Anonymous wrote:

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.

After the baby is born, either parent can be the majority caregiver. The thought that raising children is “women’s work” if what men say to keep women in the home. There is nothing biological that makes a woman more capable of being a parent. Many families have already figured this out and both parents are equal partners is raising children. Are you stuck in the 1950s?

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.

You do realize that all income is "Household income" as determined by IRS? I personally had my accounts and credit cards before marrying and when I worked, I didn't get married at 18. So I kept those of course. I have my DH transfer part of his salary to my accounts each month and I pay household expenses. I pay the CC balance from my accounts. We don't have any combined accounts. I'm an accountant. Sure, it's difficult to find a job after staying at home for a long time, and a huge part of it is the requirement for references. Like, who do I use as a reference, my toddler and preschooler?! If it wasn't for references, a lot more women would find employment after SAHM years being equivalent to what they had, being up-to-date is not complicated with nowadays technology.