Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A lot of SAHMs don’t have husbands or grandparents who help, or their former hours were terrible. So the choice was nanny/daycare for 10+ hours a day or quit. In that scenario quitting absolutely makes the most sense, no matter how “wonderful” the childcare may be.

I don think a lot of SAHM have children with no father.

Father can take the morning, nanny for 5 hours a day when the kid is mostly napping, be home by 4

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.

The most neglected kids I observe are young toddlers with newborn and infant siblings. If those parents truly cared about child development they would have waited til their first kid was 5 before having more.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A lot of SAHMs don’t have husbands or grandparents who help, or their former hours were terrible. So the choice was nanny/daycare for 10+ hours a day or quit. In that scenario quitting absolutely makes the most sense, no matter how “wonderful” the childcare may be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if I "had" to work or "chose" to work. We could have made it on DH's income but he does not want me to stay home because he wants an UMC lifestyle instead of a MC one, which I would have been fine with.

It doesn’t sound like you had a choice. I would have told him to make more money if he wanted a certain lifestyle. If a mother really feels it’s important to be at home for her children then a middle class lifestyle would be fine. Probably better than fine because there would be more like minded mothers to meet and less materialistic people around you.

Yes, a woman’s place is in the home. If he wants more money it’s his job as a leader of the home and provider to go get it. I don’t understand why you stood for this and let him bully you into a job.

I get you’re being sarcastic but the reality is more women than men would prefer to stay home and women have babies. You can claim that it shouldn’t be this way, but the vast majority of women are uninterested in a man who can’t provide for them. It’s biology.

Guarantee you that the PP had a terrible sex life and is or was unhappy. There’s nothing that kills a sex life for a woman like a man who can’t provide and allow a woman to stay home to watch her own kids.

So why should women go to college or grad school? If a 15 year old girl who wanted to be a lawyer and also have a family came to you for advice, would you tell her what you really believe, that women should be at home with their kids and be provided for by their husbands?

DP

I’m in my 40’s and I want to completely switch careers because I don’t actually like what I blindly chose when I was 18 years old.

Is that allowed? Am I just wasting my education?

So you chose something, worked at it for a while, are changing course, and plan to work again. Your previous education/credits will likely also count towards your new career/degree.
Also lets not forget that a Bache; or's degree in any subject is often the minimum requirement to get a job above minimum wage.

Also how is this related to pp's question about a 15 year old girl?

Anonymous wrote:The crazy thing is that people of young kids get all worked up about this and then you go through the teen and young adult years and you see that SAHM v WOHM is basically irrelevant compared to other familial issues. Go on with yourselves, getting all excited about this, but it’s a waste of energy.

- parent of young adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not an acceptable turn of phrase.

But I am not offended because it shows the low character of the speaker. Just as if they had said they work FT because “I wanted to use my brain”

+1 it's a rude thing to say but I'd also roll my eyes at their myopic view

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.

The most neglected kids I observe are young toddlers with newborn and infant siblings. If those parents truly cared about child development they would have waited til their first kid was 5 before having more.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A lot of SAHMs don’t have husbands or grandparents who help, or their former hours were terrible. So the choice was nanny/daycare for 10+ hours a day or quit. In that scenario quitting absolutely makes the most sense, no matter how “wonderful” the childcare may be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if I "had" to work or "chose" to work. We could have made it on DH's income but he does not want me to stay home because he wants an UMC lifestyle instead of a MC one, which I would have been fine with.

It doesn’t sound like you had a choice. I would have told him to make more money if he wanted a certain lifestyle. If a mother really feels it’s important to be at home for her children then a middle class lifestyle would be fine. Probably better than fine because there would be more like minded mothers to meet and less materialistic people around you.

Yes, a woman’s place is in the home. If he wants more money it’s his job as a leader of the home and provider to go get it. I don’t understand why you stood for this and let him bully you into a job.

I get you’re being sarcastic but the reality is more women than men would prefer to stay home and women have babies. You can claim that it shouldn’t be this way, but the vast majority of women are uninterested in a man who can’t provide for them. It’s biology.

Guarantee you that the PP had a terrible sex life and is or was unhappy. There’s nothing that kills a sex life for a woman like a man who can’t provide and allow a woman to stay home to watch her own kids.

So why should women go to college or grad school? If a 15 year old girl who wanted to be a lawyer and also have a family came to you for advice, would you tell her what you really believe, that women should be at home with their kids and be provided for by their husbands?

DP

I’m in my 40’s and I want to completely switch careers because I don’t actually like what I blindly chose when I was 18 years old.

Is that allowed? Am I just wasting my education?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A lot of SAHMs don’t have husbands or grandparents who help, or their former hours were terrible. So the choice was nanny/daycare for 10+ hours a day or quit. In that scenario quitting absolutely makes the most sense, no matter how “wonderful” the childcare may be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How old are you? You sound like maybe a 20 something, possibly early 30s. You still have a very shallow view of feminism, women’s rights, and equality, which is not uncommon for younger women. That, or you have kids who are still VERY young (i.e. not much life experience in the area we are currently discussing).

I believe that women’s rights do in fact matter to you, but I also know that you haven’t thought through what that really means. Your internalized misogyny is the most insidious kind, because you honestly don’t (can’t?) recognize it in yourself.

I encourage you to consider deeply the idea that capitalism and patriarchy go hand in hand. One cannot dismantle the patriarchy by leaning into it.

+1. I’ve been saying this too. There is this ribbon of internalized misogyny throughout and then there is so much racism, classism, etc.

How do you jump from “I’m saving humanity from tradwives by working” to “the work of childcare is for idiots” to “I really respect her” to “women who stay home and don’t work should not get college degrees” to “JD Vance and Christian Nationalists are taking over America” and then everything they don’t understand or agree with (i.e. that there are a finite number of hours in the day and there is a trade off to how you spend your time and that birth through five is a critical period) is just “dumb”. And zero response to the fact that benefits for families force many women out of the workforce, because saying that is dumb would conflict with their supposedly liberal worldview but also undermine their argument.

How does someone with an insane worldview like the above even function? If anyone needs to go back to school it’s this lady so she can learn to think critically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always hate the SAHM and WOHM debates because in my circles living in multiple places, I've had a good mix of friends. I've also been both a SAHM (7 years) and a WOHM (now divorced). For me the big debate is whether people are judgmental v nonjudgmental and if they can handle the fact that people are free to make choices that best suit their families.

Saying that someone isn't raising their kids because they have a job isn't true, and is rude to boot.

You are twisting the words. If someone said they stay home because they didn’t want someone else to raise their kids, that doesn’t mean a person with a job isn’t raising their kids. I can’t imagine a scenario where someone would so rudely say that to a working mother because it is rude to say. I say this as a sahm who used to be a working mom and will probably one day again be a working mom.

So what *exactly* do they mean? Why should we reach beyond what they are actually saying to come up with some nicer, gentler explanation?

I have never said those words so I can’t tell you “exactly” what they mean.

I stayed home expecting to only take a break. I thought I would eventually go back to work and I probably will in some capacity. I have 3 kids with a fairly large age gap so I have a kid in high school, middle school and early elementary. I’m finding that my non driving teens require a lot of parenting and driving. I have written this before, not sure on this thread, but I find that the teens need you more than my youngest child. If it were just my elementary child, I probably would be back at work by now. I find my middle school child the most needy currently.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How old are you? You sound like maybe a 20 something, possibly early 30s. You still have a very shallow view of feminism, women’s rights, and equality, which is not uncommon for younger women. That, or you have kids who are still VERY young (i.e. not much life experience in the area we are currently discussing).

I believe that women’s rights do in fact matter to you, but I also know that you haven’t thought through what that really means. Your internalized misogyny is the most insidious kind, because you honestly don’t (can’t?) recognize it in yourself.

I encourage you to consider deeply the idea that capitalism and patriarchy go hand in hand. One cannot dismantle the patriarchy by leaning into it.

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.