Women in the family judging wife for being SAHM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is trashing working mothers here. No one.

Discourse that glorifies staying at home is implicitly anti working women. It influences women to question their decision to work. I know it’s not the intention of most of the tradwives online to denigrate working women, but unfortunately this issue is a binary. Saying tradwives/SAHMs work so hard and are doing what’s best for their children is leading many young women to question the value of working at all.

It’s not discourse, it’s natural, backed by science and logic. We know kids survive in daycare, but it’s denying science to claim it’s all the same.

I don’t think you understand what discourse means or the nature of online influence. I’m replying to idiots like you in the hopes that the smart career women on this forum reply (like the nyc op from a recent thread who makes 900k!).

I understand what discourse is and you’e conflating the discussion as glorifying something that is natural and proven to be better for a child. There actually is no debate. And there is value in working, sure, but raising the children you choose to have is inherently more valuable.

So women shouldn’t work. That’s exactly my point, the only issue is that people like you refuse to acknowledge the natural endpoint of this kind of rhetoric and this social norm—which is young women questioning the value of college. Why not say that college is useless for girls who want to be mothers since mothers need to at home with their children?

I don’t care if a woman works or not, it’s none of my business. We know children attend daycare from as early as allowed, attend until they enter school, and go on to live normal lives. I am one of these children. But I have a background in psychology and am annoyed by the argument that it doesn’t make a difference to the child when science and brain scans and basic knowledge of psychology proves different. We all know it’s better for the baby to be with a bonded parent instead of daycare. We know this, yet we have this cognitive dissonance surrounding it. At the same time, this isn’t 1950, and some women have to work. Some women WANT to work and have to rely on daycare in that instance, and as I said above, that’s fine. But can we all stop pretending that it’s physiologically better or identical for the child? That’s my only point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is trashing working mothers here. No one.

Discourse that glorifies staying at home is implicitly anti working women. It influences women to question their decision to work. I know it’s not the intention of most of the tradwives online to denigrate working women, but unfortunately this issue is a binary. Saying tradwives/SAHMs work so hard and are doing what’s best for their children is leading many young women to question the value of working at all.

It’s not discourse, it’s natural, backed by science and logic. We know kids survive in daycare, but it’s denying science to claim it’s all the same.

I don’t think you understand what discourse means or the nature of online influence. I’m replying to idiots like you in the hopes that the smart career women on this forum reply (like the nyc op from a recent thread who makes 900k!).

I understand what discourse is and you’e conflating the discussion as glorifying something that is natural and proven to be better for a child. There actually is no debate. And there is value in working, sure, but raising the children you choose to have is inherently more valuable.

So women shouldn’t work. That’s exactly my point, the only issue is that people like you refuse to acknowledge the natural endpoint of this kind of rhetoric and this social norm—which is young women questioning the value of college. Why not say that college is useless for girls who want to be mothers since mothers need to at home with their children?

I don’t care if a woman works or not, it’s none of my business. We know children attend daycare from as early as allowed, attend until they enter school, and go on to live normal lives. I am one of these children. But I have a background in psychology and am annoyed by the argument that it doesn’t make a difference to the child when science and brain scans and basic knowledge of psychology proves different. We all know it’s better for the baby to be with a bonded parent instead of daycare. We know this, yet we have this cognitive dissonance surrounding it. At the same time, this isn’t 1950, and some women have to work. Some women WANT to work and have to rely on daycare in that instance, and as I said above, that’s fine. But can we all stop pretending that it’s physiologically better or identical for the child? That’s my only point.

I didn’t say you cared about whether women worked or not. Nobody is here obsessing over the life choices of other people, my interest is in the social trend of anti working mom discourse and wondering if it will affect future college enrollment. You make a good point though that young children are better off with their mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is trashing working mothers here. No one.

Discourse that glorifies staying at home is implicitly anti working women. It influences women to question their decision to work. I know it’s not the intention of most of the tradwives online to denigrate working women, but unfortunately this issue is a binary. Saying tradwives/SAHMs work so hard and are doing what’s best for their children is leading many young women to question the value of working at all.

It’s not discourse, it’s natural, backed by science and logic. We know kids survive in daycare, but it’s denying science to claim it’s all the same.

I don’t think you understand what discourse means or the nature of online influence. I’m replying to idiots like you in the hopes that the smart career women on this forum reply (like the nyc op from a recent thread who makes 900k!).

I understand what discourse is and you’e conflating the discussion as glorifying something that is natural and proven to be better for a child. There actually is no debate. And there is value in working, sure, but raising the children you choose to have is inherently more valuable.

So women shouldn’t work. That’s exactly my point, the only issue is that people like you refuse to acknowledge the natural endpoint of this kind of rhetoric and this social norm—which is young women questioning the value of college. Why not say that college is useless for girls who want to be mothers since mothers need to at home with their children?

Dp. The working years are from early 20s to mid-60s for most people. That’s 40 years. Why are you so mad that some women want to take a portion of those years and dedicate them to raising their children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is trashing working mothers here. No one.

Discourse that glorifies staying at home is implicitly anti working women. It influences women to question their decision to work. I know it’s not the intention of most of the tradwives online to denigrate working women, but unfortunately this issue is a binary. Saying tradwives/SAHMs work so hard and are doing what’s best for their children is leading many young women to question the value of working at all.

It’s not discourse, it’s natural, backed by science and logic. We know kids survive in daycare, but it’s denying science to claim it’s all the same.

I don’t think you understand what discourse means or the nature of online influence. I’m replying to idiots like you in the hopes that the smart career women on this forum reply (like the nyc op from a recent thread who makes 900k!).

I understand what discourse is and you’e conflating the discussion as glorifying something that is natural and proven to be better for a child. There actually is no debate. And there is value in working, sure, but raising the children you choose to have is inherently more valuable.

So women shouldn’t work. That’s exactly my point, the only issue is that people like you refuse to acknowledge the natural endpoint of this kind of rhetoric and this social norm—which is young women questioning the value of college. Why not say that college is useless for girls who want to be mothers since mothers need to at home with their children?

I don’t care if a woman works or not, it’s none of my business. We know children attend daycare from as early as allowed, attend until they enter school, and go on to live normal lives. I am one of these children. But I have a background in psychology and am annoyed by the argument that it doesn’t make a difference to the child when science and brain scans and basic knowledge of psychology proves different. We all know it’s better for the baby to be with a bonded parent instead of daycare. We know this, yet we have this cognitive dissonance surrounding it. At the same time, this isn’t 1950, and some women have to work. Some women WANT to work and have to rely on daycare in that instance, and as I said above, that’s fine. But can we all stop pretending that it’s physiologically better or identical for the child? That’s my only point.

I didn’t say you cared about whether women worked or not. Nobody is here obsessing over the life choices of other people, my interest is in the social trend of anti working mom discourse and wondering if it will affect future college enrollment. You make a good point though that young children are better off with their mother.

I don't think the discourse around anti-working moms will affect future college enrollment for families who believe education is valuable for reasons in addition to career advancement. My friend grew up in a UMC LDS family, and I've noticed that they've educated their daughters for several generations, even though the religion strongly embraces patriarchy and has historically encouraged women to stay home and raise children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is trashing working mothers here. No one.

Discourse that glorifies staying at home is implicitly anti working women. It influences women to question their decision to work. I know it’s not the intention of most of the tradwives online to denigrate working women, but unfortunately this issue is a binary. Saying tradwives/SAHMs work so hard and are doing what’s best for their children is leading many young women to question the value of working at all.

It’s not discourse, it’s natural, backed by science and logic. We know kids survive in daycare, but it’s denying science to claim it’s all the same.

I don’t think you understand what discourse means or the nature of online influence. I’m replying to idiots like you in the hopes that the smart career women on this forum reply (like the nyc op from a recent thread who makes 900k!).

I understand what discourse is and you’e conflating the discussion as glorifying something that is natural and proven to be better for a child. There actually is no debate. And there is value in working, sure, but raising the children you choose to have is inherently more valuable.

So women shouldn’t work. That’s exactly my point, the only issue is that people like you refuse to acknowledge the natural endpoint of this kind of rhetoric and this social norm—which is young women questioning the value of college. Why not say that college is useless for girls who want to be mothers since mothers need to at home with their children?

I don’t care if a woman works or not, it’s none of my business. We know children attend daycare from as early as allowed, attend until they enter school, and go on to live normal lives. I am one of these children. But I have a background in psychology and am annoyed by the argument that it doesn’t make a difference to the child when science and brain scans and basic knowledge of psychology proves different. We all know it’s better for the baby to be with a bonded parent instead of daycare. We know this, yet we have this cognitive dissonance surrounding it. At the same time, this isn’t 1950, and some women have to work. Some women WANT to work and have to rely on daycare in that instance, and as I said above, that’s fine. But can we all stop pretending that it’s physiologically better or identical for the child? That’s my only point.

I didn’t say you cared about whether women worked or not. Nobody is here obsessing over the life choices of other people, my interest is in the social trend of anti working mom discourse and wondering if it will affect future college enrollment. You make a good point though that young children are better off with their mother.

This title of thread is literally “Women in the family judging wife for being SAHM”, where people are encouraged to offer advice or anecdotes, so yes, I’d say people actually care. But back to your question. As for me, I have a college degree which I obtained and used pre-child. I recently became SAHM. I intend to return to the workforce and possibly further my education in the meantime. I fully anticipate encouraging my daughter to attend college. I will also support her if she chooses to SAH. I will support her if she doesn’t. So yes, I believe there is value in college outside of where it lands you in the workforce, and regardless of what happens in the future to the woman who is attending.

[Anonymous]

You always fall for the troll bait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You always fall for the troll bait.

Nah. We enjoy the gotcha.

[Anonymous]

I mean, does anyone really enjoy working? Why do women act like the dream is to work and raise a family? I have a career but have done stay-at-home, FT work, PT work, WFH, etc as a mom. Preference would be to never work again. I just do it for the money. Can people really not find intellectual stimulation without a job??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"This works for our family. Please pass the potatoes." Rinse and repeat, do not engage.

Solid advice, every time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, does anyone really enjoy working? Why do women act like the dream is to work and raise a family? I have a career but have done stay-at-home, FT work, PT work, WFH, etc as a mom. Preference would be to never work again. I just do it for the money. Can people really not find intellectual stimulation without a job??

Same. I would only add that I do it to have my own money - I needed a level of financial control to feel secure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, does anyone really enjoy working? Why do women act like the dream is to work and raise a family? I have a career but have done stay-at-home, FT work, PT work, WFH, etc as a mom. Preference would be to never work again. I just do it for the money. Can people really not find intellectual stimulation without a job??

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, does anyone really enjoy working? Why do women act like the dream is to work and raise a family? I have a career but have done stay-at-home, FT work, PT work, WFH, etc as a mom. Preference would be to never work again. I just do it for the money. Can people really not find intellectual stimulation without a job??

Same. I would only add that I do it to have my own money - I needed a level of financial control to feel secure.

I never really understand this line of thinking. Why are you having children with a man with whom you already don’t feel secure with, or with whom you share control over finances? So no one should ever stay home? Or only women with trust funds should stay home? Because it’s not safe otherwise? If that’s the case, then only a small fraction of women would successfully stay home.

Just so you know, you could have a job and a man could still gamble or otherwise squander away every penny you have and that would be the end of it.

I’m genuinely curious what “security” looks like to you? Having your own bank account with money before baby? It’s still a marital asset, you know. So is every penny of his money, and it’s unlikely he wants to throw it all away unless he’s Fotis Dulos or something. Divorcing a SAHM doesn’t come cheap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, does anyone really enjoy working? Why do women act like the dream is to work and raise a family? I have a career but have done stay-at-home, FT work, PT work, WFH, etc as a mom. Preference would be to never work again. I just do it for the money. Can people really not find intellectual stimulation without a job??

I do! Why is it so hard for you to imagine that other people have different feelings/experiences than you??? I LOVE my work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, does anyone really enjoy working? Why do women act like the dream is to work and raise a family? I have a career but have done stay-at-home, FT work, PT work, WFH, etc as a mom. Preference would be to never work again. I just do it for the money. Can people really not find intellectual stimulation without a job??

Same. I would only add that I do it to have my own money - I needed a level of financial control to feel secure.

I never really understand this line of thinking. Why are you having children with a man with whom you already don’t feel secure with, or with whom you share control over finances? So no one should ever stay home? Or only women with trust funds should stay home? Because it’s not safe otherwise? If that’s the case, then only a small fraction of women would successfully stay home.

Just so you know, you could have a job and a man could still gamble or otherwise squander away every penny you have and that would be the end of it.

I’m genuinely curious what “security” looks like to you? Having your own bank account with money before baby? It’s still a marital asset, you know. So is every penny of his money, and it’s unlikely he wants to throw it all away unless he’s Fotis Dulos or something. Divorcing a SAHM doesn’t come cheap.

Ya, I know all of that. It's more about control. My insecurity comes more from my parents' marriage (my mom's only access to money is a monthly cash stipend), less about my husband. Security to me looks like having my own 401k, 529 plans for the kids, and a brokerage account that I fund and control. I like the his/hers/ours system that we have. Sure, most of it is marital property, but I like knowing that I have x amount of dollars under my control. We have different risk tolerances and allocations. I suppose he could squander it away, but we don't live in a community property state, so I'd have a fighting chance at protecting my accounts against his debtors if he did something crazy without my consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, does anyone really enjoy working? Why do women act like the dream is to work and raise a family? I have a career but have done stay-at-home, FT work, PT work, WFH, etc as a mom. Preference would be to never work again. I just do it for the money. Can people really not find intellectual stimulation without a job??

I do! Why is it so hard for you to imagine that other people have different feelings/experiences than you??? I LOVE my work.

Haha me too. I love the field that I’m a subject matter expert in and am constantly learning new things. I also apply the ideas I learn at work to thinking about my personal life.