Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw a social media fb post on a local moms page from a lamenting mom earnestly asking the question of how in the world moms are supposed to work 9-5, but still get kids to school by 8AM and picked up at 3PM and have time to make dinner and energy for homework help and so on and so on.

The clear answer is, of course, that they aren’t supposed to do this. In fact, most men were perfectly happy with the arrangement of division of labor where he performed the “outside” labor that secured earned income for the family and she performed the domestic labor that allowed the home and children to be cared for without outsourcing those duties and payments to someone else.
No one asked women to “do it all”—and women were offended by this!
And yet, somehow about 40 years ago some so-called feminists convinced women that they were being oppressed and needed the “freedom” to go spend their days working outside the home as well.
Yay for feminism!

The Ironic Part is when both couples work they often earn less as both of them can't fully commit to job. Plus there is child care, double commuting costs, work clothes, work lunches, more outsourcing of work at home like a maid. A dual couple often earns less. And the children suffer.

My wife is a rare SAHM once we decided to go that route. I was only making 60K and she was only making 60k. We decided to go all in on me, she would 100 percent support my career, I could work as late as needed, travel on a moments notice, join boards, travel for work, network after work. In other words 100 percent focused on work. Her Mom worked and she was bitter coming home to a house where she and sister was expected in HS to take care of their brother 10 years younger and no one every at a game or event or available to car pool.

Anyhow my salary went from 60k to 360K in 10 years. So after 10 years home we were making enough that it confused my dual income relatives our age. It does not matter man or women, the person with most career potential should focus on that. My own sister was not till her dumb husband got laid off third time after she just had third kid and he decided to be a stay at home Dad for next 15 years did her career rocketship up. She was done having kids and no longer had to do the SAHM and juggle work. They made a lot more money as soon as they picked one person to make a run at it. He was holding her back.

No offense, but most of us don't want this marriage. We wanted spouses who were home by 5:30. DH and I are both very ambitious and make 200k, but we wouldn't sacrifice our families so that one of us could work 15 hour days. DH had an offer last year to make 350k with very large bonuses, but it meant he'd be on call 24/7, traveling nonstop and working long days. I don't want to be a single mom and I actually really really love my DH. He's my person! Why do I have to deal with the kids and he doesn't? lol

I think what would be ideal is if DH and I only worked 7 hours a day each. Quality of life would go way up and then our hours would match school hours. I know everyone makes fun of "bank hours" but damn, it's "school hours" that we need to make fun of. 8-2:30 is wild.

Ideally, you work 15 hours a day in your twenties and early thirties, and by the time you have kids, you have enough goodwill in your career to set a flexible work schedule around the family schedule. I know it doesn't work this way in all fields, but it did in ours.

Yes ideally. But what normally happens is that this is true for men. Women on the other hand get judged for having kids and get projects withdrawn - they suffer for having kids, while men get promoted for having kids.

It worked out for me to be able to slow down by my mid-thirties because my clients are loyal, and I have a niche practice. By mid-forties, I have FU money, so I don't take on any new clients who don't respect my schedule. I also work from home or remotely on extended family vacations at will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

Except they get like two years of paid maternity.

Your argument doesn’t hold because the median HHI income in the US is $75k and in Euro countries it’s $64.4k. Professional jobs in Europe pay absolutely well enough to have only one spouse working if that’s what you want…add in that you don’t have to save for healthcare, childcare, pre-school, college, etc.

So the median US household can’t afford to have a parent not work.

Many European countries also give out child subsidies -- a check every month for every child to ensure basics (food, clothes) are covered. Add in not having to pay for healthcare, heavily subsidized daycare, and the fact that living in apartments and other small homes is normalized, and it's really not that hard to have 3 or more kids in Europe if you are willing to have your kids share rooms. And then college is also free or largely subsidized, so you don't have to worry so much about saving for that. Many countries have government pensions so you don't have to save so much for your own retirement. And so on. It's harder to be wealthy in Europe but it's very easy to live a comfortable middle class lifestyle.

In France, where some of my relatives live, there are even state-mandated discounts on lots of things for family sizes over a certain size (I think 4). Like my cousin has joked that she should have a third child because they get to do everything free. But the country does it because it helps with the birth rate.

I know many people in Europe and the young people never say they don't want to have kids due to money, or that they can't afford to have more kids. Maybe in a very high cost of living city like London or Paris. But in most of Europe, having children is really not that financially difficult. Even things like diapers and baby food are subsidized. They do a lot to make having kids appealing or at least easy. But in the US, the culture makes having children so difficult and expensive. I know many, many Americans who have chosen not to have kids, postponed having kids, or stopped at one or two kids because the costs are too high. And I do not blame them. I remember when my DC was born, I was shocked at how hard it was to find childcare at all, and then how much it cost. I just couldn't believe it. We wound up on a dozen waitlists for daycare (and they charge for the waitlist). No one had spots. And this was for the privilege of paying $2000 or more per month for an infant spot. I told my husband that something must be wrong, we must be missing something, but now I know it's just how it is. We wound up figuring out a nanny share and then I lost my job anyway. What chaos. Just to have a baby! This country is so backwards sometimes.

Phyllis Schafly has entered the forum!

Seriously, I think it was all inevitable. All the laws created to protect or promote minority interests have always been co-opted by men. Think about the rise of corporations which co-opted the newly defined rights afforded a person coinciding with the gilded age. The latest is men entering women's sports just as women are rising in sports pay parity and recognition.

Women still suffer from pay disparity but what was once promoted as a choice to work is now a requirement to work for most but a lucky small percentage.

I actually really like my job and would be miserable as a SAHM. I think this is true for a lot of women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who say they work in case their husband divorces them or dies.

My friend married since 2006 to his wife who actually was so anxious to be a stay at home quit work while they were engaged to help plan wedding and she moved in. Well since then they bought a new home worth now around 3 million. Have two cars, I know my friend who makes around 500K has made almost 10 million in salary during marriage. And he goes max 401k and does IRA for her and has 529s fully funded all three kids. Since marriage greater than 10 years she gets his SS. In divorce she is entitled to 1/2 at this point, plus alimony, child support and if he drops dead she gets it all plus his multimillion life insurance policy.

Why would she need to work? Do you really think her making 100K a year is even going to matter. She did not have a big job. At his age he has around 10 million invested he makes around 1-2 million a year just on dividends, interest and capital gains a lot of years.

Now do the math for if he had died or divorced 5 years into the marriage. Or if (like the majority of Americans) he didn't make 500K. You're being ridiculous and you know it.

Well there was no pre-nup. He was making 500K premarriage. He also had maybe back then just two million in assets. By year five she had 1/2 of 2.5 million in earnings and maybe 1/2 of one million in interest, dividends and capital gains. So maybe she have 2 million. She only made 50K a year pre marriage. So she have to work 20 years to make that.

I give credit he had a 1.5 million home in his name alone in 2006 he owned outright as got lucky in 1999 internet bubble and bought it Feb 2002 and paid cash. She then got him to buy a two million home in both their names by 2010. BTW he also invested pre-IPO in Circle as an advisor he mostly likely made 10 million this month alone.

And also who takes care of kids. By marrying a 10 year younger person in perfect healthy with time to exercise, no stress, do yogas, go to doctor appointments she will most likely live to 100. So his kids will have her. His other choice was a women his age, same job but to be honest she is now 59 and looks like a dried up prune. his wife at 49 looks like Reese Witherspoon at 49.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

lol the same Conservative Party messing around with tariffs, threatening global war conflict, trying to replace workers with AI, and telling us all we and our children + grandchildren can work in factories for years to come?

+1 The same Conservative party that wants unfettered capitalism and protections so that corporations don't pay taxes, don't pay living wages and certainly don't care for the environment or their workers. That conservative party? The ones about shareholder wealth? They don't care if families have enough to live on, one or two working parents.

Anonymous wrote:People who say they work in case their husband divorces them or dies.

My friend married since 2006 to his wife who actually was so anxious to be a stay at home quit work while they were engaged to help plan wedding and she moved in. Well since then they bought a new home worth now around 3 million. Have two cars, I know my friend who makes around 500K has made almost 10 million in salary during marriage. And he goes max 401k and does IRA for her and has 529s fully funded all three kids. Since marriage greater than 10 years she gets his SS. In divorce she is entitled to 1/2 at this point, plus alimony, child support and if he drops dead she gets it all plus his multimillion life insurance policy.

Why would she need to work? Do you really think her making 100K a year is even going to matter. She did not have a big job. At his age he has around 10 million invested he makes around 1-2 million a year just on dividends, interest and capital gains a lot of years.

Sir, the toper 1%er earners can't marry 50% of the population.

Anonymous wrote:People who say they work in case their husband divorces them or dies.

My friend married since 2006 to his wife who actually was so anxious to be a stay at home quit work while they were engaged to help plan wedding and she moved in. Well since then they bought a new home worth now around 3 million. Have two cars, I know my friend who makes around 500K has made almost 10 million in salary during marriage. And he goes max 401k and does IRA for her and has 529s fully funded all three kids. Since marriage greater than 10 years she gets his SS. In divorce she is entitled to 1/2 at this point, plus alimony, child support and if he drops dead she gets it all plus his multimillion life insurance policy.

Why would she need to work? Do you really think her making 100K a year is even going to matter. She did not have a big job. At his age he has around 10 million invested he makes around 1-2 million a year just on dividends, interest and capital gains a lot of years.

Now do the math for if he had died or divorced 5 years into the marriage. Or if (like the majority of Americans) he didn't make 500K. You're being ridiculous and you know it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

Except they get like two years of paid maternity.

Your argument doesn’t hold because the median HHI income in the US is $75k and in Euro countries it’s $64.4k. Professional jobs in Europe pay absolutely well enough to have only one spouse working if that’s what you want…add in that you don’t have to save for healthcare, childcare, pre-school, college, etc.

So the median US household can’t afford to have a parent not work.

I like how everyone throws around “paid maternity”. No one is paying your $150k salary for 2 years in Europe unless you work a very unique job. They get a stipend or small percentage of their salary. I preferred my 12 weeks paid at my full salary.

+10000 paid maternity is around $250 a week in London. Yes many have additional benefits like we do from our employers.

In Denmark you receive full pay for 14 weeks and then both mother and father are able to take 32 weeks each at 80% salary.

In Germany you get full pay for 14 weeks and then after that you receive 65% of salary for another 12-14 months.

I could keep going down the list. The UK BTW is the one place where you can also earn serious $$$s if you pick a lucrative profession. The people working in PE, hedge funds, banks, etc. in the UK make as much or more than their US counterparts.

Except the co-workers pay for it along with tax payers there is no free ride. I worked doing same exact job my co-workers did in in Europe and made 100K more plus a lower tax rate.

People who say they work in case their husband divorces them or dies.

My friend married since 2006 to his wife who actually was so anxious to be a stay at home quit work while they were engaged to help plan wedding and she moved in. Well since then they bought a new home worth now around 3 million. Have two cars, I know my friend who makes around 500K has made almost 10 million in salary during marriage. And he goes max 401k and does IRA for her and has 529s fully funded all three kids. Since marriage greater than 10 years she gets his SS. In divorce she is entitled to 1/2 at this point, plus alimony, child support and if he drops dead she gets it all plus his multimillion life insurance policy.

Why would she need to work? Do you really think her making 100K a year is even going to matter. She did not have a big job. At his age he has around 10 million invested he makes around 1-2 million a year just on dividends, interest and capital gains a lot of years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

Except they get like two years of paid maternity.

Your argument doesn’t hold because the median HHI income in the US is $75k and in Euro countries it’s $64.4k. Professional jobs in Europe pay absolutely well enough to have only one spouse working if that’s what you want…add in that you don’t have to save for healthcare, childcare, pre-school, college, etc.

So the median US household can’t afford to have a parent not work.

I like how everyone throws around “paid maternity”. No one is paying your $150k salary for 2 years in Europe unless you work a very unique job. They get a stipend or small percentage of their salary. I preferred my 12 weeks paid at my full salary.

We are talking about countrywide medians...not your particular situation. Only 16% of Americans have access to that kind of benefit (and it keeps decreasing every year).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

Except they get like two years of paid maternity.

Your argument doesn’t hold because the median HHI income in the US is $75k and in Euro countries it’s $64.4k. Professional jobs in Europe pay absolutely well enough to have only one spouse working if that’s what you want…add in that you don’t have to save for healthcare, childcare, pre-school, college, etc.

So the median US household can’t afford to have a parent not work.

I like how everyone throws around “paid maternity”. No one is paying your $150k salary for 2 years in Europe unless you work a very unique job. They get a stipend or small percentage of their salary. I preferred my 12 weeks paid at my full salary.

+10000 paid maternity is around $250 a week in London. Yes many have additional benefits like we do from our employers.

In Denmark you receive full pay for 14 weeks and then both mother and father are able to take 32 weeks each at 80% salary.

In Germany you get full pay for 14 weeks and then after that you receive 65% of salary for another 12-14 months.

I could keep going down the list. The UK BTW is the one place where you can also earn serious $$$s if you pick a lucrative profession. The people working in PE, hedge funds, banks, etc. in the UK make as much or more than their US counterparts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have three neighbors who have five kids each. Five. They aren’t any particular religion or anything. Two of the families have a SAHM. The third has both parents working. That family is careening off the rails. It’s hard to have five kids without one SAHP.

Where do you live? Haven’t met any families in CC MD with 5 kids…not one. Even the Marriotts in the neighborhood who are Mormons.

Hard to believe they are not religious or it’s not cultural.

Agree. PP you responded to is not american or lying or in a very impoverished area. I don't know ANY non religious traditional 5 kid families. There are a few men with 2 or 3 vintages of kids and ex wives though. Some of those guy have 3 kids with one person, 1 with another , and then another with a 3rd, just like Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

Except they get like two years of paid maternity.

Your argument doesn’t hold because the median HHI income in the US is $75k and in Euro countries it’s $64.4k. Professional jobs in Europe pay absolutely well enough to have only one spouse working if that’s what you want…add in that you don’t have to save for healthcare, childcare, pre-school, college, etc.

So the median US household can’t afford to have a parent not work.

+1
I totally agree with you. I lived in France and Netherlands. Both countries are better set up for SAHMs (not dads, but they're getting there faster than we are). You don't have to worry about Healthcare or education in the way that we do, plus there is just much more public infrastructure with opportunities for all. The cost of living is lower. But because of all of this the childcare infrastructure is not as good. I work FT and did when I had my kids there, as did my husband. The lack of high quality childcare and the outrageous cost of nannies is what drove me back. I felt society wanted me to quit there and I felt it was oppressive, so I came home.

BTW - overall the quality of childcare is better but our range of childcare is wider here. I didn't want to accept average when in my home country I could hire a professional nanny for 1:1 ratio for less than 100k/yr. There everything costed about the same (about 25k 12 years ago) and it was equivalent to maybe Goddard or Primrose) and you could only get 2-3 days a week if you're lucky. It was horrible for working moms, and the culture for SAHDs was terrible too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main problem - and why working took off for women in the first place - is that a SAHM is essentially trapped. She can't support herself, can't support her kids, she's completely dependent on her husband. Being a working mom is HARD but I feel very secure knowing that I am a fully independent person who would, god forbid, be able to take care of myself and my kids if something happened to my husband. Sure, I would love to be at home instead of at work! I mean, who wouldn't, male or female? But that trade off isn't one I'm willing to make.

I work part time and this is a big reason why. Stepping totally out of the workforce is scary to me. I actually did stay home for about a year when I first became a mom and I LOVED it, but the fear that came with having no independent income was ultimately too overwhelming. And I have a good marriage and a supportive husband, so it's not like I was planning for divorce or something. I'm actually more afraid my husband will die and I will need to support my family completely on my own -- I don't want to have to start from scratch if something like that happened.

But also -- being home alone cuts you off from other people in a way that is not healthy. Maybe it was different back in another era when many women stayed home and they had community in their neighborhoods. It's not like that now. Being a SAHM now is insanely isolating. I think this is one reason so many SAHMs become influencers or start posting on SM a lot -- they are trying to connect to people and build community. I don't get a ton of community from work but it does keep me plugged into the working world a little bit and that's worth a lot. I also just feel relief in earning my own money, being able to contribute to my own retirement accounts, etc.

Agree with all of this!