If women could go back in time

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Stop. There is no societal expectation for women to step back, or stay at home, or be the primary caregiver. Staying home, stepping back, daycare, nanny - this is a personal decision for each individual family. If your husband EXPECTS you to step back that is a personal issue that you need to work out between the two of you (and ideally you should have been on the same page before voluntarily procreating).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But what did that teach children’s about women’s capabilities? And how many women stayed with abusive or philandering men because they were entirely dependent on them?

Why is your question only posed to women? Do modern nen like having the option of being more involved in raising their children? Do children like spending time with both parents?

What do you think you’re teaching your children with the constant messaging that a woman prioritizing taking care of her own kids is basically a useless loser?

Often it has nothing to do with capabilities, but priorities. But sure, make sure Larla knows that you’d rather be working on yet another powerpoint about synergy than playing candyland with her. You’re a modern woman and kids are just an accessory!

You sound like such a defensive SAHM. I think there are advantages to women and children if both parents work. I did not use the hyperbolic language you felt the need to employ.

You views are extremely sexist. Why is a woman required to prioritize child-rearing, but not a man?

She is not REQUIRED to, you absolute doofus! But if she CHOOSES to, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH IT! She shouldn’t be shamed or ridiculed. Acting as though a woman is less than for “just” being a mom is what is actually sexist. The fact that you don’t get this means you’re either being deliberately obtuse, or you are thicker than a brick wall.

[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.

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.

Stop. There is no societal expectation for women to step back, or stay at home, or be the primary caregiver. Staying home, stepping back, daycare, nanny - this is a personal decision for each individual family. If your husband EXPECTS you to step back that is a personal issue that you need to work out between the two of you (and ideally you should have been on the same page before voluntarily procreating).

I think that you are in some kind of super special bubble where women aren’t expected to step back.
Statistically, women’s income goes down significantly after having kids (because they step back). And, unlike men, it goes up again later in their lives (because they step back up).

I have heard this mentioned on job interviews (well, hiring a mom isn’t the same as hiring a dad), by my coworkers, sitting on volunteer boards for foster placement, etc.

This is absolutely a societal expectation and not something that is an INDIVIDUAL decision.

[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

This is looking back at history with rose-colored glasses. Women were treated as children and chattel - and every decision had to go through their partner - for their partner to have the ultimate decision regardless of whether it was the right decision or even a good decision. Men had control over their wives' bodies, their money, and their lives. There were exceptional women that were able to get out of this bind, but they were truly exceptional and had the support of men in their lives. So, no, no way in hell - even with the stress of living this life with a stressful job and teens - I would take choices over how I live (including a choice to be a stay at home mom if I so desire) versus being told that this is my only option.

That said, I do firmly believe that access to capital, better education, has left our public educational system worse off because the smartest women who became teachers back then because their only other options for some form of independent income were to be secretaries or nurses, are now lawyers, doctors, scientists, et al. That's great for them and for society as a whole - but we really need to make teaching as attractive as those other professions to attract the best and the brightest - and not just those for whom it is a "calling".

[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.

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.

My sister and her husband both work ~80%, but he started working less prior to having kids due to health issues.
I don’t know anyone else where both partners work part time. I definitely don’t know of any couples where the man went to part time work because his wife started working.

[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.

I’ve never been a federal employee, but I’ve been a state employee and I know your type. I had coworkers who showed up at 9 and were packed up and out the door at 5, never mind if the work was done or not. The overflow from their choice to ‘work’ 9-5 fell on those of us who understood our salary and generous benefits package came with an expectation that we would work beyond 40 hours when it was necessary and to get things done well, it was often necessary.

We all know your type. You sure aren’t chomping at the bit to leave so you can go home and pitch in to help your wife with housework and childcare.

[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 would not go back in time where women were seen as men's property. Why is it all or nothing...work a million hours and dont see you kids or only stay at home?

Why don't you ask the dads of they felt guilty missing their kids growing up?

[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.

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.

I’ve never been a federal employee, but I’ve been a state employee and I know your type. I had coworkers who showed up at 9 and were packed up and out the door at 5, never mind if the work was done or not. The overflow from their choice to ‘work’ 9-5 fell on those of us who understood our salary and generous benefits package came with an expectation that we would work beyond 40 hours when it was necessary and to get things done well, it was often necessary.

We all know your type. You sure aren’t chomping at the bit to leave so you can go home and pitch in to help your wife with housework and childcare.

DP.
I’m with you, pp. I always think about this when people say they go to every sports practice, volunteer at the school, are able to rush out and get kids at school at any time, and are there to get the kids at the bus every day.

It sounds to me like they are putting a lot on their co-workers.

[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.

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.

I’ve never been a federal employee, but I’ve been a state employee and I know your type. I had coworkers who showed up at 9 and were packed up and out the door at 5, never mind if the work was done or not. The overflow from their choice to ‘work’ 9-5 fell on those of us who understood our salary and generous benefits package came with an expectation that we would work beyond 40 hours when it was necessary and to get things done well, it was often necessary.

We all know your type. You sure aren’t chomping at the bit to leave so you can go home and pitch in to help your wife with housework and childcare.

There was a guy like this in my psychiatry residency. He got us kicked out of internal medicine at the VA.
I saw him on Tucker Carlson pushing Ivermectin for Covid-19 a couple of years ago.

[Anonymous]

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

I would not go back in time where women were seen as men's property. Why is it all or nothing...work a million hours and dont see you kids or only stay at home?

Why don't you ask the dads of they felt guilty missing their kids growing up?

Dad’s do feel guilty, but more in retrospect than in the moment. Or that’s what Harry Chapin told me anyway.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

My sister and her husband both work ~80%, but he started working less prior to having kids due to health issues.
I don’t know anyone else where both partners work part time. I definitely don’t know of any couples where the man went to part time work because his wife started working.

Inventions and computers have made life much less work. Women worked a lot harder in generations past even if they didn't get paid.

[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

I would not go back in time where women were seen as men's property. Why is it all or nothing...work a million hours and dont see you kids or only stay at home?

Why don't you ask the dads of they felt guilty missing their kids growing up?

Dad’s do feel guilty, but more in retrospect than in the moment. Or that’s what Harry Chapin told me anyway.

This is an interesting take though. That really more jobs should be done around the home rather than overseas or in an office.

[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.

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.

Stop. There is no societal expectation for women to step back, or stay at home, or be the primary caregiver. Staying home, stepping back, daycare, nanny - this is a personal decision for each individual family. If your husband EXPECTS you to step back that is a personal issue that you need to work out between the two of you (and ideally you should have been on the same page before voluntarily procreating).

I haven't stepped back so go and bark at somebody else. The reason why I said this is because of all the women in this thread who speak as if men didn't have any obligations towards their kids

[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.

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.

Stop. There is no societal expectation for women to step back, or stay at home, or be the primary caregiver. Staying home, stepping back, daycare, nanny - this is a personal decision for each individual family. If your husband EXPECTS you to step back that is a personal issue that you need to work out between the two of you (and ideally you should have been on the same page before voluntarily procreating).

I think that you are in some kind of super special bubble where women aren’t expected to step back.
Statistically, women’s income goes down significantly after having kids (because they step back). And, unlike men, it goes up again later in their lives (because they step back up).

I have heard this mentioned on job interviews (well, hiring a mom isn’t the same as hiring a dad), by my coworkers, sitting on volunteer boards for foster placement, etc.

This is absolutely a societal expectation and not something that is an INDIVIDUAL decision.

Your data on income does not indicate whether women step back because they are expected to or because they choose to. You are projecting your own biases onto the data.

But even if we agreed that it is an “expectation” , it is NOT a requirement. There is a crucial difference. If you don’t want to step back, grow a backbone and keep on leaning in or whatever. No one is going to force any woman to stay home, so everyone should probably stop pretending that other women’s choices are any of their business.

[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.

It's amazing that you are so insightful about people you don't even know!