Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sad that any form of family life is frowned upon by so-called feminists. I think you should start your own colony. No men and of course no children. No domestic duties at all, no interdependent relationships, definitely no manicures or yoga pants, only high paying, "important" careers.
You will need to recruit from the outside world of the rest of us lesser-than-thou actual real people. I mean since you cannot bear children or the burden of caring for them. That's patriarchy! But you will need an intensive training system for your new recruits as the will be coming from a variety of backgrounds.
Seriously I think you should consider this.

I don't frown upon it at all. Child rearing is very important. But I think we need to be realistic that it has consequences on women in the workforce. America has a lower rate of women working than Europe for instance. That has an effect on women in the workforce being treated equally. And if we really do think our men should be the primary providers, should we not accept them at higher rates into colleges than women? Women really do not need to attend college just to be mothers so then how much should college be subsidized? I think these are still issues our country is grappling with.

What should I have done then, not go to college and work some low paying job from 18 till I get married? No thanks. I made a lot of money in all those years in a high income field, and that helped me bring substantial equity into the marriage. Being educated makes me a better Mom. Being educated makes me a better citizen. Being educated is better for me personally, for my kids, for my community.

You can say that childrearing is important out of one side your mouth, but when you say that SAHM don't deserve an education you know how hypocritical you sound, right?

I think we as a society need to learn to educate our girls better. These days we tell each and every little girl that she can grow up to be an astronaut, a scientist, a doctor or a lawyer but we also stress that along with working hard in school, competing with colleagues at work for promotions and bigger salaries, they should also keep in mind to NOT wind up single and alone in their 30s and beyond.

So what happens is girls do very well in school, get good grades get into top colleges and then go on to take spots and scholarships at top professional schools.

Then you have the overmedicated big law attorney who is 31 and really truly just wants to get married. She meets a fellow big law attorney, gets married, promptly quits at 34 to stay home and have a baby. A few years later you will find her at your local barre studio with her huge diamond ring, tiny waist and expensive Lululemons working on her "seat."

This is not fair to men and women. Girls need to early on be coached on what kind of life they desire. Not every woman WANTS to be a SAHM not every woman WANTS to be a powerful CEO. We need to weed out the girls carefully when they are younger. Direct the maternal, home making types into lower tier schools where they can study fashion or liberal arts and their moms can help them find a high earning alpha to marry and have children with.

The ambitious brainy girls who want more, should be directed to better schools where they can get their degrees and run fortune 500 companies. These women would then, upon marriage, be less likely to drop out. Not every mom wants to stop working. We just need to as a society stop investing resources into women who only want to be SAHMs.

Similarly you have

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sad that any form of family life is frowned upon by so-called feminists. I think you should start your own colony. No men and of course no children. No domestic duties at all, no interdependent relationships, definitely no manicures or yoga pants, only high paying, "important" careers.
You will need to recruit from the outside world of the rest of us lesser-than-thou actual real people. I mean since you cannot bear children or the burden of caring for them. That's patriarchy! But you will need an intensive training system for your new recruits as the will be coming from a variety of backgrounds.
Seriously I think you should consider this.

I don't frown upon it at all. Child rearing is very important. But I think we need to be realistic that it has consequences on women in the workforce. America has a lower rate of women working than Europe for instance. That has an effect on women in the workforce being treated equally. And if we really do think our men should be the primary providers, should we not accept them at higher rates into colleges than women? Women really do not need to attend college just to be mothers so then how much should college be subsidized? I think these are still issues our country is grappling with.

What should I have done then, not go to college and work some low paying job from 18 till I get married? No thanks. I made a lot of money in all those years in a high income field, and that helped me bring substantial equity into the marriage. Being educated makes me a better Mom. Being educated makes me a better citizen. Being educated is better for me personally, for my kids, for my community.

You can say that childrearing is important out of one side your mouth, but when you say that SAHM don't deserve an education you know how hypocritical you sound, right?

I think we as a society need to learn to educate our girls better. These days we tell each and every little girl that she can grow up to be an astronaut, a scientist, a doctor or a lawyer but we also stress that along with working hard in school, competing with colleagues at work for promotions and bigger salaries, they should also keep in mind to NOT wind up single and alone in their 30s and beyond.

So what happens is girls do very well in school, get good grades get into top colleges and then go on to take spots and scholarships at top professional schools.

Then you have the overmedicated big law attorney who is 31 and really truly just wants to get married. She meets a fellow big law attorney, gets married, promptly quits at 34 to stay home and have a baby. A few years later you will find her at your local barre studio with her huge diamond ring, tiny waist and expensive Lululemons working on her "seat."

This is not fair to men and women. Girls need to early on be coached on what kind of life they desire. Not every woman WANTS to be a SAHM not every woman WANTS to be a powerful CEO. We need to weed out the girls carefully when they are younger. Direct the maternal, home making types into lower tier schools where they can study fashion or liberal arts and their moms can help them find a high earning alpha to marry and have children with.

The ambitious brainy girls who want more, should be directed to better schools where they can get their degrees and run fortune 500 companies. These women would then, upon marriage, be less likely to drop out. Not every mom wants to stop working. We just need to as a society stop investing resources into women who only want to be SAHMs.

Similarly you have

What the fuuuuuuu......

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sad that any form of family life is frowned upon by so-called feminists. I think you should start your own colony. No men and of course no children. No domestic duties at all, no interdependent relationships, definitely no manicures or yoga pants, only high paying, "important" careers.
You will need to recruit from the outside world of the rest of us lesser-than-thou actual real people. I mean since you cannot bear children or the burden of caring for them. That's patriarchy! But you will need an intensive training system for your new recruits as the will be coming from a variety of backgrounds.
Seriously I think you should consider this.

I don't frown upon it at all. Child rearing is very important. But I think we need to be realistic that it has consequences on women in the workforce. America has a lower rate of women working than Europe for instance. That has an effect on women in the workforce being treated equally. And if we really do think our men should be the primary providers, should we not accept them at higher rates into colleges than women? Women really do not need to attend college just to be mothers so then how much should college be subsidized? I think these are still issues our country is grappling with.

What should I have done then, not go to college and work some low paying job from 18 till I get married? No thanks. I made a lot of money in all those years in a high income field, and that helped me bring substantial equity into the marriage. Being educated makes me a better Mom. Being educated makes me a better citizen. Being educated is better for me personally, for my kids, for my community.

You can say that childrearing is important out of one side your mouth, but when you say that SAHM don't deserve an education you know how hypocritical you sound, right?

I think we as a society need to learn to educate our girls better. These days we tell each and every little girl that she can grow up to be an astronaut, a scientist, a doctor or a lawyer but we also stress that along with working hard in school, competing with colleagues at work for promotions and bigger salaries, they should also keep in mind to NOT wind up single and alone in their 30s and beyond.

So what happens is girls do very well in school, get good grades get into top colleges and then go on to take spots and scholarships at top professional schools.

Then you have the overmedicated big law attorney who is 31 and really truly just wants to get married. She meets a fellow big law attorney, gets married, promptly quits at 34 to stay home and have a baby. A few years later you will find her at your local barre studio with her huge diamond ring, tiny waist and expensive Lululemons working on her "seat."

This is not fair to men and women. Girls need to early on be coached on what kind of life they desire. Not every woman WANTS to be a SAHM not every woman WANTS to be a powerful CEO. We need to weed out the girls carefully when they are younger. Direct the maternal, home making types into lower tier schools where they can study fashion or liberal arts and their moms can help them find a high earning alpha to marry and have children with.

The ambitious brainy girls who want more, should be directed to better schools where they can get their degrees and run fortune 500 companies. These women would then, upon marriage, be less likely to drop out. Not every mom wants to stop working. We just need to as a society stop investing resources into women who only want to be SAHMs.

Similarly you have

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sad that any form of family life is frowned upon by so-called feminists. I think you should start your own colony. No men and of course no children. No domestic duties at all, no interdependent relationships, definitely no manicures or yoga pants, only high paying, "important" careers.
You will need to recruit from the outside world of the rest of us lesser-than-thou actual real people. I mean since you cannot bear children or the burden of caring for them. That's patriarchy! But you will need an intensive training system for your new recruits as the will be coming from a variety of backgrounds.
Seriously I think you should consider this.

I don't frown upon it at all. Child rearing is very important. But I think we need to be realistic that it has consequences on women in the workforce. America has a lower rate of women working than Europe for instance. That has an effect on women in the workforce being treated equally. And if we really do think our men should be the primary providers, should we not accept them at higher rates into colleges than women? Women really do not need to attend college just to be mothers so then how much should college be subsidized? I think these are still issues our country is grappling with.

What should I have done then, not go to college and work some low paying job from 18 till I get married? No thanks. I made a lot of money in all those years in a high income field, and that helped me bring substantial equity into the marriage. Being educated makes me a better Mom. Being educated makes me a better citizen. Being educated is better for me personally, for my kids, for my community.

You can say that childrearing is important out of one side your mouth, but when you say that SAHM don't deserve an education you know how hypocritical you sound, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sad that any form of family life is frowned upon by so-called feminists. I think you should start your own colony. No men and of course no children. No domestic duties at all, no interdependent relationships, definitely no manicures or yoga pants, only high paying, "important" careers.
You will need to recruit from the outside world of the rest of us lesser-than-thou actual real people. I mean since you cannot bear children or the burden of caring for them. That's patriarchy! But you will need an intensive training system for your new recruits as the will be coming from a variety of backgrounds.
Seriously I think you should consider this.

I don't frown upon it at all. Child rearing is very important. But I think we need to be realistic that it has consequences on women in the workforce. America has a lower rate of women working than Europe for instance. That has an effect on women in the workforce being treated equally. And if we really do think our men should be the primary providers, should we not accept them at higher rates into colleges than women? Women really do not need to attend college just to be mothers so then how much should college be subsidized? I think these are still issues our country is grappling with.

What should I have done then, not go to college and work some low paying job from 18 till I get married? No thanks. I made a lot of money in all those years in a high income field, and that helped me bring substantial equity into the marriage. Being educated makes me a better Mom. Being educated makes me a better citizen. Being educated is better for me personally, for my kids, for my community.

You can say that childrearing is important out of one side your mouth, but when you say that SAHM don't deserve an education you know how hypocritical you sound, right?

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sad that any form of family life is frowned upon by so-called feminists. I think you should start your own colony. No men and of course no children. No domestic duties at all, no interdependent relationships, definitely no manicures or yoga pants, only high paying, "important" careers.
You will need to recruit from the outside world of the rest of us lesser-than-thou actual real people. I mean since you cannot bear children or the burden of caring for them. That's patriarchy! But you will need an intensive training system for your new recruits as the will be coming from a variety of backgrounds.
Seriously I think you should consider this.

I don't frown upon it at all. Child rearing is very important. But I think we need to be realistic that it has consequences on women in the workforce. America has a lower rate of women working than Europe for instance. That has an effect on women in the workforce being treated equally. And if we really do think our men should be the primary providers, should we not accept them at higher rates into colleges than women? Women really do not need to attend college just to be mothers so then how much should college be subsidized? I think these are still issues our country is grappling with.

What should I have done then, not go to college and work some low paying job from 18 till I get married? No thanks. I made a lot of money in all those years in a high income field, and that helped me bring substantial equity into the marriage. Being educated makes me a better Mom. Being educated makes me a better citizen. Being educated is better for me personally, for my kids, for my community.

You can say that childrearing is important out of one side your mouth, but when you say that SAHM don't deserve an education you know how hypocritical you sound, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have absolutely no problems with SAHM. I grew up in a home with a SAHM and I know that I turned out the way I did cause she was home. I am not married, no kids and great job. My mom did have issues later, divorced had to find job, little education so low paying job. Now in her 80's she lives on SS and me and siblings help out the best we can financially. So to the SAHM I say, do it but make sure you are covered if something goes south in the future. Big income husband with good lawyer can leave you penniless with minimal child support if it is assumed you can work. Stash a little away for a rainy day. If it never comes spending on something fun. Just take care that you are covered under ALL circumstances

None of this shit would've happened if that dear mother of yours had bothered to get even a clerical job . Hence, the confusion and disappointment towards SAHMS

We definitely need women to work. The government can make it mandatory to get all women in buses to take them to work in factories, power plants and farms. Babies and children will be left in day orphanages. Choice should be eliminated. Bring back soviet Russia and communist China.

A white woman's place is in the bedroom and kitchen . Civil rights be damned, equality movement be damned, gender parity be damned, feminism be damned , equal pay be damned . Why bother? Being a homemaker in the 21st century is still an attractive proposition . Bring back the patriarchy , while you're at it start asking for your husband's approval to get a credit card, a manicure , a bra . Who am I kidding ? You already depend him for that

The patriarchy never left. Just in your imagination.

The patriarchy might never have left , however weee not in 1750 anymore despite the treasonous efforts of some of you white women to take us back there under the disguise of raising 'kids'

If my decision to SAH is "treasonous" to your job, imagine how threatened you would be were I to take your job by returning to the workforce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sad that any form of family life is frowned upon by so-called feminists. I think you should start your own colony. No men and of course no children. No domestic duties at all, no interdependent relationships, definitely no manicures or yoga pants, only high paying, "important" careers.
You will need to recruit from the outside world of the rest of us lesser-than-thou actual real people. I mean since you cannot bear children or the burden of caring for them. That's patriarchy! But you will need an intensive training system for your new recruits as the will be coming from a variety of backgrounds.
Seriously I think you should consider this.

I don't frown upon it at all. Child rearing is very important. But I think we need to be realistic that it has consequences on women in the workforce. America has a lower rate of women working than Europe for instance. That has an effect on women in the workforce being treated equally. And if we really do think our men should be the primary providers, should we not accept them at higher rates into colleges than women? Women really do not need to attend college just to be mothers so then how much should college be subsidized? I think these are still issues our country is grappling with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sad that any form of family life is frowned upon by so-called feminists. I think you should start your own colony. No men and of course no children. No domestic duties at all, no interdependent relationships, definitely no manicures or yoga pants, only high paying, "important" careers.
You will need to recruit from the outside world of the rest of us lesser-than-thou actual real people. I mean since you cannot bear children or the burden of caring for them. That's patriarchy! But you will need an intensive training system for your new recruits as the will be coming from a variety of backgrounds.
Seriously I think you should consider this.

I don't frown upon it at all. Child rearing is very important. But I think we need to be realistic that it has consequences on women in the workforce. America has a lower rate of women working than Europe for instance. That has an effect on women in the workforce being treated equally. And if we really do think our men should be the primary providers, should we not accept them at higher rates into colleges than women? Women really do not need to attend college just to be mothers so then how much should college be subsidized? I think these are still issues our country is grappling with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have absolutely no problems with SAHM. I grew up in a home with a SAHM and I know that I turned out the way I did cause she was home. I am not married, no kids and great job. My mom did have issues later, divorced had to find job, little education so low paying job. Now in her 80's she lives on SS and me and siblings help out the best we can financially. So to the SAHM I say, do it but make sure you are covered if something goes south in the future. Big income husband with good lawyer can leave you penniless with minimal child support if it is assumed you can work. Stash a little away for a rainy day. If it never comes spending on something fun. Just take care that you are covered under ALL circumstances

None of this shit would've happened if that dear mother of yours had bothered to get even a clerical job . Hence, the confusion and disappointment towards SAHMS

We definitely need women to work. The government can make it mandatory to get all women in buses to take them to work in factories, power plants and farms. Babies and children will be left in day orphanages. Choice should be eliminated. Bring back soviet Russia and communist China.

A white woman's place is in the bedroom and kitchen . Civil rights be damned, equality movement be damned, gender parity be damned, feminism be damned , equal pay be damned . Why bother? Being a homemaker in the 21st century is still an attractive proposition . Bring back the patriarchy , while you're at it start asking for your husband's approval to get a credit card, a manicure , a bra . Who am I kidding ? You already depend him for that

The patriarchy never left. Just in your imagination.

The patriarchy might never have left , however weee not in 1750 anymore despite the treasonous efforts of some of you white women to take us back there under the disguise of raising 'kids'

Anonymous wrote:So sad that any form of family life is frowned upon by so-called feminists. I think you should start your own colony. No men and of course no children. No domestic duties at all, no interdependent relationships, definitely no manicures or yoga pants, only high paying, "important" careers.
You will need to recruit from the outside world of the rest of us lesser-than-thou actual real people. I mean since you cannot bear children or the burden of caring for them. That's patriarchy! But you will need an intensive training system for your new recruits as the will be coming from a variety of backgrounds.
Seriously I think you should consider this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a social worker and am unlikely to ever break $75K. My husband is a lawyer and makes several times that. My lifestyle would be *very* different if it were just my kids and me (or just me). No SFH with a 20 minute commute, no international travel, no "top" school pyramid for the kids, no being OK with the fact my 10 year old lost her very nice winter jacket and we had to get her a new one (I was annoyed, yes, but it was not something that put us back significantly in terms of finances), no camps for the kids, etc.

Can I not consider myself a feminist, given that I "depend" on my husband for almost all of the luxuries our family enjoys, even though I work?

I wonder about this too. Public school teacher, husband in finance who makes over TEN times what I make. My salary is a drop in the bucket. We pay several times what I make in federal income taxes alone. No way could I have my current lifestyle without his money. We absolutely depend on his income and bonuses and prioritize his career over mine. Given the salary discrepancy, we'd be fools not to.

Public school teacher you say? That means you take your butt to work din you? If yes, then why are you so concerned? We're talking SAHMS here. All of a sudden I feel quite uneasy about you teaching anybody's child

It's obvious her previous employment was teacher, she stays home now. But the real question is if she was strategic in career choice: she knew it was a lowpaying career and likely pursued it with the expectation that a future DH would be paying the bills. Her DH is in finance, in sure she filtered for that when she was dating. Classic MRS degree. She is probably attractive and counted on her looks to ensure a breadwinner DH.

Omg now teaching is not a legit career ffs

Hmm that's not what I got from PP argument , she might have gone into teaching but eventually she probably thought nothing of dropping her career once a 'sponsor' came along [/quote

Hmmmm you are a nutjob