I'm raising my daughter to be 'traditional wife' one day

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no good quality man wants a woman who offers nothing other than like 'helping him at home' when he could have someone with a brain who is also attractive and smart and contributes to society AND is a good mom and partner.
Like - why would you want a dependent? Fair if it turns out that way but not like - a life plan. esp if person not that attractive.

You don’t know men. Majority of men actually want to be the provider and have a woman stay at home.

A housewife is not a “ dependent”. The fact that so many of you women on here look down on a woman’s staying home is sad. Staying home to raise kids and take care of your home is just as valuable and important as working an office job.

Are you familiar with the term “revealed preferences”? It’s the Econ term for “look what people do not what people say”. Most married couples— are dual income.

And unless a housewife has income from a non-professional source, such as family money or investments, she’s a dependent.

Technically, yes. Practically, no. If she walks out today, DH would've to find cook, cleaner, nanny, tutor, therapist, may be a house manager too.

And since he has money, he could pay for those.

Whats a SAHP supposed to do? Oh right, get child support and alimony - again dependent on someone else.

He has money until he gets laid off. Then what is he supposed to do? Collect unemployment for awhile and hope that someone else will give him a job. Doesn’t sound like he’s that independent to me.

At least he’ll get unemployment. His tradwife will continue to get $0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this works if you’ve got really average and unremarkable daughters who are super good at domestic tasks? Like I wouldn’t close it off as a path for a girl without other options.

Why do you say “like” so much? (It’s obvious you have posted more than once in this thread.) Do you think it makes you seem, like, remarkable? Although I suppose I AM remarking on you, so well played.

Actually that was my first post and the “like” is meant to be read ironically, since this is such a patently misogynistic idea that truly could— or should— only appeal to the sort of parent who looks at their child and thinks they have very little to offer beyond menial tasks and service.

Why do you consider taking care of children, cooking, and cleaning to be “menial tasks”? As opposed to sitting at a desk making powerpoints, for example.

I maintain that YOUR attitude is what is “patently misogynistic”.

+1. I hate feminist women who look down on women who are homemakers. Isn’t feminism about women having a choice and choosing what works for them?

I don’t see anything wrong I’m providing a loving home for your family and raising kids.

Where do you get the idea that feminism means you have to look up to all women? Do you look up to sex workers? Pole dancers? No? Then why do you think people need to look up to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this works if you’ve got really average and unremarkable daughters who are super good at domestic tasks? Like I wouldn’t close it off as a path for a girl without other options.

Why do you say “like” so much? (It’s obvious you have posted more than once in this thread.) Do you think it makes you seem, like, remarkable? Although I suppose I AM remarking on you, so well played.

Actually that was my first post and the “like” is meant to be read ironically, since this is such a patently misogynistic idea that truly could— or should— only appeal to the sort of parent who looks at their child and thinks they have very little to offer beyond menial tasks and service.

Why do you consider taking care of children, cooking, and cleaning to be “menial tasks”? As opposed to sitting at a desk making powerpoints, for example.

I maintain that YOUR attitude is what is “patently misogynistic”.

+1. I hate feminist women who look down on women who are homemakers. Isn’t feminism about women having a choice and choosing what works for them?

I don’t see anything wrong I’m providing a loving home for your family and raising kids.

Where do you get the idea that feminism means you have to look up to all women? Do you look up to sex workers? Pole dancers? No? Then why do you think people need to look up to you?

Maybe because stay at home moms are nothing like sex workers? What a silly analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The church, parents likes indoctrinating children

Let the kids choose what religion they want.

Nope. Kids don’t choose whether they go to school or not, whether they get vaccinated - and they don’t decide what religion they are. Once they are adults, it’s a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, many religious fundamentalists have never stopped raising their children this way. But agree that there is a rise in people playacting for their "family channels".

Yes. It’s all about the viewers on instagram.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this works if you’ve got really average and unremarkable daughters who are super good at domestic tasks? Like I wouldn’t close it off as a path for a girl without other options.

Why do you say “like” so much? (It’s obvious you have posted more than once in this thread.) Do you think it makes you seem, like, remarkable? Although I suppose I AM remarking on you, so well played.

Actually that was my first post and the “like” is meant to be read ironically, since this is such a patently misogynistic idea that truly could— or should— only appeal to the sort of parent who looks at their child and thinks they have very little to offer beyond menial tasks and service.

Why do you consider taking care of children, cooking, and cleaning to be “menial tasks”? As opposed to sitting at a desk making powerpoints, for example.

I maintain that YOUR attitude is what is “patently misogynistic”.

+1. I hate feminist women who look down on women who are homemakers. Isn’t feminism about women having a choice and choosing what works for them?

I don’t see anything wrong I’m providing a loving home for your family and raising kids.

Where do you get the idea that feminism means you have to look up to all women? Do you look up to sex workers? Pole dancers? No? Then why do you think people need to look up to you?

Maybe because stay at home moms are nothing like sex workers? What a silly analogy.

Pick whatever you want. You obviously don’t admire accomplished professional women— why do you need them to admire you?

I don’t want my daughter to grow up to be a sex worker — and apparently neither do you— but that doesn’t make me less of a feminist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no good quality man wants a woman who offers nothing other than like 'helping him at home' when he could have someone with a brain who is also attractive and smart and contributes to society AND is a good mom and partner.
Like - why would you want a dependent? Fair if it turns out that way but not like - a life plan. esp if person not that attractive.

You don’t know men. Majority of men actually want to be the provider and have a woman stay at home.

A housewife is not a “ dependent”. The fact that so many of you women on here look down on a woman’s staying home is sad. Staying home to raise kids and take care of your home is just as valuable and important as working an office job.

Are you familiar with the term “revealed preferences”? It’s the Econ term for “look what people do not what people say”. Most married couples— are dual income.

And unless a housewife has income from a non-professional source, such as family money or investments, she’s a dependent.

Technically, yes. Practically, no. If she walks out today, DH would've to find cook, cleaner, nanny, tutor, therapist, may be a house manager too.

And since he has money, he could pay for those.

Whats a SAHP supposed to do? Oh right, get child support and alimony - again dependent on someone else.

He has money until he gets laid off. Then what is he supposed to do? Collect unemployment for awhile and hope that someone else will give him a job. Doesn’t sound like he’s that independent to me.

At least he’ll get unemployment. His tradwife will continue to get $0

Wait, I thought she was getting alimony and child support already in this scenario (she’s already walked out on him, try to keep up). Which he is on the hook for regardless of his employment status, so now he is really up a creek.

Guess what? Unless you’re independently wealthy, you are dependent on someone else being willing to give you a paycheck. Some of you will find out the hard way when your jobs get automated or outsourced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no good quality man wants a woman who offers nothing other than like 'helping him at home' when he could have someone with a brain who is also attractive and smart and contributes to society AND is a good mom and partner.
Like - why would you want a dependent? Fair if it turns out that way but not like - a life plan. esp if person not that attractive.

You don’t know men. Majority of men actually want to be the provider and have a woman stay at home.

A housewife is not a “ dependent”. The fact that so many of you women on here look down on a woman’s staying home is sad. Staying home to raise kids and take care of your home is just as valuable and important as working an office job.

Are you familiar with the term “revealed preferences”? It’s the Econ term for “look what people do not what people say”. Most married couples— are dual income.

And unless a housewife has income from a non-professional source, such as family money or investments, she’s a dependent.

Technically, yes. Practically, no. If she walks out today, DH would've to find cook, cleaner, nanny, tutor, therapist, may be a house manager too.

And since he has money, he could pay for those.

Whats a SAHP supposed to do? Oh right, get child support and alimony - again dependent on someone else.

He has money until he gets laid off. Then what is he supposed to do? Collect unemployment for awhile and hope that someone else will give him a job. Doesn’t sound like he’s that independent to me.

At least he’ll get unemployment. His tradwife will continue to get $0

Wait, I thought she was getting alimony and child support already in this scenario (she’s already walked out on him, try to keep up). Which he is on the hook for regardless of his employment status, so now he is really up a creek.

Guess what? Unless you’re independently wealthy, you are dependent on someone else being willing to give you a paycheck. Some of you will find out the hard way when your jobs get automated or outsourced.

This is why “tradwives” are dangerous to young women.

Alimony and child support can both be negotiated downward if the father is laid off. Happens all the time. And if he’s incarcerated. And if he has more children.

A man is not a plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no good quality man wants a woman who offers nothing other than like 'helping him at home' when he could have someone with a brain who is also attractive and smart and contributes to society AND is a good mom and partner.
Like - why would you want a dependent? Fair if it turns out that way but not like - a life plan. esp if person not that attractive.

You don’t know men. Majority of men actually want to be the provider and have a woman stay at home.

A housewife is not a “ dependent”. The fact that so many of you women on here look down on a woman’s staying home is sad. Staying home to raise kids and take care of your home is just as valuable and important as working an office job.

Are you familiar with the term “revealed preferences”? It’s the Econ term for “look what people do not what people say”. Most married couples— are dual income.

And unless a housewife has income from a non-professional source, such as family money or investments, she’s a dependent.

Technically, yes. Practically, no. If she walks out today, DH would've to find cook, cleaner, nanny, tutor, therapist, may be a house manager too.

And since he has money, he could pay for those.

Whats a SAHP supposed to do? Oh right, get child support and alimony - again dependent on someone else.

He has money until he gets laid off. Then what is he supposed to do? Collect unemployment for awhile and hope that someone else will give him a job. Doesn’t sound like he’s that independent to me.

At least he’ll get unemployment. His tradwife will continue to get $0

Wait, I thought she was getting alimony and child support already in this scenario (she’s already walked out on him, try to keep up). Which he is on the hook for regardless of his employment status, so now he is really up a creek.

Guess what? Unless you’re independently wealthy, you are dependent on someone else being willing to give you a paycheck. Some of you will find out the hard way when your jobs get automated or outsourced.

This is why “tradwives” are dangerous to young women.

Alimony and child support can both be negotiated downward if the father is laid off. Happens all the time. And if he’s incarcerated. And if he has more children.

A man is not a plan.

And she can get a job or a new husband. Also happens all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no good quality man wants a woman who offers nothing other than like 'helping him at home' when he could have someone with a brain who is also attractive and smart and contributes to society AND is a good mom and partner.
Like - why would you want a dependent? Fair if it turns out that way but not like - a life plan. esp if person not that attractive.

You don’t know men. Majority of men actually want to be the provider and have a woman stay at home.

A housewife is not a “ dependent”. The fact that so many of you women on here look down on a woman’s staying home is sad. Staying home to raise kids and take care of your home is just as valuable and important as working an office job.

Are you familiar with the term “revealed preferences”? It’s the Econ term for “look what people do not what people say”. Most married couples— are dual income.

And unless a housewife has income from a non-professional source, such as family money or investments, she’s a dependent.

Technically, yes. Practically, no. If she walks out today, DH would've to find cook, cleaner, nanny, tutor, therapist, may be a house manager too.

And since he has money, he could pay for those.

Whats a SAHP supposed to do? Oh right, get child support and alimony - again dependent on someone else.

He has money until he gets laid off. Then what is he supposed to do? Collect unemployment for awhile and hope that someone else will give him a job. Doesn’t sound like he’s that independent to me.

At least he’ll get unemployment. His tradwife will continue to get $0

Wait, I thought she was getting alimony and child support already in this scenario (she’s already walked out on him, try to keep up). Which he is on the hook for regardless of his employment status, so now he is really up a creek.

Guess what? Unless you’re independently wealthy, you are dependent on someone else being willing to give you a paycheck. Some of you will find out the hard way when your jobs get automated or outsourced.

This is why “tradwives” are dangerous to young women.

Alimony and child support can both be negotiated downward if the father is laid off. Happens all the time. And if he’s incarcerated. And if he has more children.

A man is not a plan.

And she can get a job or a new husband. Also happens all the time.

“Former tradwife” is not attractive to either employers or potential new husbands. Here’s a good example:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/parenting/the-trad-wife-life-didnt-work-out-everyone-needs-to-hear-this-womans-viral-story/ar-AA1mTEOK

Teach your daughters how to fill out food stamps forms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this works if you’ve got really average and unremarkable daughters who are super good at domestic tasks? Like I wouldn’t close it off as a path for a girl without other options.

Why do you say “like” so much? (It’s obvious you have posted more than once in this thread.) Do you think it makes you seem, like, remarkable? Although I suppose I AM remarking on you, so well played.

Actually that was my first post and the “like” is meant to be read ironically, since this is such a patently misogynistic idea that truly could— or should— only appeal to the sort of parent who looks at their child and thinks they have very little to offer beyond menial tasks and service.

Why do you consider taking care of children, cooking, and cleaning to be “menial tasks”? As opposed to sitting at a desk making powerpoints, for example.

I maintain that YOUR attitude is what is “patently misogynistic”.

+1. I hate feminist women who look down on women who are homemakers. Isn’t feminism about women having a choice and choosing what works for them?

I don’t see anything wrong I’m providing a loving home for your family and raising kids.

Where do you get the idea that feminism means you have to look up to all women? Do you look up to sex workers? Pole dancers? No? Then why do you think people need to look up to you?

Maybe because stay at home moms are nothing like sex workers? What a silly analogy.

Pick whatever you want. You obviously don’t admire accomplished professional women— why do you need them to admire you?

I don’t want my daughter to grow up to be a sex worker — and apparently neither do you— but that doesn’t make me less of a feminist.

DP but this is just such a stretch. PP called “feminists” out for looking down on women who make the choice to stay at home. You’re trying to suggest that means she wants you to “admire” her which is not equivalent, just like sex workers and SAHMs aren’t equivalent. Nothing about this argument makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this works if you’ve got really average and unremarkable daughters who are super good at domestic tasks? Like I wouldn’t close it off as a path for a girl without other options.

Why do you say “like” so much? (It’s obvious you have posted more than once in this thread.) Do you think it makes you seem, like, remarkable? Although I suppose I AM remarking on you, so well played.

Actually that was my first post and the “like” is meant to be read ironically, since this is such a patently misogynistic idea that truly could— or should— only appeal to the sort of parent who looks at their child and thinks they have very little to offer beyond menial tasks and service.

Why do you consider taking care of children, cooking, and cleaning to be “menial tasks”? As opposed to sitting at a desk making powerpoints, for example.

I maintain that YOUR attitude is what is “patently misogynistic”.

I don’t consider childcare to be necessarily menial, but scrubbing a toilet absolutely is. Washing dishes is. Doing laundry is. Maybe you look at your daughter and see someone whose highest aspirations in life should be cleaning up the fecal matter of others, but I certainly don’t see my daughter that way, and I notice very few people see their sons in that light.

My son wants to be a plumber and I am encouraging that… I’m imagining there will be fecal matter involved.

I bet you pay some poor woman to clean up your fecal matter, since you’re too good to clean your own toilets. You probably even pretend you don’t look down on her and consider her to be a lesser human than you. And you undoubtedly consider yourself to be a feminist. Gross.

We pay a husband and wife housekeeping team. I can’t say who does it all of the time but I’ve seen the husband do the bathrooms.

They’re a hardworking immigrant family whose children— boys and girls alike— being raised to excel in school and contribute at home.

Your son is being raised to deal with feces for money and independence, your daughter to deal with feces as a dependent. Again if you don’t think she deserves better I can’t tell you you’re wrong, I can just say my daughter is deserving of more.

LOL of course you have the unicorn egalitarian family cleaning team. BS.

But I do believe you pay hard working immigrants to serve you (funny how these menial tasks are suddenly respectable hard work when you talk about the hired help) - I’ll bet you pay them peanuts under the table while patting yourself on the back for “helping” them raise their KIDS to maybe someday be people you don’t look down on.

The fact that you think you’re too good to clean up your own mess and you’re raising your daughters to think the same says a lot about you as a person, but it’s not the feminist flex you think it is.

You’ll find husband and wife teams are extremely common in the immigrant communities. Also mother-daughter, father-son.

And no, I don’t doubt that it’s hard work. It’s not the work I think is the best use of my time and I don’t think it’s the best thing my daughter can aspire to do with hers. If I needed to do it to give my kids a good life— of course I would— but I give them a much better life doing my job, which affords them many benefits.

But raise your daughter to be a housekeeper if you think it’s the best use of her talent. At least she’ll have a profession when her husband leaves her.

I do admire your attempt to walk back your previous comments once you realized that you are coming across as extremely classist and elitist. I’m guessing you’re a lawyer who accomplishes a lot of tasks at work that in the scheme of things never need to be accomplished. Or maybe you’re a corporate lobbyist who is actively making the world worse. But you’re getting paid so you’re “contributing” to society in your mind.

(And believe me, your immigrant servants very much recognize you for the AH you are.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this works if you’ve got really average and unremarkable daughters who are super good at domestic tasks? Like I wouldn’t close it off as a path for a girl without other options.

Why do you say “like” so much? (It’s obvious you have posted more than once in this thread.) Do you think it makes you seem, like, remarkable? Although I suppose I AM remarking on you, so well played.

Actually that was my first post and the “like” is meant to be read ironically, since this is such a patently misogynistic idea that truly could— or should— only appeal to the sort of parent who looks at their child and thinks they have very little to offer beyond menial tasks and service.

Why do you consider taking care of children, cooking, and cleaning to be “menial tasks”? As opposed to sitting at a desk making powerpoints, for example.

I maintain that YOUR attitude is what is “patently misogynistic”.

+1. I hate feminist women who look down on women who are homemakers. Isn’t feminism about women having a choice and choosing what works for them?

I don’t see anything wrong I’m providing a loving home for your family and raising kids.

Where do you get the idea that feminism means you have to look up to all women? Do you look up to sex workers? Pole dancers? No? Then why do you think people need to look up to you?

Maybe because stay at home moms are nothing like sex workers? What a silly analogy.

Pick whatever you want. You obviously don’t admire accomplished professional women— why do you need them to admire you?

I don’t want my daughter to grow up to be a sex worker — and apparently neither do you— but that doesn’t make me less of a feminist.

DP but this is just such a stretch. PP called “feminists” out for looking down on women who make the choice to stay at home. You’re trying to suggest that means she wants you to “admire” her which is not equivalent, just like sex workers and SAHMs aren’t equivalent. Nothing about this argument makes sense.

She said she doesn’t want her choices looked down on. That’s not something feminism gives you. It gives you the freedom to make a choice.

If you choose sex work/only fans, I don’t think you should go to jail, but i don’t think it’s an admirable me choice or something I would raise my daughter to aspire to.

If you choose to be a “tradwife” think you should have that choice— but I don’t have to admire that choice. Feminism doesn’t mean people won’t look down on you for the choices you make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no good quality man wants a woman who offers nothing other than like 'helping him at home' when he could have someone with a brain who is also attractive and smart and contributes to society AND is a good mom and partner.
Like - why would you want a dependent? Fair if it turns out that way but not like - a life plan. esp if person not that attractive.

You don’t know men. Majority of men actually want to be the provider and have a woman stay at home.

A housewife is not a “ dependent”. The fact that so many of you women on here look down on a woman’s staying home is sad. Staying home to raise kids and take care of your home is just as valuable and important as working an office job.

Are you familiar with the term “revealed preferences”? It’s the Econ term for “look what people do not what people say”. Most married couples— are dual income.

And unless a housewife has income from a non-professional source, such as family money or investments, she’s a dependent.

Technically, yes. Practically, no. If she walks out today, DH would've to find cook, cleaner, nanny, tutor, therapist, may be a house manager too.

And since he has money, he could pay for those.

Whats a SAHP supposed to do? Oh right, get child support and alimony - again dependent on someone else.

He has money until he gets laid off. Then what is he supposed to do? Collect unemployment for awhile and hope that someone else will give him a job. Doesn’t sound like he’s that independent to me.

At least he’ll get unemployment. His tradwife will continue to get $0

Wait, I thought she was getting alimony and child support already in this scenario (she’s already walked out on him, try to keep up). Which he is on the hook for regardless of his employment status, so now he is really up a creek.

Guess what? Unless you’re independently wealthy, you are dependent on someone else being willing to give you a paycheck. Some of you will find out the hard way when your jobs get automated or outsourced.

Your mental gymnastics are impressive. Really, any excuse for you not to get a job! You sound like a leech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A man is not a plan.

Lol—
I think what Gen Z is telling us is women have been duped into thinking feminism means the solution to women’s happiness is working 9 to 5 at some job just like the men have been doing.
Newsflash: it sucks!
So maybe a man IS, in fact, a plan. And a good one if it means I don’t have to stare at a computer screen and four cubicle walls my whole adult life.

yeah but men don't want a sucubus.
SAHM is a thing that happens for a bunch of reasons. It's not something most men are like - looking for. why would you? they dont want to stare at 4 walls either!

Seems younger men do though

https://www.vogue.com/article/millennial-men-seek-stay-at-home-wives