# SAHMs dangerous??? what???



## Lisa Lubner (Feb 27, 2004)

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=39743


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:

It stresses the child out










BWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

That is the most hilarious thing I have seen since the jibjab thingie!!!!!!!

Are they serious about that is what is being taught? By whom? What subject are they teaching that in?? Anthropology? That doesn't EVEN make sense.

Are they sure? What colleges did they poll regarding this? What teachers participated in such a survey? What KIND of teachers did they ask..like subject wise..

I am not sure I believe the author of this article anymore than the _person whom in my opinion is one banana short of a bunch_ they were covering.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

abi, you're not believing whom, the author of the article you just read (written by Joseph Farah), or the author of the article he's talking about (written by Gretchen Ritter)?

She's pretty extreme, it seems ... but she's not alone. There's a whole lot of feminist theory along these lines ... from the more 'militant' side of feminism. And you know what? It was standard thought 30 years ago. And I think maybe a whole lot of feminist/activists are just dealing with the total shift in thinking about SAHMs of even die-hard feminists, and not understanding it.










Academia. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em ...

:LOL


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

people are always saying stuff like that "BLAH!! All the teachers at them fancy colleges are teaching X or Y and it is bad!!"


----------



## AahRee (Jan 23, 2003)

Quack. Quack. Quack. *insert cute duckie smilie here* Quack. Quack. Quack.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

I dunno, the columnist's crack about "Goddess worshipping feminists" tells me he has his own agenda.

I'd need to look up Gretchen Ritter's work and judge it for myself.
That columnist does not have a lot of credibility with me.
I personally think it always best to go to the original source and judge for myself, instead of reacting to a review or opinion column.

I don't know anything about Gretchen Ritter...
but that columnist definitely has his own ax to grind.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Farah does have an agenda ... he's a steady syndicated Conservative columnist in a fair number of outlets ... used to have a column called something like "The View From Arab America," or some such (he's Arab American), don't know what it's called now.










He's one of those I agree with sometimes, disagree with others. You're right here, the "goddess worshipping feminists" line is a bit much.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Disclaimer: I work.

Quote:

"... the stay-at-home mother movement is bad for society," she states.
I am not sure I am understanding this. How can mothers who stay at home be bad for society?









Now, I know that there are many talented women out there, women who might have the key to our future in areas such as research, engineering, areas where their contributions could indeed make the world a better place, but not having them there, without really knowing it, how can this make society a bad place?

I think thats what bugs me the most, that and that staying home stresses kids out. Whats up with that?

I will never really quite understand the taking of sides on this issue. If you stay home, fine, if you work, fine, each other just needs to get over it!


----------



## Yummymummy74 (Jun 7, 2004)

That article was just insane...whats bad for society is that garbage like that is being published


----------



## yeah yeah yeah (Aug 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sweetbaby3*
Disclaimer: I work.

I am not sure I am understanding this. How can mothers who stay at home be bad for society?









Now, I know that there are many talented women out there, women who might have the key to our future in areas such as research, engineering, areas where their contributions could indeed make the world a better place, but not having them there, without really knowing it, how can this make society a bad place?

I think thats what bugs me the most, that and that staying home stresses kids out. Whats up with that?

I will never really quite understand the taking of sides on this issue. If you stay home, fine, if you work, fine, each other just needs to get over it!


Psychologists have documented the effects of mothers that have *no interests* outside thier children. The "smothering" thing.

The theory goes that if a mom has no interest other than her children, then she lives through them. And, children that are lived through do stress out. Surely, you've met people that felt they could never life up to what thier parents "wanted them to be." The parent projected thier own broken dreams so heavily onto the kid, that the relationship is damaged.

Just personally, I think that it's great for small children to have a full time parent on hand. Infants and toddlers require that kind of commitment imho. And, it's not fair to say that all sahm's are blind to everything in life, but thier own children.

But, adults are adults. And, adults that don't have any sort of drive to do anything for themselvs, or develop any sort creative outlets are not HEALTHY. You know?


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

I am so sick of SAHM-bashing being blamed on feminism. Feminism is about women having a choice. Thinking that women should play a particular role, be it SAHMing or WOHing, is not feminism. I recently carried a sign declaring that I stay at home through a crowd of a million feminists, and I got nothing but cheers. I read Betty Freidan's _The Feminine Mystique_ and she never once indicated that she looked down on SAHMs. She simply expressed the opinion that women should have choices, instead of being cast in one roll, and that is what feminism has always been about. Choices.

The people who have been saying since that 70's that ALL women should WOH are the same group of people who said before the 70's that all women should SAH. Anti-feminists. People who don't think women should have a choice.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:

Surely, you've met people that felt they could never life up to what their parents "wanted them to be." The parent projected their own broken dreams so heavily onto the kid, that the relationship is damaged.
Yes, i have. I know someone very close to me, who is exactly like you describe.

I wasn't thinking that way as far as the smothering effect. That i agree with. Again, someone close to me is very much like this, and both her kids are emotional midgets because of it. I see what you are saying.









I guess my post was in regards to women who are emotionally healthy and made a choice to stay home.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Hey, ya'll, just wandered into Activism for the first time. (Actually, I'm pretty opinionated and activist most of the time, and was actually kind of avoiding it lest I get myself in trouble







)

Anyway, I just wanted to say...

BWAHAHAHAHA

I thought I was a subversive wacko before, but man! I had no idea I was so dangerous! I love the idea! Little did I know that being a Mom could be so counterculture. Wonder how much deeper I dig myself by making my own butter, growing my own corn and echinacea, and knitting gifts for Christmas instead of buying things? Add all that up, and the mobs should be here to take me away any day now...

But, seriously, this crapola doesn't sound all that different than the junk I was taught in my one unfortunate foray into a Women's Studies class in college. Thankfully, it only seems to be believed by teachers of these classes and the 10% of the students who take the classes who are destined to a) pass the course and b) become devotees of these professor-gurus. And, a and b are not independant of each other...


----------



## mama ganoush (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
I am so sick of SAHM-bashing being blamed on feminism. Feminism is about women having a choice. Thinking that women should play a particular role, be it SAHMing or WOHing, is not feminism. I recently carried a sign declaring that I stay at home through a crowd of a million feminists, and I got nothing but cheers. I read Betty Freidan's _The Feminine Mystique_ and she never once indicated that she looked down on SAHMs. She simply expressed the opinion that women should have choices, instead of being cast in one roll, and that is what feminism has always been about. Choices.

The people who have been saying since that 70's that ALL women should WOH are the same group of people who said before the 70's that all women should SAH. Anti-feminists. People who don't think women should have a choice.
















well said, mama!


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

Ack! I tried to find the *original* article written by Gretchen Ritter, but was unwilling to provide the _Austin American-Statesman_ with my address, phone number and other personal information.

I agree that it's unfair to blame feminism in general for sahm-bashing, but clearly Ms. Ritter is one feminist who fits the stereotype. And that's sad.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Or, we know one columnist with his own agenda SAYS that's what her work does.

I think sometimes work by academics gets taken out of context in the popular press. Academia is for exploring ideas with a critical analysis. It is for putting out ideas for debate. And sometimes it is really polemic, just for the sake of pushing the envelope of ideas.

Again, I just really would not judge academic work, taken out of context and bashed in some opinion column. Especially something this inflammatory.

If he is right, and that IS what she is saying..
well, that is unfortunate and I hope her she is responded to appropriately and strongly.
But I also think the value of stay-at-home parenting is pretty evident and can stand up under critical scrutiny by some woman most of us had never heard of until we saw this column.

From the UT website:
Gretchen Ritter
Associate Professor
American Politics; American Political Development, Social Movements, Gender Politics, Constitutional Politics

Professor Ritter specializes in studies of American politics and gender politics from a historical and theoretical perspective. She is currently completing a book on Gender and Citizenship in the American Constitutional Order. She has published articles, reviews and essays in numerous peer reviewed journals in law, political science, sociology, and women studies. Her first book, Goldbugs and Greenbacks: The Antimonopoly Tradition and the Politics of Finance in America was published by Cambridge University Press in 1997. Professor Ritter has been a Faculty Fellow at Princeton University, a Liberal Arts Fellow at Harvard Law School, and has received a National Endowment for the Humanities fellowship. She is an active member of the Women Studies Program at UT, where she serves on the steering committee. Professor Ritter received her B.S. in government from Cornell University and her Ph.D. in political science from MIT.


----------



## Towerkel (Apr 20, 2003)

aww CRAP!

I *knew* my wife was being subversive in her motives to stay home. And to use the ruse of homeschooling and bfing....























Quote:

That choice by women denies fathers the chance to be involved;



















Thanks for the read, I always love humor in the morning.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

This is what gets me:

Quote:

Here's the problem: What Ritter teaches at the University of Texas is de rigueur of what is taught at colleges and universities across this country - at taxpayer expense.

In other words, this is the official government line. What Ritter teaches about stay-at-home moms being dangerous to society is considered culturally mainstream in academia. Women who choose to raise children are looked at as if they came from another planet.
Oh please. Anyone who's done women's studies in the past 15 years or so would know this to be so general as to make no sense at all. There are many different thoughts about the issue of staying at home to raise one's kids within the various schools of feminism that to paint everyone with the same "liberal feminism" brush merely serves to demonstrate the columnist's ignorance of the subject.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

.does anybody really think I or anybody else should go working so library hours change? My life is not about others!And how is Dad not getting involed if mom is at home? is it going to change anything regarding him if she is not thyere? I don't see that logic.oh yeah, there no logic in all of the article!

duh!


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Honestly, some people are educated beyond their own ability and intelligence; staying in school too long often makes people unable to think based on common sense.


----------



## Candace30 (Jul 6, 2004)

This man that wrote the article is a very conservative right wing NUT! It seems like he is TRYING to get women to be divided. I have taken several women's studies classes and from everything that I have gotten, feminism is about choice and to not judge others (especially other females!) for the choices they make. I don't think there is this big agenda going on at universities -- he is just trying to stir things up.


----------



## Morgaine (Mar 21, 2004)

Requires registration: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/con...rkingmoms.html


----------



## 1jooj (Apr 8, 2002)

You know, a lot of the bullet points in the article are things that really happen.
When mom stays home, sometimes father fails to get involved (he figures she's got it covered, why bother?).
When a woman quits to stay home (often not because she wants to so severely, but because she is so underpaid she cannot afford care, or her employer is so inflexible she cannot 'make it work'), an employer might be afraid to hire/promote other women into important positions, for fear of losing them to their babies (waaah! poor employer!)
Some moms who stay home are so overworked (and it that simply her choice/fault?), they have little time/energy left for volunteering, etc. Many women resume these activities when their children need them "less" (in a demanding, physical way, anyway).

My point is, these are the ills of a severely patriarchal society--not the evils of the women navigating their way through. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

FYI, this is where the OP's article's author got the "it stresses kids out" from:

Quote:

The new stay-at-home motherhood movement parallels the movement to create the "perfect" child. It's not just that mothers are home with their children; they are engaged with their children constantly so they will "develop" properly. Many middle-class parents demand too much of their children. We enroll them in soccer, religious classes, dance, art, piano, French lessons, etc., placing them on the quest for continuous self-improvement.

Many of these youngsters end up stressed out. Children should think it is all right to just hang out and be kids sometimes. They should learn that parents have interests separate from their lives as parents. And we should all learn that mothers are not fully responsible for who their children become - so are fathers, neighbors, friends, the extended family and children themselves.
Talk about taking something out of context! After reading Ritter's article, I now have absolutely not one scrap of respect remaining for the author of the article in the OP.







:


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Oh, and Ritter's closing thought:

Quote:

Raising children is one of the most demanding and rewarding of jobs. It is also a job that should be shared, between parents and within communities, for the sake of us all.
Man, that's just nuts!!! We should stop funding these dang Commie pinko atheist homosexual universities!!! Send 'em to Bible school, instead, where they'll learn the only stuff worth learning!


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

I know plenty of working parents that are on this trip of overscheduling their children. To pin it only on SAHMs is incorrect.

Quote: The new stay-at-home motherhood movement parallels the movement to create the "perfect" child. It's not just that mothers are home with their children; they are engaged with their children constantly so they will "develop" properly. Many middle-class parents demand too much of their children. We enroll them in soccer, religious classes, dance, art, piano, French lessons, etc., placing them on the quest for continuous self-improvement.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

If anyone wants to read the article you can use this email address : *[email protected]* and password is *Lilyka*

I htink the original article posted did take things out of context but I also think Ms Ritter is fulkl of crap and making assumptions about stay at home mom and toitally devaluing thier contributions. She still gives off the vibe that only contributing people work outside the home and that there are no advantages to staying at home because anyone can raise the child . . the father, the neighbors, the daycares and teachers and everyone else. But is she dangerouse to the stay at home mom movment - I don't think so. like someone else said, there will be a few people who take those classes and jump on the bandwagon but not very many.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

You have no idea how dangerous I am....

Or maybe I'm just weird.

Annette


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Do you think his mother was a SAHM?

Looks like he needs a dose of common sense.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

Oh my goodness! I just read your signature and almost cried! Sorry, I'm hormonal but She's UNREAL, awwwwww....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Towerkel*
aww CRAP!

I *knew* my wife was being subversive in her motives to stay home. And to use the ruse of homeschooling and bfing....









































Thanks for the read, I always love humor in the morning.


----------



## kate42 (Feb 2, 2003)

Hmm. I always considered the growing number of women choosing to be SAHMs a neo-feminist movement.









The way I look at at, the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s encouraged women to "have it all"...family, career, kids, perfect house, perfect job, etc. However, this movement instilled the idea in women that in order for their lives to be complete, they needed to be out in the workforce, just like the men.

IMO, it's a nice idea but not practical. You can't be a slave to a plethora of masters (bad analogy, I know.







)

Something has to give, something will be neglected. Too often, it was the family that was shoved to the side.

I feel that choosing to be a SAHM and feeling good about it was the most feminist thing I've done in years. Before DD, I had a fast-paced job working 60 hours a week. I travelled all the time. When I wasn't at work, I was on my cell phone or laptop. I never saw my husband and our marriage suffered. Home was a place to crash inbetween meetings and flights.

Giving that up to reclaim myself as a woman/mother/wife was the most empowering move.

I triple-dog-dare anyone to tell me that I'm ruining society by staying at home.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kate42*
I triple-dog-dare anyone to tell me that I'm ruining society by staying at home.









Surely you don't want to start another mommy war here?

I think there's room for intelligent and reasoned debate about the costs and benefits of WOHMs and SAHMs to children, to women (individually and as a group) and to society. But it won't happen with that sort of stance.


----------



## kate42 (Feb 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marlena*
Surely you don't want to start another mommy war here?

I think there's room for intelligent and reasoned debate about the costs and benefits of WOHMs and SAHMs to children, to women (individually and as a group) and to society. But it won't happen with that sort of stance.


Oooh, I didn't mean it that way! In fact, I was envisioning my MIL while typing...she and I have this argument frequently.

My apologies.


----------



## slov_mom (Jul 22, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kate42*
I triple-dog-dare anyone to tell me that I'm ruining society by staying at home.









I actually think this is right-on. & I don't think that it hurts any discussion on WOHM vs SAHM. If anyone would tell a SAHM that in doing so she is ruining society, they would be the ones hurting the discussion.


----------



## 1jooj (Apr 8, 2002)

One idea that I find interesting, and this was on NPR (on my way home from work--when I was working), was that the SAHM is a relatively new phenomenon. Earlier, most women had to work outside the home--just housekeeping required it. Now, cultural changes--no grandparents living in the home and other kinds of isolation--have removed our support systems, and the work is not shared like it once was.

For better or worse, this is a social development.

I guess the point was to argue against the idea that women have left their duty by heading off to work. No one would have accused them of this if they were gathering wood or water in order to cook dinner.


----------



## Quindin (Aug 22, 2003)

It just tops every stupid thing I heard this past year.
UNBELIEVABLE!!! The part about "it stresses the kids out" is just too funny!! :LOL
Real feminism gives women the chance to choose whether to work-at-home or outside.
Nothing else to say


----------



## girlndocs (Mar 12, 2004)

1jooj, that's a good point. Prior to the Victorian era (as I understand it) there was no such concept as "the home". It was in the Victorian era that society (read: men) began idolizing the idea of "home life" and women "taking care nof the home". IIRC this went hand in hand with the idea of caring for children being an activity/occupation in itself.

Anyway, I find it very amusing that several people who obviously haven't read the original article (just someone ELSE'S article on it) are making sweeping statements about them thar awful academic types. Shucks, schooling rots the mind ya know. Guess she shoulda stuck to taking care of the home.


----------



## Gendenwitha (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah*
I dunno, the columnist's crack about "Goddess worshipping feminists" tells me he has his own agenda.

I don't know anything about Gretchen Ritter...
but that columnist definitely has his own ax to grind.

I'd not only agree, but also point out that I DO think the _modern_ SAHM situation could be stressful for a child. It used to be that being a mom was only one aspect of a woman's day--think tending the garden/farm, caring for animals, sewing, shearing sheep, spinning wool, havesting, canning, preparing meals from scratch, preparing meat that had been hunted. Teaching the other 12 siblings how to do their chores, helping care for elderly, burying the dead, helping with the community, maybe helping the neighbor giving birth, etc. etc.

Now you've got everything at a "convience" and a SAHM's only focus is THE CHILD. I don't think that's healthy for a child. I mean sure some moms have "hobbies" to get away from the kids for a little while, but c'mon, scrapbooking an hour a day or so just is NOT the same thing. And look at how many mothers define themselves by their children. (How many "Johnny's-mommy" or "momof4" screen names are there?) If your mother values her own worth by you, you can bet that's going to be stressful for you as a child.

A woman should be able to work, or volunteer in the community or be useful in some other way other than caring for children and vacuuming the house in suburbia. It was that lifestyle that birthed the feminist movement. Women who grew up in the fifties saw how unhappy their mothers were, and how few choices they were given and said, "I want something different". Unfortunately, the pendelum swung the other direction and you had women wanting to be their fathers because working away from the home fathers, and stay at home mothers was the only thing they knew to choose from.

I think I was very lucky in the role-models dept. I had a WOHM, and a WOHD, but was taken care of during their overlapping shifts by a grandma who was retired and worked PT and her sister who worked FT with my grandma running a small store. So they worked and I crawled around the store, I learned to help count inventory from the time I was old enough to do so, and was ringing up customers by the time I was eight. I had someone there for me all the time, but I was not their primary focus.


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

Quote:

Anyway, I find it very amusing that several people who obviously haven't read the original article (just someone ELSE'S article on it) are making sweeping statements about them thar awful academic types. Shucks, schooling rots the mind ya know. Guess she shoulda stuck to taking care of the home.
Sorry, but that statement is a tad unfair. _No one_ has said that education for women is a bad thing. "Them thar"???!!

I realize that the article linked here was just an opinion, but there were a few direct quotes from Ms. Ritter's article that looked pretty damning, such as, "full-time mothering is bad for children."

The original article by Ms. Ritter was difficult to get, unless one was willing to provide their name, email address, mailing address and phone number to the _Austin American Statesman_. Not only that, you had to fill out a questionaire about your intersts and family income. I don't want to open myself up for yet more spam.


----------



## wemoon (Aug 31, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gendenwitha*

Now you've got everything at a "convience" and a SAHM's only focus is THE CHILD. I don't think that's healthy for a child. I mean sure some moms have "hobbies" to get away from the kids for a little while, but c'mon, scrapbooking an hour a day or so just is NOT the same thing. And look at how many mothers define themselves by their children. (How many "Johnny's-mommy" or "momof4" screen names are there?) If your mother values her own worth by you, you can bet that's going to be stressful for you as a child.


ITA with this!!!! I've thought alot about this, and I do think that alot of people live through their children, and identify themselves only by their children. I never choose screen names based on my kids, and I never just live for my kids. I have many things that are sacredly *mine*, and I encourage my kids to live their lives and work things out. I never get up for every beck and call, they can get their own water, their own snack, change their own clothes (at 3 and 5). Not that I put my kids by the wayside, but I don't live my full life revolving around them. We are just beings that are sharing life together.


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

Ms. Ritter also said this:

Quote:

And we should all learn that mothers are not fully responsible for who their children become - so are fathers, neighbors, friends, the extended family and children themselves
That sounds OK and I certainly agree that it's good and healthy for mothers to have pursuits outside of mothering, but I don't necessarily agree with the "it takes a village" philosophy. At least not when "village" is a euphemism for "poorly paid daycare worker."

Quote:

It used to be that being a mom was only one aspect of a woman's day--think tending the garden/farm, caring for animals, sewing, shearing sheep, spinning wool, havesting, canning, preparing meals from scratch, preparing meat that had been hunted. Teaching the other 12 siblings how to do their chores, helping care for elderly, burying the dead, helping with the community, maybe helping the neighbor giving birth, etc. etc.
Yes. And not only that, these activities contributed directly to the family's economic success. It was common for women to be in charge of selling eggs from their hens or cheese that they made or the cloth they wove and controlling the money earned--their product, their money. But during the Victorican cult of domesticity, many women no longer contributed to their family's financial well-being in any obvious way and women's status in society plummeted.

I admit, I feel wistful about that. I wish the work I did at home was seen as contributing, if not to the GDP, at least to my family's economic well-being.


----------

