Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘stay at home moms”

Stay at home moms: What is your worth?

Troy Polamalu posted:
Shout out to you stay at home moms.
This info-graphic really puts into perspective everything you do.
Shout out to you stay at home moms. This info-graphic really puts into perspective everything you do. In my opinion, priceless.

Stay-at-home moms: you don’t owe the world an explanation

Posted on January 26, 2014 by  (selected as one of the top posts)

Once, several months ago, I wrote this post about Stay-at-home moms.

It was a simple expression of gratitude for stay-at-home moms, particularly my wife.

It got some attention. It was viewed around 3 million times in two days.

I never intended to be an official spokesman for SAHMS across the nation. You do not require my services, nor am I equipped to provide them.

Plenty of you can eloquently defend your vocation, and because you have experience in the arena, you can do so more richly and convincingly than I ever could.

I’m just a guy who loves his wife and appreciates the sacrifices she makes for the family. That’s really the entirety of my insight into this subject.

So it’s with appropriate hesitancy that I offer just one suggestion to all of you.

Here it is:

1. Don’t pay any attention to people like this.

In fact, don’t even click on the link. It’s a blog post, from a website called Thought Catalogue, entitled, “I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I’m Not Sorry.”

The gist: this woman has no kids, she’s never been married, she has zero understanding of what goes into raising children or maintaining a healthy marriage, yet she’s decided to degrade you because, presumably, the poor girl is hard up for cash and needs to get a ton of cheap hits so she can collect on the ad revenue. (How can I get ad revenue? I posted so far 4,100 articles)

I don’t usually take to reading incoherent, half baked, inflammatory trash.

And what is my take? Well, she raises some interesting points and we should all pause for a moment to reflect upon her observations.

My one experience with wading unwittingly into the “Mommy Wars” taught me something.

It taught me that our broken, confused society has convinced many stay-at-home moms that they need to justify or apologize for their choice to opt out of the hallowed ”job force” in favor of full-time mothering.

You don’t. You really, really don’t.

If you read the comments under that ridiculous article, you’ll see women expressing outrage, but also offering explanations as to why they decided not to outsource their mom-duties.

It pained me to see this. You’re raising your kids, it’s as simple as that. You shouldn’t have to give a reason, anymore than you should have to give your reasoning for drinking water or walking on two legs. (Why not? If Stay at home moms feel the need to explain?)

I think motherhood should be promoted, and the institution of the family should be defended, but you do an excellent job of that simply by being moms.

The disrespect for SAHMs stems from ignorance. The only cure for ignorance is truth (again, what is meant by truth?), and there are two ways to administer a dose of it: you can say it, or you can demonstrate it.

All I do with this blog is say it. As moms – out in the world, against the odds, against the grain, giving of yourself, dedicating your lives to you children — you are demonstrating it. You are living it.

Many of your critics just haven’t done it.

They haven’t been in the trenches all day, every day, shaping children into respectable adults, and doing it themselves, by hand, with sweat and tears and heartache.

They haven’t sacrificed everything for another person.

They don’t know what that is — what it feels like.

They don’t know what it’s like to be in charge of another human being’s entire life. All day. Every day.

They don’t know what goes into running a house.

They’ve never been there. They live in a civilization built by people who put in the sort of work and made the sort of sacrifices that they themselves would never be willing to make. And, in their comfort, in their arrogance, in their brokenness, they mock.

They mock you.

But they don’t know what they’re saying. They just don’t know.

And what is this argument about, really?

Is it better to have a job or take care of your family full time? Is that the controversy?

What a twisted point of view we have in this culture. This is what happens when you buy into the notion that mankind, and especially womankind, achieved emancipation through industrialization.

The Industrial Age and the advent of consumerism gave birth to the modern idea of a “job,” and the pinnacle of freedom and self fulfillment is to have one of them.

Or so we’re told. Ironically, this is a traditionally left-wing point of view, but hating capitalism is also a traditionally left-wing point of view.

The free market is evil, they say, but the ultimate expression of female liberation is to participate in it. (This opinion is Not clear. Need to be developed on)

What a dizzying philosophy these people profess.

And with this philosophy we haven’t just put the cart before the horse, we’ve severed the cart from the horse completely, and now we’re sitting in the cart waiting for it to gallop off into the sunset.

The point is, jobs exist as a means to care for your family. Some jobs are meaningful in their own right, but most, when separated from family, serve no great purpose other than as vehicles for personal advancement.

What’s the point of personal advancement? The answer is either

A) to amass wealth and material possessions for your own enjoyment or

B) to be in a better position to use your abilities to serve others.

You, stay-at-home moms, are using your abilities to serve others, and you’re doing it in the most direct, purest way possible: motherhood. (And when she has time to serve herself? She doesn’t deserve to think about her well-being?)

Beyond all of this, the worst thing about trying to convince women that there’s something wrong with “staying home” is that it fools young girls into being ashamed of their feminine instincts.

Most girls are not naturally competitive and ambitious — at least not competitive and ambitious in the sort of way that men tend to be, the sort of way that has always made men into fighters and hunters and conquerors.

It is a very good thing that women are not this way. (General statements are false)

Women naturally desire to love others and sacrifice themselves. They care about relationships. They aren’t as concerned with getting ahead as they are with elevating those around them.

None of those characteristics will serve you well in many jobs. They won’t help your “career advancement.” They will only make you vulnerable, and put you at the mercy of your less scrupulous competitors. (Distributing false opinions?)

This is why it is dangerous to see “the professional world” as an end in and of itself.

But you know all of this. The people who don’t know probably won’t be convinced by anything I have to say.

Pay no attention to them. They don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Besides, you’ve got better things to do with your time. (Like what again? Serving a bunch of brats and a husband and mother-in-law, father-in-law…)

Note: And these  Stay at home moms need not explain: They have to wait for Watt Walsh to do the explaining? From a male instinct perspective?

 

Are you in the mood for listing unnatural behaviors and relationships? Like Monogamy…

Is monogamy a supernatural relationship? January 11, 2014

Are monogamy and loyalty of higher level behaviors?

Fact is, not until this 20th century, most relationships were of the incestuous type. Why?

People in rural regions lived in very small communities:  the customs (religious and others) and the difficulty of travelling made it impractical to seek “fresh encounters” and relationships…

Even in urban setting, new relationships were hard to find outside ghetto-type blocks were people conglomerated…

 was posted on January 7, 2014 and , as usual, selected as one of the top posts for some reasons.

Monogamous marriages are unnatural. On this, I agree with the emailer below.

Now, behold these enlightening thoughts that I found in my inbox this morning:

Greetings Mr. Walsh,

I am a college professor, author, and researcher. It was obvious to me before you ever stated it that you are a man of little education and limited intelligence.

Still, I commend your newfound fame and congratulate you on the enormous amounts of money you must be making.

[Five more sentences of insults and pretentious self-aggrandizement]

…You have become a hot topic in some of my classes and this very much worries me.

It wasn’t until your name came up for a 5th time that I decided to investigate you. Your prose are rife with fallacies and Neanderthalic musings, so I could easily disembowel and discredit any part of it.

But I’d like to concentrate on what seems to be your most common themes: heterocentricism and monogamism.

Whether you’re writing about marriage, “stay at home moms,” abstinence, or any other “issue of the family,” you seem to think that there is only *one* way and only *one* sort of family.

The truth that either escapes you or frightens you too much to acknowledge is that the “monogamous heterosexual relationship” is a largely unattainable (and undesirable) myth.

Sexual unions between humans are not meant to be permanent. As we evolve, so does our understanding of these truths.

Monogamy is not simply unrealistic; it is unnatural. You do not find it often in the animal kingdom, and where you do, it is generally born of an evolutionary necessity.

The necessity of monogamy among humankind has evaporated. This is particularly true of men, who are simply not biologically fitted for the “one woman” life. (And vice versa?)

You could use your platform for good but instead you use it to make those in open and poly relationships feel subhuman.

Beyond the latent racism and sexism in your writings, it is your constant reinforcement of archaic relationship models that really does the profoundest of damage.

Before you jump to any conclusions allow me to tell you this: I am married. I’ve been married for 15 years and my wife and I both sleep with other people. We are honest about this, which makes our open relationship more healthy than “monogamous” relationships built on lies.

Judge my choices if you like, but when you inevitably cheat on your wife, and then continue to sermonize about the sacredness of monogamous unions, I will return the favor.

I don’t expect you to use this email as you seem to only respond to imbeciles and easy targets.

And here is what I wrote back to him:

Good Day Professor,

It will be a challenge to type this response to you, sir, while I tremble in the blinding light of your godlike intellect.

Do you begin all of your lectures by reciting your resume and viciously cutting down your audience? If so, I can only hope that you don’t teach a communications class.

But if you do, then I can tell you that I receive at least 20 emails a day from people who must be your students. They’ve taken your strategy to heart.

You should be proud.

In any case, I will attempt to make a rebuttal, but I will first offer the disclaimer that I am not nearly smart enough to use phrases like “archaic relationship models” and “your prose are rife with Neanderthalic musings.” I also lack the power to magically create liberal buzzwords like “monogamism” out of thin air. No, my dear Professor, I am a humble man and I can only write in plain language, using words that, you know, exist.

Now, with my idiocy and your cerebral supremacy well established, let us commence with the discussion.

Monogamy.

Monogamy is “unnatural,” says the Professor. And he says this as a married man — or “married” man, I suppose.

A married person who doesn’t believe in monogamy seems an awful lot like a Satanist in a church choir, or an existential nihilist performing lifesaving heart surgery. There’s a bit of a philosophical conflict of interest at work, wouldn’t you agree?

In fact, I wouldn’t even bother to address such absurdity if it wasn’t becoming so widespread.

What you people — you socially “progressive” academics — have realized is that you can not launch a salient attack against the ideals behind marriage, or abstinence for that matter, so instead you’ve decided to make the bizarre case that these things are somehow mythological.

The more you say it, the more people believe it, and the more they believe it the more true it becomes. It’s a clever trick.

You’ve succeeded, at least partially, in shouting at a reality until it disappears.

But there is SOME truth in what you say.

Monogamy is not natural. You’re right about that.

It’s supernatural.

It’s above our nature. It might not be realistic. Space flight isn’t realistic, either.

If I wanted to be natural, I could live in a hole like a rodent, eat insects, and scamper from one mate to the next, until, after a life of nothingness, I die alone in the cold darkness, decomposing into the dirt without anyone ever noticing. That would be natural.

It’s probably pretty realistic, too. So it is fortunate that I am a human being and I am given the chance to transcend the existence of a rat or a lizard.

I have the opportunity to experience supernatural things like love, and sacrifice, and commitment.

You say that men are especially ill-suited for monogamy. We are not “biologically fitted” for it. What does that mean, Professor?

Do you go about your day and, before deciding on any particular course of action, ask yourself if it is something you are “biologically fitted” to do?

I would say we are biologically fitted to be rational beings. (Not sure of that statement: this troubled mankind is out of whack in matter of rational applications…)

And, as rational beings, we are capable of attaining higher things. Monogamy and loyalty are higher things.

But are they more difficult for men? I can’t fathom why that should be the case.

I have found a woman who will be with me until I die, even while my hair falls out and my skin shrivels and wrinkles, even when I stumble, even when I fail, even through the doldrums of daily existence, through bills and dirty diapers, through all things — joyous or miserable, pleasing or painful — through every day until death comes.

Why should it be hard for me to simply refrain from tossing such a gift into the garbage?

It’s hard for men to be monogamous? What a cowardly, pitiful statement. Also, how incredibly obtuse. It ought to be easy for us. Especially for us.

If you won 600 million dollars in the lottery, would you go out the next day and break into cars to steal the change from the cup holders?

That’s what sleeping around is like when you’ve already found a woman who will pledge her life and her entire being to you for the remainder of her existence. (Should it be a two-way loyalty?)

You tell me that you are in an “open marriage.” I will probably be lambasted for “judging” you for it, but, sorry Professor, an “open marriage” makes about as much sense as a plane without wings or a boat that doesn’t float.

Marriages, by definition, are supposed to be closed. Actually, I’m getting rather tired of people like you trying to hijack the institution, strip it of its beauty and purpose, and convert it into some shallow little thing that suits your vices.

If you aren’t strong enough to stay committed to one person, that’s your business.

Walk down that path of loneliness and confusion, but you can’t drag the entire institution of marriage along with you.

Personally, I like circles but I hate squares. Can I subvert the laws of geometry and suddenly decide that all squares shall henceforth be circles?

No, because geometry is geometry, despite my strange square-hating quirks. Similarly, marriage is marriage, no matter how many college professors insist otherwise.

All that said, I must agree with one of your assertions: I only respond to imbeciles.

Note: I disagree with both opinions in discussing Monogamy within the Natural realm of mankind.

There are animal species that are monogamous and the other type.

There are mankind tribes and communities that practice monogamy and others that don’t.

Cornering monogamy within a western cultural heritage is a falsehood.

Marriage institution is as old as mankind decided to settle in urban conglomeration, as the economic and social prerogative of considering the community as the prime responsibility of raising the children has altered artificially. The couples had to deal with newer trading conditions, life-style and imposition of central laws… for preserving security and stability…


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

September 2020
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Blog Stats

  • 1,418,683 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 770 other followers

%d bloggers like this: