Millennial women are saying no thanks to parenthood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

I know so many really solid, great marriages (involving great men) between people who met in their 30s. Including plenty where the woman has been able to SAHM or go PT (including me -- I SAHMed for 2 years and have been PT since).

All of the divorced I know involve people who married in their 20s. Granted, I'm sure that will change with time and more of the people who got married later will divorce. But I know a lot of divorce between people who married in their 20s. Especially early 20s. And the stats bear this out -- divorce rates are lowest for people who marry between 25 and 32. And the rate of divorce for people who marry after 25 is 50% lower than people who marry before.

Early marriage is actually quite risky.

The people I know who were married between 25 and 32 met when they were in college, grad school or at their first jobs. They found their spouse early but did not necessarily marry them until later, choosing to live together for a few years before getting married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird how angry it seems to make some people when a woman chooses not to have children. Maybe she wanted to but didn’t find the right guy (or didn’t find the right guy in time)? Maybe she wanted to but was afraid of burdening her theoretical offspring with heritable mental or physical illnesses? Maybe she hates kids? Maybe she lives kids but thinks she’d be a terrible mother?

Women aren’t choosing not to have kids AT YOU. This thread is bonkers.

On any individual level, you are right. But on a social/generational level, it is all our business. Because people with no family and kids will be more reliant on society and our tax dollars. Maybe it's because I come from a society with a strong emphasis on family. The expectation is that family takes care of each other. We don't rely on government help or policy. That attitude makes us, as a family unit, more resilient to the ups and downs of modern life and economic surprises. So yeah, when I see people freely choose to shun family (cutting off "toxic" family or not having kids when they can), I think it's selfish. And then when I hear all the people protesting for more government handouts and welfare, I get pretty annoyed. We are responsible for our own success and security in this life and family is the number one factor in obtaining that security.

Again, caveat about individual circumstances. But i think it's clear as a whole people are becoming more selfish and focusing more on themselves.

People are behaving rationally. We live in a late capitalism where basic living is very expensive, housing and education expenses are though the rough and wages are stagnant. Wealth is horded at the top. Covid really exposed to me that there is almost no social safety net. No one is going to give a shit about my kids but me and mine. I did not feel resilient during covid. I felt very isolated having two young children at home and almost no resources and still being expected to work like I didn't have children.

I don't blame younger people for deciding they don't want to bring children into this world. That if our society is selfish the most rational choice is to be selfish too.

But my whole point was that family is your safety net. Yes kids are a pain but they grow up to be adults, who hopefully will at least offer emotional support. When I am old and there is covid 100.0, I would rather have kids around to depend on (even if to just talk to), than to be alone. In my mind, the more I am on my own and feel like no one cares a crap about me, the more I want to make sure I have family. I guess we just think differently.

My friends are in their 50's / 60's and women friends are way more "helpful" and supportive than children or even husbands. After many having illnesses it's the community you create that is where you get emotional support.

Kids are off to college, living elsewhere, working hard, little leave, raising their own children, etc.

It's not kids.... maybe a sister but never kids.

Those women in their 50s/60s have raised families, which might make them more likely to value caregiving and community when the nest is empty. I wonder if women who have only ever had to look out for themselves would be as reliable for emotional support.

My friends with no children are equally as helpful. I find the most useless are SAHM's who are like, just because I don't work doesn't mean I'm gonna help when you are home/need help/etc. My working friends with and without kids are the most helpful.

Then when SAHM's need help, I've found they lean mostly on their H, who is generally not helpful and they wonder why they are not getting help, but they have spent less time building the community.

Well, since you sneer and look down on SAHMs with disdain, no wonder they have no interest in helping you.

+1. I don't know any of these unhelpful DHs of SAHMs, btw. The SAHMs I know have plenty of help.

Great, I'm glad he can take off 3 x a week to get her to appointments when she is sick. You go boy.

Sorry your DH doesn't prioritize you after all these years. Sad.

It’s not sad because I have a huge community.

Sorry your H is your only support system make sure he takes an aspirin daily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird how angry it seems to make some people when a woman chooses not to have children. Maybe she wanted to but didn’t find the right guy (or didn’t find the right guy in time)? Maybe she wanted to but was afraid of burdening her theoretical offspring with heritable mental or physical illnesses? Maybe she hates kids? Maybe she lives kids but thinks she’d be a terrible mother?

Women aren’t choosing not to have kids AT YOU. This thread is bonkers.

On any individual level, you are right. But on a social/generational level, it is all our business. Because people with no family and kids will be more reliant on society and our tax dollars. Maybe it's because I come from a society with a strong emphasis on family. The expectation is that family takes care of each other. We don't rely on government help or policy. That attitude makes us, as a family unit, more resilient to the ups and downs of modern life and economic surprises. So yeah, when I see people freely choose to shun family (cutting off "toxic" family or not having kids when they can), I think it's selfish. And then when I hear all the people protesting for more government handouts and welfare, I get pretty annoyed. We are responsible for our own success and security in this life and family is the number one factor in obtaining that security.

Again, caveat about individual circumstances. But i think it's clear as a whole people are becoming more selfish and focusing more on themselves.

People are behaving rationally. We live in a late capitalism where basic living is very expensive, housing and education expenses are though the rough and wages are stagnant. Wealth is horded at the top. Covid really exposed to me that there is almost no social safety net. No one is going to give a shit about my kids but me and mine. I did not feel resilient during covid. I felt very isolated having two young children at home and almost no resources and still being expected to work like I didn't have children.

I don't blame younger people for deciding they don't want to bring children into this world. That if our society is selfish the most rational choice is to be selfish too.

But my whole point was that family is your safety net. Yes kids are a pain but they grow up to be adults, who hopefully will at least offer emotional support. When I am old and there is covid 100.0, I would rather have kids around to depend on (even if to just talk to), than to be alone. In my mind, the more I am on my own and feel like no one cares a crap about me, the more I want to make sure I have family. I guess we just think differently.

My friends are in their 50's / 60's and women friends are way more "helpful" and supportive than children or even husbands. After many having illnesses it's the community you create that is where you get emotional support.

Kids are off to college, living elsewhere, working hard, little leave, raising their own children, etc.

It's not kids.... maybe a sister but never kids.

Those women in their 50s/60s have raised families, which might make them more likely to value caregiving and community when the nest is empty. I wonder if women who have only ever had to look out for themselves would be as reliable for emotional support.

My friends with no children are equally as helpful. I find the most useless are SAHM's who are like, just because I don't work doesn't mean I'm gonna help when you are home/need help/etc. My working friends with and without kids are the most helpful.

Then when SAHM's need help, I've found they lean mostly on their H, who is generally not helpful and they wonder why they are not getting help, but they have spent less time building the community.

Well, since you sneer and look down on SAHMs with disdain, no wonder they have no interest in helping you.

+1. I don't know any of these unhelpful DHs of SAHMs, btw. The SAHMs I know have plenty of help.

I actually don't look down on SAHM's. I get it they think they will be "used" because they are at home and they think we think they are not doing anything. But it's not the case. We were very committed to helping each other, but they had their stuff covered so they felt, they would be used. Their stuff was covered until it wasn't. Everybody makes decision and those decisions are their own. It's not really a big deal.

Every year there is a thread here on DCUM, I'm a stay at home mom and NO I don't want to carpool, or pick your kids up during a snow storm, or have them come home after school instead of aftercare, and <fill in the blank> and I am all for you doing what works for you. Everybody cheers them on ... yea f that, your not their babysitter.

Meanwhile, yes I will pick up your kid, this is my work at home day, yes we can do a playdate if you are working late, yes I can watch your kids after your dad's stroke, yes they can lay on my couch sick on my work at home day, yes I can carpool and yes I now need help getting to my chemo appointments and guess what, I have help.

You're getting all your information about SAHM mom here? You don't know any in real life, do you?

Exactly right. Her spouse is clearly MIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird how angry it seems to make some people when a woman chooses not to have children. Maybe she wanted to but didn’t find the right guy (or didn’t find the right guy in time)? Maybe she wanted to but was afraid of burdening her theoretical offspring with heritable mental or physical illnesses? Maybe she hates kids? Maybe she lives kids but thinks she’d be a terrible mother?

Women aren’t choosing not to have kids AT YOU. This thread is bonkers.

On any individual level, you are right. But on a social/generational level, it is all our business. Because people with no family and kids will be more reliant on society and our tax dollars. Maybe it's because I come from a society with a strong emphasis on family. The expectation is that family takes care of each other. We don't rely on government help or policy. That attitude makes us, as a family unit, more resilient to the ups and downs of modern life and economic surprises. So yeah, when I see people freely choose to shun family (cutting off "toxic" family or not having kids when they can), I think it's selfish. And then when I hear all the people protesting for more government handouts and welfare, I get pretty annoyed. We are responsible for our own success and security in this life and family is the number one factor in obtaining that security.

Again, caveat about individual circumstances. But i think it's clear as a whole people are becoming more selfish and focusing more on themselves.

People are behaving rationally. We live in a late capitalism where basic living is very expensive, housing and education expenses are though the rough and wages are stagnant. Wealth is horded at the top. Covid really exposed to me that there is almost no social safety net. No one is going to give a shit about my kids but me and mine. I did not feel resilient during covid. I felt very isolated having two young children at home and almost no resources and still being expected to work like I didn't have children.

I don't blame younger people for deciding they don't want to bring children into this world. That if our society is selfish the most rational choice is to be selfish too.

But my whole point was that family is your safety net. Yes kids are a pain but they grow up to be adults, who hopefully will at least offer emotional support. When I am old and there is covid 100.0, I would rather have kids around to depend on (even if to just talk to), than to be alone. In my mind, the more I am on my own and feel like no one cares a crap about me, the more I want to make sure I have family. I guess we just think differently.

My friends are in their 50's / 60's and women friends are way more "helpful" and supportive than children or even husbands. After many having illnesses it's the community you create that is where you get emotional support.

Kids are off to college, living elsewhere, working hard, little leave, raising their own children, etc.

It's not kids.... maybe a sister but never kids.

Those women in their 50s/60s have raised families, which might make them more likely to value caregiving and community when the nest is empty. I wonder if women who have only ever had to look out for themselves would be as reliable for emotional support.

My friends with no children are equally as helpful. I find the most useless are SAHM's who are like, just because I don't work doesn't mean I'm gonna help when you are home/need help/etc. My working friends with and without kids are the most helpful.

Then when SAHM's need help, I've found they lean mostly on their H, who is generally not helpful and they wonder why they are not getting help, but they have spent less time building the community.

Well, since you sneer and look down on SAHMs with disdain, no wonder they have no interest in helping you.

+1. I don't know any of these unhelpful DHs of SAHMs, btw. The SAHMs I know have plenty of help.

I actually don't look down on SAHM's. I get it they think they will be "used" because they are at home and they think we think they are not doing anything. But it's not the case. We were very committed to helping each other, but they had their stuff covered so they felt, they would be used. Their stuff was covered until it wasn't. Everybody makes decision and those decisions are their own. It's not really a big deal.

Every year there is a thread here on DCUM, I'm a stay at home mom and NO I don't want to carpool, or pick your kids up during a snow storm, or have them come home after school instead of aftercare, and <fill in the blank> and I am all for you doing what works for you. Everybody cheers them on ... yea f that, your not their babysitter.

Meanwhile, yes I will pick up your kid, this is my work at home day, yes we can do a playdate if you are working late, yes I can watch your kids after your dad's stroke, yes they can lay on my couch sick on my work at home day, yes I can carpool and yes I now need help getting to my chemo appointments and guess what, I have help.

You're getting all your information about SAHM mom here? You don't know any in real life, do you?

Of course I do it just seems your insight is myopic and I thought I’d give you a few more data points.

[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:It’s weird how angry it seems to make some people when a woman chooses not to have children. Maybe she wanted to but didn’t find the right guy (or didn’t find the right guy in time)? Maybe she wanted to but was afraid of burdening her theoretical offspring with heritable mental or physical illnesses? Maybe she hates kids? Maybe she lives kids but thinks she’d be a terrible mother?

Women aren’t choosing not to have kids AT YOU. This thread is bonkers.

On any individual level, you are right. But on a social/generational level, it is all our business. Because people with no family and kids will be more reliant on society and our tax dollars. Maybe it's because I come from a society with a strong emphasis on family. The expectation is that family takes care of each other. We don't rely on government help or policy. That attitude makes us, as a family unit, more resilient to the ups and downs of modern life and economic surprises. So yeah, when I see people freely choose to shun family (cutting off "toxic" family or not having kids when they can), I think it's selfish. And then when I hear all the people protesting for more government handouts and welfare, I get pretty annoyed. We are responsible for our own success and security in this life and family is the number one factor in obtaining that security.

Again, caveat about individual circumstances. But i think it's clear as a whole people are becoming more selfish and focusing more on themselves.

People are behaving rationally. We live in a late capitalism where basic living is very expensive, housing and education expenses are though the rough and wages are stagnant. Wealth is horded at the top. Covid really exposed to me that there is almost no social safety net. No one is going to give a shit about my kids but me and mine. I did not feel resilient during covid. I felt very isolated having two young children at home and almost no resources and still being expected to work like I didn't have children.

I don't blame younger people for deciding they don't want to bring children into this world. That if our society is selfish the most rational choice is to be selfish too.

But my whole point was that family is your safety net. Yes kids are a pain but they grow up to be adults, who hopefully will at least offer emotional support. When I am old and there is covid 100.0, I would rather have kids around to depend on (even if to just talk to), than to be alone. In my mind, the more I am on my own and feel like no one cares a crap about me, the more I want to make sure I have family. I guess we just think differently.

My friends are in their 50's / 60's and women friends are way more "helpful" and supportive than children or even husbands. After many having illnesses it's the community you create that is where you get emotional support.

Kids are off to college, living elsewhere, working hard, little leave, raising their own children, etc.

It's not kids.... maybe a sister but never kids.

Those women in their 50s/60s have raised families, which might make them more likely to value caregiving and community when the nest is empty. I wonder if women who have only ever had to look out for themselves would be as reliable for emotional support.

My friends with no children are equally as helpful. I find the most useless are SAHM's who are like, just because I don't work doesn't mean I'm gonna help when you are home/need help/etc. My working friends with and without kids are the most helpful.

Then when SAHM's need help, I've found they lean mostly on their H, who is generally not helpful and they wonder why they are not getting help, but they have spent less time building the community.

Well, since you sneer and look down on SAHMs with disdain, no wonder they have no interest in helping you.

+1. I don't know any of these unhelpful DHs of SAHMs, btw. The SAHMs I know have plenty of help.

I actually don't look down on SAHM's. I get it they think they will be "used" because they are at home and they think we think they are not doing anything. But it's not the case. We were very committed to helping each other, but they had their stuff covered so they felt, they would be used. Their stuff was covered until it wasn't. Everybody makes decision and those decisions are their own. It's not really a big deal.

Every year there is a thread here on DCUM, I'm a stay at home mom and NO I don't want to carpool, or pick your kids up during a snow storm, or have them come home after school instead of aftercare, and <fill in the blank> and I am all for you doing what works for you. Everybody cheers them on ... yea f that, your not their babysitter.

Meanwhile, yes I will pick up your kid, this is my work at home day, yes we can do a playdate if you are working late, yes I can watch your kids after your dad's stroke, yes they can lay on my couch sick on my work at home day, yes I can carpool and yes I now need help getting to my chemo appointments and guess what, I have help.

You're getting all your information about SAHM mom here? You don't know any in real life, do you?

Exactly right. Her spouse is clearly MIA.

Neither MIA nor expected to do it all.

[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:It’s weird how angry it seems to make some people when a woman chooses not to have children. Maybe she wanted to but didn’t find the right guy (or didn’t find the right guy in time)? Maybe she wanted to but was afraid of burdening her theoretical offspring with heritable mental or physical illnesses? Maybe she hates kids? Maybe she lives kids but thinks she’d be a terrible mother?

Women aren’t choosing not to have kids AT YOU. This thread is bonkers.

On any individual level, you are right. But on a social/generational level, it is all our business. Because people with no family and kids will be more reliant on society and our tax dollars. Maybe it's because I come from a society with a strong emphasis on family. The expectation is that family takes care of each other. We don't rely on government help or policy. That attitude makes us, as a family unit, more resilient to the ups and downs of modern life and economic surprises. So yeah, when I see people freely choose to shun family (cutting off "toxic" family or not having kids when they can), I think it's selfish. And then when I hear all the people protesting for more government handouts and welfare, I get pretty annoyed. We are responsible for our own success and security in this life and family is the number one factor in obtaining that security.

Again, caveat about individual circumstances. But i think it's clear as a whole people are becoming more selfish and focusing more on themselves.

People are behaving rationally. We live in a late capitalism where basic living is very expensive, housing and education expenses are though the rough and wages are stagnant. Wealth is horded at the top. Covid really exposed to me that there is almost no social safety net. No one is going to give a shit about my kids but me and mine. I did not feel resilient during covid. I felt very isolated having two young children at home and almost no resources and still being expected to work like I didn't have children.

I don't blame younger people for deciding they don't want to bring children into this world. That if our society is selfish the most rational choice is to be selfish too.

But my whole point was that family is your safety net. Yes kids are a pain but they grow up to be adults, who hopefully will at least offer emotional support. When I am old and there is covid 100.0, I would rather have kids around to depend on (even if to just talk to), than to be alone. In my mind, the more I am on my own and feel like no one cares a crap about me, the more I want to make sure I have family. I guess we just think differently.

My friends are in their 50's / 60's and women friends are way more "helpful" and supportive than children or even husbands. After many having illnesses it's the community you create that is where you get emotional support.

Kids are off to college, living elsewhere, working hard, little leave, raising their own children, etc.

It's not kids.... maybe a sister but never kids.

Those women in their 50s/60s have raised families, which might make them more likely to value caregiving and community when the nest is empty. I wonder if women who have only ever had to look out for themselves would be as reliable for emotional support.

My friends with no children are equally as helpful. I find the most useless are SAHM's who are like, just because I don't work doesn't mean I'm gonna help when you are home/need help/etc. My working friends with and without kids are the most helpful.

Then when SAHM's need help, I've found they lean mostly on their H, who is generally not helpful and they wonder why they are not getting help, but they have spent less time building the community.

Well, since you sneer and look down on SAHMs with disdain, no wonder they have no interest in helping you.

+1. I don't know any of these unhelpful DHs of SAHMs, btw. The SAHMs I know have plenty of help.

Great, I'm glad he can take off 3 x a week to get her to appointments when she is sick. You go boy.

Sorry your DH doesn't prioritize you after all these years. Sad.

It’s not sad because I have a huge community.

Sorry your H is your only support system make sure he takes an aspirin daily.

I'm sad for you to have such a poor partner. So much for the "in sickness and in health" vow, huh?

[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:It’s weird how angry it seems to make some people when a woman chooses not to have children. Maybe she wanted to but didn’t find the right guy (or didn’t find the right guy in time)? Maybe she wanted to but was afraid of burdening her theoretical offspring with heritable mental or physical illnesses? Maybe she hates kids? Maybe she lives kids but thinks she’d be a terrible mother?

Women aren’t choosing not to have kids AT YOU. This thread is bonkers.

On any individual level, you are right. But on a social/generational level, it is all our business. Because people with no family and kids will be more reliant on society and our tax dollars. Maybe it's because I come from a society with a strong emphasis on family. The expectation is that family takes care of each other. We don't rely on government help or policy. That attitude makes us, as a family unit, more resilient to the ups and downs of modern life and economic surprises. So yeah, when I see people freely choose to shun family (cutting off "toxic" family or not having kids when they can), I think it's selfish. And then when I hear all the people protesting for more government handouts and welfare, I get pretty annoyed. We are responsible for our own success and security in this life and family is the number one factor in obtaining that security.

Again, caveat about individual circumstances. But i think it's clear as a whole people are becoming more selfish and focusing more on themselves.

People are behaving rationally. We live in a late capitalism where basic living is very expensive, housing and education expenses are though the rough and wages are stagnant. Wealth is horded at the top. Covid really exposed to me that there is almost no social safety net. No one is going to give a shit about my kids but me and mine. I did not feel resilient during covid. I felt very isolated having two young children at home and almost no resources and still being expected to work like I didn't have children.

I don't blame younger people for deciding they don't want to bring children into this world. That if our society is selfish the most rational choice is to be selfish too.

But my whole point was that family is your safety net. Yes kids are a pain but they grow up to be adults, who hopefully will at least offer emotional support. When I am old and there is covid 100.0, I would rather have kids around to depend on (even if to just talk to), than to be alone. In my mind, the more I am on my own and feel like no one cares a crap about me, the more I want to make sure I have family. I guess we just think differently.

My friends are in their 50's / 60's and women friends are way more "helpful" and supportive than children or even husbands. After many having illnesses it's the community you create that is where you get emotional support.

Kids are off to college, living elsewhere, working hard, little leave, raising their own children, etc.

It's not kids.... maybe a sister but never kids.

Those women in their 50s/60s have raised families, which might make them more likely to value caregiving and community when the nest is empty. I wonder if women who have only ever had to look out for themselves would be as reliable for emotional support.

My friends with no children are equally as helpful. I find the most useless are SAHM's who are like, just because I don't work doesn't mean I'm gonna help when you are home/need help/etc. My working friends with and without kids are the most helpful.

Then when SAHM's need help, I've found they lean mostly on their H, who is generally not helpful and they wonder why they are not getting help, but they have spent less time building the community.

Well, since you sneer and look down on SAHMs with disdain, no wonder they have no interest in helping you.

+1. I don't know any of these unhelpful DHs of SAHMs, btw. The SAHMs I know have plenty of help.

I actually don't look down on SAHM's. I get it they think they will be "used" because they are at home and they think we think they are not doing anything. But it's not the case. We were very committed to helping each other, but they had their stuff covered so they felt, they would be used. Their stuff was covered until it wasn't. Everybody makes decision and those decisions are their own. It's not really a big deal.

Every year there is a thread here on DCUM, I'm a stay at home mom and NO I don't want to carpool, or pick your kids up during a snow storm, or have them come home after school instead of aftercare, and <fill in the blank> and I am all for you doing what works for you. Everybody cheers them on ... yea f that, your not their babysitter.

Meanwhile, yes I will pick up your kid, this is my work at home day, yes we can do a playdate if you are working late, yes I can watch your kids after your dad's stroke, yes they can lay on my couch sick on my work at home day, yes I can carpool and yes I now need help getting to my chemo appointments and guess what, I have help.

You're getting all your information about SAHM mom here? You don't know any in real life, do you?

Exactly right. Her spouse is clearly MIA.

Neither MIA nor expected to do it all.

Yet strangely omitted from your posts until now. It's telling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

+1. Very few of these nice guys with potential are divorced now that we are all getting close to retirement age. These guys are totally committed to their marriages and children. Often their parents were excellent role models in that regard.

LOL. Waited til I was 30. Quite a few guys whose starter marriages didn’t work out became available. And the ones who figured out the first marriage failed because they were lazy and unhelpful vowed to do better this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

+1. Very few of these nice guys with potential are divorced now that we are all getting close to retirement age. These guys are totally committed to their marriages and children. Often their parents were excellent role models in that regard.

LOL. Waited til I was 30. Quite a few guys whose starter marriages didn’t work out became available. And the ones who figured out the first marriage failed because they were lazy and unhelpful vowed to do better this time.

Those were the losers. The ones that didn’t get divorced are the keepers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

+2

This is spot on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

+1. Very few of these nice guys with potential are divorced now that we are all getting close to retirement age. These guys are totally committed to their marriages and children. Often their parents were excellent role models in that regard.

LOL. Waited til I was 30. Quite a few guys whose starter marriages didn’t work out became available. And the ones who figured out the first marriage failed because they were lazy and unhelpful vowed to do better this time.

Those were the losers. The ones that didn’t get divorced are the keepers.

That’s a ridiculous statement.

I’ve worked in elder care for the last decade, mostly with hospice status patients. It’s interesting how much my patients will unburden themselves to me, they need someone to listen to their lifelong disappointments and don’t want to burden their kids or grandkids. All I can tell you is that there are many women (probably some men, but IME mostly women) who have been unhappily married for many decades and who lament that truth in the final years/months/days of their lives.

Just because an early marriage lasts 50, 60 or 70+ years doesn’t mean it was a successful or happy marriage. Some people make their own prisons and stay in them until death even though they have the power to set themselves free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

+1. Very few of these nice guys with potential are divorced now that we are all getting close to retirement age. These guys are totally committed to their marriages and children. Often their parents were excellent role models in that regard.

LOL. Waited til I was 30. Quite a few guys whose starter marriages didn’t work out became available. And the ones who figured out the first marriage failed because they were lazy and unhelpful vowed to do better this time.

Those were the losers. The ones that didn’t get divorced are the keepers.

That’s a ridiculous statement.

I’ve worked in elder care for the last decade, mostly with hospice status patients. It’s interesting how much my patients will unburden themselves to me, they need someone to listen to their lifelong disappointments and don’t want to burden their kids or grandkids. All I can tell you is that there are many women (probably some men, but IME mostly women) who have been unhappily married for many decades and who lament that truth in the final years/months/days of their lives.

Just because an early marriage lasts 50, 60 or 70+ years doesn’t mean it was a successful or happy marriage. Some people make their own prisons and stay in them until death even though they have the power to set themselves free.

No, it's not. We're talking about the good guys here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.



I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

+1. Very few of these nice guys with potential are divorced now that we are all getting close to retirement age. These guys are totally committed to their marriages and children. Often their parents were excellent role models in that regard.

LOL. Waited til I was 30. Quite a few guys whose starter marriages didn’t work out became available. And the ones who figured out the first marriage failed because they were lazy and unhelpful vowed to do better this time.

Those were the losers. The ones that didn’t get divorced are the keepers.

+1. I don’t know why this is a hard concept for so many women. If there’s anything I’ve learned on this forum it’s that people reaaaallly don’t marry well. I can’t believe it needs to be said but ladies, don’t marry a divorced guy with a “starter marriage.” 🙄

[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:It’s weird how angry it seems to make some people when a woman chooses not to have children. Maybe she wanted to but didn’t find the right guy (or didn’t find the right guy in time)? Maybe she wanted to but was afraid of burdening her theoretical offspring with heritable mental or physical illnesses? Maybe she hates kids? Maybe she lives kids but thinks she’d be a terrible mother?

Women aren’t choosing not to have kids AT YOU. This thread is bonkers.

On any individual level, you are right. But on a social/generational level, it is all our business. Because people with no family and kids will be more reliant on society and our tax dollars. Maybe it's because I come from a society with a strong emphasis on family. The expectation is that family takes care of each other. We don't rely on government help or policy. That attitude makes us, as a family unit, more resilient to the ups and downs of modern life and economic surprises. So yeah, when I see people freely choose to shun family (cutting off "toxic" family or not having kids when they can), I think it's selfish. And then when I hear all the people protesting for more government handouts and welfare, I get pretty annoyed. We are responsible for our own success and security in this life and family is the number one factor in obtaining that security.

Again, caveat about individual circumstances. But i think it's clear as a whole people are becoming more selfish and focusing more on themselves.

People are behaving rationally. We live in a late capitalism where basic living is very expensive, housing and education expenses are though the rough and wages are stagnant. Wealth is horded at the top. Covid really exposed to me that there is almost no social safety net. No one is going to give a shit about my kids but me and mine. I did not feel resilient during covid. I felt very isolated having two young children at home and almost no resources and still being expected to work like I didn't have children.

I don't blame younger people for deciding they don't want to bring children into this world. That if our society is selfish the most rational choice is to be selfish too.

But my whole point was that family is your safety net. Yes kids are a pain but they grow up to be adults, who hopefully will at least offer emotional support. When I am old and there is covid 100.0, I would rather have kids around to depend on (even if to just talk to), than to be alone. In my mind, the more I am on my own and feel like no one cares a crap about me, the more I want to make sure I have family. I guess we just think differently.

My friends are in their 50's / 60's and women friends are way more "helpful" and supportive than children or even husbands. After many having illnesses it's the community you create that is where you get emotional support.

Kids are off to college, living elsewhere, working hard, little leave, raising their own children, etc.

It's not kids.... maybe a sister but never kids.

Those women in their 50s/60s have raised families, which might make them more likely to value caregiving and community when the nest is empty. I wonder if women who have only ever had to look out for themselves would be as reliable for emotional support.

My friends with no children are equally as helpful. I find the most useless are SAHM's who are like, just because I don't work doesn't mean I'm gonna help when you are home/need help/etc. My working friends with and without kids are the most helpful.

Then when SAHM's need help, I've found they lean mostly on their H, who is generally not helpful and they wonder why they are not getting help, but they have spent less time building the community.

Well, since you sneer and look down on SAHMs with disdain, no wonder they have no interest in helping you.

+1. I don't know any of these unhelpful DHs of SAHMs, btw. The SAHMs I know have plenty of help.

Great, I'm glad he can take off 3 x a week to get her to appointments when she is sick. You go boy.

Sorry your DH doesn't prioritize you after all these years. Sad.

It’s not sad because I have a huge community.

Sorry your H is your only support system make sure he takes an aspirin daily.

I'm sad for you to have such a poor partner. So much for the "in sickness and in health" vow, huh?

Nope a great partner with a community to support him as well as my support system.

You two sound like you have no friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

+1. Very few of these nice guys with potential are divorced now that we are all getting close to retirement age. These guys are totally committed to their marriages and children. Often their parents were excellent role models in that regard.

LOL. Waited til I was 30. Quite a few guys whose starter marriages didn’t work out became available. And the ones who figured out the first marriage failed because they were lazy and unhelpful vowed to do better this time.

Those were the losers. The ones that didn’t get divorced are the keepers.

That’s a ridiculous statement.

I’ve worked in elder care for the last decade, mostly with hospice status patients. It’s interesting how much my patients will unburden themselves to me, they need someone to listen to their lifelong disappointments and don’t want to burden their kids or grandkids. All I can tell you is that there are many women (probably some men, but IME mostly women) who have been unhappily married for many decades and who lament that truth in the final years/months/days of their lives.

Just because an early marriage lasts 50, 60 or 70+ years doesn’t mean it was a successful or happy marriage. Some people make their own prisons and stay in them until death even though they have the power to set themselves free.

Amen!