Anonymous wrote:My boys are 99 percentile nationally. They are talented in their sports and get along well with others. I love raising boys because they are more fun and not so serious, and I don’t have to hear about mean girl culture. I like that they are not judged by their looks and not nitpicked about every little thing they say.

I protect my boys from those pernicious messages some PPs mentioned where the subtext is they don’t matter as much as girls or that masculinity is toxic. I put them in a masculine atmosphere where men don’t apologize for being men. Step out of your progressive bubble and you will see boys are not demonized in other parts of the country—or the rest of the world—for that matter.

I feel sorry for girls because they are not only much weaker but are actively dissuaded from learning self defense. Girls are more likely to be kidnapped, trafficked, sexually abused. Am happy I don’t worry as much with my boys.

When Grandma expresses her favoritism to her granddaughters, I point out to my boys that they are my favorites. I also minimize visits with Grandmother for that reason. In the classroom I note that—with some teachers—boys end up getting attacked more than girls because they are not docile sheep and that it’s hard to sit still all day. Sitting still and listening to teachers drone on and on is unnatural for many.

So I have a completely different experience than OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the posters who are offended that the OP said her daughter as being a future SAHM as an option. Almost every other post on dcum is “DH is rich but we decided it’s best for our family to stay home.” That is the ideal so many women on here talk about, so why the issue with saying this life is an option for a girls future?

Offended? No. It just shows where OP sees her kids. Her son? Carries her dreams and expectations. Her daughter? Eh who cares she can just pick up after some guy.

Look I'm a working mom but to say being a SAHM is "picking up after some guy" is pretty stupid and...sexist. Value women's work and contributions no matter what sphere it's in.

It's just interesting that she couldn't possibly imagine a future where the son became a stay-at-home father though.

Don’t know the science of it.

But I do have a good friend who became a stay-at-home dad when twins were 2 years old; his wife lost respect for him. And she eventually cheated on him. They divorced.

Functioning marriages where the dad stays home are extremely rare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the posters who are offended that the OP said her daughter as being a future SAHM as an option. Almost every other post on dcum is “DH is rich but we decided it’s best for our family to stay home.” That is the ideal so many women on here talk about, so why the issue with saying this life is an option for a girls future?

Offended? No. It just shows where OP sees her kids. Her son? Carries her dreams and expectations. Her daughter? Eh who cares she can just pick up after some guy.

Look I'm a working mom but to say being a SAHM is "picking up after some guy" is pretty stupid and...sexist. Value women's work and contributions no matter what sphere it's in.

OP obviously doesn’t. If she did she’d be equally worried about making sure her daughter was independently financially prepared if she wanted to be a SAHM (which is what my parents did for us so we DID have choices). But her lack of worry for her daughter is because…some guy…will take care of all that.

Having a trust fund from your parents is not morally superior to being dependent on a spouse's income.

Either way, you are relying on someone else's labor and goodwill. Nothing like making your own damn money.

Where do you read trust fund?

If you want your daughter to have a real choice to be a SAHM you prepare her for the kind of career where she makes enough money before kids to be independent. Then her spouse can be unemployed, she can lose her spouse, or any other foreseeable disaster and her choice doesn’t disappear. Just assuming some guy is going to materialize to pay her bills is overvaluing men and undervaluing your own daughter.

Yeah family money helps but it’s not the only option.

The way that post was written made me think she was referring to a trust fund.

If it's about making your own money before having kids, then that is a different story.

It just rubbed me the wrong way to think that someone was crapping on a SAHM when she herself was set up financially by someone else.

It was my post and I’m who you’re responding to. I have no problem with the choice to stay home. I have a problem with a parent washing her hands of concern for her child because some hypothetical man in a hypothetical future will make sure she’s taken care of— divorce, death, abuse obviously being for other people.

I believe a **choice** to be a SAHM starts with financial independence before kids and ideally before marriage.

Why do you insist upon deliberately misinterpreting what OP said in her initial post and then arguing over it for pages and pages?

OP was merely saying that she thinks her daughter has the *option* to SAHM whereas she thinks her son does not. Almost like an extra insurance policy for her daughter that her son doesn’t have equal access to. She did not say that she’s gonna trade her daughter for goats and coffee as soon as she hits puberty and wash her hands of her.

(And newsflash: the vast majority of people NEVER achieve financial independence. You just have ridiculous double standards for this *one choice* some people make because you let yourself be bothered by even though it’s absolutely none of your concern.)

She specifically says she doesn’t worry for her daughter as much as her son, because her daughter will “always have the option of an easier job or staying at home”. No, her daughter will not always have that option UNLESS her parents set her up for that option by— yes— encouraging her achievements (or providing her a trust fund.)

Worrying less so you can pass the buck onto a hypothetical man is gross, I’m sorry that bothers you.

Agreed. Some of these people sound so out of touch. Why shouldn't we pushing girls to be smart and capable instead of focusing on beauty and finding a man?? Why is she ok with DD settling for an easy job instead of reaching potential? DD is going to get totally left behind and feel resentful seeing mom dote all over her precious baby boy, while she gets scraps of attention and a very low bar for her life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the posters who are offended that the OP said her daughter as being a future SAHM as an option. Almost every other post on dcum is “DH is rich but we decided it’s best for our family to stay home.” That is the ideal so many women on here talk about, so why the issue with saying this life is an option for a girls future?

Offended? No. It just shows where OP sees her kids. Her son? Carries her dreams and expectations. Her daughter? Eh who cares she can just pick up after some guy.

Look I'm a working mom but to say being a SAHM is "picking up after some guy" is pretty stupid and...sexist. Value women's work and contributions no matter what sphere it's in.

OP obviously doesn’t. If she did she’d be equally worried about making sure her daughter was independently financially prepared if she wanted to be a SAHM (which is what my parents did for us so we DID have choices). But her lack of worry for her daughter is because…some guy…will take care of all that.

Having a trust fund from your parents is not morally superior to being dependent on a spouse's income.

Either way, you are relying on someone else's labor and goodwill. Nothing like making your own damn money.

Where do you read trust fund?

If you want your daughter to have a real choice to be a SAHM you prepare her for the kind of career where she makes enough money before kids to be independent. Then her spouse can be unemployed, she can lose her spouse, or any other foreseeable disaster and her choice doesn’t disappear. Just assuming some guy is going to materialize to pay her bills is overvaluing men and undervaluing your own daughter.

Yeah family money helps but it’s not the only option.

The way that post was written made me think she was referring to a trust fund.

If it's about making your own money before having kids, then that is a different story.

It just rubbed me the wrong way to think that someone was crapping on a SAHM when she herself was set up financially by someone else.

It was my post and I’m who you’re responding to. I have no problem with the choice to stay home. I have a problem with a parent washing her hands of concern for her child because some hypothetical man in a hypothetical future will make sure she’s taken care of— divorce, death, abuse obviously being for other people.

I believe a **choice** to be a SAHM starts with financial independence before kids and ideally before marriage.

Why do you insist upon deliberately misinterpreting what OP said in her initial post and then arguing over it for pages and pages?

OP was merely saying that she thinks her daughter has the *option* to SAHM whereas she thinks her son does not. Almost like an extra insurance policy for her daughter that her son doesn’t have equal access to. She did not say that she’s gonna trade her daughter for goats and coffee as soon as she hits puberty and wash her hands of her.

(And newsflash: the vast majority of people NEVER achieve financial independence. You just have ridiculous double standards for this *one choice* some people make because you let yourself be bothered by even though it’s absolutely none of your concern.)

She specifically says she doesn’t worry for her daughter as much as her son, because her daughter will “always have the option of an easier job or staying at home”. No, her daughter will not always have that option UNLESS her parents set her up for that option by— yes— encouraging her achievements (or providing her a trust fund.)

Worrying less so you can pass the buck onto a hypothetical man is gross, I’m sorry that bothers you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the posters who are offended that the OP said her daughter as being a future SAHM as an option. Almost every other post on dcum is “DH is rich but we decided it’s best for our family to stay home.” That is the ideal so many women on here talk about, so why the issue with saying this life is an option for a girls future?

Offended? No. It just shows where OP sees her kids. Her son? Carries her dreams and expectations. Her daughter? Eh who cares she can just pick up after some guy.

Look I'm a working mom but to say being a SAHM is "picking up after some guy" is pretty stupid and...sexist. Value women's work and contributions no matter what sphere it's in.

OP obviously doesn’t. If she did she’d be equally worried about making sure her daughter was independently financially prepared if she wanted to be a SAHM (which is what my parents did for us so we DID have choices). But her lack of worry for her daughter is because…some guy…will take care of all that.

Having a trust fund from your parents is not morally superior to being dependent on a spouse's income.

Either way, you are relying on someone else's labor and goodwill. Nothing like making your own damn money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the posters who are offended that the OP said her daughter as being a future SAHM as an option. Almost every other post on dcum is “DH is rich but we decided it’s best for our family to stay home.” That is the ideal so many women on here talk about, so why the issue with saying this life is an option for a girls future?

Offended? No. It just shows where OP sees her kids. Her son? Carries her dreams and expectations. Her daughter? Eh who cares she can just pick up after some guy.

Look I'm a working mom but to say being a SAHM is "picking up after some guy" is pretty stupid and...sexist. Value women's work and contributions no matter what sphere it's in.

OP obviously doesn’t. If she did she’d be equally worried about making sure her daughter was independently financially prepared if she wanted to be a SAHM (which is what my parents did for us so we DID have choices). But her lack of worry for her daughter is because…some guy…will take care of all that.

Having a trust fund from your parents is not morally superior to being dependent on a spouse's income.

Either way, you are relying on someone else's labor and goodwill. Nothing like making your own damn money.

Where do you read trust fund?

If you want your daughter to have a real choice to be a SAHM you prepare her for the kind of career where she makes enough money before kids to be independent. Then her spouse can be unemployed, she can lose her spouse, or any other foreseeable disaster and her choice doesn’t disappear. Just assuming some guy is going to materialize to pay her bills is overvaluing men and undervaluing your own daughter.

Yeah family money helps but it’s not the only option.

The way that post was written made me think she was referring to a trust fund.

If it's about making your own money before having kids, then that is a different story.

It just rubbed me the wrong way to think that someone was crapping on a SAHM when she herself was set up financially by someone else.

It was my post and I’m who you’re responding to. I have no problem with the choice to stay home. I have a problem with a parent washing her hands of concern for her child because some hypothetical man in a hypothetical future will make sure she’s taken care of— divorce, death, abuse obviously being for other people.

I believe a **choice** to be a SAHM starts with financial independence before kids and ideally before marriage.

Why do you insist upon deliberately misinterpreting what OP said in her initial post and then arguing over it for pages and pages?

OP was merely saying that she thinks her daughter has the *option* to SAHM whereas she thinks her son does not. Almost like an extra insurance policy for her daughter that her son doesn’t have equal access to. She did not say that she’s gonna trade her daughter for goats and coffee as soon as she hits puberty and wash her hands of her.

(And newsflash: the vast majority of people NEVER achieve financial independence. You just have ridiculous double standards for this *one choice* some people make because you let yourself be bothered by even though it’s absolutely none of your concern.)

She specifically says she doesn’t worry for her daughter as much as her son, because her daughter will “always have the option of an easier job or staying at home”. No, her daughter will not always have that option UNLESS her parents set her up for that option by— yes— encouraging her achievements (or providing her a trust fund.)

Worrying less so you can pass the buck onto a hypothetical man is gross, I’m sorry that bothers you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the posters who are offended that the OP said her daughter as being a future SAHM as an option. Almost every other post on dcum is “DH is rich but we decided it’s best for our family to stay home.” That is the ideal so many women on here talk about, so why the issue with saying this life is an option for a girls future?

Offended? No. It just shows where OP sees her kids. Her son? Carries her dreams and expectations. Her daughter? Eh who cares she can just pick up after some guy.

Look I'm a working mom but to say being a SAHM is "picking up after some guy" is pretty stupid and...sexist. Value women's work and contributions no matter what sphere it's in.

OP obviously doesn’t. If she did she’d be equally worried about making sure her daughter was independently financially prepared if she wanted to be a SAHM (which is what my parents did for us so we DID have choices). But her lack of worry for her daughter is because…some guy…will take care of all that.

Having a trust fund from your parents is not morally superior to being dependent on a spouse's income.

Either way, you are relying on someone else's labor and goodwill. Nothing like making your own damn money.

Where do you read trust fund?

If you want your daughter to have a real choice to be a SAHM you prepare her for the kind of career where she makes enough money before kids to be independent. Then her spouse can be unemployed, she can lose her spouse, or any other foreseeable disaster and her choice doesn’t disappear. Just assuming some guy is going to materialize to pay her bills is overvaluing men and undervaluing your own daughter.

Yeah family money helps but it’s not the only option.

The way that post was written made me think she was referring to a trust fund.

If it's about making your own money before having kids, then that is a different story.

It just rubbed me the wrong way to think that someone was crapping on a SAHM when she herself was set up financially by someone else.

It was my post and I’m who you’re responding to. I have no problem with the choice to stay home. I have a problem with a parent washing her hands of concern for her child because some hypothetical man in a hypothetical future will make sure she’s taken care of— divorce, death, abuse obviously being for other people.

I believe a **choice** to be a SAHM starts with financial independence before kids and ideally before marriage.

Why do you insist upon deliberately misinterpreting what OP said in her initial post and then arguing over it for pages and pages?

OP was merely saying that she thinks her daughter has the *option* to SAHM whereas she thinks her son does not. Almost like an extra insurance policy for her daughter that her son doesn’t have equal access to. She did not say that she’s gonna trade her daughter for goats and coffee as soon as she hits puberty and wash her hands of her.

(And newsflash: the vast majority of people NEVER achieve financial independence. You just have ridiculous double standards for this *one choice* some people make because you let yourself be bothered by even though it’s absolutely none of your concern.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the posters who are offended that the OP said her daughter as being a future SAHM as an option. Almost every other post on dcum is “DH is rich but we decided it’s best for our family to stay home.” That is the ideal so many women on here talk about, so why the issue with saying this life is an option for a girls future?

Offended? No. It just shows where OP sees her kids. Her son? Carries her dreams and expectations. Her daughter? Eh who cares she can just pick up after some guy.

Look I'm a working mom but to say being a SAHM is "picking up after some guy" is pretty stupid and...sexist. Value women's work and contributions no matter what sphere it's in.

OP obviously doesn’t. If she did she’d be equally worried about making sure her daughter was independently financially prepared if she wanted to be a SAHM (which is what my parents did for us so we DID have choices). But her lack of worry for her daughter is because…some guy…will take care of all that.

Having a trust fund from your parents is not morally superior to being dependent on a spouse's income.

Either way, you are relying on someone else's labor and goodwill. Nothing like making your own damn money.

Where do you read trust fund?

If you want your daughter to have a real choice to be a SAHM you prepare her for the kind of career where she makes enough money before kids to be independent. Then her spouse can be unemployed, she can lose her spouse, or any other foreseeable disaster and her choice doesn’t disappear. Just assuming some guy is going to materialize to pay her bills is overvaluing men and undervaluing your own daughter.

Yeah family money helps but it’s not the only option.

The way that post was written made me think she was referring to a trust fund.

If it's about making your own money before having kids, then that is a different story.

It just rubbed me the wrong way to think that someone was crapping on a SAHM when she herself was set up financially by someone else.

It was my post and I’m who you’re responding to. I have no problem with the choice to stay home. I have a problem with a parent washing her hands of concern for her child because some hypothetical man in a hypothetical future will make sure she’s taken care of— divorce, death, abuse obviously being for other people.

I believe a **choice** to be a SAHM starts with financial independence before kids and ideally before marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the posters who are offended that the OP said her daughter as being a future SAHM as an option. Almost every other post on dcum is “DH is rich but we decided it’s best for our family to stay home.” That is the ideal so many women on here talk about, so why the issue with saying this life is an option for a girls future?

Offended? No. It just shows where OP sees her kids. Her son? Carries her dreams and expectations. Her daughter? Eh who cares she can just pick up after some guy.

Look I'm a working mom but to say being a SAHM is "picking up after some guy" is pretty stupid and...sexist. Value women's work and contributions no matter what sphere it's in.

OP obviously doesn’t. If she did she’d be equally worried about making sure her daughter was independently financially prepared if she wanted to be a SAHM (which is what my parents did for us so we DID have choices). But her lack of worry for her daughter is because…some guy…will take care of all that.

Having a trust fund from your parents is not morally superior to being dependent on a spouse's income.

Either way, you are relying on someone else's labor and goodwill. Nothing like making your own damn money.

Where do you read trust fund?

If you want your daughter to have a real choice to be a SAHM you prepare her for the kind of career where she makes enough money before kids to be independent. Then her spouse can be unemployed, she can lose her spouse, or any other foreseeable disaster and her choice doesn’t disappear. Just assuming some guy is going to materialize to pay her bills is overvaluing men and undervaluing your own daughter.

Yeah family money helps but it’s not the only option.

The way that post was written made me think she was referring to a trust fund.

If it's about making your own money before having kids, then that is a different story.

It just rubbed me the wrong way to think that someone was crapping on a SAHM when she herself was set up financially by someone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the posters who are offended that the OP said her daughter as being a future SAHM as an option. Almost every other post on dcum is “DH is rich but we decided it’s best for our family to stay home.” That is the ideal so many women on here talk about, so why the issue with saying this life is an option for a girls future?

Offended? No. It just shows where OP sees her kids. Her son? Carries her dreams and expectations. Her daughter? Eh who cares she can just pick up after some guy.

Look I'm a working mom but to say being a SAHM is "picking up after some guy" is pretty stupid and...sexist. Value women's work and contributions no matter what sphere it's in.

It's just interesting that she couldn't possibly imagine a future where the son became a stay-at-home father though.