Anonymous wrote:"I guess there are people who are in this position, but I don’t feel more vulnerable financially than someone working. I have education and could work if necessary. If my husband wanted a divorce, I would get half of everything. I have my own credit score and credit cards, etc. If my husband lost his job, either of us could work and we have savings because we built our lifestyle on one income. If he dies, we have life insurance. I just don’t spend time worrying about this. Life is full of unknowns and you deal with them."

I find this baffling. Isn't the reason for alimony that women who haven't worked for years CANNOT find jobs that would keep them at the same standard of living that they've been enjoying while married to a high earner?

And can you explain how a SAHP has their own credit score without an income to make payments on their separate credit card? That sounds fraudulent. If I were American Express, I wouldn't consider payments made on your behalf by a working spouse to be an indication that you have the means and discipline to earn a high credit score. That's like if I were to set up a credit card for my 10-year-old, but I made the payments on it using my salary without even involving the child. The child would have a great credit score that a potential creditor is supposed to be able to rely on, but their high score would misrepresent reality.

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: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?

Raising a family is doing something and it's difficult. And you can be very progressive and feminist and understand that. It's not required of a parent, but it's a completely legitimate decision.

+1

Shut your family down and don't let it be discussed, beyond "we are happy and it is what works for us". I'm a highly educated (2 BS, 1 MS, 7 years work experience post education) who has been a SAHP for 25+ years. Don't regret a moment of it. Doesn't make me any less of a person. If anything, it takes a lot of strength to give up the salary and power of a great job to take care of your family. It allowed my spouse to do more with their career, without worries of childcare or the Homefront. In return we were over $10M NW by age 38, and UHNW by 48.

You were still mothering and babysitting your kids when they were 25? Were you one of these SAHM who was always SO overwhelmed even though your kids were in school all day?

Anonymous wrote:"I guess there are people who are in this position, but I don’t feel more vulnerable financially than someone working. I have education and could work if necessary. If my husband wanted a divorce, I would get half of everything. I have my own credit score and credit cards, etc. If my husband lost his job, either of us could work and we have savings because we built our lifestyle on one income. If he dies, we have life insurance. I just don’t spend time worrying about this. Life is full of unknowns and you deal with them."

I find this baffling. Isn't the reason for alimony that women who haven't worked for years CANNOT find jobs that would keep them at the same standard of living that they've been enjoying while married to a high earner?

And can you explain how a SAHP has their own credit score without an income to make payments on their separate credit card? That sounds fraudulent. If I were American Express, I wouldn't consider payments made on your behalf by a working spouse to be an indication that you have the means and discipline to earn a high credit score. That's like if I were to set up a credit card for my 10-year-old, but I made the payments on it using my salary without even involving the child. The child would have a great credit score that a potential creditor is supposed to be able to rely on, but their high score would misrepresent reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine as long as you don’t go asking the dual income earners for money bc you wanted the fantasy of being able to be a one income family with five kids in a house you couldn’t afford

OMG 100%. Constantly being asked for money by my sister's husband because he wanted to be the big time breadwinner and she wanted to just be taken care of. Nope, go to work

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I guess there are people who are in this position, but I don’t feel more vulnerable financially than someone working. I have education and could work if necessary. If my husband wanted a divorce, I would get half of everything. I have my own credit score and credit cards, etc. If my husband lost his job, either of us could work and we have savings because we built our lifestyle on one income. If he dies, we have life insurance. I just don’t spend time worrying about this. Life is full of unknowns and you deal with them."

I find this baffling. Isn't the reason for alimony that women who haven't worked for years CANNOT find jobs that would keep them at the same standard of living that they've been enjoying while married to a high earner?

And can you explain how a SAHP has their own credit score without an income to make payments on their separate credit card? That sounds fraudulent. If I were American Express, I wouldn't consider payments made on your behalf by a working spouse to be an indication that you have the means and discipline to earn a high credit score. That's like if I were to set up a credit card for my 10-year-old, but I made the payments on it using my salary without even involving the child. The child would have a great credit score that a potential creditor is supposed to be able to rely on, but their high score would misrepresent reality.

Given the Trump Administration and Project 2025 this will be no longer true.

1. Credit cards LOL you will not longer be getting them.
2. Your own credit score LOL same
3. Ownership of property nope
4. They wrote it down you fools that voted for this shit "MEN HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDS", "breeding"

Anonymous wrote:The rest of us subsidize SAHPs in lots of ways, so whether we support or don't support this lifestyle choice is a societal question with implications for any taxpayer.

I remember how during COVID, the fed govt gave out checks for a few thousand dollars to households. I was a divorced mom at the time. I earned almost exactly as much as my friend who has a SAHM wife and we have the same number of people living under our respective roofs. Because he was married, he qualified for the relief funds, and because I was single, I didn't, according to the govt income/family thresholds. And no, an adult SAHM does not cost more to support on a daily basis than a teen boy. Teen boys eat like horses, are involved in lots of expensive extracurricular activities, have very high auto insurance premiums, and outgrow their clothing every few months. They rarely have the ability to provide more tangible help around the house than an adult wife would, so a single parent has to spend $ to outsource things that the second parent could do. And unlike an adult wife, they aren't required by law to attend school for approx. 8 hours a day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Raising a family is doing something and it's difficult. And you can be very progressive and feminist and understand that. It's not required of a parent, but it's a completely legitimate decision.

+1

Shut your family down and don't let it be discussed, beyond "we are happy and it is what works for us". I'm a highly educated (2 BS, 1 MS, 7 years work experience post education) who has been a SAHP for 25+ years. Don't regret a moment of it. Doesn't make me any less of a person. If anything, it takes a lot of strength to give up the salary and power of a great job to take care of your family. It allowed my spouse to do more with their career, without worries of childcare or the Homefront. In return we were over $10M NW by age 38, and UHNW by 48.

You were still mothering and babysitting your kids when they were 25? Were you one of these SAHM who was always SO overwhelmed even though your kids were in school all day?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We haven't dealt with that because all the women in our family are progressive feminists, and all of them, even the most outspoken, have spent some time in careers and some time at home with their kids for a variety of reasons; some a full 21 years. At least one family had a dad step out of the workforce for a while.

Planning your financial life to enable you to have the choice to stay at home with kids if you want to and believe it is best for you and your family, and advocating for social structures that support parents' choices of how to care for their children - earning and income or not -- are not inconsistent with feminism.

Some people do not have flexible minds or empathy, so for them it may take personal experience (say the birth of a special needs child) to fully grasp that part of feminism is not criticizing other womens' choices and advocating for families writ large.

I'm sorry. That must be miserable.

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:"I guess there are people who are in this position, but I don’t feel more vulnerable financially than someone working. I have education and could work if necessary. If my husband wanted a divorce, I would get half of everything. I have my own credit score and credit cards, etc. If my husband lost his job, either of us could work and we have savings because we built our lifestyle on one income. If he dies, we have life insurance. I just don’t spend time worrying about this. Life is full of unknowns and you deal with them."

I find this baffling. Isn't the reason for alimony that women who haven't worked for years CANNOT find jobs that would keep them at the same standard of living that they've been enjoying while married to a high earner?

And can you explain how a SAHP has their own credit score without an income to make payments on their separate credit card? That sounds fraudulent. If I were American Express, I wouldn't consider payments made on your behalf by a working spouse to be an indication that you have the means and discipline to earn a high credit score. That's like if I were to set up a credit card for my 10-year-old, but I made the payments on it using my salary without even involving the child. The child would have a great credit score that a potential creditor is supposed to be able to rely on, but their high score would misrepresent reality.

Anonymous wrote:Fine as long as you don’t go asking the dual income earners for money bc you wanted the fantasy of being able to be a one income family with five kids in a house you couldn’t afford