If women could go back in time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What are you prattling on about? Without access to reliable birth control, women got pregnant until they stopped menstruating.

My grandfather was the 11th of 12 children, born in 1917 when his mother was 42. His family wasn't even Catholic.

[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?

There are already many books, plays and movies about if males and females couple be pregnant and who would they pick to carry the baby. All are lame

[Anonymous]

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

Clueless premise. One-income families (e.g., father works, mother stays home) started disappearing in the late 70s, were in free-fall in the 80s, and gone by the 90s. The another 30 years went by. The corporations won.

https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

Hate to break it to you but SAHMs are alive and well in higher education, higher income areas. My neighborhood and my sister's neighborhood are full of them, and we live several states apart.

SAHM w 2-4 kids is common in the south where you sorority sister marry a frat guy who will work for his dad.

Not common on the east or west coast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ha! I sas the opposite. My mom was 50 when I had my oldest child and still very much engaged in the workforce. She wasn’t taking care of toddlers all day either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I could actually choose, I'd choose the systems they have in some Western European countries, where women have full right to economic participating as workers, but also the state recognize the necessity of providing care to young children and support to families, with lengthy parental leave, subsidized childcare, and often stipends to families to cover childhood expenses. I know people on here will freak out about this, and I also know that system isn't perfect either and that women in those countries still deal with some of the challenging choices between work and family. But I think it's better than we have here and is as close to equality as you can get given the biological differences between men and women when it comes to reproduction.

My ideal situation would be to be able to take a full year of maternity leave, work part time until my child/children is in kindergarten. My DH would also have liked a real paternity leave, especially if it could have come after our kid was 6 months (it is easier for men to bond with older babies rather than infants).

FYI, mat leave in Europe/Uk is taxpayer funded, capped at $700 a week unless your employer kicks in more to make to make you whole, and people with clients never take a whole 12 months off unless they hire their own temp to manage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. Just reading some novels about women in this time period recently and thinking.
I didn’t really know the direction the thread was going to take when I posted this initially.

[Anonymous]

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

Clueless premise. One-income families (e.g., father works, mother stays home) started disappearing in the late 70s, were in free-fall in the 80s, and gone by the 90s. The another 30 years went by. The corporations won.

https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

Hate to break it to you but SAHMs are alive and well in higher education, higher income areas. My neighborhood and my sister's neighborhood are full of them, and we live several states apart.

SAHM w 2-4 kids is common in the south where you sorority sister marry a frat guy who will work for his dad.

Not common on the east or west coast.

Hahahaha. Says the poor. It's 100% alive and real among very well educated women who marry well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody is disputing this, poster.

We are talking about how the majority of women have worked for most of modern human history and how babies, which started coming 9 months after the wedding night and kept coming until the change of life, were cared for while their mothers worked part or full time - during the Industrial Revolution don’t forget that often meant 12, 14, 16 hour days, not a leisurely 8-5 with a commute and certainly not WFH.

I’m a little shocked at the seeming ignorance of women’s history displayed in some of these comments, as well as the seeming ignorance of the short nasty and brutish life that most children experienced until very recent generations.

[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

Clueless premise. One-income families (e.g., father works, mother stays home) started disappearing in the late 70s, were in free-fall in the 80s, and gone by the 90s. The another 30 years went by. The corporations won.

https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

Hate to break it to you but SAHMs are alive and well in higher education, higher income areas. My neighborhood and my sister's neighborhood are full of them, and we live several states apart.

SAHM w 2-4 kids is common in the south where you sorority sister marry a frat guy who will work for his dad.

Not common on the east or west coast.

Hahahaha. Says the poor. It's 100% alive and real among very well educated women who marry well.

You keep saying this, but among my “very well educated” set it’s actually the least educated of the well-educated moms who do this. Doctors, lawyers, scientists, consultants with MBAs, clergy, working artists with MFAs did not stop working even if they could afford to. They were too invested to just quit. Of the women who SAHMed, it was women who stopped at a BA, a social work degree or other terminal non-MBA masters. Well educated women with professional terminal degrees mostly used them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly can’t follow what argument you think you’re having here. Do you know what an assertion is? Maybe that is the disconnect.

I did actually read the articles you linked (clearly you did not) and they didn’t back up the assertion that you made that “many if not most mommies” were using valium because they were “bored to tears”. NB the “” indicate where I’m quoting you.

I’m starting to wonder what drugs YOU are on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What are you prattling on about? Without access to reliable birth control, women got pregnant until they stopped menstruating.

My grandfather was the 11th of 12 children, born in 1917 when his mother was 42. His family wasn't even Catholic.

So most women had 4 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly can’t follow what argument you think you’re having here. Do you know what an assertion is? Maybe that is the disconnect.

I did actually read the articles you linked (clearly you did not) and they didn’t back up the assertion that you made that “many if not most mommies” were using valium because they were “bored to tears”. NB the “” indicate where I’m quoting you.

I’m starting to wonder what drugs YOU are on.

See your confused because your always looking for a fight, and you end up chasing your tail when nobody is trying to fight you.

Someone mentioned the use of Valium in the United States. You acted like that was a folk tale. I provided a history of use and a study on its use,

No fight, no “assertion “, just information to educate you.

You’re confused because with you everything is a fight and I’m not fighting over anything, just eduction in an area your ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly can’t follow what argument you think you’re having here. Do you know what an assertion is? Maybe that is the disconnect.

I did actually read the articles you linked (clearly you did not) and they didn’t back up the assertion that you made that “many if not most mommies” were using valium because they were “bored to tears”. NB the “” indicate where I’m quoting you.

I’m starting to wonder what drugs YOU are on.

See your confused because your always looking for a fight, and you end up chasing your tail when nobody is trying to fight you.

Someone mentioned the use of Valium in the United States. You acted like that was a folk tale. I provided a history of use and a study on its use,

No fight, no “assertion “, just information to educate you.

You’re confused because with you everything is a fight and I’m not fighting over anything, just eduction in an area your ignorant.

Thanks, I see the problem now. It’s clear that you do NOT know what an assertion is (even though I have told you the specific assertion I was questioning multiple times). You also appear to be under the impression that if I question whether many/most mothers were indeed on valium due to their existential boredom, that is equivalent to me questioning whether ANY mothers were on valium. (It is not, and I do not.). You, like SO MANY posters on this site, seemingly have no idea that “some”, “many”, and “most” do not mean the same thing.

Since it is clear that you are unable to comprehend the conversation, I will not be “fighting” with you anymore on this topic.

[Anonymous]

I chose a career where I could work, and spend a lot of time with my daughter in her earlier years. I don't know why this is being presented as an either/or choice. I will say, I have seen plenty of women in my practice who would like to leave their marriages, and are constrained by their lack of employment and financial concerns. I have absolutely no regrets. Also, women who didn't work and lost a spouse to illness and were not prepared for how to move forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all not watch Mad Men????

No, I don't want to be Betty Draper. F that.

Yeah, it would be so insulting to wait for your man to hand you spending money and haggle with you. I would rather die.

In most reasonable families money goes in joint account and both have to watch spending, no matter if its a one income household or two income. Its always "our money", not mine or yours.