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

[Anonymous]

All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

[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: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.

I’m not attacking women! I’m defending working women facing onslaught from the postliberal Christian right and the white upper class SAHMs (dcum). The only way to change the system is for more women to stay in the workforce and push for work life balance! Again with the dumb disclaimers you have to make for the dim tradwives: no you are not forced to do anything, no one is talking about taking away your “freedom” or whatever.

I a personally don’t think the “raising your own kids” line is offensive at all. I would just smile politely at a woman who would say something like that. It’s in my personal interest for there to be less women in the workplace—more opportunities for me. But it’s not in the interest of women’s rights, which matter to me.

It’s in the interest of women’s rights for their to be better parental leave, better childcare and early education options, and more acceptance of women’s choices regarding childbearing and childrearing writ large. No one should be dictating how women should parent. We’re entitled to do what is best for us and our families. The level of hysteria and judgement and anger at women who made different choices is alarming.

Again, this is a free country. You are free to do whatever the heck you want, or in your case, not. No one is “dictating” anything to you or cares about you or your choices. I mentioned this upthread but of course you didn’t understand the point that you are not someone under siege fighting for her right to stay at home.

I am simply sounding the alarm to women who work that the Christian postliberal right and their unwitting allies in upper class tradwife white women are going to continue claiming that working moms don’t raise their kids and are not as good moms as tradwives.

Yes, I’m the PP you are responding to and I work and I have always worked. And I’m telling you that you sound like someone who can’t accept their own choices. You sound delusional and self righteous and untethered from reality. I picked apples yesterday with a friend who has two young children and is a SAHM because that is what she wants to do right now and because various alternatives didn’t work for her family. She is Jewish and a Democrat. As am I! She is doing what is best for her and her family and I am doing the same.

0-5 is the SINGLE most crucial time for healthy physical, neural, emotional, and social development according to the CDC. Why are you so obsessed with people who decide they want to be a more available or the most available caretaker to their child during that period and other periods of childhood?

We as a society have so completely f*cked ourselves by prioritizing literally everything over the health and well being of children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

Are you a child development expert?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

lol.. hypocrisy alert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Religious bigotry alert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

Are you a child development expert?

Oh c’mon. You don’t have to be a child development expert to know that it is better for an infant to be cared for one-on-one by their mother than put into a group daycare. Pp is right on target, and we as a society would be better off if we acknowledged this fact and recognized that women can exit and re-enter the work force as their children grow and their family needs change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not attacking women! I’m defending working women facing onslaught from the postliberal Christian right and the white upper class SAHMs (dcum). The only way to change the system is for more women to stay in the workforce and push for work life balance! Again with the dumb disclaimers you have to make for the dim tradwives: no you are not forced to do anything, no one is talking about taking away your “freedom” or whatever.

I a personally don’t think the “raising your own kids” line is offensive at all. I would just smile politely at a woman who would say something like that. It’s in my personal interest for there to be less women in the workplace—more opportunities for me. But it’s not in the interest of women’s rights, which matter to me.

How old are you? You sound like maybe a 20 something, possibly early 30s. You still have a very shallow view of feminism, women’s rights, and equality, which is not uncommon for younger women. That, or you have kids who are still VERY young (i.e. not much life experience in the area we are currently discussing).

I believe that women’s rights do in fact matter to you, but I also know that you haven’t thought through what that really means. Your internalized misogyny is the most insidious kind, because you honestly don’t (can’t?) recognize it in yourself.

I encourage you to consider deeply the idea that capitalism and patriarchy go hand in hand. One cannot dismantle the patriarchy by leaning into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

lol.. hypocrisy alert.

There’s nothing hypocritical there at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

lol.. hypocrisy alert.

There’s nothing hypocritical there at all.

dummy alert

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

Are you a child development expert?

Oh c’mon. You don’t have to be a child development expert to know that it is better for an infant to be cared for one-on-one by their mother than put into a group daycare. Pp is right on target, and we as a society would be better off if we acknowledged this fact and recognized that women can exit and re-enter the work force as their children grow and their family needs change.

Not necessarily. Some women aren't great with the infant/toddler stage.

Also, if a mom has 4+ kids, that baby isn't getting all the 1:1 attention time.

No, it isn't easy for women to enter/exit the workforce after having kids.

I'm 54. I've done it all -- sahm, daycare, nanny, PT ooh,, PT in home, FT ooh, FT wfh.

The quality of the care is more important than who is providing the care.

And what happened to the dads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

lol.. hypocrisy alert.

There’s nothing hypocritical there at all.

You're right. Clueless alert.

[Anonymous]

The crazy thing is that people of young kids get all worked up about this and then you go through the teen and young adult years and you see that SAHM v WOHM is basically irrelevant compared to other familial issues. Go on with yourselves, getting all excited about this, but it’s a waste of energy.

- parent of young adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. I am always shocked when I read our European work contacts/contracts with workers councils (all for office based work for a F100 locations in Spain, Italy, and France). At various points during pregnancy women’s workdays get progressively shorter, summer hours are shorter, working hours are shorter, parental leave is much better, etc). The reality is that it’s hard to be a parent everywhere, but it’s really hard to be a parent of young children in the US. I have a good friend who is a professor of epidemiology at a university in the UK and she says that she won’t come back to the US until she’s done having children and they’re older. So far she’s taken a year off with each of her two children (2 out of the last 4.5 years) and is considering having a third. So in the UK she’s just normal but on DCUM she would be a Christian Nationalist tradwife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

Are you a child development expert?

Oh c’mon. You don’t have to be a child development expert to know that it is better for an infant to be cared for one-on-one by their mother than put into a group daycare. Pp is right on target, and we as a society would be better off if we acknowledged this fact and recognized that women can exit and re-enter the work force as their children grow and their family needs change.

Not a father? Only a mother? A mom can never have someone else hold the baby? The baby must be in the care of a mother while it sleeps?

Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

Are you a child development expert?

Oh c’mon. You don’t have to be a child development expert to know that it is better for an infant to be cared for one-on-one by their mother than put into a group daycare. Pp is right on target, and we as a society would be better off if we acknowledged this fact and recognized that women can exit and re-enter the work force as their children grow and their family needs change.

Not a father? Only a mother? A mom can never have someone else hold the baby? The baby must be in the care of a mother while it sleeps?

Really?

A lot of SAHMs don’t have husbands or grandparents who help, or their former hours were terrible. So the choice was nanny/daycare for 10+ hours a day or quit. In that scenario quitting absolutely makes the most sense, no matter how “wonderful” the childcare may be.