I agree with PP who said the man has an advantage because he's a man.

Isn't the advantage obvious when one parent can afford and want's to stay home, solely to raise the children and manage the household? Isn't that why successful mothers who want to maintain their high-level jobs stress the importance of a house manager?

And for those who stay at home because they can afford to, but it's not a luxury situation (you cook all the meals because eating out is too expensive on one income scenario,) in comparison two working parents is the advantage if they're able to afford more convenience products and services.

America made this topic incredibly messy when women received the right to vote and entered the workforce. It'll never be black and white, why are so many insistent on defining it as so?

It can, but not for the reason OP mentioned. Despite the fact that DCUM housewives think they are the singular reason for their DH success, they are not. It's done by the individual. However, I have seen on more than one occasion that men with housewives tend to treat female colleagues as support staff versus equals because that is what they have at home. A traditional 1950s mindset, and that is the impediment.

I don't think they impede professional women, so much as they have always helped professional men. Both men and women tend to underestimate just how much they help professional men succeed at work, and so professional women are sort of shocked to discover that it's not so easy to do a career like men do. Men who truly share domestic duties don't find it so easy, either.

All other things being equal, yes, I do think people with SAHPs have an advantage. They don’t need to deal with the day-to-day childcare and can devote the extra time to work.

In reality, I haven’t seen that play out in my line of work. The ones who have been the most successful had children and no SAHP. They just worked their asses off, did an extremely thorough job, and contributed a lot to the company. One man I know who was promoted more quickly than anyone else ever had been was also the most demanding when it came to work/family balance. He insisted on leaving every day by 3pm to pick up his kids, would not work on his days off, took lots of vacation time, etc. I’ve applied this to my own life and have seen far more success in my professional life after kids than I did when I was single.

No. it don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is detrimental to professional women because it creates a suspicion of all women of child bearing age, that they aren't worth investing in, will leave an employer in a lurch, etc.

I agree 100%.

It's more detrimental to walk around feeling you're a victim of other people who are minding their own business. Moms at home harming you?

Uh, yes, as indicated above....

Yup. I don’t give a crap if you breastfeed, don’t put your Ken d in an appropriate car seat, whatever. But things like redshirting, not vaccinating, and - YES - quitting work to stay home with kids - do not exist in a vacuum.

* And no, I’m not saying SAHMs should be as equally vilified as parents who don’t vaccinate (rightfully IMO) are. Just pointing out there are some “mommy war” topics that affect society as a whole and some that don’t. The latter. You do you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is detrimental to professional women because it creates a suspicion of all women of child bearing age, that they aren't worth investing in, will leave an employer in a lurch, etc.

I agree 100%.

It's more detrimental to walk around feeling you're a victim of other people who are minding their own business. Moms at home harming you?

Uh, yes, as indicated above....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is detrimental to professional women because it creates a suspicion of all women of child bearing age, that they aren't worth investing in, will leave an employer in a lurch, etc.

I agree 100%.

It's more detrimental to walk around feeling you're a victim of other people who are minding their own business. Moms at home harming you?

Anonymous wrote:It is detrimental to professional women because it creates a suspicion of all women of child bearing age, that they aren't worth investing in, will leave an employer in a lurch, etc.

I agree 100%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No other professional women impede professional women, mainly those who think their jobs should coddle them because they also have kids.

Choose your field wisely. Don't expect the nature of a job to change because you want to stop everything at 3:30pm to take the kids to piano and soccer.

Very, very few jobs *require* someone to be somewhere at a certain time. Transplant surgeons. I'm sure there are others. But this BS that women who want to work and be mothers hold other "professional" women back needs to go. I have zero patience for jobs that make up reasons why they have to be rigid.

I would think almost any kind of surgeon would require you to be there at a certain time.

There are a number of jobs that require someone to be present at their place of employment in order to preform the work. Teachers, cops, firefighters, therapists, truck drivers, and it goes on and on.

Those were almost certainly not the jobs the PP was referring to for "professional women." It's the tone around "you want to stop everything at 3:30pm to take the kids to piano and soccer" that I can't abide. No one who chooses firefighting as a career would have that mindset. But for some reason, many women in white collar positions are scorned if they want to actually take advantage of the flexibility those positions afford. That's absurd.

Nope, because being a SAHM doesn't mean you're qualified to do the 'role' properly. I know plenty of husbands with wives who can't cook and just spend their days cooing at a baby. If the SAHM is actually making her husband's life easier that's another story - cooking, cleaning, making sure he's relaxed, ironing his clothes, doing laundry etc but most of the women these days want their cake and to eat it to - meaning they think its emotionally abusive that they're required to 'work' at home.

As a professional woman who outsources everything I'd say I have the advantage simply because I have the finances to ensure that my life is easier rather than 'hoping' I can have a partner who will do those things for me.

Of course it does. I know 3 high earning men who only have those jobs because they have wives at home doing literally everything with the kids and house. There's no way a woman with kids could compete with that.

I'm a single mom. I think to an extent, men in my office have an advantage over me, since they have another parent who can do pickup, look after the kids so they can stay late or work weekends. These things aren't required in my job, but you move up faster if you can do them. I don't think it would help me to be married, since in !most couples in my age bracket, the man's career takes precedence, and the men don't make sacrifices for their wives careers. Millennial couples seem much more egalitarian in that respect.

For men with SAHM wives, the effect is magnified. They move up the ladder faster.

They are making some tradeoffs, however. That second income is a BIG hit in this area. A lot of them have to live in Cousinmarriage, VA or Soulsuckingcommute, MD. The schools often are not that great due to the lower density of professional parents the farther out you go. They have 3-5 people living on a salary only slightly better than mine, which supports 2 people. Travel, enrichment activities etc are easier for me, since I have more cash per capita and spend less time commuting. The ones who have SAHM wives because they have 3+ kids go into a panic when college tuition time looms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to say no because those professional women could choose to have a SAHD husband if they wanted.

I work and although my husband works as well, he has a much more flexible job and does all the lead parent stuff and makes dinner every night.

If a woman can't create an arrangement like that with her own husband, who she chose to marry, that's her problem. She needs to get her house in order.

Ha no. Being a SAHD sucks b/c the SAHMs shun you, and it’s looked upon by almost everyone no matter how accomplished the woman. Look at Sandberg, if any family needed a SAHD it would be hers but she had a CEO DH.

Having a SAHM is a huge career advantage, economic specialization is a well studied effect.

Depends on where you live. Here in Seattle, for example, there are a lot of SAHDs. Or men who are "creatives" and for all intents and purposes unemployed but pursuing their creative passions. That's actually pretty common.

Yeah, I knew a surprising number of SAHD "creative" types in CA. They had small "creative" or artistic cottage businesses or were actors or something like that while the wife had a full time corporate job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No other professional women impede professional women, mainly those who think their jobs should coddle them because they also have kids.

Choose your field wisely. Don't expect the nature of a job to change because you want to stop everything at 3:30pm to take the kids to piano and soccer.

Very, very few jobs *require* someone to be somewhere at a certain time. Transplant surgeons. I'm sure there are others. But this BS that women who want to work and be mothers hold other "professional" women back needs to go. I have zero patience for jobs that make up reasons why they have to be rigid.

I would think almost any kind of surgeon would require you to be there at a certain time.

There are a number of jobs that require someone to be present at their place of employment in order to preform the work. Teachers, cops, firefighters, therapists, truck drivers, and it goes on and on.