If women could go back in time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is inherently stupid, given that the majority of women have always had to work to help their families survive.

This conversation is for a few privileged women to kvetch over. The rest of us know that this world will never be good for women and girls until we crush the patriarchy and stand on truly equal footing with men in all areas of life.

This is often repeated on here. That only white women in the 1950s stayed home.

But I find it hard to believe that all of these women were working full time out of the house jobs. Why? Daycare wasn’t a thing. Didn’t exist. Who was watching the kids of all these moms who were working?

Yes, grandma. She worked all her life as a maid, then took care of the kids while my mother worked a job with a salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is inherently stupid, given that the majority of women have always had to work to help their families survive.

This conversation is for a few privileged women to kvetch over. The rest of us know that this world will never be good for women and girls until we crush the patriarchy and stand on truly equal footing with men in all areas of life.

This is often repeated on here. That only white women in the 1950s stayed home.

But I find it hard to believe that all of these women were working full time out of the house jobs. Why? Daycare wasn’t a thing. Didn’t exist. Who was watching the kids of all these moms who were working?

Are you serious? Older siblings were often parentified to care for their siblings and the house. People also relied on extended family and friends. My grandmother worked a graveyard shift and barely slept.

It’s disheartening to read all the naive comments on this thread, including the one I’m responding to. I definitely don’t want to go back to the 1950s or earlier. Women having control over their earnings and reproduction, and access to education has improved our lives. So has no-fault divorce. We have choice and power starting about 50 years ago. Regressive forces in our society want to change that.

[Anonymous]

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

It is a choice for two-adult households who can live on one income.

[Anonymous]

The biggest problem for U.S. women is the deplorable state of childcare for working women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is inherently stupid, given that the majority of women have always had to work to help their families survive.

This conversation is for a few privileged women to kvetch over. The rest of us know that this world will never be good for women and girls until we crush the patriarchy and stand on truly equal footing with men in all areas of life.

This is often repeated on here. That only white women in the 1950s stayed home.

But I find it hard to believe that all of these women were working full time out of the house jobs. Why? Daycare wasn’t a thing. Didn’t exist. Who was watching the kids of all these moms who were working?

Extended families lived together and elder women often cared for younger children while their mothers worked out of the home. Beyond that, until a few generations ago, most children were working themselves while they were still in single digit ages and that remains true in much of the developing world.

The notion of happy mothers at the hearth with a brood of chubby babies and toddlers and such, making bread and crafts - that is not what life was for the majority of women and children and is still not what life is for the majority of women and children in this world. Western women in developed countries have a myopic view and maybe this is why we don’t appreciate how good we have it - although I wholeheartedly agree we are still getting the shaft.

Capitalism isn’t healthy for children, women, the environment, etc.

[Anonymous]

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.

Absolutely not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birth control resources, from education to pills to abortion, all should be easily and freely available to every woman. No woman should ever be forced to keep a baby she doesn't want.

I agree in some respects. I also feel like before all of this was available, men were forced to take more responsibility. Now that it’s a woman’s choice to have children, men don’t feel responsible, society at large isn’t responsible, and no one is responsible for caring for and raising a child but the woman herself.

I am against the pro-life movement. It’s obviously about gaining political power and controlling women. But I wonder if reproductive freedom has actually been good for women, particularly women in the workforce.

When my male colleague was injured while he was skiing and had to take three months off, everyone was understanding and sympathetic about his accident. When I went to take three months off for maternity leave, people were angry that I had made a decision to have a child at that particular time, and I was asked to do a lot of the less desirable work ahead of time, during my last couple of months of pregnancy.
When my colleague had tens of thousands in bills following his accident, they were mostly paid by health insurance and then they worked out a plan for him to pay off the rest. I had to come up with tens of thousands for childcare out of pocket.

Obviously, I did plan for this because I exist in the same world everyone else does. But I wonder how it might have been different if pregnancy was viewed as a natural event that occurs rather than a specific (and somewhat inconsiderate) choice.

It's a good point. It's presented as "choice" and most people celebrate the agency behind the term.
But "choice" also means it's all on you, the chooser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The same U curve for women who have lots of children. It's either the very poor or very wealthy.

[Anonymous]

American moms work a lot compared to other places in the world. So we should not be surprised that they don’t want to have children. Take maternity leave for instance. It’s still a luxury for many women. The US can do better!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is inherently stupid, given that the majority of women have always had to work to help their families survive.

This conversation is for a few privileged women to kvetch over. The rest of us know that this world will never be good for women and girls until we crush the patriarchy and stand on truly equal footing with men in all areas of life.

This is often repeated on here. That only white women in the 1950s stayed home.

But I find it hard to believe that all of these women were working full time out of the house jobs. Why? Daycare wasn’t a thing. Didn’t exist. Who was watching the kids of all these moms who were working?

Their moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I neither made the assertion nor “tried to back it up” you seemed to have no knowledge of the history of Valium use in the us and I gave you 2 articles to educate you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The reason you got a WTF response is because women worked before the pill. Also wtf are babbling about with feminism. Your incoherent… are you drinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is inherently stupid, given that the majority of women have always had to work to help their families survive.

This conversation is for a few privileged women to kvetch over. The rest of us know that this world will never be good for women and girls until we crush the patriarchy and stand on truly equal footing with men in all areas of life.

This is often repeated on here. That only white women in the 1950s stayed home.

But I find it hard to believe that all of these women were working full time out of the house jobs. Why? Daycare wasn’t a thing. Didn’t exist. Who was watching the kids of all these moms who were working?

Extended families lived together and elder women often cared for younger children while their mothers worked out of the home. Beyond that, until a few generations ago, most children were working themselves while they were still in single digit ages and that remains true in much of the developing world.

The notion of happy mothers at the hearth with a brood of chubby babies and toddlers and such, making bread and crafts - that is not what life was for the majority of women and children and is still not what life is for the majority of women and children in this world. Western women in developed countries have a myopic view and maybe this is why we don’t appreciate how good we have it - although I wholeheartedly agree we are still getting the shaft.

Capitalism isn’t healthy for children, women, the environment, etc.

Extended families with older generation care givers isn't possible when you normalize having kids in your 40s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is inherently stupid, given that the majority of women have always had to work to help their families survive.

This conversation is for a few privileged women to kvetch over. The rest of us know that this world will never be good for women and girls until we crush the patriarchy and stand on truly equal footing with men in all areas of life.

This is often repeated on here. That only white women in the 1950s stayed home.

But I find it hard to believe that all of these women were working full time out of the house jobs. Why? Daycare wasn’t a thing. Didn’t exist. Who was watching the kids of all these moms who were working?

Their moms.

Again, not a childcare option if you delay childbearing for multiple generations, my 76 year old mother is in assisted living, not caring for my toddler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol not in DC. Tons of power couples who both work.

Left tail is the left tail, don’t want to make more than $42k on the books or you lose your welfare benefits.