Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they're just going to find out no one wants to date or marry them with those attitudes.

There are many many young women who want a guy who makes all the money and they can stay home. That is also pretty common now. Income and will pay for everything is very high on most young women’s lists.

Where is your proof? I have two dds who are not interested in traditional marriafe with men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a working woman with a husband who does 50/50 at home and is supportive of my career.

However if I could do it all over again I would look for a more traditional marriage with gender roles.

The vast majority of women seemed to get screwed over working a man’s job and also being a wife and mom. Now there is an expectation that a woman has a demanding career and do everything at home.

Never heard nor saw this “expectation.”

Who has this expectation?

I believe it was first pointed out in "The Second Shift." Have you read it?

If you're the same person who thought that women didn't have kids out of wedlock then you're just all over this thread being confidently wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neglect of social science is a huge factor in this kind of thinking. People who actually learn about history, gender studies, and social economics know that this vision of "traditional" roles with SAH spouse was never common. (Those people would also know what the words "feminism" and "patriarchy" mean, which I'm not sure OP does.)

In an aggragrian society, everybody works but mostly not for cash. There was no "going to work" vs staying home, although you might share labor among neighbors. As things urbanized and moved to cash, people almost immediately outsourced their meals and laundry, so there were women with businesses and working outside the home. In both scenarios there were a lot of people who never married: they lived with family, or worked for the rich, or went into religion or military.

The idea of widespread marriage where one man's cash wage supports a SAHM nuclear family was a thing for a very brief period in the US, and only for a faction of the population. A blip, not traditional.

This is not what labor statistics show. But this is often repeated on here. Women didn’t even have access to daycare or any sort of maternity leave so it was extremely difficult for a woman to hold down any sort of job outside of the home. Women working a man’s job is a recent thing.

Curious what you think are men's jobs in this context, but it doesn't really matter because we're talking paid work outside the home. Women historically worked as teachers, cooks, childcare providers, laundresses, cleaners, seamstresses, etc etc. When office work was invented they worked in offices. That's all working outside the home.

Women left their kids with relatives or brought them with, depending on the job. But, as I already said many didn't have spouses so they either didn't have kids or they gave them up (including to family). Marriage was not as common as the trad fantasy assumes.

You lost all credibility with that statement. Having children out of wedlock was incredibly uncommon. Why? The average woman couldn’t support herself and there was limited government assistance, if any.

NP, no, it actually wasn't uncommon throughout all of human history for a woman to have children out of wedlock. They were just treated awfully and there are a lot of horror stories related to it.

Here's one: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/9-000-children-died-irish-mother-baby-homes-report-finds-n1253862

Anonymous wrote:I am a working woman with a husband who does 50/50 at home and is supportive of my career.

However if I could do it all over again I would look for a more traditional marriage with gender roles.

The vast majority of women seemed to get screwed over working a man’s job and also being a wife and mom. Now there is an expectation that a woman has a demanding career and do everything at home.

Never heard nor saw this “expectation.”

Who has this expectation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neglect of social science is a huge factor in this kind of thinking. People who actually learn about history, gender studies, and social economics know that this vision of "traditional" roles with SAH spouse was never common. (Those people would also know what the words "feminism" and "patriarchy" mean, which I'm not sure OP does.)

In an aggragrian society, everybody works but mostly not for cash. There was no "going to work" vs staying home, although you might share labor among neighbors. As things urbanized and moved to cash, people almost immediately outsourced their meals and laundry, so there were women with businesses and working outside the home. In both scenarios there were a lot of people who never married: they lived with family, or worked for the rich, or went into religion or military.

The idea of widespread marriage where one man's cash wage supports a SAHM nuclear family was a thing for a very brief period in the US, and only for a faction of the population. A blip, not traditional.

This is not what labor statistics show. But this is often repeated on here. Women didn’t even have access to daycare or any sort of maternity leave so it was extremely difficult for a woman to hold down any sort of job outside of the home. Women working a man’s job is a recent thing.

Curious what you think are men's jobs in this context, but it doesn't really matter because we're talking paid work outside the home. Women historically worked as teachers, cooks, childcare providers, laundresses, cleaners, seamstresses, etc etc. When office work was invented they worked in offices. That's all working outside the home.

Women left their kids with relatives or brought them with, depending on the job. But, as I already said many didn't have spouses so they either didn't have kids or they gave them up (including to family). Marriage was not as common as the trad fantasy assumes.

You lost all credibility with that statement. Having children out of wedlock was incredibly uncommon. Why? The average woman couldn’t support herself and there was limited government assistance, if any.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they're just going to find out no one wants to date or marry them with those attitudes.

Yes ,it’s going to be hard for a man to find a woman who wants to take care of kid, family and home instead of going into the workforce.

You’re delusional if you think that is going to be hard.

Well first those men have to actually get jobs that can fund that. So that's one. Second, men who feel strongly about "traditional" gender roles often just are terrible about doing their share at home and act controlling.

The reality is most men I've met who claim to want traditional gender roles are just lazy guys who don't actually make that much money but they want a woman to cook and clean for them anyway. The men I know who are doctors, lawyers and engineers are married to other doctors, lawyers, and engineers.

Yes. But then they expect the female doctors, lawyers, and engineers to do the brunt of the housework and childcare. This is why female physicians make $100,000 less per year than their male counterparts.

In some ways, I think it would be a lot easier if everyone was realistic about what they wanted upfront.

The problem is unrealistic expectations.

Men want X, y, and z (wife, kids, big house), but have no idea what to do with X, y, and z. And do nothing. Tag along. Wait for directions. Revert more into office work. Hide on the iPhone. Ignore life.

Anonymous wrote:I am a working woman with a husband who does 50/50 at home and is supportive of my career.

However if I could do it all over again I would look for a more traditional marriage with gender roles.

The vast majority of women seemed to get screwed over working a man’s job and also being a wife and mom. Now there is an expectation that a woman has a demanding career and do everything at home.

A lot of women get f***ed over when they don't work. The problem isn't working vs not working, the problem is men. I can't believe you're middle aged and haven't had this "a ha" moment yet. Tell us more about your background.

Anonymous wrote:I am a working woman with a husband who does 50/50 at home and is supportive of my career.

However if I could do it all over again I would look for a more traditional marriage with gender roles.

The vast majority of women seemed to get screwed over working a man’s job and also being a wife and mom. Now there is an expectation that a woman has a demanding career and do everything at home.

Agree women get screwed by this because men don't do their fair share at home. But being a SAHM and housewife doesn't solve it (I've done both).

If your partner refuses to contribute to childcare or housework, you work two shifts no matter what. If you stay home, you work all day caring fur kids and the house and then when your spouse comes home you continue to take care of the kids while also attending to your spouse's needs. If you don't make money you also have to be accountable to him for the money you spend on these activities, and since doesn't do it himself if is easy for him to discount or argue with how much things like kids' shoes and kitchen appliances and food should cost.

But yeah if you work you wind up in a similar boat working a double shift and also probably you make less (you need a flexible job because you're the primary parent and have do many duties outside work)so your job is always treated as an annoyance instead of, you know, a job. BUT at least you make money. You will have more economic power which gives you options. Maybe the option to leave if you decide you can share custody with this man who refuses to care for his own children or home. At a minimum more power to make economic decisions in the household, especially related to your heavy household duties.

They both suck but unless you make less than childcare costs (which many women do-- I didn't have a second child specifically because it would have made it more expensive to work and childcare would have been viewed as "my" expense) it's better to work in a marriage like this because it gives you some kind of leverage.

But I think the real key is not to marry men who refuse to care for their own children or their own homes. That solves a bunch of problems off the bat. If you have an equal partner then you two can figure out what makes the most sense in terms of both your careers or if it makes sense for one of you to stay home or be PT or what. But you need to people who both view raising kids and taking care of your home as fully a joint responsibility. Without that women get effed no matter what they do while men get a bunch of free labor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s with all of Liberty U type threads recently?

No, “trad wife” isn’t a trend outside of religious extremist groups.

+1

The trad wife clickbait headlines are getting old. I’ve still seen no evidence of an increase in trad wife other than a handful, ironically, of savvy business women who are making (or trying to make) a lot of money off the image from social media.

If anything, I read the article as just saying young men expect to make lots of money in their careers, and are probably assuming they’ll make more than a future wife, because of, well, male narcissism. I’d be interested to see what today’s millennials answered when they were the same age. As in, is it really normal and aspirational for 20 year old men to assume they’ll make lots of money and therefore make more than their spouse…. And then they hit 30 and realize happy lives usually require two incomes. So is it true that as men get older, they always drop their expectations of making more than their wives?

Jeff needs to rename the relationship forum to the incel forum. If these men were actually traditional they wouldn't be posting on a parent's forum. Not manly at all.

Anonymous wrote:The unpopular but true opinion is that being a housewife is an amazing job. You don't have a boss. You can wakeup whenever you want most days. The lions share of chores are a cinch. Wow, throw in laundry and go run on the treadmill for an hour. Throw in dryer and stream Netflix vids.

Why would you want a stressful professional job that kills you and makes you die early?

Gen Z women have figure out that the working world is overrated and for suckers.

Are you 14?

Anonymous wrote:The unpopular but true opinion is that being a housewife is an amazing job. You don't have a boss. You can wakeup whenever you want most days. The lions share of chores are a cinch. Wow, throw in laundry and go run on the treadmill for an hour. Throw in dryer and stream Netflix vids.

Why would you want a stressful professional job that kills you and makes you die early?

Gen Z women have figure out that the working world is overrated and for suckers.

I work so my daughters don't have to. You get how that works, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they're just going to find out no one wants to date or marry them with those attitudes.

Yes ,it’s going to be hard for a man to find a woman who wants to take care of kid, family and home instead of going into the workforce.

You’re delusional if you think that is going to be hard.

They can't afford it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they're just going to find out no one wants to date or marry them with those attitudes.

There are many many young women who want a guy who makes all the money and they can stay home. That is also pretty common now. Income and will pay for everything is very high on most young women’s lists.

Have you ever noticed that a lot of the guys who want a SAHM traditional partner are the same guys who will never crack 65k/year?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neglect of social science is a huge factor in this kind of thinking. People who actually learn about history, gender studies, and social economics know that this vision of "traditional" roles with SAH spouse was never common. (Those people would also know what the words "feminism" and "patriarchy" mean, which I'm not sure OP does.)

In an aggragrian society, everybody works but mostly not for cash. There was no "going to work" vs staying home, although you might share labor among neighbors. As things urbanized and moved to cash, people almost immediately outsourced their meals and laundry, so there were women with businesses and working outside the home. In both scenarios there were a lot of people who never married: they lived with family, or worked for the rich, or went into religion or military.

The idea of widespread marriage where one man's cash wage supports a SAHM nuclear family was a thing for a very brief period in the US, and only for a faction of the population. A blip, not traditional.

This is not what labor statistics show. But this is often repeated on here. Women didn’t even have access to daycare or any sort of maternity leave so it was extremely difficult for a woman to hold down any sort of job outside of the home. Women working a man’s job is a recent thing.

Curious what you think are men's jobs in this context, but it doesn't really matter because we're talking paid work outside the home. Women historically worked as teachers, cooks, childcare providers, laundresses, cleaners, seamstresses, etc etc. When office work was invented they worked in offices. That's all working outside the home.

Women left their kids with relatives or brought them with, depending on the job. But, as I already said many didn't have spouses so they either didn't have kids or they gave them up (including to family). Marriage was not as common as the trad fantasy assumes.

Who says women need to marry these guys?