Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

Are you a child development expert?

Oh c’mon. You don’t have to be a child development expert to know that it is better for an infant to be cared for one-on-one by their mother than put into a group daycare. Pp is right on target, and we as a society would be better off if we acknowledged this fact and recognized that women can exit and re-enter the work force as their children grow and their family needs change.

Not a father? Only a mother? A mom can never have someone else hold the baby? The baby must be in the care of a mother while it sleeps?

Really?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

Are you a child development expert?

Oh c’mon. You don’t have to be a child development expert to know that it is better for an infant to be cared for one-on-one by their mother than put into a group daycare. Pp is right on target, and we as a society would be better off if we acknowledged this fact and recognized that women can exit and re-enter the work force as their children grow and their family needs change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre kids I worked 10-12 hr days (so 50-60 hrs a week). There was no option for part time or a more flexible schedule in my field. If there had been that option, I would have continued working. I’d be fine w my kids being in daycare or with a nanny for 5-7 hrs a day but not for 10-12. So I quit my job to be a SAHM.

The problems are: 1) with so many jobs requiring so many hours and so little time off; 2) childcare being incredibly expensive. If the US prioritized families, women, children, there would be more high level jobs with flexible work schedules and the option for family-friendly part time hours and daycare would be much more affordable so more families could afford for both parents to continue working and send kids to daycare.

The way things are in reality is not set up to support families at all and it’s a hindrance to women’s advancement because many women, like myself, don’t have a choice to do both: work and have enough time with kids.

In many other countries SAHPs are practically unheard of because work schedules are more reasonable and workers get much more time off than we do in the US so SAHP isn’t really a thing because work-life balance is already good so more people keep working after having kids.

+1. My relatives in Sweden, both male and female work 9-3. School hours. Then they’re home with their kids in the afternoons. The kids’ summer break is only about 6 weeks long and 4 of those weeks the parents have off work to for annual leave. It’s like this throughout a lot of Europe. A set up that actually supports families and encourages parents to continue working after having kids. Oh and also daycare is heavily subsidized there to make it actually affordable for all again which encourages parents of young kids to continue working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

lol.. hypocrisy alert.

There’s nothing hypocritical there at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

Are you a child development expert?

Oh c’mon. You don’t have to be a child development expert to know that it is better for an infant to be cared for one-on-one by their mother than put into a group daycare. Pp is right on target, and we as a society would be better off if we acknowledged this fact and recognized that women can exit and re-enter the work force as their children grow and their family needs change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

lol.. hypocrisy alert.

There’s nothing hypocritical there at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

lol.. hypocrisy alert.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to every sahm on this thread (the new term for you is tradwives), congrats. You are fulfilling the vision of postliberal Christian nationalists like JD Vance and setting back women’s advancement. If you don’t care about equality with men then own that, and model to young girls that a woman belongs at home. But for those of who care about women’s rights, this anti-working woman trend discourse is troubling.

Do you honestly believe the only way to have equality with men is by working? You sound very narrow minded.

How do we achieve equality with men then? A PP above was saying that education was key to equality with men—so education is a way to have equal opportunities with men but working isn’t?

Women are not equal to men. Women cannot expect to have the same wages and same promotions if they don’t put in the same hours and work as men. This is almost impossible to do as the prime career development ages overlap with fertility and time of having young children. I’m not saying women cannot have careers or they should stay home. I think it was a huge disservice to girls in my generation to say we are equal.

Exactly. You are saying what the tradwives on this thread won’t admit. A woman’s place is her home, a way of life that tracks perfectly with the Christian nationalist agenda that is now on the rise.

I’m a SAHM and the furthest you can get from a tradwife, and not Christian or nationalist or conservative. I don’t think you’ll win many over by calling names like that.

I’m a SAHM and a feminist. There are many others like me.

I’m not calling names. I work in trust and safety and monitoring online discourse is fundamental to my job. The term tradwife is replacing SAHM and that’s a fact. Am I using it here because it’s annoying women who don’t work take over DCUM threads concerning working women? Yes, I’ll admit that.

You may think you are a feminist but your lifestyle tracks with exactly what Christian nationalists want for this country: less working women. You are of course free to do whatever the heck you want to do and no one cares (if you don’t make these disclaimers the less bright tradwives will start writing about “freedom”) but your actions influence society and might dissuade a promising gynecologist from pursuing her career. When so many tradwives start saying that women who work are not raising their children, that will no doubt influence young girls pondering their future.

Why don’t you work to change the system then instead of attacking women who are not the problem. The Christian nationalists are the problem, not the women who are doing their best under a broken and misogynistic system.

I’m not attacking women! I’m defending working women facing onslaught from the postliberal Christian right and the white upper class SAHMs (dcum). The only way to change the system is for more women to stay in the workforce and push for work life balance! Again with the dumb disclaimers you have to make for the dim tradwives: no you are not forced to do anything, no one is talking about taking away your “freedom” or whatever.

I a personally don’t think the “raising your own kids” line is offensive at all. I would just smile politely at a woman who would say something like that. It’s in my personal interest for there to be less women in the workplace—more opportunities for me. But it’s not in the interest of women’s rights, which matter to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

Are you a child development expert?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to every sahm on this thread (the new term for you is tradwives), congrats. You are fulfilling the vision of postliberal Christian nationalists like JD Vance and setting back women’s advancement. If you don’t care about equality with men then own that, and model to young girls that a woman belongs at home. But for those of who care about women’s rights, this anti-working woman trend discourse is troubling.

Do you honestly believe the only way to have equality with men is by working? You sound very narrow minded.

How do we achieve equality with men then? A PP above was saying that education was key to equality with men—so education is a way to have equal opportunities with men but working isn’t?

Women are not equal to men. Women cannot expect to have the same wages and same promotions if they don’t put in the same hours and work as men. This is almost impossible to do as the prime career development ages overlap with fertility and time of having young children. I’m not saying women cannot have careers or they should stay home. I think it was a huge disservice to girls in my generation to say we are equal.

Exactly. You are saying what the tradwives on this thread won’t admit. A woman’s place is her home, a way of life that tracks perfectly with the Christian nationalist agenda that is now on the rise.

I’m a SAHM and the furthest you can get from a tradwife, and not Christian or nationalist or conservative. I don’t think you’ll win many over by calling names like that.

I’m a SAHM and a feminist. There are many others like me.

I’m not calling names. I work in trust and safety and monitoring online discourse is fundamental to my job. The term tradwife is replacing SAHM and that’s a fact. Am I using it here because it’s annoying women who don’t work take over DCUM threads concerning working women? Yes, I’ll admit that.

You may think you are a feminist but your lifestyle tracks with exactly what Christian nationalists want for this country: less working women. You are of course free to do whatever the heck you want to do and no one cares (if you don’t make these disclaimers the less bright tradwives will start writing about “freedom”) but your actions influence society and might dissuade a promising gynecologist from pursuing her career. When so many tradwives start saying that women who work are not raising their children, that will no doubt influence young girls pondering their future.

Why don’t you work to change the system then instead of attacking women who are not the problem. The Christian nationalists are the problem, not the women who are doing their best under a broken and misogynistic system.

Religious bigotry alert.