Are you offended when someone says they “didnt want someone else to raise my kids”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if I "had" to work or "chose" to work. We could have made it on DH's income but he does not want me to stay home because he wants an UMC lifestyle instead of a MC one, which I would have been fine with.

It doesn’t sound like you had a choice. I would have told him to make more money if he wanted a certain lifestyle. If a mother really feels it’s important to be at home for her children then a middle class lifestyle would be fine. Probably better than fine because there would be more like minded mothers to meet and less materialistic people around you.

Yes, a woman’s place is in the home. If he wants more money it’s his job as a leader of the home and provider to go get it. I don’t understand why you stood for this and let him bully you into a job.

I get you’re being sarcastic but the reality is more women than men would prefer to stay home and women have babies. You can claim that it shouldn’t be this way, but the vast majority of women are uninterested in a man who can’t provide for them. It’s biology.

Guarantee you that the PP had a terrible sex life and is or was unhappy. There’s nothing that kills a sex life for a woman like a man who can’t provide and allow a woman to stay home to watch her own kids.

So why should women go to college or grad school? If a 15 year old girl who wanted to be a lawyer and also have a family came to you for advice, would you tell her what you really believe, that women should be at home with their kids and be provided for by their husbands?

Tons of lawyers practice law, stay home with kids, add then do something after, either law, writing, teach, nonprofit work, etc., etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

Pre kids I worked 10-12 hr days (so 50-60 hrs a week). There was no option for part time or a more flexible schedule in my field. If there had been that option, I would have continued working. I’d be fine w my kids being in daycare or with a nanny for 5-7 hrs a day but not for 10-12. So I quit my job to be a SAHM.

The problems are: 1) with so many jobs requiring so many hours and so little time off; 2) childcare being incredibly expensive. If the US prioritized families, women, children, there would be more high level jobs with flexible work schedules and the option for family-friendly part time hours and daycare would be much more affordable so more families could afford for both parents to continue working and send kids to daycare.

The way things are in reality is not set up to support families at all and it’s a hindrance to women’s advancement because many women, like myself, don’t have a choice to do both: work and have enough time with kids.

In many other countries SAHPs are practically unheard of because work schedules are more reasonable and workers get much more time off than we do in the US so SAHP isn’t really a thing because work-life balance is already good so more people keep working after having kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to every sahm on this thread (the new term for you is tradwives), congrats. You are fulfilling the vision of postliberal Christian nationalists like JD Vance and setting back women’s advancement. If you don’t care about equality with men then own that, and model to young girls that a woman belongs at home. But for those of who care about women’s rights, this anti-working woman trend discourse is troubling.

All you are doing with this post and this rhetoric is putting down other women for choosing to spend more time with their kids. Do you not see something anti-woman about that? I do.

you just proved her point with your passive aggressive comment.

What do you want me to say? It’s the truth. Sorry it hurts your feelings.

I don’t think anyone’s feelings are hurt, but you just can’t help being passive aggressive, can you? lol.

Regardless, it’s clear you don’t spend any time in the world of ideas, which is not surprising. Saying that the current pro-tradwives discourse is troubling for anyone who cares about women’s rights is not “anti-women”—it’s simply an observation of how system-level change is going to affect whether future women choose a career or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always think of women who need to stay home with kids as just not having spouse who can afford to get her at least some help

They will swarm to tell you all about their DH’s with seven-figure incomes 🤣

But in all seriousness, a man who lets his wife give up and SAH does so because he is checked out and not interested in being an equal partner or father, so wants to outsource the kids and house to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always hate the SAHM and WOHM debates because in my circles living in multiple places, I've had a good mix of friends. I've also been both a SAHM (7 years) and a WOHM (now divorced). For me the big debate is whether people are judgmental v nonjudgmental and if they can handle the fact that people are free to make choices that best suit their families.

Saying that someone isn't raising their kids because they have a job isn't true, and is rude to boot.

You are twisting the words. If someone said they stay home because they didn’t want someone else to raise their kids, that doesn’t mean a person with a job isn’t raising their kids. I can’t imagine a scenario where someone would so rudely say that to a working mother because it is rude to say. I say this as a sahm who used to be a working mom and will probably one day again be a working mom.

If you think about it, though, that is exactly what they are saying. Which is why it’s rude. People say rude and thoughtless things all the time. Like this.

DP: If you ask a rude question, you might not like the answer. What was going on in the conversation, what was asked that prompted a person to give this "rude" but honest answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow this is quite a fun thread I’ve discovered. I guess I would be called a (mostly) SAHD. We left the Foreign Service and came back stateside because we wanted our kids to grow up near family, and to grow up in the USA. The last thing I want to do is bring in a nanny from the sort of country where they wear shoes made out of potato peels. That’s the sort of child rearing we intended to avoid by coming back home.

I'm with you Dad! It's amazing to me how many people seem to think daycare workers or even nannies will bring the same level of love and attention to their child as a parent would. Obviously not 100% of parents are doing a better job than nannies but at least in my family and yours it's a huge factor in who spends most of our children's waking hours with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to every sahm on this thread (the new term for you is tradwives), congrats. You are fulfilling the vision of postliberal Christian nationalists like JD Vance and setting back women’s advancement. If you don’t care about equality with men then own that, and model to young girls that a woman belongs at home. But for those of who care about women’s rights, this anti-working woman trend discourse is troubling.

Do you honestly believe the only way to have equality with men is by working? You sound very narrow minded.

How do we achieve equality with men then? A PP above was saying that education was key to equality with men—so education is a way to have equal opportunities with men but working isn’t?

Women are not equal to men. Women cannot expect to have the same wages and same promotions if they don’t put in the same hours and work as men. This is almost impossible to do as the prime career development ages overlap with fertility and time of having young children. I’m not saying women cannot have careers or they should stay home. I think it was a huge disservice to girls in my generation to say we are equal.

Exactly. You are saying what the tradwives on this thread won’t admit. A woman’s place is her home, a way of life that tracks perfectly with the Christian nationalist agenda that is now on the rise.

I’m a SAHM and the furthest you can get from a tradwife, and not Christian or nationalist or conservative. I don’t think you’ll win many over by calling names like that.

I’m a SAHM and a feminist. There are many others like me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always think of women who need to stay home with kids as just not having spouse who can afford to get her at least some help

They will swarm to tell you all about their DH’s with seven-figure incomes 🤣

But in all seriousness, a man who lets his wife give up and SAH does so because he is checked out and not interested in being an equal partner or father, so wants to outsource the kids and house to her.

But if he outsources to a nanny he suddenly becomes an equal partner that is checked in?

Logic fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always think of women who need to stay home with kids as just not having spouse who can afford to get her at least some help

They will swarm to tell you all about their DH’s with seven-figure incomes 🤣

But in all seriousness, a man who lets his wife give up and SAH does so because he is checked out and not interested in being an equal partner or father, so wants to outsource the kids and house to her.

This is such a shallow and false statement. You clearly don't seem to know any families who have SAHPs.

SAH is not giving up, btw. The fact that you think that means you have nothing to add to the discussion (not that this thread can really be called a discussion).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to every sahm on this thread (the new term for you is tradwives), congrats. You are fulfilling the vision of postliberal Christian nationalists like JD Vance and setting back women’s advancement. If you don’t care about equality with men then own that, and model to young girls that a woman belongs at home. But for those of who care about women’s rights, this anti-working woman trend discourse is troubling.

All you are doing with this post and this rhetoric is putting down other women for choosing to spend more time with their kids. Do you not see something anti-woman about that? I do.

you just proved her point with your passive aggressive comment.

What do you want me to say? It’s the truth. Sorry it hurts your feelings.

I don’t think anyone’s feelings are hurt, but you just can’t help being passive aggressive, can you? lol.

Regardless, it’s clear you don’t spend any time in the world of ideas, which is not surprising. Saying that the current pro-tradwives discourse is troubling for anyone who cares about women’s rights is not “anti-women”—it’s simply an observation of how system-level change is going to affect whether future women choose a career or not.

Maybe someone would consider your argument more persuasive if you’d stop calling SAHMs tradwife. Talk about passive aggressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So to every sahm on this thread (the new term for you is tradwives), congrats. You are fulfilling the vision of postliberal Christian nationalists like JD Vance and setting back women’s advancement. If you don’t care about equality with men then own that, and model to young girls that a woman belongs at home. But for those of who care about women’s rights, this anti-working woman trend discourse is troubling.

I'm a sahm who left a high-powered career to raise my two children. I have never, ever regretted it. There is nothing political about it. It's a life choice. For me, raising children is a privilege that I'm not willing to outsource. Lots of mothers work, by choice or necessity. I don't judge them. When they ask me what I do, I don't tell them I'm a sahm because I "didn't want someone else to raise my kids." I tell them about the downsides of not working (of which there are many), in the hope that they can feel better about their decision. There is no perfect solution to living a full, balanced, happy life, and the grass is always greener on the other side. You can only do what is best for you and your family. I'm a Harris supporter btw who believes that no rights can be advanced without respect, empathy, kindness and a more nuanced view of the world around us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pre kids I worked 10-12 hr days (so 50-60 hrs a week). There was no option for part time or a more flexible schedule in my field. If there had been that option, I would have continued working. I’d be fine w my kids being in daycare or with a nanny for 5-7 hrs a day but not for 10-12. So I quit my job to be a SAHM.

The problems are: 1) with so many jobs requiring so many hours and so little time off; 2) childcare being incredibly expensive. If the US prioritized families, women, children, there would be more high level jobs with flexible work schedules and the option for family-friendly part time hours and daycare would be much more affordable so more families could afford for both parents to continue working and send kids to daycare.

The way things are in reality is not set up to support families at all and it’s a hindrance to women’s advancement because many women, like myself, don’t have a choice to do both: work and have enough time with kids.

In many other countries SAHPs are practically unheard of because work schedules are more reasonable and workers get much more time off than we do in the US so SAHP isn’t really a thing because work-life balance is already good so more people keep working after having kids.

+1. My relatives in Sweden, both male and female work 9-3. School hours. Then they’re home with their kids in the afternoons. The kids’ summer break is only about 6 weeks long and 4 of those weeks the parents have off work to for annual leave. It’s like this throughout a lot of Europe. A set up that actually supports families and encourages parents to continue working after having kids. Oh and also daycare is heavily subsidized there to make it actually affordable for all again which encourages parents of young kids to continue working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to every sahm on this thread (the new term for you is tradwives), congrats. You are fulfilling the vision of postliberal Christian nationalists like JD Vance and setting back women’s advancement. If you don’t care about equality with men then own that, and model to young girls that a woman belongs at home. But for those of who care about women’s rights, this anti-working woman trend discourse is troubling.

Do you honestly believe the only way to have equality with men is by working? You sound very narrow minded.

How do we achieve equality with men then? A PP above was saying that education was key to equality with men—so education is a way to have equal opportunities with men but working isn’t?

Women are not equal to men. Women cannot expect to have the same wages and same promotions if they don’t put in the same hours and work as men. This is almost impossible to do as the prime career development ages overlap with fertility and time of having young children. I’m not saying women cannot have careers or they should stay home. I think it was a huge disservice to girls in my generation to say we are equal.

Exactly. You are saying what the tradwives on this thread won’t admit. A woman’s place is her home, a way of life that tracks perfectly with the Christian nationalist agenda that is now on the rise.

I’m a SAHM and the furthest you can get from a tradwife, and not Christian or nationalist or conservative. I don’t think you’ll win many over by calling names like that.

I’m a SAHM and a feminist. There are many others like me.

I’m not calling names. I work in trust and safety and monitoring online discourse is fundamental to my job. The term tradwife is replacing SAHM and that’s a fact. Am I using it here because it’s annoying women who don’t work take over DCUM threads concerning working women? Yes, I’ll admit that.

You may think you are a feminist but your lifestyle tracks with exactly what Christian nationalists want for this country: less working women. You are of course free to do whatever the heck you want to do and no one cares (if you don’t make these disclaimers the less bright tradwives will start writing about “freedom”) but your actions influence society and might dissuade a promising gynecologist from pursuing her career. When so many tradwives start saying that women who work are not raising their children, that will no doubt influence young girls pondering their future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to every sahm on this thread (the new term for you is tradwives), congrats. You are fulfilling the vision of postliberal Christian nationalists like JD Vance and setting back women’s advancement. If you don’t care about equality with men then own that, and model to young girls that a woman belongs at home. But for those of who care about women’s rights, this anti-working woman trend discourse is troubling.

Do you honestly believe the only way to have equality with men is by working? You sound very narrow minded.

How do we achieve equality with men then? A PP above was saying that education was key to equality with men—so education is a way to have equal opportunities with men but working isn’t?

Women are not equal to men. Women cannot expect to have the same wages and same promotions if they don’t put in the same hours and work as men. This is almost impossible to do as the prime career development ages overlap with fertility and time of having young children. I’m not saying women cannot have careers or they should stay home. I think it was a huge disservice to girls in my generation to say we are equal.

Exactly. You are saying what the tradwives on this thread won’t admit. A woman’s place is her home, a way of life that tracks perfectly with the Christian nationalist agenda that is now on the rise.

I’m a SAHM and the furthest you can get from a tradwife, and not Christian or nationalist or conservative. I don’t think you’ll win many over by calling names like that.

I’m a SAHM and a feminist. There are many others like me.

I’m not calling names. I work in trust and safety and monitoring online discourse is fundamental to my job. The term tradwife is replacing SAHM and that’s a fact. Am I using it here because it’s annoying women who don’t work take over DCUM threads concerning working women? Yes, I’ll admit that.

You may think you are a feminist but your lifestyle tracks with exactly what Christian nationalists want for this country: less working women. You are of course free to do whatever the heck you want to do and no one cares (if you don’t make these disclaimers the less bright tradwives will start writing about “freedom”) but your actions influence society and might dissuade a promising gynecologist from pursuing her career. When so many tradwives start saying that women who work are not raising their children, that will no doubt influence young girls pondering their future.

Why don’t you work to change the system then instead of attacking women who are not the problem. The Christian nationalists are the problem, not the women who are doing their best under a broken and misogynistic system.

[Anonymous]

No. I just assume those people are ignorant with limited experience and perhaps language and pity them. The same way I do when they lament me having no sons.