If women could go back in time

[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.

Agree.

Many white collar men work long hours at their own election - they don’t change industries or employers.c they just put up with it or use it to stay away from home or bolster their egos.

Many blue color men work 6am to 4pm.

And then in the unskilled labor market, people cobble together gigs or cash pay jobs and work as many hours a day and night as possible. Are price and job takers.

[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

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.

The point is that he almost never chooses to do that.

[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.

My DH was a GS-15 when I was a SAHM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems like a lazy husband problem.
He needs to manage the stay or pull his weight at home like his working wife does.

[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

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.

The point is that he almost never chooses to do that.

I don’t know about that. A lot of men are trying to be more equal partners in their families 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

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.

That’s called misogyny. It will change or those will be divorced. Basically 50% of the male OLD world is misogynists who blew up their married w kids life and failed big time. Enjoy. They’ll just say they have no idea what happened but they’re taking their kids in the weekend to Disney world so they’re a good dad.

[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.

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.

What’s a GS15? Goldman Sachs partner? Girl Scout franscisee owner?

They must make a ton of money and be indispensable.
It must be such a competitive position to interview for and obtain? Does the Board run the final rounds?

[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

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.

The point is that he almost never chooses to do that.

I don’t know about that. A lot of men are trying to be more equal partners in their families now.

+1

I’m sure it varies but in our circles the dads are very much choosing a work/life balance (and WFH/short commute) that enables them to spend more time with their kids.

[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

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.

Ideally they’d talk and discuss and decide as a team.

I know I’ve asked my spouse to take a less crazy job - which also isn’t good for his poor communication and executive functioning skills- and then be home more and more involved. He has not.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I was such a huge fan of the Laura Ingalls Wilder books as a child, they were among my most favorite and as an adult I bought a lovely collectors set with color illustrations that still sits on my bookshelf.

Next to those sweet little books sits the much more recently published Pioneer Girl, an annotated history of the true story of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s life, published by the South Dakota Historical Society. I highly recommend it to any fans of the children’s books. Suffice to say that Pa Ingalls was a dreamer and a wastrel and life was very hard and very ugly in many respects. Almanzo did not provide well for Laura owing to bad luck and bad health and they never had a comfortable life until Laura began publishing her children’s books in her middle 60s, Almanzo’s middle 70s. Women worked very, very hard to help their families survive - far beyond keeping house and playing with their children, ‘watching them grow.’

I would love to buy this Pioneer Girl book, bit there are numerous books with this title (about same topic) on Amazon, which one are you referring to?

https://www.amazon.com/Pioneer-Girl-Laura-Ingalls-Wilder/dp/0984504176/ref=asc_df_0984504176/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312111908051&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=138336556819677830&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9002175&hvtargid=pla-434008900506&psc=1&mcid=7addebe22eb7342e942d85584e9bbaf3&gclid=CjwKCAiA_aGuBhACEiwAly57MSdeOVAzjW_e7grFQO6Gw-Qvm5ELtM-CBwgd3Tqb86xeji4iqt2YvBoCWKUQAvD_BwE

[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

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.

The point is that he almost never chooses to do that.

I don’t know about that. A lot of men are trying to be more equal partners in their families now.

+1

I’m sure it varies but in our circles the dads are very much choosing a work/life balance (and WFH/short commute) that enables them to spend more time with their kids.

That’s because social norms are changing and most of your friends are liberal progressives. It isn’t because these men finally feel they can financially afford to be at the office less.

[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:

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.

It's not a contest. We are just sharing our various experiences within our own peer groups.

It's not that common in my circles. <10%

No one at NIH or Leidos or other scientific research team places with PhDs or masters tapped out when they had kids.

This has also been my experience

JD/MBA/Masters in the liberal arts - they drop out of the work force to be SAHM and constantly bring up their elite educations.

PhDs (any subject) and Masters in hard sciences/econ/engineering - not as much.

I know a lot of SAHMs who had careers before having babies who haven’t gone back once all the kids are in elementary school- I get it - I’ve got an elementary school aged kid, and it was easier working an insane job when she was little.

If I can swing it financially, I’d like to retire by the time my kid hits high school and consult on the side. But I sure as hell would
have been miserable being a SAHM to my kid when he was a baby.

Its interesting how different people are. SAH at home with my babies/toddlers was literally the pleasure of my life. It meant everything to me and I think I might have been suicidal if I had been forced to leave them.

Well it's good thing you have a choice right?. I also hope you have developed an identity outside of #mom.because babies and toddlers grow up and don't always want you around

God this thread is vile.

It's the truth. Children grow up. They are not your besties.

What a weird comment...

[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

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.

The point is that he almost never chooses to do that.

I don’t know about that. A lot of men are trying to be more equal partners in their families now.

+1

I’m sure it varies but in our circles the dads are very much choosing a work/life balance (and WFH/short commute) that enables them to spend more time with their kids.

That’s because social norms are changing and most of your friends are liberal progressives. It isn’t because these men finally feel they can financially afford to be at the office less.

Many are affluent, via two high incomes, so they have the financial flexibility. Probably a tougher decision for men and women at lower HHI.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I was such a huge fan of the Laura Ingalls Wilder books as a child, they were among my most favorite and as an adult I bought a lovely collectors set with color illustrations that still sits on my bookshelf.

Next to those sweet little books sits the much more recently published Pioneer Girl, an annotated history of the true story of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s life, published by the South Dakota Historical Society. I highly recommend it to any fans of the children’s books. Suffice to say that Pa Ingalls was a dreamer and a wastrel and life was very hard and very ugly in many respects. Almanzo did not provide well for Laura owing to bad luck and bad health and they never had a comfortable life until Laura began publishing her children’s books in her middle 60s, Almanzo’s middle 70s. Women worked very, very hard to help their families survive - far beyond keeping house and playing with their children, ‘watching them grow.’

I would love to buy this Pioneer Girl book, bit there are numerous books with this title (about same topic) on Amazon, which one are you referring to?

https://www.amazon.com/Pioneer-Girl-Laura-Ingalls-Wilder/dp/0984504176/ref=asc_df_0984504176/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312111908051&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=138336556819677830&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9002175&hvtargid=pla-434008900506&psc=1&mcid=7addebe22eb7342e942d85584e9bbaf3&gclid=CjwKCAiA_aGuBhACEiwAly57MSdeOVAzjW_e7grFQO6Gw-Qvm5ELtM-CBwgd3Tqb86xeji4iqt2YvBoCWKUQAvD_BwE

Don't buy the kindle version especially given it is the same price as the hardcover.

[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

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.

Ideally they’d talk and discuss and decide as a team.

I know I’ve asked my spouse to take a less crazy job - which also isn’t good for his poor communication and executive functioning skills- and then be home more and more involved. He has not.

The point is that it is possible to support a family on ONE full time (i.e. 40 hours per week) income, and many families do it this way despite what all the UMC strivers of the DMV can grok, so the question of whether or not dad works MORE is disingenuous. The couple is not going from 2 full time jobs to 1.5 full time jobs, they’re going from 2 full time jobs to 1. Dad (and we’ll stick with dad since that’s the norm and this thread is about moms working or not, but obviously this can apply to either partner) was going to be working the very SAME job with the SAME hours regardless. The amount of time he spends with his kids DOES NOT CHANGE. But if mom stays home, the kids now have mom for an ADDITIONAL 8 hours per day.

This is not a difficult concept to understand.