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?

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.

On a farm (until pretty recently most of America lived and worked on farms), everyone aged 10-death worked sunrise to sundown every single day without holidays. Kids under 10 were expected to chip in and help when they could. Mothers and older daughters and grandmothers kept an eye on toddlers and babies in and around housekeeping and other farm work.

For factory workers, days were 12+ hours every day of the week except Sunday. You had to be healthy to work and there was no sick leave or retirement funds. When someone got injured or too sick to work (but didn’t die), they might take in laundry or care for local children to feed themselves. But there were jobs in the factories and the mines for kids as young as 6 — kids weren’t considered to need constant attention beyond the age of like 4.

For people who worked in service professions they either kept their kids with them (home laundry, seamstress, etc) or were excluded from marrying (maid, teacher, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So not just old age. That makes more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is me exactly. (00:41)

I’m happy I’ve had both experiences.

[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.

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.

+1. And a few cases where they or their children developed health or neurological problems and they were able to afford living on one income to reduce the stress. Otherwise, educated ambitious people want to keep doing it. There are rare exceptions

[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.

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.

And let’s not forget, their husbands also had to sign off on birth control—once that even existed! Or do you want to go farther back to the time of to birth control AND no right to vote or own property?

[Anonymous]

^no birth control

[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

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.

I don’t know how this turned into an “elite degree” contest. I am one of the early posters and college-educated SAHM’s in the $250k+ household income level are still very very common. Definitely until the youngest starts kindergarten and then some do go back, but usually part-time or flexible. Maybe this is less common among rocket scientists, I don’t know. I live in the suburbs, so maybe it’s a function of that too, but many many families who have the means to make this choice, are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work full time, make >$500k, and see my children grow up and do tons of things together.

It’s how I manage my time and the systems we have set up.

wow, that’s great, and I appreciate you including your salary because that added much value to your answer.

[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?

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.

I’m with you. I’ve read a lot of Jane Austen, Little House on the Prairie, Little Women, etc. None of these depict married women with children working outside the home and living in extended family homes.

[Anonymous]

I HATE these trolly posts.
I work full time from home. I see my kids grow up. I just dont spend from 9-3 every day watching days of our lives.
grow the f up op

[Anonymous]

Immigrant parents don't have extended family or friends to support and they are afraid of leaving kids with strangers, hence women often take over responsibility of parenting and household while DH focus on career and income as they are also afraid of debt, unemployment.

[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

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.

I don’t know how this turned into an “elite degree” contest. I am one of the early posters and college-educated SAHM’s in the $250k+ household income level are still very very common. Definitely until the youngest starts kindergarten and then some do go back, but usually part-time or flexible. Maybe this is less common among rocket scientists, I don’t know. I live in the suburbs, so maybe it’s a function of that too, but many many families who have the means to make this choice, are.

What you’re missing is that a HHI of $250K is not considered “marrying well” on this board. We are talking about women who can earn $200K+ in their own right (and often much more), most of whom do not choose to SAHM, except some lawyers who really hate big law.

[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?

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.

I’m with you. I’ve read a lot of Jane Austen, Little House on the Prairie, Little Women, etc. None of these depict married women with children working outside the home and living in extended family homes.

Little House on the Prairie has plenty of married women working outside the home. The various dressmakers Laura works for, as well as women at the hotels. In real life, Laura’s family owned and kept a hotel in one of the gaps the books don’t cover.

And the entire series shows how agricultural families were constantly working: Almanzo in farmer boy is “doing a man’s work on the farm since age 10” after all. As many people have pointed out, married women with babies might keep the babies with them while they worked (as farm hands, laundresses, etc) but from toddlerhood on up, kids were expected to be working too not in childcare. The necessity of childcare follows on from the advent of child labor laws which I for one consider an excellent thing.

[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

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.

I don’t know how this turned into an “elite degree” contest. I am one of the early posters and college-educated SAHM’s in the $250k+ household income level are still very very common. Definitely until the youngest starts kindergarten and then some do go back, but usually part-time or flexible. Maybe this is less common among rocket scientists, I don’t know. I live in the suburbs, so maybe it’s a function of that too, but many many families who have the means to make this choice, are.

What you’re missing is that a HHI of $250K is not considered “marrying well” on this board. We are talking about women who can earn $200K+ in their own right (and often much more), most of whom do not choose to SAHM, except some lawyers who really hate big law.

I'm the PP and my original post was in response to someone who said that SAH just wasn't a thing any more. Its just patently false. This is the original post I was responding to. All of my statements still stand and the poster who said the below is just plain wrong.

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.

[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

Are you kidding me? The fight for workforce accessibility/equality went hand in hand with the fight for women's financial rights. Before that, women could not own property, apply for credit, or open their own bank accounts in their name. It wasn't until 197-freaking-4 that women could open a bank account, apply for credit, and obtain a mortgage without a male co-signer.

No, no I would never go back in time and not fight for those things.