Anonymous wrote:My wife is a sahm because it makes the most sense for us financially and it's what she genuinely prefers. But sometimes women in our family make weird comments about it by saying things like "but don't you want to do something?". These women happen to be very progressive and feminist. Anyone else deal w/ this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a SAHW&M for over 20 years now. We hired everything out--cleaning, cooking, landscape, nanny, night nurse, private school. It's awesome. We fly semi-private to Aspen and Goozer and Cabo. If you can afford to stay at home, do it!!

The only way I'd be willing to stay home is if we could hire everything out like you described. No one, I'm trading my intellectual work for housecleaning, yard work, and cooking every meal. But it sounds like you hit the jackpot!

Anonymous wrote:I'm a SAHW&M for over 20 years now. We hired everything out--cleaning, cooking, landscape, nanny, night nurse, private school. It's awesome. We fly semi-private to Aspen and Goozer and Cabo. If you can afford to stay at home, do it!!

Anonymous wrote:My wife is a sahm because it makes the most sense for us financially and it's what she genuinely prefers. But sometimes women in our family make weird comments about it by saying things like "but don't you want to do something?". These women happen to be very progressive and feminist. Anyone else deal w/ this?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

IF this were true, why aren't more of you advocating for fathers to share in this early raising of children? I assume you are also out there talking to your Congresspeople and anyone anywhere who can make more family-friendly work policies a reality, so that parents can take this "critical" time to be home with kids without completely losing their income and having that choice reverberate across their entire working life?

Right?

Right?

Please be serious. We all know that fatherhood and motherhood are not the same, no matter how much progressive craziness tries to pretend that men and women are exactly equal.

Of course men should have the same options for paternity leave.

However, it is unrealistic to pretend that the same % of men will make this choice because they did not grow the baby inside of them for 9 months, birth the baby, or breastfeed the baby.

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.

IF this were true, why aren't more of you advocating for fathers to share in this early raising of children? I assume you are also out there talking to your Congresspeople and anyone anywhere who can make more family-friendly work policies a reality, so that parents can take this "critical" time to be home with kids without completely losing their income and having that choice reverberate across their entire working life?

Right?

Right?

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.

If this were true, why aren't more men choosing to stay home. In many relationships, the father would be the better SAHP. So why is it only women who are prevailed upon to quit working to raise children.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not if you have your own accounts.

Not in my state. They’d be disclosed in discovery and become marital property.

That’s only if you’re divorcing. Which is not what I was responding to. I’d make him pay his gambling debts himself while married.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it just seems childlike to depend on someone else for money.

So you think trust funds should only be for minor children? You won’t be accepting whatever your parents leave behind, correct?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not if you have your own accounts.

Not in my state. They’d be disclosed in discovery and become marital property.