Thanks for all of your comments, everyone.
I just wanted to clarify the main point of my rant post. It wasn’t to demonize the stay-at-home mama, or the choices she’s made to have a domestic life. Many of my friends and family members are such mamas, and I’m not out to make them feel bad about their choices (though my snarkiness may have had that effect — sorry, y’all).
My main issue is the dominant presumption that the better choice for moms is to stay at home, full-time, with your kids. Note that I said better choice, and not best.
These days it seems like discussions around this issue are becoming more realistic, and people are realizing that both parents working is the economic reality of most family situations. That said, while there may be the acknowledgment of the pragmatism of the working mom, I resent the implicit longing for the better option (should finances allow) of her being able to stay at home with her kids.
I think both types of mamas present different opportunities for their kids. As outlined in many of the comments, there are many benefits given to children who are raised with a full-time parent. Likewise, there are other advantages given to those kids whose parents work. It’s not a case of which is better, but a case of which is right for which family.
In my earlier post, when I said all those statements about teaching Emma to be self-reliant and such, I wasn’t trying to justify my reasons working outside the home — I was hoping to make the point of how hurtful it can be to take the sanctimonious side of issues. My goal was to call attention to the fact that when it comes to the working mama vs. stay at home mama debate, I don’t hear a lot of sanctimony being said on the working mama’s side of things.
That said, I know this is still a hard issue and one with strong feelings on either side. Here’s hoping the dialogue can continue, and in the end, we mamas are more allies than foes.