If women could go back in time

[Anonymous]

There is no point in such discussions as it becomes a my personal choice is better than your personal choice contest. If everyone is already dedicated to not to even try to understand the philosophical aspect of the question, what's the point in having a conversation?

[Anonymous]

Bottom line: This isn't a real choice anymore. Times have changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would they still fight for workforce accessibility/equality or accept that stay at home mom is better than working a full time job and not seeing their kids grow up? Did it provide the happiness it promised?

Saw this question being asked and I know what I would choose

I think about this all the time. I think if you have a good marriage and husband, assuming that one job is enough to live a nice life, the 50s way seems easier. But that's a lot of ifs.

Just remember many if not most mommies were bored to tears and drugged with valium a/k/a "Mama's little helper." Be a little careful romanticizing it.

That said, it's true that a widespread two-parent workforce did help catalyze the affordability crisis with housing, I think.

DP but what on Earth is your source for this?

https://www.historyhit.com/mothers-little-helper-the-history-of-valium/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24007886/

You could easily do some research if you are interested. It's widely researched.

Just remember many if not most mommies were bored to tears and drugged with valium a/k/a "Mama's little helper."

Neither of the links you copied provide any data as to the actual prevalence of “mommies” using Valium, let alone support your assertion that any mommy who DID take it was doing do because she was “bored to tears”. The history of the marketing campaign is just that - the history of the marketing campaign. The intended purpose of Valium was to treat insomnia and anxiety, and it’s not as though those two conditions were “cured” by more women entering the workplace. And in fact we still treat these conditions with drugs, pills, and alcohol.

We would all do well to stop the ridiculous belief that pop culture is real life. In this case the two extremes would be the “Leave it to Beaver” perfect happy home snd family on one end and the Betty Draper unfulfilled and bored and unhappy valium-popping housewives on the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most fathers are indeed part time fathers in practical sense.

Some are absent. Some aren’t.

Everyone is part time except homeschoolers.. and even they aren’t 24x7

For K+ age, not before that. Also before or aftercare, sitters/nannies, summer care also add or subtract time.

So does sports and carts and friends and every other positive thing kids do. And naps, independent play and time with dad.

The fallacy is the thought you are with kids more from 0-K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would they still fight for workforce accessibility/equality or accept that stay at home mom is better than working a full time job and not seeing their kids grow up? Did it provide the happiness it promised?

Saw this question being asked and I know what I would choose

I think about this all the time. I think if you have a good marriage and husband, assuming that one job is enough to live a nice life, the 50s way seems easier. But that's a lot of ifs.

Just remember many if not most mommies were bored to tears and drugged with valium a/k/a "Mama's little helper." Be a little careful romanticizing it.

That said, it's true that a widespread two-parent workforce did help catalyze the affordability crisis with housing, I think.

DP but what on Earth is your source for this?

https://www.historyhit.com/mothers-little-helper-the-history-of-valium/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24007886/

You could easily do some research if you are interested. It's widely researched.

Just remember many if not most mommies were bored to tears and drugged with valium a/k/a "Mama's little helper."

Neither of the links you copied provide any data as to the actual prevalence of “mommies” using Valium, let alone support your assertion that any mommy who DID take it was doing do because she was “bored to tears”. The history of the marketing campaign is just that - the history of the marketing campaign. The intended purpose of Valium was to treat insomnia and anxiety, and it’s not as though those two conditions were “cured” by more women entering the workplace. And in fact we still treat these conditions with drugs, pills, and alcohol.

We would all do well to stop the ridiculous belief that pop culture is real life. In this case the two extremes would be the “Leave it to Beaver” perfect happy home snd family on one end and the Betty Draper unfulfilled and bored and unhappy valium-popping housewives on the other.

So you refused to do your own research and nitpicked 2 of the million articles about this,

I was just giving you beginners introduction you didn’t seem able to even understand the concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm from a culture where staying at home was expected and encouraged even enforced 2-3 decades ago, there is such a drastic difference between educated women and uneducated women, not just for kids but for themselves, husbands and society, no matter if they are SAHM, doctors, scientists, engineers or even if doing useless jobs to impress their social circle or as an escape from home life.

Uneducated moms SAH at a higher rate than educated moms, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm from a culture where staying at home was expected and encouraged even enforced 2-3 decades ago, there is such a drastic difference between educated women and uneducated women, not just for kids but for themselves, husbands and society, no matter if they are SAHM, doctors, scientists, engineers or even if doing useless jobs to impress their social circle or as an escape from home life.

Uneducated moms SAH at a higher rate than educated moms, btw.

Its a U curve. Poor moms SAH and rich moms SAH, most middle class moms work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would they still fight for workforce accessibility/equality or accept that stay at home mom is better than working a full time job and not seeing their kids grow up? Did it provide the happiness it promised?

Saw this question being asked and I know what I would choose

I think about this all the time. I think if you have a good marriage and husband, assuming that one job is enough to live a nice life, the 50s way seems easier. But that's a lot of ifs.

The 50’s where you had no rights? You’re in some Betty Crocker alternative universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think I would have liked to see women getting into the workforce without “The Pill” and reproductive control and this assumption that having children is some kind of recreational activity that you chose to engage in.

Like what would it look like to have married men and women in the workforce with the assumption that they would have children?

Wtf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate such stupid questions.

Not all women are mothers. Not all mothers want to stay home. Those mothers that do want to stay home, still can.

+1

Now you have the choice - which was the power we gained. No, I don’t think we should give that up.

There's some weird misconception among some women today that the feminist movement was about "choice." It wasn't. It was about women's liberation and financial equality.

Remember also that during this time, a woman couldn't even get a credit card in her own name (until well into the 1970s) and needed her husband's permission for many other financial decisions. So it's about a lot more than just "choice" and staying at home and workplace access.

Those things gave us the power to make our own choices. Many more options are available to women today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would they still fight for workforce accessibility/equality or accept that stay at home mom is better than working a full time job and not seeing their kids grow up? Did it provide the happiness it promised?

Saw this question being asked and I know what I would choose

I think about this all the time. I think if you have a good marriage and husband, assuming that one job is enough to live a nice life, the 50s way seems easier. But that's a lot of ifs.

Just remember many if not most mommies were bored to tears and drugged with valium a/k/a "Mama's little helper." Be a little careful romanticizing it.

That said, it's true that a widespread two-parent workforce did help catalyze the affordability crisis with housing, I think.

DP but what on Earth is your source for this?

https://www.historyhit.com/mothers-little-helper-the-history-of-valium/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24007886/

You could easily do some research if you are interested. It's widely researched.

Just remember many if not most mommies were bored to tears and drugged with valium a/k/a "Mama's little helper."

Neither of the links you copied provide any data as to the actual prevalence of “mommies” using Valium, let alone support your assertion that any mommy who DID take it was doing do because she was “bored to tears”. The history of the marketing campaign is just that - the history of the marketing campaign. The intended purpose of Valium was to treat insomnia and anxiety, and it’s not as though those two conditions were “cured” by more women entering the workplace. And in fact we still treat these conditions with drugs, pills, and alcohol.

We would all do well to stop the ridiculous belief that pop culture is real life. In this case the two extremes would be the “Leave it to Beaver” perfect happy home snd family on one end and the Betty Draper unfulfilled and bored and unhappy valium-popping housewives on the other.

So you refused to do your own research and nitpicked 2 of the million articles about this,

I was just giving you beginners introduction you didn’t seem able to even understand the concept.

You made the assertion, you failed to back up the assertion with any factual information, and somehow I am the one who won’t do research and can’t understand the concept? Really? How old are you?

[Anonymous]

When I was younger it was definitely my dream to be a stay at home mother, domestic goddess, neighborhood mom, etc.

Now that I have lived decades as an adult woman in this society, having my own relationship experiences and observing the experiences of so many other women both through my personal relationships and in my professional life as an educator, victim advocate, prosecutor, and family law attorney - no Fing thank you!!

I would NEVER trust any man to financially support me and my kids, unless there was a substantial financial trust in place that he could not plunder to screw us over - so basically, I would only take that leap with a tiny percentage of men.

I know I will be flayed for saying this - and believe me, I know a lot of women also suck - but men cannot ever be fully trusted. You are naive if you think otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think I would have liked to see women getting into the workforce without “The Pill” and reproductive control and this assumption that having children is some kind of recreational activity that you chose to engage in.

Like what would it look like to have married men and women in the workforce with the assumption that they would have children?

Wtf

I don’t know. I just think about it.

If it was assumed that married people were going to have children, and childrearing wasn’t all pushed on individuals as their “choice,” then what would it have looked like when women entered the workforce?
If you could uncouple feminism from controlling pregnancy, what would it look like to have a family and a career?
What changes might society have made?

[Anonymous]

If we could live on my husband's salary, yes, but there is no way in hell most American families can live on one income, at least not at the 1950s level with two cars. A nice family home and vacations...... On 1 Salary now with 3 kids you would be living in a small two bedroom condo with no reliable transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we could live on my husband's salary, yes, but there is no way in hell most American families can live on one income, at least not at the 1950s level with two cars. A nice family home and vacations...... On 1 Salary now with 3 kids you would be living in a small two bedroom condo with no reliable transportation.

Lots of men make in the 200's, which is plenty to live on if all the 2 income families hadn't driven up home prices out of control. My husband made $140k when I started saying home. Our first house was a 3br townhouse that cost $460k at the time.