have been ecstatic/supportive b/c my W being home meant my W and not some stranger would be raising her grandkids (the best thing for our family), but my Mom has some preconceived idea of what role a woman should have (my Mom managed to work full time and raise her kids, so every woman should be able to do the same). With the other SAHMs they should know full well the challenges faced, but with my W instead of being supportive they saw it as an opportunity to instead build themselves up.
> 
> IDK, in both cases it just seems like very strange and counter productive behavior.


This is why I started this thread, understanding of the other side can go a long way, we can learn from each other.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> With my Mom you would think she would have been ecstatic/supportive b/c my W being home meant my W and *not some stranger would be raising her grandkids*.


So Ellis I feel comfy telling you that this particular phrase irritates me because you are a good and thoughtful guy.. Generally working mothers know their kids' caregivers well. So they are not strangers. Also, working parents still are the ones who raise their kids. Do you view yourself as not raising your kids?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

I totally missed the Mommy Wars. I guess I considered them dumb and chose to ignore it.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> So Ellis I feel comfy telling you that this particular phrase irritates me because you are a good and thoughtful guy.. Generally working mothers know their kids' caregivers well. So they are not strangers. Also, working parents still are the ones who raise their kids. Do you view yourself as not raising your kids?


Honestly if my statement irritates you (which was not said to irritate anyone), you are taking way out of context (not saying this to offend you). My comment was specific to our situation, if we needed to hire a caregiver *they would be a stranger*, not someone we know well, so yes, it would be a complete stranger in our case. If my W remained working with her hours we would need to have someone at the house to get the kids out of bed each morning (I am gone by 5am, my W by 6am), get them on the bus, drive my daughter to daycare for the few times each week, get the kids off the bus, drive the kids to their after school activities (or stop the activities), get them dinner and ready for bed before my W and I get home from work (7pm ish for me, 8pm ish for my W). So in OUR situation where we do have the flexibility, yes, this is pushing off a lot of the duties my wife undertakes currently to raise our kids onto a stranger. These are all the things we talked about before deciding my W would be a SAHM for now.

Now, if my W needed to work would we still manage, of course. I grew up with both parents working full time so this is nothing new to me. However, we are in the position now where we have several options available to us.

Hope that maybe clarifies a little better my comments. My statements were made purely in regards to my situation and not anyone elses.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Or, you know, we could just stop insulting women for every choice they make.
> 
> I personally will never choose to be a SAHM, but I would *never* even suggest that a woman raising her child(ren) is lazy, a bum, or "milking the system".


I agree.

There have been so many men on TAM who make comments like their wife, who was a SAHM contributed NOTHING to the family or the marriage. I'd never heard anyone say this until I started posting on TAM. It's been quite an eye opener to read so many posts saying this about women... often from men who said that they would only marry a woman who did not have a career.

It does seem that so often, no matter what choices a woman makes, there is some group who is all too ready to insult her for that choice. It's a sad statement on society.

.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> Honestly if my statement irritates you (which was not said to irritate anyone), you are taking way out of context (not saying this to offend you). My comment was specific to our situation, if we needed to hire a caregiver *they would be a stranger*, not someone we know well, so yes, it would be a complete stranger in our case.


The irritation is minor and not meant to offend. Part of the job of working families is to get to know your caregiver well. And I felt a small need to defend those families, like my own when my kids were very small, from the insinuation that someone else was actually raising our children. This is something we hear, disparagingly, all the time. Which I think is to the point of this thread.

There is clearly nothing wrong with your choice.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

EllisRedding said:


> Honestly if my statement irritates you (which was not said to irritate anyone), you are taking way out of context (not saying this to offend you). My comment was specific to our situation, if we needed to hire a caregiver *they would be a stranger*, not someone we know well, so yes, it would be a complete stranger in our case.


I get that you are talking about your situation and no one else's.

However, I also get why NobodySpecial had the reaction to your use of those words about someone else raising your (generic your) children. 

This is a barb that is always thrown at women who work. Very often by SAHMs and other's who believe that all mothers should be SAHMs.

While that was not your intent, I think it's a good topic to bring up on this thread.

I've had that accusation thrown at me so many times that ridiculous. I know that other women on TAM who are not SAHMs have had the same thing said to them as it's been discussed here before.

In my case, it's especially ridiculous since, even though I have almost always worked, my son was not raised by strangers. Family and very close friends helped out just as I helped them. And I, like many working women, were able to structure our work so that we could work from home and/or have a nursery/play room in our office.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> The irritation is minor and not meant to offend. Part of the job of working families is to get to know your caregiver well. And I felt a small need to defend those families, like my own when my kids were very small, from the insinuation that someone else was actually raising our children. This is something we hear, disparagingly, all the time. Which I think is to the point of this thread.
> 
> There is clearly nothing wrong with your choice.


No, I understand where you are coming from. My example was specific to my Mom, who knew full well that my W working would mean bringing a stranger into the mix (yes, for us it would be a stranger). The only time we had someone help with our kids was a while back after we had our first when my W went back to work, but she was family (actually I used to spend a lot of time with her when I was growing up as well). That option no longer exists for us.

The point of my examples was to keep it specific to me and not to anyone else, which is why the confusion over your comments TBH.

It is valuable to add your POV though about the insinuation of others raising your children, not something I have come across.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> I get that you are talking about your situation and no one else's.
> 
> However, I also get why NobodySpecial had the reaction to your use of those words about someone else raising your (generic your) children.


I know, and to think, I kept my posts specific to me figuring that would avoid these interpretations lol :grin2:


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

techmom said:


> This is why I started this thread, understanding of the other side can go a long way, we can learn from each other.


Thanks for starting it, Tech Mom.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> And I, like many working women, were able to structure our work so that we could work from home and/or have a nursery/play room in our office.


 @EleGirl I have a question and this is really a curiosity thing and not trying to say I don't believe it: where are these jobs that allow you to bring an infant to work? And how in the world do you get any work done with an infant in your office.

Before I became a SAHM, I worked for 10 years at 6 different places, some part time some full time. That was never an option in any place that I worked (major metropolitan city). I was never a professional, but there were always professionals around, and none of them had that option either. The best they could do was close their door and pump milk during their lunch break and store it in the fridge or a cooler. Those of us who only had a cubby hole didn't even have that option. 

So I am really curious as to what type of employers allow this? I have worked at firms that employed lawyers, analysts, engineers, strategists, accountants, etc and none of them had such options available. So just how mainstream are such workplaces? I'm really curious to know. And do you find that non professional staff is afforded the same opportunity and flexibility?


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

"We’re taught that to be radical is to not want children or a significant other — and sometimes to go as far as writing that desire off as utterly reprehensible."

Good thing these women doing the teaching (who are they anyway?) had parents who did not adhere to the radical thought.

Honestly, this article came off as having been written by an ignoramus. She assumed that SAHMs were simply too stupid to understand that they had choices? WTH


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

I worked in banking and they allowed the 'bring your kid to work day" but no way in hell were they going to allow infants or any other kid on a regular basis. They expected their employees to earn their pay.


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

Blondilocks said:


> I worked in banking and they allowed the 'bring your kid to work day" but no way in hell were they going to allow infants or any other kid on a regular basis. They expected their employees to earn their pay.


I know a lot of places that definitely won't ever let you bring your child to work, but also know a few places that allow it. Most of those places are small businesses(family owned and operated) and some are larger businesses where the employee does not work directly with the public or work in a childcare setting(play gym, daycare, etc. and can bring child along). They definitely earn their pay as they do their job and do parenting at the same time. I always worked in jobs where I worked with the public, so I was never in a place that would allow me to bring my son with me, although that would have been cool. It always tore me apart to leave my son and go to work. I really enjoy my time now as a sahm, even though I've somewhat often been told nasty comments about it.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

thefam said:


> @EleGirl I have a question and this is really a curiosity thing and not trying to say I don't believe it: where are these jobs that allow you to bring an infant to work? And how in the world do you get any work done with an infant in your office.
> 
> Before I became a SAHM, I worked for 10 years at 6 different places, some part time some full time. That was never an option in any place that I worked (major metropolitan city). I was never a professional, but there were always professionals around, and none of them had that option either. The best they could do was close their door and pump milk during their lunch break and store it in the fridge or a cooler. Those of us who only had a cubby hole didn't even have that option.
> 
> So I am really curious as to what type of employers allow this? I have worked at firms that employed lawyers, analysts, engineers, strategists, accountants, etc and none of them had such options available. So just how mainstream are such workplaces? I'm really curious to know. And do you find that non professional staff is afforded the same opportunity and flexibility?


I was able to do this because I owned the company ... software and engineering consulting. I had started the company before children knowing that I wanted that kind of flexibility.

And yes the non-professional staff had the same opportunity and flexibility. We were able to hire someone to be in house to help with the children when we needed that. My mom was also available to help out as needed.

There are other women who post on TAM who have done the same thing... they owned a company and structure things so that they could have their children at work.

I've known, for example, female lawyers who do this. One of them had a small child as do her clerks. They have the children with them at the firm.

One female lawyer I know has her grade school children in her office when they are not at school during working hours. The kids are great. They do their home work and they help too.. making copies, etc.

I know a couple who own a dance studio.. very successful studio. The parents run the studio and they home school their children. The children basically grew up in the dance studio. Today their son is on his way to medical school. Their daughter is a professional dancer who earns over $150K a year.

The company I work for is a fortune 100 engineering firm. They allow many people to work from home much of the week as long as the type of work they do can be done remotely. I work from home at least 2 days a week. It's up to me how many days. 

We have a few people working in my office who are new parents. They have been given permission to work from home most of the time. They only come in for meetings really. Most of our meetings are no teleconferences since the staff on almost all teams are located all over the world. So most meetings usually do not even require them to come into the office.

An example is my direct boss. He has kids in elementary school. He works from home several days a week. When he's at home, his kids are often there. The same goes for many of the others that I work with.

'Baby at work' policies gain momentum with parents, employers - TODAY.com

Parenting in the Workplace Institute - Home


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Blondilocks said:


> I worked in banking and they allowed the 'bring your kid to work day" but no way in hell were they going to allow infants or any other kid on a regular basis. They expected their employees to earn their pay.


There are different types of work. Clearly a bank that is open to the public could not have children around.

However, there are types of work that are not public in nature. For example in engineering I've often worked on research and/or products that mean months, if not years, of working at a desk using a computer. This work can be done from anywhere as long as a person has the tools... computer, software tools and desk. 

And we do earn our living. Earning our living is not measured by how many hours we are at the office and/or sitting at our desk. It's measured by producing the work product that meets or exceeds customer requirements, within or below cost and on schedule. 

I could work while my son played with friends, or while he napped, or when he was in school. Often I work with other team members who are on the other side of the world.. like India, Russia, China, etc. This means that I've done a lot of work late at night or in the middle of the night... while my son slept.

One trick with this type of situation is hire someone to do the housework. Even shopping. There used to be a grocery store here in town that had an on-line interface. I set up a weekly order and they would deliver the groceries. It was cheap.... about $10 a week.

When my son and then step children were younger, there were two things that were important.. 1) my children and 2) my work. I made sure that my work allowed enough flexability for me to be around my son and step children as much as possible.

I know that not all jobs provide that kind of flexablity. But some jobs do. I'm very glad that I, and others, have been able to structure our working life in a way that works for us. I was lucky that things worked out as they did.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

The most obvious sign of how un-valued "women's work" at home is, comes when divorce happens. Men who think they are true feminists suddenly talk about their ex taking "their" money; they give no acknowledgment to the years of lost income and job experience that the woman can never recover, which she (usually, but not always, a woman) exchanged for the TWO of them to have the joy of children in their lives. I do not understand why so many men seem incapable of admitting that their wife-their ex-deserves continuing compensation for the decisions they made as a couple that have permanently affected her life-long earning power. It is not as though those past decisions, and their impact, go away when a divorce happens--the marriage ends, but the consequences of joint-decisions continue for a lifetime. 

I sometimes think that the best practice would be a life-long requirement that they share each other's incomes--she gets half of his, he gets half of hers (once she starts earning), no matter what happens to the marriage. I bet a lot of people would think more carefully about getting married and having kids--and that's a good thing, in my book!


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Blondilocks said:


> I worked in banking and they allowed the 'bring your kid to work day" but no way in hell were they going to allow infants or any other kid on a regular basis. They expected their employees to earn their pay.


Yeah, would definitely not be wise in banking and really just depends on the job/industry. We would allow someone to bring their kid in if absolutely necessary, but otherwise it would not be encouraged. We are a private firm but are frequently on the phone with clients along with constant non stop activity, so distractions such as children would not be wise.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

sisters359 said:


> The most obvious sign of how un-valued "women's work" at home is, comes when divorce happens. Men who think they are true feminists suddenly talk about their ex taking "their" money; they give no acknowledgment to the years of lost income and job experience that the woman can never recover, which she (usually, but not always, a woman) exchanged for the TWO of them to have the joy of children in their lives. I do not understand why so many men seem incapable of admitting that their wife-their ex-deserves continuing compensation for the decisions they made as a couple that have permanently affected her life-long earning power. It is not as though those past decisions, and their impact, go away when a divorce happens--the marriage ends, but the consequences of joint-decisions continue for a lifetime.
> 
> I sometimes think that the best practice would be a life-long requirement that they share each other's incomes--she gets half of his, he gets half of hers (once she starts earning), no matter what happens to the marriage. I bet a lot of people would think more carefully about getting married and having kids--and that's a good thing, in my book!


I definitely don't think it should be life long. Long enough to get back on the SAHPs feet.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

sisters359 said:


> The most obvious sign of how un-valued "women's work" at home is, comes when divorce happens. Men who think they are true feminists suddenly talk about their ex taking "their" money; they give no acknowledgment to the years of lost income and job experience that the woman can never recover, which she (usually, but not always, a woman) exchanged for the TWO of them to have the joy of children in their lives. I do not understand why so many men seem incapable of admitting that their wife-their ex-deserves continuing compensation for the decisions they made as a couple that have permanently affected her life-long earning power. It is not as though those past decisions, and their impact, go away when a divorce happens--the marriage ends, but the consequences of joint-decisions continue for a lifetime.
> 
> I sometimes think that the best practice would be a life-long requirement that they share each other's incomes--she gets half of his, he gets half of hers (once she starts earning), no matter what happens to the marriage. I bet a lot of people would think more carefully about getting married and having kids--and that's a good thing, in my book!


I wouldn't be too in favor of this when it comes to my ex wife. This idea would only work under the assumption that the SAHP had actually sacrificed workplace potential, actually wanted to provide some level of support for themselves, and actually has any drive to accomplish something. My life experience has led me to not grant this assumption. It needs to be demonstrated.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> I definitely don't think it should be life long. Long enough to get back on the SAHPs feet.


Agreed, there is absolutely no reason for a life long agreement


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

Here are some options for earning a few coins with childcare flexibility

home daycare
home elderly care
home after school care
personal shopping
pet care
walking pets
house flipping
house staging
real estate (to a certain extent and I know from experience)
tutoring
music teacher
personal trainer
transporting kids to school and various other activities
Ebay seller


----------



## nirvana (Jul 2, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> Somewhat related, and although not entirely female specific, I have noticed this happen a lot more with females vs males, where females are quicker to tear each other down (not all of them of course, and just purely from my observations so maybe take that with a grain of salt) when they should be supporting. A couple of specific examples that come to mind on the SAHM side. My Mom has had a very accomplished career. When my wife moved to part time after our 2nd and then eventually transitioned to SAHM after our 3rd, my Mom would subtly grill her about when she was going back to work (you could tell by the tone that there was a bit of disapproval). On the other side, my wife had a few SAHMs who took digs at her b/c these women felt that you needed to be 110% immersed in the whole "SAHM" role, and when my wife was overwhelmed with everything these women took it as the opportunity to talk about how awesome they were, all the things they do for their kids, etc...
> 
> With my Mom you would think she would have been ecstatic/supportive b/c my W being home meant my W and not some stranger would be raising her grandkids (the best thing for our family), but my Mom has some preconceived idea of what role a woman should have (my Mom managed to work full time and raise her kids, so every woman should be able to do the same). With the other SAHMs they should know full well the challenges faced, but with my W instead of being supportive they saw it as an opportunity to instead build themselves up.
> 
> IDK, in both cases it just seems like very strange and counter productive behavior.


I saw something interesting.

When my wife was a SAHM, she would extol the virtues of SAHMs and how hard their challenges were, how noble their work was etc etc. She would put down her sister who was always a working woman and had kids and would somewhat neglect them and get her husband to do a lot while she relaxed as she was tired after work (her husband worked too and was the primary income).

Then in 2014 my wife went into the work force and then shockingly began to look down upon SAHMs! 
She has 2 close friends she has known for about 12 years and they are SAHMs with no plans of working in a job. My wife comments that they are lazy and "sit around all day" and "do nothing" and "have no goals". Of course she does not tell them this to their face, it is always to me.

Interesting how the perspective changed.


----------



## nirvana (Jul 2, 2012)

sisters359 said:


> The most obvious sign of how un-valued "women's work" at home is, comes when divorce happens. Men who think they are true feminists suddenly talk about their ex taking "their" money; they give no acknowledgment to the years of lost income and job experience that the woman can never recover, which she (usually, but not always, a woman) exchanged for the TWO of them to have the joy of children in their lives. I do not understand why so many men seem incapable of admitting that their wife-their ex-deserves continuing compensation for the decisions they made as a couple that have permanently affected her life-long earning power. It is not as though those past decisions, and their impact, go away when a divorce happens--the marriage ends, but the consequences of joint-decisions continue for a lifetime.
> 
> I sometimes think that the best practice would be a life-long requirement that they share each other's incomes--she gets half of his, he gets half of hers (once she starts earning), no matter what happens to the marriage. I bet a lot of people would think more carefully about getting married and having kids--and that's a good thing, in my book!


Good points, but the SAHM also gets the benefit and pleasure of watching the kids grow up that the other parent does not.
When our second was born, I was doing a full time job with a bad boss, a Part Time MBA program from a top school and the economy was bad so no prospects in sight. All I did was work and study and stress out. My little one just grew up and I don't even remember. How can my sacrifice be valued?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

nirvana said:


> I saw something interesting.
> 
> When my wife was a SAHM, she would extol the virtues of SAHMs and how hard their challenges were, how noble their work was etc etc. She would put down her sister who was always a working woman and had kids and would somewhat neglect them and get her husband to do a lot while she relaxed as she was tired after work (her husband worked too and was the primary income).
> 
> ...


Interesting, so maybe it is just a case of putting down other people to build yourself up?

I can't remember what article I read, but it was basically about a SAHM who was in MC and had to list out everything she does in a day to make it clear to her H that she was in fact "working". I guess he viewed her being a SAHM as someone lesser than those who go to a job. The point of the article was meant to highlight how much work is really involved being a SAHM, but I guess at some point there were comments from working moms basically stating they do everything the SAHM listed plus going to work. 

I guess in my POV, both parties here should be supporting each other, but it seemed to get turned into a d&ck measuring contest (ladies, what would the equivalent of this be for you, a vagina width measuring lol?).


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Here is another challenge any parent has to make.

My sister is a lawyer, with her current firm she works from home (she just moved recently so working from their office was not feasible). She decided to look at other firms (she has 3 young kids at home) to see what was out there, with of course flexibility being the main concern. She went to an interview where beforehand she was told that splitting time between home and the office would not be an issue. Turns out, when she got to the interview that was not the case (not sure if there was a miscommunication b/w the person who set her up for the interview and the actual interviewers). 

They wanted her to work from the office 5 days a week until about 6:30pm. Part of the rationale for this, there was another female lawyer at that firm who had 4 young children, worked those hours at the office, and made it work. When I spoke to my sister about this, we agreed that the whole "The other lawyer makes it work" is rather vague. First, just b/c she makes it work doesn't make it the best option. Also, we knew nothing about her situation (maybe she had a full time nanny, maybe her H actually had flexible hours, etc...).

So the challenge here looking from the business side of things, if this firm decided they want my sister on board and need to offer her the flexibility she wants, does that now open them up to the other female lawyer in terms of having to offer flexibility, or really let's say to all employees at the firm regardless of gender? They could use compensation as a way to justify the flexibility (i.e. less pay equals more flexibility).


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

nirvana said:


> I saw something interesting.
> 
> *When my wife was a SAHM, she would extol the virtues of SAHMs and how hard their challenges were, how noble their work was etc etc. She would put down her sister who was always a working woman and had kids and would somewhat neglect them and get her husband to do a lot while she relaxed as she was tired after work *(her husband worked too and was the primary income).
> 
> ...


I guess the husband sees it all...this is sad though...

You'd think having been on both sides would give a greater understanding & acceptance that would stay with her.. 

One has to wonder, is this a personality thing..that some just need to be surrounded by those with a similar lifestyle, branding together - then others (outsiders) are suddenly seen very differently, for whatever reason.. I see this as very "cliquish" ... 

Granted... I can easily understand being more comfortable around those who walk in our shoes & have similar lifestyles/ backgrounds .. there is a familiarity there, a common thread.... however... even those who do ...this is just one small thing about us.. there are so many other areas we may see very differently & a friendship might not hold well... 

I think I am the opposite ....I look UP to women who work full time & are so good with their kids.. (this is not to say I wish for their busy daily routine).... I am more likely to commend them on it.. they have so much to juggle... the idea some put themselves through college, worked & studied hard to get through, paying back thousands in loans....now has a successful career , some passion of theirs... it's greatly admirable....there is no way one couldn't admire the "work ethic" in that.. all of it.. 

If I focus on these things too much, however....I will start comparing myself.....it's a mental struggle to not feel "lesser" around women like these...some insecurity arises in me -that maybe I wasted my potential... I don't think I was smart enough to even get through math had I even wanted to go to College ...

Did I really think just getting married & having kids was anything to aspire to ..even though ..yeah.. it did make me happy.. fulfilled all these years...so I end up throwing daggers at myself ...

I wouldn't put career Mom's down to make myself feel good.. why do this, if they are happy, their kids are happy/ thriving.. it'd be foolish & really somewhat bitter of me to deny reality.. wouldn't it ??

All of us Mothers have special gifts in certain areas that our kids love about us.. and could probably tweak a few things.. whether we stay home, work part time, full time.. whether we make Big money or we struggle financially....

To lift myself back up...if I get to comparing what I feel society deems "important" today..... what helps is having some women friends who are LIKE ME in this world.. so that I don't feel too alone.... that's it's OK that I didn't get a degree... that my husband loves me just the way I am.. that he still feels I bring plenty to our lives & family.. 

In the words of "Brene Brown" that "I AM ENOUGH".....


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I thought this was a good article..Why the Mommy Wars Rage On |  ...it speaks of a festering defensiveness... the various situations, many are difficult & it's just so unfair to judge, some things are not even comparable.. we're all trying to do our best.. and I think we all struggle with questioning ourselves sometimes too. 



> Let’s be clear: It is a privileged group of women and men who ever confront this decision. Many don’t have anything approaching a financial choice when it comes to working. Others have children whose health problems dictate that someone be there to manage their care. The issue is further distorted by socioeconomic class: One mother stays home because child care for her kids would cost more than she could possibly earn or because she can’t find appropriate employment; another stays home but has full-time help and plenty of money left over. There is a danger in lumping people together too categorically.
> 
> Of course, judgment cuts both ways. Stay-at-home mothers say they get frustrated with working mothers who must be asked five times to submit their child’s contribution to the class quilt, who have to be nagged about every little thing, all while the stay-at-home moms are shouldering most of the unpaid labor around school. And working mothers can be condescending, even scornful, to women who don’t work for money. One full-time mom confessed to me that she drops a reference to her 15 years as a flight attendant whenever she’s talking to working moms or else she feels as if they dismiss her. I’ve also heard working moms get unattractively nasty about how much time their stay-at-home counterparts devote to Pilates, peels and kids’ parties; they forget how exhausting it can be to spend most of your life in the company of children.
> 
> ...


----------



## nirvana (Jul 2, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> Interesting, so maybe it is just a case of putting down other people to build yourself up?
> 
> I can't remember what article I read, but it was basically about a SAHM who was in MC and had to list out everything she does in a day to make it clear to her H that she was in fact "working". I guess he viewed her being a SAHM as someone lesser than those who go to a job. The point of the article was meant to highlight how much work is really involved being a SAHM, but I guess at some point there were comments from working moms basically stating they do everything the SAHM listed plus going to work.
> 
> I guess in my POV, both parties here should be supporting each other, but it seemed to get turned into a d&ck measuring contest (ladies, what would the equivalent of this be for you, a vagina width measuring lol?).


I think you may be on the right track. I think that my wife puts me down many times to make herself feel good. Conventional wisdom states that a woman will build UP her husband and feel good when he is up there, but with my wife it is the opposite and when she gets into these moods, she tears down my job, gets into a self pity mode about how there is "no stability" and how other husbands enable their wives to "relax". Reality is of all her friends she is in the best financial and career situation. All she complains about are just manipulative tactics to guilt me into doing more. Then she says "I have been working all day!!!". I am taken aback because I had also been working all day. 

Anyway, I agree with you, the psychology maybe "I know I suck, so I will pull you down so I am not alone in my suckage, and we both suck together, so you are no better".


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

nirvana said:


> I think you may be on the right track. I think that my wife puts me down many times to make herself feel good. Conventional wisdom states that a woman will build UP her husband and feel good when he is up there, but with my wife it is the opposite and when she gets into these moods, she tears down my job, gets into a self pity mode about how there is "no stability" and how other husbands enable their wives to "relax". Reality is of all her friends she is in the best financial and career situation. All she complains about are just manipulative tactics to guilt me into doing more. Then she says "I have been working all day!!!". I am taken aback because I had also been working all day.
> 
> *Anyway, I agree with you, the psychology maybe "I know I suck, so I will pull you down so I am not alone in my suckage, and we both suck together, so you are no better*".


People tend to want to relate to things on a even level. When there is a perceived disparity, there are two possible ways to achieve that balance. Build ones self up, or tear the other down. Unfortunately, many people take the easy way and tear others down, and even more unfortunately, they tend to take the easiest way for them in most facets of their lives with little regard for what it does to others.


----------

