Why do men assume their wife will become a SAHM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all the comments but as a man with a SAHM wife in a neighborhood where many if not most women are SAH or work from home part time, I find it's usually the women who choose this. My male friends don't talk about it much but when they do it's rarely that they insisted on this but rather it wad their wife's suggest or insist

My husband suggested it as he thought I would be happier. It never even crossed my mind as my parents brainwashed me to expect me to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

So kids are only for rich people. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

So kids are only for rich people. Got it.

The issue is who should pay. All these real middle and upper class women need to pay for their own maternity leave. Its not fair to expect employers to subsidize maternity leave or child care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many women want to SAH. I for example can't manage pregnancy and working.

Psst. Hey lady. That wasn't the question. Several other SAHMs have chimed in to say they are happy at home. We got it. Enjoy.

Do you have any thoughts on the expectation by society that it be moms who step back and become SAHPs? What do you think about dads out there who want to SAH?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

Almost nobody except the UMC and wealthy can actually “afford” children anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

How do you two feel about universal minimum salaries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

Almost nobody except the UMC and wealthy can actually “afford” children anymore.

Exactly. Do pps understand that extended maternity leave would benefit them as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

So kids are only for rich people. Got it.

The issue is who should pay. All these real middle and upper class women need to pay for their own maternity leave. Its not fair to expect employers to subsidize maternity leave or child care.

Why is it unfair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

Almost nobody except the UMC and wealthy can actually “afford” children anymore.

Really, we have earned around $100K-$150 so technically UMC/wealthy depending on where you live and we have a almost paid off house (we could pay it off), cars that we own including a new one paid cash, college fund, multiple kid activities and more with no family help. I saved my leave for years for paid maternity leave and then quit as I couldn't find child care that we could afford. Its how you choose to spend your money. We don't take many vacations or live lavishly but we are comfortable and have no money worries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

So kids are only for rich people. Got it.

The issue is who should pay. All these real middle and upper class women need to pay for their own maternity leave. Its not fair to expect employers to subsidize maternity leave or child care.

Why is it unfair?

Why is it fair to demand employers pay for maternity leave and child care? Those are your choices and have nothing to do with employment. Its not their responsibility to provide for your family. They pay you a salary and its your responsibility to use your money and leave appropriately to care for your kids. What next? You want an employer to pay for housing, food, and 100% health care. Join the military if you want all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

So kids are only for rich people. Got it.

I have a strong suspicion the NP is from the thread where ironically her husband wants her to stay home. I remember she became hugely offended when someone mentioned the notion that better parental leave laws would basically eliminate the problem she and her husband were having. She got angry told the person who suggested it to go live in Europe because she loved America, I can imagine she would feel this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

Almost nobody except the UMC and wealthy can actually “afford” children anymore.

Exactly. Do pps understand that extended maternity leave would benefit them as well?

Who does it benefit? The parents and/or child. You can take an extended maternity leave but you need to use your saved leave or leave without pay. Businesses are there to make money. They are not a welfare program. Same with government but different goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

How do you two feel about universal minimum salaries?

We have them. Its called minimum wage. Look, even if we want it, we cannot afford it and those countries that have it have a very different culture and government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many women want to SAH. I for example can't manage pregnancy and working.

Psst. Hey lady. That wasn't the question. Several other SAHMs have chimed in to say they are happy at home. We got it. Enjoy.

Do you have any thoughts on the expectation by society that it be moms who step back and become SAHPs? What do you think about dads out there who want to SAH?

There are zero expectations except in your head for women to step back and be SAHM's. This is not the 20-50's and it a woman's choice. I have no issue with a Dad wanting to be a SAHP. My husband would have loved to but financially we couldn't make it work. He'd be great at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman NP here. I have no intention of paying more in taxes to give women to stay home for months. This all goes into whether or not to have children. Can you afford them? is the number one question to ask yourself. If you can't afford children without taxpayer help, you do not get to have them.

+1 million.

So kids are only for rich people. Got it.

The issue is who should pay. All these real middle and upper class women need to pay for their own maternity leave. Its not fair to expect employers to subsidize maternity leave or child care.

Why is it unfair?

Why is it fair to demand employers pay for maternity leave and child care? Those are your choices and have nothing to do with employment. Its not their responsibility to provide for your family. They pay you a salary and its your responsibility to use your money and leave appropriately to care for your kids. What next? You want an employer to pay for housing, food, and 100% health care. Join the military if you want all that.

Why should employers contribute to your healthcare? Your health is your responsibility?

Why should people without kids or kids that are school age contribute tax money to public schools?