If women could go back in time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would they still fight for workforce accessibility/equality or accept that stay at home mom is better than working a full time job and not seeing their kids grow up? Did it provide the happiness it promised?

Saw this question being asked and I know what I would choose

I think about this all the time. I think if you have a good marriage and husband, assuming that one job is enough to live a nice life, the 50s way seems easier. But that's a lot of ifs.

Just remember many if not most mommies were bored to tears and drugged with valium a/k/a "Mama's little helper." Be a little careful romanticizing it.

That said, it's true that a widespread two-parent workforce did help catalyze the affordability crisis with housing, I think.

DP but what on Earth is your source for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most fathers are indeed part time fathers in practical sense.

Yeah. I have been told this during job interviews.
“You can be a father and do this job, but do you really think you can do it as a mother?”

I don’t know what to say about this except that it’s kind of true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birth control resources, from education to pills to abortion, all should be easily and freely available to every woman. No woman should ever be forced to keep a baby she doesn't want.

I agree in some respects. I also feel like before all of this was available, men were forced to take more responsibility. Now that it’s a woman’s choice to have children, men don’t feel responsible, society at large isn’t responsible, and no one is responsible for caring for and raising a child but the woman herself.

I am against the pro-life movement. It’s obviously about gaining political power and controlling women. But I wonder if reproductive freedom has actually been good for women, particularly women in the workforce.

When my male colleague was injured while he was skiing and had to take three months off, everyone was understanding and sympathetic about his accident. When I went to take three months off for maternity leave, people were angry that I had made a decision to have a child at that particular time, and I was asked to do a lot of the less desirable work ahead of time, during my last couple of months of pregnancy.
When my colleague had tens of thousands in bills following his accident, they were mostly paid by health insurance and then they worked out a plan for him to pay off the rest. I had to come up with tens of thousands for childcare out of pocket.

Obviously, I did plan for this because I exist in the same world everyone else does. But I wonder how it might have been different if pregnancy was viewed as a natural event that occurs rather than a specific (and somewhat inconsiderate) choice.

Unfortunately I don't think it's just about pregnancy/maternity leave. I have definitely seen women and men treated differently regarding leave for other things (where both were choices) even in organizations that had large numbers of female staff (although still headed by a man). I remember one male colleague being given a 3-month unpaid leave of absence to do an international bike trip (not a professional race or anything - just a "fun" trip), but a female colleague denied an unpaid 3-month leave of absence to run for city council. Both had been with the organization for at least the same time (she might have been there longer) and were in good standing.

I think the real issue is that men's (personal) time is still valued more than women's. It's that same thing where schools will call the Mom and not the Dad even though the Dad may be listed first and actually noted as the contact. Or if a Dad works an adjusted schedule so he can leave work every day at 3:00 pm to pick up his kid he's such a great Dad ! But if a woman tried that she'd be seen as a slacker and undependable worker and maybe not a good "fit" for the position.

[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

I think about this all the time. I think if you have a good marriage and husband, assuming that one job is enough to live a nice life, the 50s way seems easier. But that's a lot of ifs.

Just remember many if not most mommies were bored to tears and drugged with valium a/k/a "Mama's little helper." Be a little careful romanticizing it.

That said, it's true that a widespread two-parent workforce did help catalyze the affordability crisis with housing, I think.

DP but what on Earth is your source for this?

DP.
The Rolling Stones! What else?

[Anonymous]

Yes, I would. I was bored out of my mind at home. I want the freedom to choose rather than society choosing for me based on my sexual organs.

[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

It's a personal choice.

If you are going back in time, you also need to consider not taking up a valuable selective college seat, for someone who might need that seat and degree to advance themselves...working, earning money, providing for a family (thinking of single parents for example).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Now you have the choice - which was the power we gained. No, I don’t think we should give that up.

It’s a choice in theory, for women who marry high earning men that support them staying home. That’s a very small portion of men, and most women have to work whether they want to or not.

+1 most women have to work and raise kids. It sucks.

No one works and raises kids, someone else does. It can be family or hired help but its always someone who is physically doing it.

Balancing work and kids is hard, even if they are in school/daycare. You have to take care of all family and household things between 5-10pm, after a workday, and also try to fit in leisure time somewhere. It’s different than being able to take care of things in the middle of the day so that everyone can enjoy their free time on evenings and weekends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A good number of parents don't see their kids from 7-7, its not full time parenting, no matter how you define it.

Full-time parenting as the standard is a myth. In the past, when people stayed in their home towns or lived in multi-generational homes with grandparents and extended family, different family members and neighbors were contributing to childcare. And let's be honest, past the toddler years kids were not hanging out with their parents they were out in the neighborhood with other kids running around until it was time to come home for dinner.

And, with so many kids, another thing that was also happening was the adultification of the oldest daughter(s). My boomer mother, who was the oldest child was typically taking care of her four younger siblings and the house (laundry, cooking, cleaning) from a young age - and my grandmother/her mother didn't work.

[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

It's a personal choice.

If you are going back in time, you also need to consider not taking up a valuable selective college seat, for someone who might need that seat and degree to advance themselves...working, earning money, providing for a family (thinking of single parents for example).

This. If you truly believe women should be SAHMs then why go to college? I guess to catch a high-earning husband who would allow that.

[Anonymous]

If men could go back in time, what would they want regarding women’s rights, equality of opportunity, and family structure?

[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

What kind of planet do you live on?

I have a full-time job, always have. I've definitely seen my kids grow up. You sound dim.

Agree and agree.

I talk with my children for 45 minutes every the morning until they walk to school, and then again 5:30-9pm+ depending on who has a practice or game or is home.

I like to rotate attending to one practice a week for each of our two kids, in order to talk w the other parents, coaches and see if my kid is progressing.

I rarely need to work on weekends, so that’s fun or just or nice downtown. Maybe a flight sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Now you have the choice - which was the power we gained. No, I don’t think we should give that up.

It’s a choice in theory, for women who marry high earning men that support them staying home. That’s a very small portion of men, and most women have to work whether they want to or not.

Most women had to work whether they wanted or not even "before". Only a few lucky (white) ones didn't. My grandmother did people's laundry to make ends meet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If working moms are indeed raising kids then why childcare industry is worth trillions and why millions work in childcare?

There is no shame in admitting that some women prefer or have to raise children and others don't. If fathers fan have options, why can't mothers?

Childcare industry is for kids age 0-4 or 5.

Then it’s the aftercare and sitter industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A good number of parents don't see their kids from 7-7, its not full time parenting, no matter how you define it.

That’s either a:
High income, mid level, long hours parent with krappy clients;

Low income, long commute or two jobs parent;

Kid is in high school and gone from 7:15am first been through his/her practices and games and homework time.

Either way you and your spouse shift things around so one of you is home more with the kid is home after 8-5 school or after care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most fathers are indeed part time fathers in practical sense.

Yeah. I have been told this during job interviews.
“You can be a father and do this job, but do you really think you can do it as a mother?”

I don’t know what to say about this except that it’s kind of true.

Ask your husband.

Or will that just inflate their egos about how important they are at work that they can’t do anything much on the homefront ever. Lol