If women could go back in time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked full time, pulled down $500k, even with two kids under two. AND ran the fundraiser at my kids preschool. By the time the kids were in middle school I was the manager of a well known rock band who toured 4 continents in 2020. I didn't miss a single soccer practice and planned snacks for all the games.
My husband gets $$ every four days and my taxes are filed early. I have a thigh gap of 1.75 inches that I have professionally measured by a model scout every quarter.
My average rate of return on my day trading portfolio is 20%, and I know how to make bread from scratch. Fu$$ all y'all. I win.

What band was touring 4 continents in 2020?

Covid and the Trolls

[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

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.

Women could also choose not to reduce their hours. And in my experience that forces men to step up as fathers. Many men don't make those choices because they are used to see women picking up their slack.

This argument is the problem. Men don’t naturally want to pick up more childcare. Women do. Why? Because women aren’t the same as men.

You're certainly speaking for me. My DH would say he'd love to work fewer hours and have more childcare in his life, but he doesn't have the ability to prioritize, multitask, or put a child's feelings and physical needs above his own. He would be pleased to spend less time on his professional life, yes... but he doesn't have the skills or inclination to be a primary caregiver.

How much does my experience with him translate to other fathers, I don’t know.

Men don't lack the ability to put child's needs above their own, they just can afford not to do it because they're used to a mother and a wife who did and will do this for them. I personally find it horrorifying that this man is still your husband and that you see this as normal.

It's easier to blame nature than to admitting that your husband is crappy and that you're a sucker.

I don’t think it’s the wives who don’t have a problem admitting the husband is crappy.
It’s the ignorant and delusional husbands who can’t or don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In our house, either my husband or I would be there in 10 minutes to pick up our kids.

That’s nice. Not all of us are married to someone with that type of availability.

DP.
These threads are always full of people who generally seem to have no responsibility to be anywhere and not a lot of work to do, and yet they make $200.
Surprise. Most of them work for the federal government.


People who do actual work at real jobs where they have responsibilities and people depending on them know that you can’t always just up and leave to get your kid at school within 10 minutes.

My husband and I both make over $200k and neither of us works for the federal government. We have "real" jobs with responsibilities and we have people depending on them, but when the school nurse calls and says one of our kids is throwing up, one of us will leave to get our kid. When we both commuted almost an hour in opposite directions from our kids' school we had a nanny who could do so. When one our children broke her arm on the playground and my husband was out of the country for work, I ended the call I was on and drove to the hospital. Because while our jobs are "real" and people depend on us, my kids come before anything else. I get that there are people who don't have that luxury and do not have any leave and would be fired from their job if they were to leave and that is awful. But I don't believe you are one of those people. You're just someone who thinks they are far more important than they are.

[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.

DP. My mom is 74 and in assisted living with dementia. Maybe broaden your mind a bit. I'm not alone in this.

[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.

I just choked on my coffee. Your husband is a GS15 and you're saying he has a demanding job and long hours? HAHAHAHAHAH. I was a GS15 for many years. He's playing you. Also, he doesn't make much.

[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: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.

Women could also choose not to reduce their hours. And in my experience that forces men to step up as fathers. Many men don't make those choices because they are used to see women picking up their slack.

This argument is the problem. Men don’t naturally want to pick up more childcare. Women do. Why? Because women aren’t the same as men.

You're certainly speaking for me. My DH would say he'd love to work fewer hours and have more childcare in his life, but he doesn't have the ability to prioritize, multitask, or put a child's feelings and physical needs above his own. He would be pleased to spend less time on his professional life, yes... but he doesn't have the skills or inclination to be a primary caregiver.

How much does my experience with him translate to other fathers, I don’t know.

Men don't lack the ability to put child's needs above their own, they just can afford not to do it because they're used to a mother and a wife who did and will do this for them. I personally find it horrorifying that this man is still your husband and that you see this as normal.

It's easier to blame nature than to admitting that your husband is crappy and that you're a sucker.

I don’t think it’s the wives who don’t have a problem admitting the husband is crappy.
It’s the ignorant and delusional husbands who can’t or don’t.

Some women here are blaming that incompetence to nature, as if they needed to believe irresponsibility around the household is an immutable trait nobody can do anything about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In our house, either my husband or I would be there in 10 minutes to pick up our kids.

That’s nice. Not all of us are married to someone with that type of availability.

DP.
These threads are always full of people who generally seem to have no responsibility to be anywhere and not a lot of work to do, and yet they make $200.
Surprise. Most of them work for the federal government.


People who do actual work at real jobs where they have responsibilities and people depending on them know that you can’t always just up and leave to get your kid at school within 10 minutes.

My husband and I both make over $200k and neither of us works for the federal government. We have "real" jobs with responsibilities and we have people depending on them, but when the school nurse calls and says one of our kids is throwing up, one of us will leave to get our kid. When we both commuted almost an hour in opposite directions from our kids' school we had a nanny who could do so. When one our children broke her arm on the playground and my husband was out of the country for work, I ended the call I was on and drove to the hospital. Because while our jobs are "real" and people depend on us, my kids come before anything else. I get that there are people who don't have that luxury and do not have any leave and would be fired from their job if they were to leave and that is awful. But I don't believe you are one of those people. You're just someone who thinks they are far more important than they are.

That's because you and your husband are a team. This thread was started by someone who assumes that only women have to take care of children. I don't know a single woman who sees herself as an equal who also puts her career on the back burner, unless there were other circumstances.

[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.

+1

I see the same. Most of our friends have super involved dads, very few moms SAH, and the spouses are often equal-ish earners and in at least 40% the wives out earn the husbands.

[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.

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.

I don't know what kind of men you know, but with our friends, the women and the men mostly both work and work around the same so yeah, the dads can step back a bit because their wives work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked full time, pulled down $500k, even with two kids under two. AND ran the fundraiser at my kids preschool. By the time the kids were in middle school I was the manager of a well known rock band who toured 4 continents in 2020. I didn't miss a single soccer practice and planned snacks for all the games.
My husband gets $$ every four days and my taxes are filed early. I have a thigh gap of 1.75 inches that I have professionally measured by a model scout every quarter.
My average rate of return on my day trading portfolio is 20%, and I know how to make bread from scratch. Fu$$ all y'all. I win.

I thought this was really funny. I literally laughed out loud.

[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

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.

Women could also choose not to reduce their hours. And in my experience that forces men to step up as fathers. Many men don't make those choices because they are used to see women picking up their slack.

This argument is the problem. Men don’t naturally want to pick up more childcare. Women do. Why? Because women aren’t the same as men.

You're certainly speaking for me. My DH would say he'd love to work fewer hours and have more childcare in his life, but he doesn't have the ability to prioritize, multitask, or put a child's feelings and physical needs above his own. He would be pleased to spend less time on his professional life, yes... but he doesn't have the skills or inclination to be a primary caregiver.

How much does my experience with him translate to other fathers, I don’t know.

Men don't lack the ability to put child's needs above their own, they just can afford not to do it because they're used to a mother and a wife who did and will do this for them. I personally find it horrorifying that this man is still your husband and that you see this as normal.

Pre kids I would have said this. But now that I have kids and I’ve watched men, I truly don’t think they are good caregivers. There are exceptions of course. Kind of like how men are terrible at giving birth.

You know some pathetic men.

[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.

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.

I don't know what kind of men you know, but with our friends, the women and the men mostly both work and work around the same so yeah, the dads can step back a bit because their wives work.

Those guys step back because that’s what they want to do. If their wives didn’t work, they would live on less income. If they didn’t want to step back, no amount of work their wives did would make them step back.

[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.

I just choked on my coffee. Your husband is a GS15 and you're saying he has a demanding job and long hours? HAHAHAHAHAH. I was a GS15 for many years. He's playing you. Also, he doesn't make much.

People like you should actually aim to spend as little time with your offspring as possible. Maybe the nanny or daycare can teach them how to be pleasant people that others don’t find insufferable.

[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.

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.

I don't know what kind of men you know, but with our friends, the women and the men mostly both work and work around the same so yeah, the dads can step back a bit because their wives work.

Those guys step back because that’s what they want to do. If their wives didn’t work, they would live on less income. If they didn’t want to step back, no amount of work their wives did would make them step back.

And the same goes for women. They don't have to step back, but they are expected to.

[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.

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.

I don't know what kind of men you know, but with our friends, the women and the men mostly both work and work around the same so yeah, the dads can step back a bit because their wives work.

Does this mean the dads are working part-time? Because if the dads are still working 40 hours a week, then you have entirely missed the point. (For example, my husband and I used to work a combined 80 hours per week. Now we work a combined 40 hours per week. 2 full time jobs -> 1 full time job.). If one or both parents gets to work part time then that is an awesome set up, though.