Time magazine article causes the SAHMoos to explode :tu

Reading all the indignant comments in response to the article, all I can do is laugh in an evil fashion

Being a SAHM is Not a Job

Quote

Whether you call it a “blessing” or a “privilege,” the fact remains that having someone else foot the bill for a lifestyle that only benefits you and your close family is by no means a “job.”

Have some self-respect, own up to your decision, and call it what it is: a lifestyle that is hard but definitely worth the struggle to you. The people out there who actually have jobs will appreciate you much more if you’re not going around whining about a way of life that is most parents’ dream.

To that, the moos responded

Heh heh, the amount of butthurt in the comments is amusing. In this day and age, parenthood is optional, and looks like the masses still don't like having that pointed out.

A lot of people leaped straight to calling the author bitter, sad, and angry...while the bitter, sad anger in their own comments just blazed through my screen and nearly set my house on fire.

Oops...she slipped!

Quote from commenter:

"The reason many women work when they have small children is actually because it's easier and a lot more fun than working at a job, no matter the work demands..."

Then there is this one, who is a Moo because it benefits society with producing all the loafs----doctors to-be!

"Having children is essential to any society's survival. If people stop having children society collapses. It's pretty hard to argue that people who are doing something that directly prevents the collapse of our entire society aren't producing a benefit. Just because it's a labour of love doesn't make it any less of a valuable and necessary social contribution. We pay doctors because they help society as a whole, why is raising someone who becomes a doctor not of equal value?"

If parunts were fined or rewarded according to the occupations and earnings of their loafs then there would be a hell of a lot of disenfranchised parunts whining about their huge fine and a small percentage who would profit from it. And what about abusive neglectful parunts who manage to produce high contributors, should they be rewarded?
What about the many parunts who have loafs who grow up and contribute nothing to society---such as addicts or those incarcerated? What about parunts who raise loafs who earn a living but are complete and total assholes and hurt everyone they come into contact with? And if less than 1% of the population become doctors then what about the remainder, are their parunts judged based on their occupation choice?

What is she trying to say here?

Cow seems to be talking round both sides of her cud.

I tend to look at 'this issue' as a Biz Person - yes it is a job, unpaid. Who does Cow (and Duh) work for? Our Capitalist Overlords. Cow is doing the (unpaid) work of training up Da Fyoochure Consumers and Soldiers.

It's not a 'real job' it's a "gift"?

So, Pro Pitch Propaganda? She seems rather bitter about it all though.

Yes, it is a Gift for Our Corporate Overlords, that's for sure.

(I hope, Biz Me, does not come off as a Hypocrite. Rest assured there is a difference between commerce or trade - and Capitalism. You can look it up if you get the urge to read alot of boring biz stuff.)

Quote
Zzelda

Yes, it is a Gift for Our Corporate Overlords, that's for sure.

(I hope, Biz Me, does not come off as a Hypocrite. Rest assured there is a difference between commerce or trade - and Capitalism. You can look it up if you get the urge to read alot of boring biz stuff.)

It makes sense to work for Our Corporate Overlords since we are here. But to bring a fluffy little loaf onto the planet as a sacrifice to Our Corporate Overlords with the guise of doing humanity a favor is especially vile!

Good start but just once I'd love for someone to dispose of the "it's hard" bit.

Clearly it's not.

Considering there are people who work AND still take care of kids AND still do the housework how hard can it really be? Mostly dedicated to those ones that are still mooing around after the snotling is in full time school, but still- I refuse to believe it's a "struggle".

_______________________________________________________
"Pro life childfree" is just another way of saying parent minus 9 months.

I'd be willing to grant the "hard" adjective. Lots of tasks are hard. I know if I had to look after an infant/toddler/small child it would be really hard for me...but probably not just for the reasons mommies cite. I'd be swallowing my soul as I lived that horrible life.

Lots of jobs are hard.

But they need to drop the "hardest job in the world" line. Ditto for the variation "hardest job you'll love". It's attention-whoring martyr behavior and it needs to stop.

A friend sent me this article which was well done and something I agree with wholeheartedly. I told him that the stroller derby will be coming for her with pitchforks and torches.

Looks like I guessed correctly.

Fact: it is not a job. Put it on your resume and see how far it gets you. As the writer points out, all those employed people do the same tasks as you do, and work a real job as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From a bottle cap message on a Magic Hat #9 beer: Condoms Prevent Minivans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to pick up a bus full of unruly kids and feed them gummi bears and crack, then turn them loose in Hobby Lobby to ransack the place. They will all be wearing T shirts that say "You Could Have Prevented This."

Having kids "prevents the collapse of society?" Fucking lol. Not when the population is approaching 8 billion and resources/wildlife are dwindling.

The self-importance in those comments is ridiculous. So desperate to reaffirm their shitty life choices, these moos. Quit acting like you bred to improve the plight of humanity and admit the real reason: selfishness. You did it because you wanted to. Which is the same reason most of us choose NOT to reproduce, incidentally. Own it.

Quote
navi8orgirl
Fact: it is not a job. Put it on your resume and see how far it gets you. As the writer points out, all those employed people do the same tasks as you do, and work a real job as well.

Heard some moos entering the workforce do just this. Put some title such as home economist or similar on their resume and list out budgeting, conflict resolution, managing people, etc. as skills. If it gets them anywhere it is because someone is taking pity on them, which they eat up. It is all fine and dandy until the employer realizes the moo can't send/manager email from Outlook or some other basic skillset is missing. Then it becomes a matter of pride for person in power who hired moo to find some poor employees to take up the slack and teach moo basic skillsets ad naseum, when moo bothers to show up for work. Because everyone knows the moo doesn't have the initiative to buy a book on Outlook and teach herself basic skills or she would have already done so.

Quote
freya

Quote
navi8orgirl
Fact: it is not a job. Put it on your resume and see how far it gets you. As the writer points out, all those employed people do the same tasks as you do, and work a real job as well.

Heard some moos entering the workforce do just this. Put some title such as home economist or similar on their resume and list out budgeting, conflict resolution, managing people, etc. as skills. If it gets them anywhere it is because someone is taking pity on them, which they eat up. It is all fine and dandy until the employer realizes the moo can't send/manager email from Outlook or some other basic skillset is missing. Then it becomes a matter of pride for person in power who hired moo to find some poor employees to take up the slack and teach moo basic skillsets ad naseum, when moo bothers to show up for work. Because everyone knows the moo doesn't have the initiative to buy a book on Outlook and teach herself basic skills or she would have already done so.

Years ago, I was working at a warehouse bookstore and the manager hired a moo who was entirely inadequate for the fairly simple job.

We had only three employees to cover all tasks and shifts.
The moo managed to screw up any and all tasks assigned to her.
The most important parts of the job that she screwed up were all cash-handling and register activities as well as customer relations.
After two months of continuous fuck-ups, the two employees who were doing an appropriate job approached the manager to deal with the moo who continually fucked up everything she touched.
The manager told us do our jobs and hers by discretely always getting to the cash and the customer before her and doing her job, in **a retail warehouse**.
He worded it much less blatant, but we were having none of it and stated it completely bluntly.

" You want us to continually monitor our co-worker every minute and discretely sprint across a warehouse, so no one notices and to do both our own job and her job?"

It was confirmed, so we threatened to approach the district manager, who later came in, fired her, gave us her hours and warned the manager.
It was a relief when she was gone and we could just do our job.