Stay at home women degrade the status of women in our society.

reply to post by Indigo5

You say:
She is NOT talking about 99% of stay at hom moms...and she makes that clear alll throughout her article..

I read the full article and I disagree, she seems to have almost an intense hatred for stay at home mothers.
When she said she despises women with advanced degrees who stay at home, she WAS talking about someone like me.

What does it matter if a woman who has a degree decides to stay home with her children? It is no ones business other than her and her family. Just as if a man decides to stay home.

If the family is rich and can afford domestic help that still is not our business. The author who purports to be speaking for all feminists is extremely derogatory in her comments about stay at home women and playing the nanny state by saying all intelligent able bodied women should work, how communist of her. So what, what business is that of hers? Wasn't the feminist movement about accepting what makes people fulfilled and giving people, not just women, but men too more choices in life?

Isn't that what the United States is supposed to stand for? Freedom to choose the path that brings you the greatest happiness. Personal decision making, with nanny's butting out. Isn't that what the US is supposed to be?

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by trysts

 

I don't have extremist views. I simply know the difference between the two kinds of feminism that exist today. One is VERY dangerous, while the other is necessary.

Here's an article that might explain it better than I can.

www.psychologytoday.com...

~Tenth

So, you think feminism is characterized by two positions: Equity feminists and gender feminists. You think, with the article's conclusion, that gender feminists have a misunderstanding of Descartes and Darwin. If this is so, then I should say that I feel more an existentialist, than a Darwinian in my outlook on life. I believe the individual's situation in quotidian existence and how it relates to subjects like language and psychology is what makes philosophical thinking intriguing to me.
So, with that in mind, and without having read Eagly and Wood, or Friedman, Bleske, &Scheyd, etc., I'll have to say the article does not persuade me into taking a position either way.
Sorry

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by trysts

 

This thread is actually mostly filled with hate.

And I'm not saying that ALL women are like this or that all women who call themselves feminists are like this, but if you are the "right kind" of feminist, you should not call yourself a feminist.

You are an egalitarian. Use the proper words to describe yourself. That's all I'm asking.

~Tenth

Thanks for making such excellent points. I really am not seeing hate so much as fear (I'm not doing the right thing - either way) and a resultant strong desire to make everyone the same (stay home or work). I find it fascinating and am getting quite a chuckle out of a lot of it.

When people get over the fact that what others do in their personal lives is none of their business as long as it doesn't harm others, then maybe we can accept all choices.

For me, stay at home is a valid choice that makes me feel fuller and richer and I think my family is better for it.

My daughter who is extraordinarily bright and a very driven women was going crazy by the end of her maternity leave. For her working is the valid choice and she and her family are better off with her working than staying home and hating every minute. But you know what? She actually panics when I talk about going back to teach and despite her strong desire to work, she completely supports my desire to stay home.

When my son-in-law talked about being a stay at home Dad, I was very supportive, but unfortunately societal pressures made him change his mind.

The way each of us chooses to be family and how our family works is no one else's business as long as no one is being physically or emotionally abused and its members are thriving.

reply to post by grandmakdw


The article is well written with humour, insight, facts and statistics. It is an entertaining dialogue critiqueing contemporary ideas on feminism. It isn't scathing of working mothers in general or stay at home mothers. The point being made is mainly that being financially reliant on men and having many staff doing traditional home / mother tasks cannot be called a feminist choice, it is a choice but those doing so that called such a decision their ''feminist right'' were perhaps misguided in their word choice.

This article also explores the lack of women in the higher eschelons of the workplace, which is also a valid point.

Truly, it appears that this article touched a raw nerve for you and you reacted hastily, misjudging the content and taking it personally, when really it isn't about the likes of you, is lighthearted and has many valid points.

Failing as a feminist is a unique problem of the wealthy, but consequences impact women all the way down the line. It happens that most women -- and men -- are living feminist lives because of economic necessity, whether they mean to or not. Most families are kind of like Sarah Palin's was before she made her pit-bull star turn: lots of kids and both mom and dad have to bring in what money they can. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2011 nearly 71 percent of women with children under 18 worked. Most mothers have jobs because they need or want the money and fulfillment; only in rare cases are they driven by glory. To be a stay-at-home mom is a privilege, and most of the housewives I have ever met -- none of whom do anything around the house -- live in New York City and Los Angeles, far from Peoria. Only in these major metropolises are there the kinds of jobs in finance and entertainment that allow for a family to live luxe on a single income.

As it happens, fewer than 5 percent of the CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, 16 percent of corporate executives, and 17 percent of law partners are female. The men, the husbands of the 1 percent, are on trading floors or in office complexes with other men all day, and to the extent that they see anyone who isn't male it's pretty much just secretaries and assistants. And they go home to...whatever. What are they supposed to think? They pay gargantuan American Express bills and don't know why or what for. Then they give money to Mitt Romney.

This is an eloquent article, the content of which, explores aspects of society that more sensationalist media try denying. Such media explorations should be applauded IMO as these are the readily available inspirational pieces that make people think about the constructs of society.

How many women are ok with the man staying at home? As long as that is not equal to the percentage of men who are ok with their women staying at home, there is a discrep in what we consider as worthy....

In the mean time, let's allllll take a deep breath

Originally posted by grandmakdw
reply to post by Indigo5

 

she seems to have almost an intense hatred for stay at home mothers.
When she said she despises women with advanced degrees who stay at home, she WAS talking about someone like me.

She is specifically referring to Stay at home "WIVES" and not "Mothers" and specifically distinguishes between the Ann Romney's of the world and the other 99% of working mothers.

Read the passage about degrees again...WIVES...not MOMs...and the 1% Wives with 6 nannies, several homes and an army of maids...who spend thier days at lunch, shopping and pedicures talking about how being a stay at home mom is a "job".

The difference between a millionaire stay at home "Wife" and a stay at home mom?

ever see an episode of New York or New Jersey houswives?

C'Mon....don't pretend you missed most of the article and thought she was talking about stay at home moms.. just for rhetorical-political idealogical convenience.

You are NOT Rush Limbaugh...he plays stupid for ratings

reply to post by grandmakdw


And the other bit you might have missed while Listening to and believing what Rush Limbaugh tells you...

"Now, how can I be anti-woman? I even judged the Miss America pageant." -Rush Limbaugh, March 14, 2012

"What does it say about the college co-ed [Sandra] Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right?February 29, 2012

I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want. ... So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch." -Rush Limbaugh, March 1, 2012

"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." --Rush Limbaugh


"We're not sexists, we're chauvinists -- we're male chauvinist pigs, and we're happy to be because we think that's what men were destined to be. We think that's what women want." --Rush Limbaugh

"She comes to me when she wants to be fed. And after I feed her -- guess what -- she's off to wherever she wants to be in the house, until the next time she gets hungry. She's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. She's actually a very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn't have to do anything for it, which is why I say this cat's taught me more about women, than anything my whole life." --Rush Limbaugh, on his cat

"She sounds like a screeching ex-wife." --Rush Limbaugh, on Sen. Hillary Clinton

Honestly...the Limbaugh qoutes on women go on and on...why are you listening to him tell you that you should be offended about something as woman????

This is the man you are listening too for opinions on feminism or stay at home moms????

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by grandmakdw
reply to post by Indigo5

 

she seems to have almost an intense hatred for stay at home mothers.
When she said she despises women with advanced degrees who stay at home, she WAS talking about someone like me.

She is specifically referring to Stay at home "WIVES" and not "Mothers" and specifically distinguishes between the Ann Romney's of the world and the other 99% of working mothers.

Read the passage about degrees again...WIVES...not MOMs...and the 1% Wives with 6 nannies, several homes and an army of maids...who spend thier days at lunch, shopping and pedicures talking about how being a stay at home mom is a "job".

The difference between a millionaire stay at home "Wife" and a stay at home mom?

ever see an episode of New York or New Jersey houswives?

C'Mon....don't pretend you missed most of the article and thought she was talking about stay at home moms.. just for rhetorical-political idealogical convenience.

You are NOT Rush Limbaugh...he plays stupid for ratings

edit on 19-6-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Oh, is she?.

I disagree.

Hilary Rosen would not have been so quick to be so super sorry for saying that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life if we weren't all made more than a wee bit nervous by our own biases, which is that being a mother isn't really work. Yes, of course, it's something -- actually, it's something almost every woman at some time does, some brilliantly and some brutishly and most in the boring middle of making okay meals and decent kid conversation. But let's face it: It is not a selective position. A job that anyone can have is not a job, it's a part of life, no matter how important people insist it is (all the insisting is itself overcompensation). Even moms with full-time jobs spend 86 percent as much time with their kids as unemployed mothers, so it is apparently taking up the time of about 14 percent of a paid position. And all the cultish glorification of home and hearth still leaves us in a world where most of the people paid to chef and chauffeur in the commercial world are men. Which is to say, something becomes a job when you are paid for it -- and until then, it's just a part of life.

reply to post by Indigo5


Why should she, or we, care about the "like of Ann Romney"? Why is a families choice or a husband and wife's choice to have the woman not work and invalid choice? If they have money you imply it is invalid, but if they don't then it's ok. Huh?

Yes, her article did take jabs at stay at home educated woman, you just can't see it because of your particular world view.

My world view says, it's none of our business. I believe in freedom as long as it doesn't harm someone else. The choice a married couple make about the wife being home or not being home is a personal choice and to say that we have a right to criticize just because they are different from us socially is arrogant at the very least.
That my dear, is not feminism, it is arrogant, it bespeaks of a socialist/communist philosophy that wants everyone to be the same regardless of personal preference. In the 1970's we fought for equality in the workplace and rightfully so, we fought earlier for the right to vote and rightfully so. In the 70's we were told that the fight was to give women a choice. The author seems to want to deny choice to women who are wealthy or well educated because they have a civic duty to be "productive" citizens. That is how I read the article. It truly is an article that is insulting to all women who choose to work at home. I have been fighting this prejudice, fortunately not from my family who supports me, but from others who can't understand why a well educated woman is not in the workplace instead and hiring people to do these "jobs" rather than giving of myself, my heart and my hands to my family.

Originally posted by grandmakdw
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Why should she, or we, care about the "like of Ann Romney"? Why is a families choice or a husband and wife's choice to have the woman not work and invalid choice? If they have money you imply it is invalid, but if they don't then it's ok. Huh?

Not at all. Any choice is valid, money or no money.

But for Ann Romney or any millionaire housewife to wave the "stay at home mom is a job and hard work" flag??...they deserve to be called out on that nonsense and THAT is NOT valid. That is BS. That is a privledge that money affords them. Earned money? Sure, OK, and I don't begrudge success, but sure as crap not the same as 99% of stay at home moms without 6 nannies trying to make ends meet just so they can spend time with their children.

Her choice is valid...but her choice is not a "job" when you employ a small army to do the work for you.

reply to post by grandmakdw


The article is an educated critique exploring contempory ideas of feminism. If you do not want to read anything more than bland flippery then perhaps the Politics section isn't your bag.

Also if your ideology purports that people shouldn't say anything about others choices as ''it isn't their business'' surely you should also apply that same ideology to yourself and not criticise this womens opinions, let alone read them or make a thread detailing you opinion of her views and details of your own life. The very fact you are reading and publicly derising this womans choice to write something is blatant hypocrisy.

Originally posted by grandmakdw
The choice a married couple make about the wife being home or not being home is a personal choice and to say that we have a right to criticize just because they are different from us socially is arrogant at the very least.

That my dear, is not feminism, it is arrogant, it bespeaks of a socialist/communist philosophy that wants everyone to be the same regardless of personal preference.

And it is the false claim of "communist" "sameness" that moms like Ann Romney appeal to when they describe themselves as having a "Job" as a "stay at home mom" that makes your statement ironic.

They are not the "same" "stay at home moms" that 99% of stay-at-home moms would recognize...and that is OK...as long as they don't claim to be for the sake of getting their husbands elected President.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by grandmakdw
The choice a married couple make about the wife being home or not being home is a personal choice and to say that we have a right to criticize just because they are different from us socially is arrogant at the very least.

That my dear, is not feminism, it is arrogant, it bespeaks of a socialist/communist philosophy that wants everyone to be the same regardless of personal preference.

And it is the false claim of "communist" "sameness" that moms like Ann Romney appeal to when they describe themselves as having a "Job" as a "stay at home mom" that makes your statement ironic.

They are not the "same" "stay at home moms" that 99% of stay-at-home moms would recognize...and that is OK...as long as they don't claim to be for the sake of getting their husbands elected President.

edit on 19-6-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

So that makes Michelle ok for spending millions of tax dollars for 9 vacations in less than 4 years. Or ok for her to "stay at home" with a large personal staff. People in glass houses, my dear.
By your standard Michelle and Ann are both stay at home mothers; well educated women who belong in the workforce. Michelle doesn't earn a salary so that means she doesn't have a "real" job by the standard set by the author. By the standard set by the author Michelle is dependent upon her husbands income and is wasting her marvelous education. Glass houses, my dear, glass houses. This isn't about politics, it is about freedom, true freedom and choice without being demonized by those who don't agree with our personal choices.

I wasn't defending Ann Romney, I was defending the right of educated women to choose to be stay at home mothers without being told that as able bodied well educated women we should be in the outside workforce. Michelle, as an extremely wealthy woman with a large personal staff, has a right to be a stay at home Mom who chooses to do a great deal of volunteerism. First Lady is not a paid position, it is a volunteer job. I'm sure Ann as a political spouse and a very wealthy women with a personal staff also does a great deal of volunteerism now that her children are grown and on their own.

I was defending choice; without name calling and judgmentalism, especially by other women; and most especially by women who call themselves feminist and purport to be for women having choice while criticizing and calling invalid how other women wish to live. I am defending the idea that we should stay out of people's personal lives,

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


yeh but gravity or what we theorise is gravity scientifically was theorised by one person , then verified by another and so on!

So it really is there because we have one human being confirm its existance , but how can they know for sure until another confirms its existance !

So it applies to the self as well

Originally posted by grandmakdw

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by grandmakdw
The choice a married couple make about the wife being home or not being home is a personal choice and to say that we have a right to criticize just because they are different from us socially is arrogant at the very least.

That my dear, is not feminism, it is arrogant, it bespeaks of a socialist/communist philosophy that wants everyone to be the same regardless of personal preference.

And it is the false claim of "communist" "sameness" that moms like Ann Romney appeal to when they describe themselves as having a "Job" as a "stay at home mom" that makes your statement ironic.

They are not the "same" "stay at home moms" that 99% of stay-at-home moms would recognize...and that is OK...as long as they don't claim to be for the sake of getting their husbands elected President.

edit on 19-6-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

So that makes Michelle ok for spending millions of tax dollars for 9 vacations in less than 4 years. Or ok for her to "stay at home" with a large personal staff. People in glass houses, my dear.

Okay...so here we go off the rails and your idealogical aims enter into the debate. On to a rant about first lady Michelle Obama...you should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh...

Originally posted by grandmakdw
By your standard Michelle and Ann are both stay at home mothers; well educated women who belong in the workforce.

By my standard? No... Ann Romney and Michelle Obama...niether of them qualify as "stay at home moms" as the average American stay-at-home mom would recognize it.

The difference I guess is that Michelle Obama actually has a day job with a good deal of responsibilities as the First Lady, dimplomatically and otherwise or haven't you heard Rush complain about all of those iniatives on health and nutrition that Michelle has rolled out? First Ladyies have iniatives...Nancy Reagan...just say no to drugs...Laura Bush...reading and education.

Ann Romney does ride horses, but I am not sure if that qualifies as a job or a hobby?

Originally posted by grandmakdw
This isn't about politics, it is about freedom, true freedom and choice without being demonized by those who don't agree with our personal choices.

Oh I agree with Ann Romney's choice. I think most stay-at-home moms would not complain if they had 250 million in the bank to hire an army of nannies, chefs, housekeepers, buy a half dozen vacation-mansions.

No one demonizes her for those choices...but to shout "I am a stay-at-home Mom and it is a Job and hard work!" and to say it at a lecturn staring actual stay-at-home moms...well...BS....good for her...but BS and everyone knows it.

Originally posted by grandmakdw
I wasn't defending Ann Romney, I was defending the right of educated women to choose to be stay at home mothers without being told that as able bodied well educated women we should be in the outside workforce.

And AGAIN...I have no issue with those choices...but for women with millions of dollars and teams of nannies, housekeepers and chefs to go on the news and say that their status is a "job" is just BS.

No issue with there choices of financial status...but don't pretend otherwise. No demonizing...just calling BS when someone pretends they don't have 6 nannies, full time housekeepers and chefs. Own it, don't BS.

We seem to have a communication breakdown on this? It's fine for any woman to wealthy and make full use of that wealth to outsource the difficult bits and make their "stay at home" status not a "Job"...just don't tell me it is a "Job" and try to convince me it is the same work that 99% of stay at home moms do. That is BS...

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

yeh but gravity or what we theorise is gravity scientifically was theorised by one person , then verified by another and so on!

So it really is there because we have one human being confirm its existance , but how can they know for sure until another confirms its existance !

So it applies to the self as well

Gravity was proven via scientific means but human's agreeing with each other of its existence.
But here's the thing, the reason a human should not need someone to validate their lives is because they themselves should recognise their existence on this earth - Its blatantly evident they are alive.

reply to post by Indigo5


We have come to an impasse.
Our viewpoints are too far apart for us to come to an agreement. I won't convince you and you won't convince me. So lets stop trying.

Thanks for the repartee.

reply to post by Indigo5


Thanks. That's exactly what I figured it was but didn't have time earlier to look it up. Target acquired/

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


I disagree , a human cannot know they are alive without confirmation of their existance from another living being !
without another person or living thing to acknowledge you then you would just think you were dreaming or dead or something else !

however most of us are lucky enough that we are surrounded by other humans from day 1.

many of those educated women are opting to stay home and postponing their careers because it is saving the family money for them to do so...

seems to me, that this is a decision that is based on logic, not emotions, or feminists/anti-feminist views, or anything of the like... it is logic and cold hard facts of an economy that is so out of wack that while we push to get the poorer moms out working those close to minimum wage jobs while paying for their childcare, our more educated, better paid, middle to upper class women are finding that the jobs that they spent time in college studying to to get the credentials to do just are paying for the cost that is generated by working them!!! so, well, we have all our educated women, going back to the traditional role, staying home, out of the limelight so to speak, while our workforce is filled with the not so educated, welfare mom, who doesn't more than likely, would prefer to be staying home with her kids also reallly, but was pushed out by the gov't who said that she should work for her benefits....in jobs, that don't pay enough for her childcare expense let alone for her to support her family!!!

am I the only one that sees this as a step backwards as far as feminism goes?? I mean, back in those "golden years" that many wish we would go back to, ya know, when the women stayed home and the men worked to support them, well, there were many, many women working, many moms working, poorer women, poorer moms, ya, but they were working, without the right for an equal wage, without the support of gov't subisidized childcare and all the other support that the gov't has established to offset the what was then descriminatory practices that were prevalent in the workforce. in time, as more and more well educated, more financially well off women opt to leave, well the desire to that gov't support will also dwindle away at least from the segments of society that have the power to move things. and well, we will end up with what we had to start with basically, most women home, with the not so bright, not so financially well off women the only ones present in our society, showing the world that yes, women are so much less than the men!!

I am not knocking any women who opts to stay home instead of staying in the workforce mind you. It would be like knocking them for being logical at this point in so many cases! But, maybe the discussion needs to be extended out a little more and the question asked, why? in many cases the reason is just what I stated... the family will literally lose money if they are working, or that extra hundred or so that they clear just isn't worth the hassle.
this is the problem that needs to be addresses. not weather or not any particular person is making the right choice one way or another. economics has taken the choice away from many of these women (or in some cases men)!!

for us who live in the US, this is supposedly a free country!! it supposedly is being run by "free" markets!!
and yet, in the heart of many hearts, they can't find the freedom to allow others to run their lives as they deem fit??? there is no freedom if that is allowed to take place!