If women could go back in time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My career field disappeared with the Great Recession and we had very young kids. I became a SAHM. It's worked well for our family. The kids are thriving, my spouse makes good money and is glad I'm at home to handle the home front. When our kids were sick at school, and needed to be picked up, I could be there in 15 minutes. I once apologized for taking 20 minutes and the school nurse said don't worry, you're doing just fine. She had sick kids who sat there all day until the bell rang, and then went to after care...

I always remember that moment. My kids had it pretty good. I have no regrets looking back. Life has been good. Nobody can have everything, all the time, all at once. We all make choices, and have to live with them.

Some of us can, but it involves making better choices when you're younger.

[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

I sure as hell would not stay at home full time. I would continue to have a profession even part time. Don’t set yourself up so that you are backed into a corner without options. I don’t like either option either. These aren’t the only two options.

[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 a bit disingenuous. Yes, poor women have always worked, but in ways that acknowledged their primary role was to care for the children & home. Am I saying I want to be a poor washerwoman with 5 grimy kids in tow? No. But our culture’s insistence that women be men is also exhausting and deeply “not right”.

We should stop mistaking self-sufficiency with being a man. The problem with staying home is that it's a role that requires no special skills and relies on somebody else's paycheck.

[Anonymous]

I am a woman. GenXer.

If I could go back in time, I would bring the Grays Sports Almanac: Complete Sports Statistics, 1950-2000 with me. I would bet on every winner. I would become rich. My bullies would be working for me.

[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: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.

have you read prairie fires, Laura’s biography? Highly highly recommend. The ingalls women’s lives border on hellish in reality — the worst of both worlds. Ma is a homemaker subject to pa’s terrible planning and manic whims. Laura does work outside the home as soon as she possibly can, until she is married, to another hapless man. The mothers themselves have too much work to do to leave the house. It’s so far from the idyll presented in the children’s books, which is why I roll my eyes when homeschooling friends I know use the little house series as history books.

I have.
My point wasn’t that their life was idyllic, just that the women were all SAHMs and that we didn’t all just invent gender roles in the 1950’s.

Also, do you really think that there aren’t any SAHMs today who work really really hard and do a ton of work at home? Are all of your homeschooling friends married to wealthy men? I have several friends who take care of little children, grow and can lot of their own food, sew a lot of their own clothes, keep animals, take care of elderly relatives, etc. Women who don’t earn an income are considered SAHMs no matter how hard they work.

Not how this works

It is how this works.
Women who stay at home with their children and do not earn an income are SAHMs. Being a working mom refers to earning an income through outside employment. It doesn’t refer to how hard you work.

That's not what you wrote, Chat GPT.
Please brush up on your language skills if you're going to troll

That is what I wrote. You bolded:

“Women who don’t earn an income are considered SAHMs no matter how hard they work”

How is this a troll post?

Yes and that is false and also not what you wrote in your second post when you were called out.

You're quite obviously a troll from incel land who posts the same drivel every week, multiple times a week and I'm not sure why you haven't been banned yet.

It’s exactly the same thing.
Why would a troll from incel land defend SAHMs for working hard and read Jane Austen?

[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.

Women who marry well are not the majority. An the very educated women who do so generally don't have lucrative careers compared to those of their husbands. They wouldn't become SAHMs if they did.

[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: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.

have you read prairie fires, Laura’s biography? Highly highly recommend. The ingalls women’s lives border on hellish in reality — the worst of both worlds. Ma is a homemaker subject to pa’s terrible planning and manic whims. Laura does work outside the home as soon as she possibly can, until she is married, to another hapless man. The mothers themselves have too much work to do to leave the house. It’s so far from the idyll presented in the children’s books, which is why I roll my eyes when homeschooling friends I know use the little house series as history books.

I have.
My point wasn’t that their life was idyllic, just that the women were all SAHMs and that we didn’t all just invent gender roles in the 1950’s.

Also, do you really think that there aren’t any SAHMs today who work really really hard and do a ton of work at home? Are all of your homeschooling friends married to wealthy men? I have several friends who take care of little children, grow and can lot of their own food, sew a lot of their own clothes, keep animals, take care of elderly relatives, etc. Women who don’t earn an income are considered SAHMs no matter how hard they work.

Not how this works

It is how this works.
Women who stay at home with their children and do not earn an income are SAHMs. Being a working mom refers to earning an income through outside employment. It doesn’t refer to how hard you work.

That's not what you wrote, Chat GPT.
Please brush up on your language skills if you're going to troll

That is what I wrote. You bolded:

“Women who don’t earn an income are considered SAHMs no matter how hard they work”

How is this a troll post?

Yes and that is false and also not what you wrote in your second post when you were called out.

You're quite obviously a troll from incel land who posts the same drivel every week, multiple times a week and I'm not sure why you haven't been banned yet.

Look. There are versions of Ma Ingalls and Golde from “Fiddler on the Roof” alive today. They work really hard, but they still consider themselves SAHMs and are considered SAHMs by other people. Because being a “working mom” isn’t about how hard you work. It’s about earning an income.
Women who don’t earn an income are considered SAHMs no matter how hard they work.

[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

You realize that when a woman stays home her partner has to work longer hours to support her lifestyle, right? By your own logic, partners to a SAHM don't see their children grow up either and yet I never see anyone asking similar questions to men as if their time with children doesn't seem to be equally important.

I also think you've got a rosy view of the past. Even though most women stayed home they didn't live like wealthy housewives do today because most of them were married or average earning men who had to work very long hours while the wife did manual unpaid labor at home and did not have much quality time for her children. I'd be a working woman today a d share childcare with my husband.

I think you misunderstand. My husband would have the demanding job/long hours either way. He wouldn’t become a GS15 if I was working. So given those facts, it makes sense for one of us not to work.

This is your individual situation, but the OP is directed at women in general, whether their husbands have flexible jobs or not.

[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

You realize that when a woman stays home her partner has to work longer hours to support her lifestyle, right? By your own logic, partners to a SAHM don't see their children grow up either and yet I never see anyone asking similar questions to men as if their time with children doesn't seem to be equally important.

I also think you've got a rosy view of the past. Even though most women stayed home they didn't live like wealthy housewives do today because most of them were married or average earning men who had to work very long hours while the wife did manual unpaid labor at home and did not have much quality time for her children. I'd be a working woman today a d share childcare with my husband.

DP but the bolded is not a factual statement.

It's still a relevant statement. If a woman who works doesn't see her children, neither does a man who works, so why questions like this are only directed to women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My career field disappeared with the Great Recession and we had very young kids. I became a SAHM. It's worked well for our family. The kids are thriving, my spouse makes good money and is glad I'm at home to handle the home front. When our kids were sick at school, and needed to be picked up, I could be there in 15 minutes. I once apologized for taking 20 minutes and the school nurse said don't worry, you're doing just fine. She had sick kids who sat there all day until the bell rang, and then went to after care...

I always remember that moment. My kids had it pretty good. I have no regrets looking back. Life has been good. Nobody can have everything, all the time, all at once. We all make choices, and have to live with them.

Some of us can, but it involves making better choices when you're younger.

And also, men can. Women have to work full-time now, and are still expected to be the primary parent. And still make .82 to every dollar a man makes. Things are NOT better. Like everything they did, the boomers screwed us.

[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

You realize that when a woman stays home her partner has to work longer hours to support her lifestyle, right? By your own logic, partners to a SAHM don't see their children grow up either and yet I never see anyone asking similar questions to men as if their time with children doesn't seem to be equally important.

I also think you've got a rosy view of the past. Even though most women stayed home they didn't live like wealthy housewives do today because most of them were married or average earning men who had to work very long hours while the wife did manual unpaid labor at home and did not have much quality time for her children. I'd be a working woman today a d share childcare with my husband.

DP but the bolded is not a factual statement.

It's still a relevant statement. If a woman who works doesn't see her children, neither does a man who works, so why questions like this are only directed to women?

Men are not working different/longer hours whether their wives stay at home with the kids or not. It's a stupid argument. Men get to spend exactly the amount of hour with their kids that they want to. They have choices that women do not.

[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

You realize that when a woman stays home her partner has to work longer hours to support her lifestyle, right? By your own logic, partners to a SAHM don't see their children grow up either and yet I never see anyone asking similar questions to men as if their time with children doesn't seem to be equally important.

I also think you've got a rosy view of the past. Even though most women stayed home they didn't live like wealthy housewives do today because most of them were married or average earning men who had to work very long hours while the wife did manual unpaid labor at home and did not have much quality time for her children. I'd be a working woman today a d share childcare with my husband.

DP but the bolded is not a factual statement.

It's still a relevant statement. If a woman who works doesn't see her children, neither does a man who works, so why questions like this are only directed to women?

This reply has no connection to the statement:

“You realize that when a woman stays home her partner has to work longer hours to support her lifestyle, right?”

Therefore it is NOT a relevant statement. It is just a stupid and incorrect statement.

[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 a bit disingenuous. Yes, poor women have always worked, but in ways that acknowledged their primary role was to care for the children & home. Am I saying I want to be a poor washerwoman with 5 grimy kids in tow? No. But our culture’s insistence that women be men is also exhausting and deeply “not right”.

We should stop mistaking self-sufficiency with being a man. The problem with staying home is that it's a role that requires no special skills and relies on somebody else's paycheck.

The vast majority of jobs require no special skills and rely on someone else being willing and able to pay you. Vanishingly few people in this world are self sufficient, and the most self sufficient of all are possibly living off the grid somewhere and don’t give a d@mn about paychecks and retirement accounts and college admissions.

You are deeply confused.

[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

You realize that when a woman stays home her partner has to work longer hours to support her lifestyle, right? By your own logic, partners to a SAHM don't see their children grow up either and yet I never see anyone asking similar questions to men as if their time with children doesn't seem to be equally important.

I also think you've got a rosy view of the past. Even though most women stayed home they didn't live like wealthy housewives do today because most of them were married or average earning men who had to work very long hours while the wife did manual unpaid labor at home and did not have much quality time for her children. I'd be a working woman today a d share childcare with my husband.

I think you misunderstand. My husband would have the demanding job/long hours either way. He wouldn’t become a GS15 if I was working. So given those facts, it makes sense for one of us not to work.

Super. And given you have kids ( I assume), I hope he says and believes exactly what you wrote.

[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

You realize that when a woman stays home her partner has to work longer hours to support her lifestyle, right? By your own logic, partners to a SAHM don't see their children grow up either and yet I never see anyone asking similar questions to men as if their time with children doesn't seem to be equally important.

I also think you've got a rosy view of the past. Even though most women stayed home they didn't live like wealthy housewives do today because most of them were married or average earning men who had to work very long hours while the wife did manual unpaid labor at home and did not have much quality time for her children. I'd be a working woman today a d share childcare with my husband.

DP but the bolded is not a factual statement.

It's still a relevant statement. If a woman who works doesn't see her children, neither does a man who works, so why questions like this are only directed to women?

Men are not working different/longer hours whether their wives stay at home with the kids or not. It's a stupid argument. Men get to spend exactly the amount of hour with their kids that they want to. They have choices that women do not.

If a woman is earning a good income, then the husband has more of a choice to take a job with more flexibility that may have lower pay. Of course he may not choose to do that, but with the wife working it’s more of an option.