The Feminine Mistake

Here's an interesting book that cautions women against dropping out of the workforce:

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000YFEDKO/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_next_2?%5Fencoding=UTF8&pageNumber=2&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

I love the nasty comments from the SAHMs. Methinks Leslie Bennetts hit a nerve.

It should be an eye opener for many women. Today, more so than in than in 80's, women chose to stay home. I do not understand that. If divorce rate is higher and jobs that their husbands keep are more volatile, having 2 good incomes is more important than ever.

Is is pure laziness or a false sense of security? Or is it Breederwood (Used to be Hollywood back in the days) showing the new ways?

I suspect it is laziness, though I do confess to having little or no respect for stay-at-home moos to begin with. I was taught to have a job, which I did until I retired this past March. If a woman can't find anything better to do with her life than to stay home with sprogs, well, that's a real comment on her IQ (hint: double-digit).
Unfortunately the current generation of feminists will end up having to fight the battles of the First Wave all over again because of idiot SAHMoos.

Michele Minor gives an excellent point in her review re: women need to think about having children because depending a man to support a woman and to never divorce is not realistic. I wish more reviewers said what she did: thinking about those babies besides the work issue. I've known of some smug people who claim they have those degrees from years back and can work on them. The same people (mostly female) wonder why they are not getting callbacks after their resumes are sent out. I know a childless woman (she wants a husband and a baby) who has not used her college degree in desktop design. She has tried for the past four years to get a job in her field but hasn't but still has the loans to pay.

I was surprised at Christopher B. Adams' response of how a woman should not worry about these things if she is beautiful enough to get a high earner to marry her and enable her to stay at home. More power to the woman if she does; however, beauty is fleeting. Looks will go even if the lady takes a trip to the Botox shop. The man wanting the beautiful woman will often seek out other beauties when the first one's looks fade. He also said how the woman would get plenty of child support and alimony if it does not work out so the ladies can educate themselves. There should be a disclaimer how it does not always work out that way. Some women do get "taken care of" after divorce; some don't and are stuck like Chuck.

I do not understand a male advocating this behaviour...

Another thing about that Christopher B. Adams person is how he thinks a dumped "beautiful" SAHM will get the professional salary once she finishes college. There is age discrimination out there that was mentioned (women @ 40; men @ 50). Getting a degree does not automatically mean a "professional" salary as many grads must pay their dues with lower pay and entry level positions. Mr. Adams makes it seem so 'easy' for a former housewife to get the degree and earn the $$$'s. How many displaced homemakers get some education but maybe earning $50 extra per week than someone with no schooling in customer service positions?

This was an excellent book. The author made many points that are commonly either glossed over or missed by those wanting to "opt out" of the workforce.

Although the book is slanted toward cautioning women not to miss even six months in the labor force due to breeding, the same advice about steady, unbroken employment applies to men and childfree women as well.

I found myself writing down choice quotes from the book, to paraphrase one: "Nothing hurts a woman more in an economic sense than having a child does".

The author is sensible, fair, and puts things in a perspective that even blind lifescripters can't fail to understand. It is available in audio book as well, and I highly recommend it.

I liked the quote from the excutive who thought it was hilarious that the SAHM thought that running 'a 4 hour bake sale' qualified her for a corporate position.

They really think that volunteering is tantamount to running a company. Volunteers aren't screened, have no job evaluations, don't need any qualifications beyond being a warm body and can't be fired for incompetence. Not exactly how it works in the corporate world!

SAHMs have been told its just so very easy to get a job after years of staying home! They have been sold a bill of goods.

The reality is far different. There is, yes age discrimination. That's a huge factor. I hit 40 last year and had a lot more difficulty than ever finding a job.

Not to mention the fact that many employers don't wish to hire anyone who hasn't worked in 10 or 20 years. Why should they hire that person over a more qualified candidate? No reason to.

Also SAHMS have been told that their 'household skills' translate into job skills that are valued in the workforce. The problem is, everyone has those basic household skills. Most adults run a household, whether they are sahms or not, whether they have kids or not. Running errands, setting appointments, driving the carpool, budgeting, doing laundry - these are not specialized skills. Everyone can do these things. The average teenager can do these things.

Yet, SAHMs have been led to believe they are the only ones with these abilities. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

amethusos* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michele Minor gives an excellent point in her
> review re: women need to think about having
> children because depending a man to support a
> woman and to never divorce is not realistic. I
> wish more reviewers said what she did: thinking
> about those babies besides the work issue. I've
> known of some smug people who claim they have
> those degrees from years back and can work on
> them. The same people (mostly female) wonder why
> they are not getting callbacks after their resumes
> are sent out. I know a childless woman (she wants
> a husband and a baby) who has not used her college
> degree in desktop design. She has tried for the
> past four years to get a job in her field but
> hasn't but still has the loans to pay.
>
> I was surprised at Christopher B. Adams' response
> of how a woman should not worry about these things
> if she is beautiful enough to get a high earner to
> marry her and enable her to stay at home. More
> power to the woman if she does; however, beauty is
> fleeting. Looks will go even if the lady takes a
> trip to the Botox shop. The man wanting the
> beautiful woman will often seek out other beauties
> when the first one's looks fade. He also said how
> the woman would get plenty of child support and
> alimony if it does not work out so the ladies can
> educate themselves. There should be a disclaimer
> how it does not always work out that way. Some
> women do get "taken care of" after divorce; some
> don't and are stuck like Chuck.
>
> I do not understand a male advocating this
> behaviour...

In today's world it is simply a perception and sometimes a reality that a very good looking woman can marry a rich man and have it made. Some examples are Donald Trump and Tiger Woods. Many people's minds are governed by television. Personal mindset is a rare occurrence and is not very popular, since everyone has to do what every one else is doing.

What is not very often disclosed to the unaware public is that today's man are different. Pre-nuptial agreements are common. Some men simply will not marry. Current marriage rates are dropping and it takes 2 to marry. They also forget that many beautiful women end up facing a single mom lifestyle. Times have changed and rich men no longer have a W2 form style income which could be easily traced(IN USA, it is when a person's work is their sole income). They instead have different assets that may be held by a corporation or a partnership. Many of these wifes have little knowledge or understanding of those. They end up with very little spousal support and very few assets after the divorce. It is also becoming more common for a man to get spousal support from a woman. That gets a ton of complaints, but it happens.

I had to read all 12 pages of the reviews. One woman was smug in stating that being at home was why her husband had life insurance. To depend on inheritance or life insurance is just tricky. How many widows have learned a harsh truth of the husband borrowing against the insurance while alive? The women thought they would get this huge chunk of money after the men's death only to find the policies worthless after these guys borrowed against the moneys. They got the shock of their lives and were penniless. Often, the wives believe the homes are paid for upon death to find the husbands did not purchase that sort of policy due to expense.

One woman had the title about what happened to "happy endings". Only females are conditioned to believe in the fairy tales. Reality sucks but this is the world we have to live in. It is sad how women are still taught to believe in the Prince who is going to rescue her. Another one similar is the women who said that the left-behind SAHMs should have married decent men would not fool around or leave them. A lot of people think their mates are decent when they got married. People often change. I saw that in Catholic Church when the religious men got their mid-life crisis and left their loyal wife for "fun".

Techie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What is not very often disclosed to the unaware
> public is that today's man are different.
> Pre-nuptial agreements are common. Some men
> simply will not marry. Current marriage rates are
> dropping and it takes 2 to marry. They also forget
> that many beautiful women end up facing a single
> mom lifestyle. Times have changed and rich men no
> longer have a W2 form style income which could be
> easily traced(IN USA, it is when a person's work
> is their sole income). They instead have
> different assets that may be held by a corporation
> or a partnership. Many of these wifes have little
> knowledge or understanding of those. They end up
> with very little spousal support and very few
> assets after the divorce.

Another stat in the reviews is how 70% of the fathers are behind on their child support so that Mr. Adams fellow talking of how the beauties can get alimony and child support is a bit ridiculous. Also, a lot of alimony is "rehabilitative" which means the women will collect for about 3 years rather than a lifetime as in the old days. Many court judgments are made but that does not mean automatic collection for the plaintiff. The beauty these men marry will change after childbirth and just living life and getting older. Rich men often will marry one of their own, meaning a woman from money or who has a high-paying career, after dating the beautiful women who did not have much. Many rich families advise their sons against marrying poor women because of the 'gold-digger' issue.

I knew a man with loads of $$$ who lived in a gated community. He said after "history" with his wife that he could not longer have sex with her. I never knew what that "history" was and did not ask. He hated the woman. However, Mr. MoneyBags was not going to divorce his wife. BOTH of them were high earners. Instead, this guy had honeys on the side. Each fling probably thought SHE would be the one to get this guy to divorce his wife and she would be the next Mrs. MoneyBags and no longer have to work. The thing was this guy did NOT want a wife who did not work. He totally hated the woman he was married to for many years and also did not like the stepkids but was very comfy with the lifestyle they BOTH made possible for them to have! He will never divorce his wife and marry a McWorker and make her dreams come true....but he will have sex with them!

amethusos* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had to read all 12 pages of the reviews. One
> woman was smug in stating that being at home was
> why her husband had life insurance.

Which means she is basically admitting that she only sees her husband as a meal ticket. She doesn't love him or care about him. He's just her ticket to a free ride.

How disgusting.

As I read more from the comments left for certain reviews, many former SAHMs ARE in agreement. More than a few of these ladies admitted how they thought their lives were perfect only to be totally uprooted when a husband left or in another woman's experience of her husband being killed in a car crash. I do respect a lot of the former stay-at-home wives for admitting how the ex-husbands stopped paying their support and how they needed jobs regardless when the men were still supporting the kids. To admit such things and how the women made mistakes about their financial future takes a big person to do so. It has turned into a catfight over there, though. The SAHMs act like it is a judgment on their lifestyle and are nasty to the working women rather than taking the good solid advice on how to keep from being destitute.

They have their heads buried in the sand and don't want to face reality.

They don't want to take good solid advice, because at the end of the day, sitting on their butts and getting manicures at the salon is far more important to them than anything else.

I read one of the reviews, the woman referred to career and income as "superficial". Funny, I wonder if she thinks the same about her husband's income and career - that its just superficial and not necessary.

casseyrod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have their heads buried in the sand and don't
> want to face reality.

Because reality is just too ugly to face, maybe?

These women are either completely delusional or they know that they don't have long to enjoy the good life and they're getting their fill.

I'm not condoning it at all - just trying to understand their reasoning.

oh they don't have their heads buried in the sand about reality at all... lol, in fact they are all very well aware of the fact that if hubbies went away they'd be sitting pretty like the rest of the broodsows on welfare, of course. SAHMoos don't have the same reality as any of us, wherein there is no government or taxpayer to pay the bills, cure bratley's sniffles and wipe your ass.

These women are products of our entitlement welfare system that rewards breeding exclusively. They may not be on welfare, now, but their carefree attitudes and ideas about work reveal the true welfare sow ready to pop out the minute a manwallet isn't there to provide.

nowhiggers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > They may not be on welfare, now, but their
> carefree attitudes and ideas about work reveal the
> true welfare sow ready to pop out the minute a
> manwallet isn't there to provide.

This is true even for upper middle class and rich sahms. They think they are entitled to always have someone else foot the bill for them. Based simply on their gender. They outright refuse to work - ever.

I dated a guy whose mom was an upper middle class sahm, then her husband walked out on her - so her son supported her financially and spent about half his income to put her up in a nice high rise apartment and provide her with everything she needed, so she wouldn't have to go out and work. This woman was in her 50s and very able bodied, she could have worked rather than mooch off her son.

These women will mooch off anyone if their husband walks out. Their friends, their kids, their own parents, their in-laws, their church - anyone.

It is to no surprise that marriage rate is on decline. Here and there I hear statements that reference that men are no longer as responsible as they used to be because they fail to "take care of women". Well, let go back a few decades. I do not know how to better explain it, but back in those days, women actually took care of men. Men used to earn money, but they never cooked, cleaned or even cared for children. They used to be taken care of by their wife better than they were by their mother. Back then, alimony was perfectly justified because when men came home, there was not much they had to do. Women had totally and completely dedicated their lives to the home. If husband went away, all woman could have was home life. She was never given a chance to earn money on her own. Again, all that took place in 1950's, and again that justified alimony. After all, the guy had an ultimate faithful personal servant.

Today, it is about doing nothing. I am a firm believer of equal rights, and not any special rights. Somehow, the idea is out there that men should pay, pay, pay. Women should take, take, take. If a woman says she wants someone to take care of her, it considered normal. If we reverse this and have a man say the same, attitude changes - he is a bad man. Well, I think no one should be leeching off anyone. Women should have never been enslaved to a home, men should have never been sole income providers. Somehow, what is happening is society is wanting the cake and wants to eat it too. Men are expected to be cash cows and take care of the home too. Something does not add up.

Techie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is to no surprise that marriage rate is on
> decline. Here and there I hear statements that
> reference that men are no longer as responsible as
> they used to be because they fail to "take care of
> women". Well, let go back a few decades. I do
> not know how to better explain it, but back in
> those days, women actually took care of men.
> Men used to earn money, but they never cooked,
> cleaned or even cared for children. They used to
> be taken care of by their wife better than they
> were by their mother.

In "the old days", women did work very hard. They also had more kids to care for back then. They worked in farms and factories. Then they came home and took care of the kids, cooked the evening meal and cleaned. A wife had far more value back then. Not anymore. Many women these days contribute nothing to the marriage partnership. They have nothing to bring to the table. They just wanna sit home or go shopping. Even if their kid is already in school full time.
No wonder so many men these days don't see the point in having a wife!

Eye opener = slap in the face.

Boo hoo, the moos don't like it when motherhood is called out to be exactly what it is: a fucking bore.

So I'm about halfway through the book and the sheer delusional, entitled, lazy-ass mentality of these women is astounding.

They have full-time nannies and maids, spend all their time shopping and really believe that they're indespensible.

Some of them are helicopter mothers who refuse to allow their children any autonomy and micromanage everything. Women like that are the reason the younger generation is so immature.

Some of these housewives honestly buy into that 'if they got paid for everything they do, they'd make $134,000 per year' bs. What gets to me is their belief that sticking on a bandaid makes them a nurse, balancing the checkbook makes them an accountant, nuking a tv dinner makes them a top chef, etc.

Most of these women aren't qualified to be a secretary and in the case of death, divorce or husband's job loss, would have a hard time getting a job at Wall Mart, yet they think they're wonderful!

MoJo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I'm about halfway through the book and the
> sheer delusional, entitled, lazy-ass mentality of
> these women is astounding.

Most people do not want to face reality when it slaps them upside the head! s
>
> They have full-time nannies and maids, spend all
> their time shopping and really believe that
> they're indespensible.


A lot of these women believe their husbands cannot find anyone better than them. Even if a man is to live alone, it is often cheaper to hire out for cleaning and cooking service as well as take the clothing to get laundered. Other than paying domestic workers and the dry cleaner, nothing more is owed. The men do not have to pay for maintenance of the women and of children.

> Some of them are helicopter mothers who refuse to
> allow their children any autonomy and micromanage
> everything. Women like that are the reason the
> younger generation is so immature.

In my mom's generation as well as mine, most young people could not wait to get their own apartment even if their parents had a large home. Independence was a goal for all of us despite rooming with others or taking a studio in a bad part of town. My mother never went back home after my father left. She had too much pride and just did not want to impose on my grandparents.

In this generation, adult kids keep returning home. Some do help their parents so it is a win-win situation and many cultures are of how young adults do not leave home until marriage. Here in the USA, some young people feel that they should not have to get a roommate or pay higher costs but will live at home while buying expensive goodies...or the daughter will return with brats in tow after the latest guy booted her.
>
> Some of these housewives honestly buy into that
> 'if they got paid for everything they do, they'd
> make $134,000 per year' bs. What gets to me is
> their belief that sticking on a bandaid makes them
> a nurse, balancing the checkbook makes them an
> accountant, nuking a tv dinner makes them a top
> chef, etc.

Isn't that a riot??? I guess bathing the dog and cleaning his ears makes me a professional animal groomer or vet?
>
> Most of these women aren't qualified to be a
> secretary and in the case of death, divorce or
> husband's job loss, would have a hard time getting
> a job at Wall Mart, yet they think they're
> wonderful!

So true! I've worked with many single/divorced moms who were so surprised to have to take retail or call center jobs. A few got their security licenses thinking they would be making the same as cops. Talk about a rude awakening for these women...

MoJo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Some of these housewives honestly buy into that
> 'if they got paid for everything they do, they'd
> make $134,000 per year' bs. What gets to me is
> their belief that sticking on a bandaid makes them
> a nurse, balancing the checkbook makes them an
> accountant, nuking a tv dinner makes them a top
> chef, etc.
>
> Most of these women aren't qualified to be a
> secretary and in the case of death, divorce or
> husband's job loss, would have a hard time getting
> a job at Wall Mart, yet they think they're
> wonderful!

I read one article in a magazine geared towards women with kids, I can't remember if it was Woman's Day or Good Housekeeping.

Anyway, the article said that surfing the internet was a good job skill, because many employers need to hire people to do internet research.

The sad fact is, any moron can use the internet.

The same moo magazine writer probably said that wiping up brat shit is a good job skill because moo worker may need to clear a paper jam in a machine (and could get ink on her as a result).

Keep working more hours, CF people! Millions of breeders depend on us.

Face it. Breeder cows think that they can garner the same respect and pay scale as an educated, seasoned, long-term professional in any given field.......... because doing TMIJITW makes you qualified for just about anything, now doesn't it?

And when they can't, well, it's certainly not THEIR fault, now is it? They're just being discriminated against because they have kyds. (sarcasm off)