Truth about SAHMs

Most of them are broke and they know it. Yet, they claim that it is the best thing that could ever happen to them.

http://www.today.com/money/more-mothers-staying-home-kids-study-shows-2D79497794

Today.com Link

Quote
Today.com
More moms are staying at home with their kids full time, and those moms tend to be younger, less educated and more likely to be poor than women who work outside the home, new research finds.

...researchers also argue that many women who stay at home are doing so at least partly because they can’t afford the child care costs and other expenses associated with going to work, especially if they can’t get a job that pays well...

...there has been an increase in the share of moms who said they are at home with their kids because they can’t find a job...

...For many women, Cohn said there are probably a number of reasons — including economic factors, personal preferences and cultural norms — that go into the decision to stay home...

...“Certainly these elite stay-at-home mothers have gotten a lot of attention, but they’re only a small slice of all stay-at-home moms,” Cohn said...

This is an old trick. Get knocked up, stay at home, do not work. Even if her man makes very little money.

The idea that SAHMs are not being able to find work does not hold a whole lot of water. Most SAHMs are SAHMs because they did not want to work.

Quote
Techie

This is an old trick. Get knocked up, stay at home, do not work. Even if her man makes very little money.

The idea that SAHMs are not being able to find work does not hold a whole lot of water. Most SAHMs are SAHMs because they did not want to work.

Wealthy or poor, it does not surprise me that this is done. It's called "taking the path of least resistance." Avoiding college, intellectual pursuits, or joining the workforce is far easier than actually taking those steps to better oneself.

The irony is that people who take the path of least resistance often know that what they're doing is, in the long-term, very stupid. And so, they get defensive by claiming that what they're doing is TMIJITW, and that they are in fact, the smart ones, and the other 99% of the population is completely wrong. That's where the SAHM arrogance comes from.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
The irony is that people who take the path of least resistance often know that what they're doing is, in the long-term, very stupid. And so, they get defensive by claiming that what they're doing is TMIJITW, and that they are in fact, the smart ones, and the other 99% of the population is completely wrong. That's where the SAHM arrogance comes from.

It looks pretty similar to the effort-justification paradigm for dealing with cognitive dissonance. Basically, if someone puts a lot of effort into something, or has to undergo extreme discomfort for it, they're highly likely to rate that activity in a positive manner.

That's how SAHMs deal with the dissonance that comes from the repetitive, grinding, gross activities that make up the early years of raising children.

@StudioFiftyFour: You are correct about the "path of least resistance". Article states that vast majority of poor SAHMs are high school drop outs. I guess having nursery in high schools did not encourage them to stay and at least get a High School Diploma.

Fundies always preach that when a woman lives with a man, she is way better off financially. This article proves that there are many poor SAHMs and having a man does not help, especially if he does not earn much.

I suspect that many girls who got pregnant is high school have ended up being money-less SAHMs. I also suspect that many of these SAHMs do not live with a bio baby daddy - they have probably found some pushover to take care of them.

Quote
randomcfchick

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
The irony is that people who take the path of least resistance often know that what they're doing is, in the long-term, very stupid. And so, they get defensive by claiming that what they're doing is TMIJITW, and that they are in fact, the smart ones, and the other 99% of the population is completely wrong. That's where the SAHM arrogance comes from.

It looks pretty similar to the effort-justification paradigm for dealing with cognitive dissonance. Basically, if someone puts a lot of effort into something, or has to undergo extreme discomfort for it, they're highly likely to rate that activity in a positive manner.

That's how SAHMs deal with the dissonance that comes from the repetitive, grinding, gross activities that make up the early years of raising children.

Precisely. As a sidebar note, I do understand the validity of staying home for the first few years of a child's life. But beyond that? I can't see any real need for someone to stay at home while her children are in school. I believe as you do that this is a kind of cognitive dissonance or some kind of defense mechanism to justify once again taking a path of least resistance.

Oh joy. That write up is going around several sites. Watch out for the "advocates" who start yammering that we need more gov't programs to help these women.

This one is from Slate.

Quote

The increase in SAHMs isn’t fueled by more women wanting to stay at home: As Pew notes, the majority of moms want to work, and the percent of moms who say they ideally do not want to work has dropped over the past decade. It’s not rich women “opting out” or a desire to return to traditional gender roles that’s causing the increase in SAHMs; it’s the lack of jobs and options.

Yeah, well, you know what? There's this little principle called "choice." I know I sound patronizing, but the one thing that really stuck out to me, when I came to maturity and began plotting my life path, was that the one sure way to remain in my poverty-stricken life would be to have a kid (or worse - kids). My sisters didn't exercise such foresight and had a pretty damned tough life, starting with kids, then trying to become financially stable. I watched them and thought "one little slip, and that would be me."

I know the hell that is our current economy. There are a number of people on this forum who are struggling with jobs and finances; it is a crap time for just about everyone. But if you choose to have kids first, without resources to support yourself and with the fatuous belief that "it's all worth it" then I have zero sympathy.

So, SAHmoos are lazy dumbasses whose main goal is to avoid hard work and be taken care of for life.

Anyone here surprised?

I noticed the Slate article boo-hooed about the cost of chyld-care and the expense of raising a kyd, but didn't mention the vast amounts of welfare handouts -- especially single moos -- get.

Quote
cfchevygirl
So, SAHmoos are lazy dumbasses whose main goal is to avoid hard work and be taken care of for life.

Anyone here surprised?

I noticed the Slate article boo-hooed about the cost of chyld-care and the expense of raising a kyd, but didn't mention the vast amounts of welfare handouts -- especially single moos -- get.

Many SAHMs unfortunately learn that one cannot rely completely on someone else. Sometimes her man may find someone else and bail. Other times it may be just to difficult to survive on one income.

As far as welfare money, if the SAHM is married to or lives with the bay-bee duhdy, welfare is not as good because duhdy income counts against it.

I wish they would all stay the fuck home. I can't find a good job, either, and I have a hell of a lot more brains and ambition to offer an employer than some dumb moo who is only filling in time till the next stick turns pink or she lands some new wallet

Quote
stillwaters
I wish they would all stay the fuck home. I can't find a good job, either, and I have a hell of a lot more brains and ambition to offer an employer than some dumb moo who is only filling in time till the next stick turns pink or she lands some new wallet

Some smaller businesses refuse to hire women below the age of 40 because of a stereotype that younger women will eventually all turn that pee stick pink and take off multiple maternity leaves. Many SAHMs have figured out how to work all systems, including workplaces.

Quote
Techie
@StudioFiftyFour: You are correct about the "path of least resistance". Article states that vast majority of poor SAHMs are high school drop outs. I guess having nursery in high schools did not encourage them to stay and at least get a High School Diploma.

Fundies always preach that when a woman lives with a man, she is way better off financially. This article proves that there are many poor SAHMs and having a man does not help, especially if he does not earn much.

I suspect that many girls who got pregnant is high school have ended up being money-less SAHMs. I also suspect that many of these SAHMs do not live with a bio baby daddy - they have probably found some pushover to take care of them.

Well, the sheer raw numbers would indicate that, yes, living with someone makes better economic sense when it comes to expenses.

After all, isn't it better to have two sets of income for one set of bills rather than one income for basically the same bills? (Rent/Mortgage, cable, phone, utilities, etc.)

Where the fundies are wrong is the type of man that some of these desperate SAHMs are attracting: broke, low-skill, low-wage, dead-end types of men. Again I'll point to the "Teen Mom 2" television program. One girl has three kids [at age 21!], one with major disabilities, and is on her second marriage which appears to now be crumbling.

So let's say she gets divorced (again). Honestly, what kind of man will want to be with this young lady considering the baggage she's carrying? The answer? Another low-wage, low-skill, no-future loser.

I wish they would all stay home too. Competition in the workplace would be men and cf women. No paternity leave though. I wouldn't even object giving them more free shit if they would get out of the workplace. I would not mind hiring older moos for entry level jobs when their kids are grown.

If moos would stay out of the way of people who take work seriously and we would not have to compete with them and all their whining and sniffling, and vapid famblee life/work crap, I might not be as disgusted with them. They fuck up employment royally. The world would be a better place if smart ambitious non-placenta brained people ran it. As of now, moos rule. At work, at home, out of the home, online, in public. Wish they would just stay home and sit on their nests or whatever they do.

Quote
blondie
If moos would stay out of the way of people who take work seriously and we would not have to compete with them and all their whining and sniffling, and vapid famblee life/work crap, I might not be as disgusted with them. They fuck up employment royally. The world would be a better place if smart ambitious non-placenta brained people ran it. As of now, moos rule. At work, at home, out of the home, online, in public. Wish they would just stay home and sit on their nests or whatever they do.

I agree--but I also think that those who do nothing to contribute to "the system" aren't entitled to any benefits "the system" offers. No food stamps, no welfare, no Social Security, etc. etc. etc.

I'm sorry, but you and I are not worker bees for a small but significant segment of able-bodied people that refuse to participate in the workforce.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
Techie
@StudioFiftyFour: You are correct about the "path of least resistance". Article states that vast majority of poor SAHMs are high school drop outs. I guess having nursery in high schools did not encourage them to stay and at least get a High School Diploma.

Fundies always preach that when a woman lives with a man, she is way better off financially. This article proves that there are many poor SAHMs and having a man does not help, especially if he does not earn much.

I suspect that many girls who got pregnant is high school have ended up being money-less SAHMs. I also suspect that many of these SAHMs do not live with a bio baby daddy - they have probably found some pushover to take care of them.

Well, the sheer raw numbers would indicate that, yes, living with someone makes better economic sense when it comes to expenses.

After all, isn't it better to have two sets of income for one set of bills rather than one income for basically the same bills? (Rent/Mortgage, cable, phone, utilities, etc.)

Where the fundies are wrong is the type of man that some of these desperate SAHMs are attracting: broke, low-skill, low-wage, dead-end types of men. Again I'll point to the "Teen Mom 2" television program. One girl has three kids [at age 21!], one with major disabilities, and is on her second marriage which appears to now be crumbling.

So let's say she gets divorced (again). Honestly, what kind of man will want to be with this young lady considering the baggage she's carrying? The answer? Another low-wage, low-skill, no-future loser.

I never saw the teen moo shows. How do they live? Are they in poverty? Twenty one with three kids, what is their living condition? Must be getting tons of public assistance. Only poor loser man will be with her or some bleeding heart. I know guys like this, codependent want to save the moo and prove they are the man.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
blondie
If moos would stay out of the way of people who take work seriously and we would not have to compete with them and all their whining and sniffling, and vapid famblee life/work crap, I might not be as disgusted with them. They fuck up employment royally. The world would be a better place if smart ambitious non-placenta brained people ran it. As of now, moos rule. At work, at home, out of the home, online, in public. Wish they would just stay home and sit on their nests or whatever they do.

I agree--but I also think that those who do nothing to contribute to "the system" aren't entitled to any benefits "the system" offers. No food stamps, no welfare, no Social Security, etc. etc. etc.

I'm sorry, but you and I are not worker bees for a small but significant segment of able-bodied people that refuse to participate in the workforce.

So very much this, on all counts. Stay the fuck home, if that's your choice, but don't suck on the government teat as if you had no choice regarding being uneducated, jobless, and saddled with kyds.

Quote
blondie
Only poor loser man will be with her or some bleeding heart. I know guys like this, codependent want to save the moo and prove they are the man.

Blondie, your posts always nail it.

Guys like that are called "Captain save-a-hoe". Such guys are this way because they were likely raised by a needy single moo. They never left their childhood behind and never became men. They pick a wife that resembles their mother - a distressed woman. These men rarely get any respect or gratitude for their efforts. Usually moo will treat the "Captain save-a-hoe" like garbage, cheat on him, take from him, give nothing in return, so on.

Quote
cfchevygirl
So, SAHmoos are lazy dumbasses whose main goal is to avoid hard work and be taken care of for life.

Anyone here surprised?

I noticed the Slate article boo-hooed about the cost of chyld-care and the expense of raising a kyd, but didn't mention the vast amounts of welfare handouts -- especially single moos -- get.

Handouts or no handouts, they need to go get a job! They chose not to use birth control or give larva up for adoption.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
randomcfchick

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
The irony is that people who take the path of least resistance often know that what they're doing is, in the long-term, very stupid. And so, they get defensive by claiming that what they're doing is TMIJITW, and that they are in fact, the smart ones, and the other 99% of the population is completely wrong. That's where the SAHM arrogance comes from.

It looks pretty similar to the effort-justification paradigm for dealing with cognitive dissonance. Basically, if someone puts a lot of effort into something, or has to undergo extreme discomfort for it, they're highly likely to rate that activity in a positive manner.

That's how SAHMs deal with the dissonance that comes from the repetitive, grinding, gross activities that make up the early years of raising children.

Precisely. As a sidebar note, I do understand the validity of staying home for the first few years of a child's life. But beyond that? I can't see any real need for someone to stay at home while her children are in school. I believe as you do that this is a kind of cognitive dissonance or some kind of defense mechanism to justify once again taking a path of least resistance.

Yes, I think staying home for a bit is a valid choice. It does leave the woman out of the workplace for a bit, but not long enough for her training and skills to be obsolete. The really tiny years are crucial, too. But yes, after those years, I'm sure they do all sorts of mental gymnastics to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

The research for effort-justification paradigm is interesting...they basically hazed one group of subjects before letting them have certain privileges, while the other group had to jump through far fewer hoops. The privileges themselves weren't that great, but the subjects who'd dealt with the hazing raved about it while the other group was all "meh". SO much like parents! SO much the It's All Worth It bingo!

Actually, the different paradigms all reminded me of parent behavior. More scientific proof that the reality of parenting just flat-out sucks.

Quote
craftyzits

Quote
cfchevygirl
So, SAHmoos are lazy dumbasses whose main goal is to avoid hard work and be taken care of for life.

Anyone here surprised?

I noticed the Slate article boo-hooed about the cost of chyld-care and the expense of raising a kyd, but didn't mention the vast amounts of welfare handouts -- especially single moos -- get.

Handouts or no handouts, they need to go get a job! They chose not to use birth control or give larva up for adoption.

I see where you are coming from, but would you really want lazy moos in the workforce? All they would do is not work and have us, CF people, pull double duty to compensate. Why not make the dick who knocked them up pay? Why does he not work double duty to pay for the mess that he created? If we do not hold these swinging dicks accountable, they will simply walk around and make more kids with more women.

Quote
blondie


I never saw the teen moo shows. How do they live? Are they in poverty? Twenty one with three kids, what is their living condition? Must be getting tons of public assistance. Only poor loser man will be with her or some bleeding heart. I know guys like this, codependent want to save the moo and prove they are the man.

I'd describe them as (generally) being working poor, with their priorities being completely out of line with what a person of limited means should be doing to better themselves. Of the four of them, one is ENTIRELY a fucked up drug addict loser. The other three have brains which are saturated with LifeScript bullshit, with two of them having bred again with another babydaddy--in both cases, marrying the sucker. The last one is also pursuing the LifeScript, albeit unsuccessfully. Still she has the being-a-mother-is-TMIJITW attitude to go with her poor life choices, which is fitting.

I encourage you to watch an episode or two. It's like watching a slow trainwreck.

Quote
Techie


I see where you are coming from, but would you really want lazy moos in the workforce? All they would do is not work and have us, CF people, pull double duty to compensate. Why not make the dick who knocked them up pay? Why does he not work double duty to pay for the mess that he created? If we do not hold these swinging dicks accountable, they will simply walk around and make more kids with more women.

Consider that many of these guys can't pay. Unemployed people, or people working under the table, can't or won't pay. The bottom line is that you can't get blood from a stone.

I think many of the young girls getting knocked up are under the false impression that there will definitely be a child support check coming to them every week. It's just not going to happen. And no amount of time in jail or courtroom decrees will turn a 16 year old BabyDaddy into a responsible father figure.

And so ladies, there might be a child support check coming in the mail. Or there might not be. So, ask yourself... what kind of men do you attract? And what kind of men are you attracted to? If the answer is, "deadbeats," then DO NOT get knocked up, mmmkay? And if you think you're going to "change him," again, DO NOT get knocked up!

Unemployed deadbeats won't pay or can't pay. And that won't change. So the princess-to-be females need to get out of this mindset that BabyDaddy Deadbeat is all of sudden going to be a changed man and will rise above his position as a busboy to become a $100K per year professional simply because they got knocked up. That's just not going to happen. These girls need to live in reality, not fantasyland.

@studio54: All that you said but also, if these boys don't make enough to pay for the offspring, they too do not need to be walking around spraying their seed like a farm fertilizer. They make condoms for a reason. For those who refuse to use condoms, they look like that poor bastard in the picture:

Quote
Techie
@studio54: All that you said but also, if these boys don't make enough to pay for the offspring, they too do not need to be walking around spraying their seed like a farm fertilizer. They make condoms for a reason. For those who refuse to use condoms, they look like that poor bastard in the picture:

They should definitely use condoms, or just stick to blowjobs.

I am sick and tired of career SAHMs. I watched a BBC Panorama programme about the benefit cap and how it was hardest on single parents. It only affects them if they work less than 16 hours a week. But some of these lazy moos think they shouldn't have to work at all, because it's so harrd raising loaves, and they already "work full time" doing that. Why on heart they think other people should pay for them to raise children they couldn't afford, I don't know. And of course, the baybee daddies are either nowhere to be seen or also unemployed.

Some of the single moos were being offered to move to other cities, where the accommodation was cheaper and they were refusing to move from London. Fuck's sake, they were being offered better houses, all their moving costs paid, brand new white goods in these places. Seems like a good deal to me. And there were some who could have avoided the welfare cap by working just 16 hours a week but even that was too much. They think they should be allowed to live exactly where they want, and it all be paid for by other people. What they don't understand is that working people have to move where the work is, you don't always get to stay where your family and friends are, that's life.

Quote
Techie

Quote
craftyzits

Quote
cfchevygirl
So, SAHmoos are lazy dumbasses whose main goal is to avoid hard work and be taken care of for life.

Anyone here surprised?

I noticed the Slate article boo-hooed about the cost of chyld-care and the expense of raising a kyd, but didn't mention the vast amounts of welfare handouts -- especially single moos -- get.

Handouts or no handouts, they need to go get a job! They chose not to use birth control or give larva up for adoption.

I see where you are coming from, but would you really want lazy moos in the workforce? All they would do is not work and have us, CF people, pull double duty to compensate. Why not make the dick who knocked them up pay? Why does he not work double duty to pay for the mess that he created? If we do not hold these swinging dicks accountable, they will simply walk around and make more kids with more women.

Who would consent to a National or International DNA database? The "Big Brother" types would scream the house down.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!