If women could go back in time

[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.

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.

I do all those things. I also used to be a GS15. I've always worked hard, but I'm smart about it. I get up early in the morning, I focus when I'm at work, and I prioritize how I spend my time. I'd be happy to let you interview my former and current co-workers. Guaranteed they'd mention that I'm actually the one who helps them out when they need. As they say, when you need something done, ask the busy person.

[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.

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.

I do all those things. I also used to be a GS15. I've always worked hard, but I'm smart about it. I get up early in the morning, I focus when I'm at work, and I prioritize how I spend my time. I'd be happy to let you interview my former and current co-workers. Guaranteed they'd mention that I'm actually the one who helps them out when they need. As they say, when you need something done, ask the busy person.

100% this. I'm 30 years into my job and my boss is amazed at how much (and how well!) I get things done in 1/4 of the time it takes other employees. I've always been that way. I got my best friend a job out of grad school and her BF wanted to know why she had to do so much involuntary overtime just to keep her head a float and I was always out the door. My production and quality was always the highest. I read quick, analyze quick, cut out the BS and can say in 2 pages what it takes another employee to get to in 20 (my boss said that.

My sons are the same in HS. They have straight As at a tough private school, 5s on their APs, etc. and they play competitive sports, socialize and get their work/study done quickly. They don't stress and struggle. I'm on my younger one's case some times because I think he isn't studying or he's procrastinating--but that kid pulls it out fast. His memorization skills are amazing and like me--he wants to get to the fun stuff so he isn't up in his room pissing away all his time looking at SM when he should be getting HW done to get onto practice.

I am also the employee people come to when they need help and the one my boss says ...go ask X to help you organize/prioritize.

[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?

Pretty sure PP was referring to this one: https://www.amazon.com/Pioneer-Girl-Laura-Ingalls-Wilder/dp/0984504176/ref=asc_df_0984504176&mcid=7addebe22eb7342e942d85584e9bbaf3?tag=bngsmtphsnus-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80264466333875&hvnetw=s&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=m&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583863993019658&psc=1

It’s a very interesting read. And related to OP’s question, I’m pretty sure Rose Wilder was pro mothers having the option of working outside the home.

[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: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.

Nope, never saw that Nature excuse used here or IRL. The guy is an a-hole and also ignorant (ungrateful) and delusional (thinks he’s great).

[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 kind of question is incredibly dishonest. If dad works to support the mom, does it mean he doesn't see his kids grow up? What about SAHMs of children aged 5+? Do they also miss out on their children growth since a kid that age goes to school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate such stupid questions.

Not all women are mothers. Not all mothers want to stay home. Those mothers that do want to stay home, still can.

And need I remind everyone, that under today’s insanity, not all mother’s are women?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women need to work as much as men need it.

If I did not work, I would probably be on my way to divorcing DH. I would have interpreted some of our problems very differently. Most women I know agree with this.

Men really are from Mars, and so much that they do is interpreted differently by SAHMs as a power play. When you work and have a similar earning potential or better, you see the gender differences in a different light.

What do you mean? How so?

[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.

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.

I do all those things. I also used to be a GS15. I've always worked hard, but I'm smart about it. I get up early in the morning, I focus when I'm at work, and I prioritize how I spend my time. I'd be happy to let you interview my former and current co-workers. Guaranteed they'd mention that I'm actually the one who helps them out when they need. As they say, when you need something done, ask the busy person.

same private sector. I don't go out for lunch 60-90 mins daily like some people so yeah, I leave at 5pm. My working breakfasts and lunches are productive when I do them. Prefer the 8 or 8:30am breakfasts.