If women could go back in time

[Anonymous]

Extended families don't exist and nuclear living has raised cost of living.

[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.

76? That seems very young for assisted living.

[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?

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.

And until very recently, no moms were doing enrichment activities with their kids and hovering over them all day long. For centuries, the work of the home was hard and long hours. No dishwashers, washing machines, etc. Kids were helping to that work as soon as they were able or were out running around with other kids. Or watching their siblings. That's who was watching the kids while mom did the hard work of the house: the eldest daughter(s).

Goodness, I get tired of these ridiculous threads about women "going back" to this SAHM utopia that NEVER existed. At the price of the hard-won rights we have? F no.

[Anonymous]

I come from a family with slaves as descendants. They worked and their kids were either sold or sent away to a freed cousin to be raised as mothering and working were not a option. I would not want to live back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

The whole point is that we have way more choices now.

[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.

I didn’t see this as a majority nor large minority when we lived and worked in Boston, NYC nor Wash DC.

Only in Dallas.

And I work in tech so never see this in The Bay Area either.

Maybe we’re defining well educated differently or running in different u grad and grad circles, as well as different DC area neighborhoods, schools and kid ECs entirely.

[Anonymous]

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

this is funny- I am a SAHM, my husband is nice, kids are lovely, we have a good life but If I could go back I'd hire help at home and go back to work when the kids were in school (the hours they were in school) and have someone do more of teh grunt work even if it was all my salary b/c regardless of how 'kind' or cooperative the 'bread winner' is- their needs and preferences always take precedence over your own b/c teh family depends on him for survival. If I had been self sufficient I could've made very different choices instead of going along with things that ultimately have made me very unhappy lifestyle wise and I knew that and argued against it bit ultimately it comes down to what the employed person wants when push comes to shove and I am 45 and so so unhappy that its basically poisoned my marriage as well. I cant bear my husband b.c I think he's just a bully even when I know im being unreasonable. For people who earn as much a most DCUM do, you can work part time and have some cash of your own as well as seeing your kids. I dont regret the wonderful time. spent with them but I wish I had worked all the hours they were gone and we are in DC so they are in school from 8-3 and then asleep at 7:30, 8 from the age of 3 onwards . I could've worked after they feel asleep as well. And they get older so quickly, it's better to build up a career , step back for a decade but still hold on to it so that you have financial independence and can step back into it when kids are older, maybe it wont be millions but there are too many compromises when you are basically the tag along childcare. especially b/c Wirth ppl who have 'bg jobs'- you are eating dinner alone, alone most nights any way, might as well work from 8pm-11pm and then 8am-3pm.

[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

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.

I didn’t see this as a majority nor large minority when we lived and worked in Boston, NYC nor Wash DC.

Only in Dallas.

And I work in tech so never see this in The Bay Area either.

Maybe we’re defining well educated differently or running in different u grad and grad circles, as well as different DC area neighborhoods, schools and kid ECs entirely.

Agree. SAHM w/multiple degrees from elite schools. We are out there but not common.

[Anonymous]

I am someone who married and had kids late. I worked for many years and had an interesting and challenging career. It was high pressure and exhausting. I loved it but I hated the lifestyle. When I had my first child at 40, I decided to stay home. It hit me one day at work that I could be hit by a bus and they’d just assign my projects to someone else. I, like everyone else, was dispensable. That’s when I decided I to give my energy and attention to something that would actually matter more - my child and family. I am glad that I had the opportunity to have a fulfilling career, but I am also grateful that I got to decide when I was ready for a different chapter.

[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?

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.

I think that the OP is thinking about herself, as a middle class/upper middle class woman.
There was definitely a very long time that most women in her situation did not work outside the home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your poor H. Everything with you is a fight. A point and counterpoint. You can’t just discuss.

Advertisements for Valium and other benzodiazepines in the ’60s and ’70s were, by today’s standards, shockingly brazen in their depiction of stereotypical women who might be saved from their disappointing lives by popping pills. Valium was touted as a drug that would sweep away your depression and anxiety, allowing you to be your ‘true self’.

From 1969 to 1982, Valium was the most prescribed drug in the country, with Americans ingesting 2.3 billion of the little pills annually.

Women were its biggest fans, popping them like candy to take the edge off a stressful day

[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?

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.

76? That seems very young for assisted living.

Well, please inform my mother's dementia, it didn't get the memo. My husband and I both lost our fathers when they were respectively 74 and 75. So. No one cares what you think is "young". People tend to get sick and die in their 70s and 80s.

[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?

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.

So grandma didn’t need to be employed or retired early to watch the kids?

I’m still suspicious about all these working women without any form of childcare. Doesn’t really make any sense. My guess is most of these working women were working part time or shift work. But certainly not out of the house from 8-6 PM every day five days a week. These women would need to be home to prepare dinner, clean the house etc.

[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.

Then why don’t any statistics or the census support this?

[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.

This There's no way I would ever want to go back to the time when women could not buy their own property or have their own credit cards or even have a bank account without a man's permission. We were completely dependent on men. Do you know that husbands used to be allowed to spank their wife's if they disobeyed? Women were treated like chattel or children. There was a reason why women fought for equal rights. You are enjoying the benefits of their fight which is why you don't realize how bad it was.