Anonymous wrote:Feminist and conservatives should be the first one standing up with them.

Plus one - should be bipartisan.

Many SAHM have little choice due to need to care for special needs children, ailing parents or family members with serious illnesses.

Hollywood’s “Housewives of XYZ city” franchise has done a lot of damage to society in general. Its basically Jerry Springer Show with glamour.

Its worse for SAHDs.

Anonymous wrote:Is there any party, lobby or an individual politician advocating for people who work without titles and compensations? Its been a traditional role serving nation’s most important units known as families, nation’s most important asset known as minor citizens and nation’s most important buildings known as homes. They fill so many voids in the society but get no recognition, no compensation or no one protecting this endangered species. Isn’t it about time for them to stand up for their rights and for others to acknowledge and support it?

Media holds the real power in our society. If Hollywood stops their negative portrayal of stay at home moms and housewives, it should help immensely. I mean seriously, just the housewives of LA, NY and here and there programs tainted people’s perception of stay at home parenting. They think stay at home parents are either spoiled wealthy women or high school drop out single moms collecting food stamps. Educated, dedicated, normal middle class moms checking math home work or helping with college apps doesn’t make entertaining TV.

I am still trying to figure out what exactly sahp’s think they need lobbying for?

Most of this post seems to be about respect, which isn’t legislated.

I was home for 2 years with my youngest (not really by choice). There is definitely a divide between parents staying home and parents working.

It is also incredibly difficult to live on just one income these days, unless it is VERY high.

There are a lot of things we could do to better support families in general - universal healthcare, affordable childcare, affordable housing options, etc.

But I really am still trying to figure out what exactly OP is advocating for.

I do think children need and deserve more of their parents time and attention than many receive. But that role should be shared by men and women. We need to evolve, for the benefit of all adults and children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any party, lobby or an individual politician advocating for people who work without titles and compensations? Its been a traditional role serving nation’s most important units known as families, nation’s most important asset known as minor citizens and nation’s most important buildings known as homes. They fill so many voids in the society but get no recognition, no compensation or no one protecting this endangered species. Isn’t it about time for them to stand up for their rights and for others to acknowledge and support it?

In short, no. Remember when Hillary bragged that she decided not to stay home and bake cookies?

That’s just dismissing, minimizing and disrespecting their role in society. Btw what’s wrong with warm and delicious home made cookies?

12 year olds can make warm and delicious cookies. We normally expect adults to take on more responsible roles than cooking and cleaning. At least in 2022.

Raising children, you are right, is hugely impactful. BUT, we are a capitalist society, that generally rewards people based upon their ability to make someone else rich. What is sort of ironic when you consider that conservatives promote traditional roles for women (the dated family model), yet they eschew anything that even vaguely resembles socialism.

My problem with strict traditional gender roles is that it makes women dependent upon men (which then makes some feel less able to leave the man if that is best for them and their children), it teaches children that women cannot take on the range of roles that men can tackle (which is not true of course), it allows women who no longer have young children to do whatever they want for decades...while the males have no choice but to work hard so that both of them have a good quality of life. That set up resembles a kept woman, which is too close to prostitution for my comfort. Sorry OP, I don't see it like you (in part because I am a mom too, and understand that your children do not need your attention full time for the majority of your adult life.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of support? Like UBI? Universal healthcare? Tax breaks?

Just similar rights as others? For starters long due respect and acknowledgment of their historic contributions to this country.

This^.

Feminists and corporate careerist women are often the ones denigrating SAHM's and shaming other women for their choices.

Need a change in narrative, from talking about women and SAHM to talking about the needs of FAMILIES. Many of my male colleagues crave the same flexibility that women do but they are pushed back by the "driven" ones.

Not just that, in the main, women are not going to be attracted to and respect SAHD types. It is what it is.

Just like ambitious men, ambitious women can see the value of a content and supportive spouse who can help them focus on their goals.

https://news.ubc.ca/2016/10/28/marrying-up-despite-more-education-women-still-choose-husbands-with-higher-incomes/

Women aren't as comfortable carrying around a "free-loading" man.

First, caring for your family isn’t free loading so stop the condescending nonsense. Second, they know that men aren’t likely to hold fort to support them so what’s the point?

Slow down, Patsy. I put free-loading in quotes for a reason. That is the attitude many women have toward men performing those functions, regardless of whether they are "holding the fort" or not.

There are many ways to express your point without having to call names or use quotes to soften the blow.

So you can't admit you were wrong? Go tone police elsewhere.

Have a good day! Stay rude if it helps you feel better.

I'm having a GREAT day, sweetheart. Remain blessed, beloved.

Best Regards!

Anonymous wrote:Is there any party, lobby or an individual politician advocating for people who work without titles and compensations? Its been a traditional role serving nation’s most important units known as families, nation’s most important asset known as minor citizens and nation’s most important buildings known as homes. They fill so many voids in the society but get no recognition, no compensation or no one protecting this endangered species. Isn’t it about time for them to stand up for their rights and for others to acknowledge and support it?

If you can convince politicians of your voting power, they’ll listen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of support? Like UBI? Universal healthcare? Tax breaks?

Just similar rights as others? For starters long due respect and acknowledgment of their historic contributions to this country.

This^.

Feminists and corporate careerist women are often the ones denigrating SAHM's and shaming other women for their choices.

Need a change in narrative, from talking about women and SAHM to talking about the needs of FAMILIES. Many of my male colleagues crave the same flexibility that women do but they are pushed back by the "driven" ones.

Not just that, in the main, women are not going to be attracted to and respect SAHD types. It is what it is.

Just like ambitious men, ambitious women can see the value of a content and supportive spouse who can help them focus on their goals.

https://news.ubc.ca/2016/10/28/marrying-up-despite-more-education-women-still-choose-husbands-with-higher-incomes/

Women aren't as comfortable carrying around a "free-loading" man.

First, caring for your family isn’t free loading so stop the condescending nonsense. Second, they know that men aren’t likely to hold fort to support them so what’s the point?

Slow down, Patsy. I put free-loading in quotes for a reason. That is the attitude many women have toward men performing those functions, regardless of whether they are "holding the fort" or not.

There are many ways to express your point without having to call names or use quotes to soften the blow.

So you can't admit you were wrong? Go tone police elsewhere.

Have a good day! Stay rude if it helps you feel better.

I'm having a GREAT day, sweetheart. Remain blessed, beloved.

Anonymous wrote:That’s how media has conditioned society, people feel their worth and right to exist is tied to their career.

It's a brilliant strategy for the titans of industry. They have people taking pride in going the extra mile for some meaningless project at work rather than raising kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of support? Like UBI? Universal healthcare? Tax breaks?

Just similar rights as others? For starters long due respect and acknowledgment of their historic contributions to this country.

This^.

Feminists and corporate careerist women are often the ones denigrating SAHM's and shaming other women for their choices.

Need a change in narrative, from talking about women and SAHM to talking about the needs of FAMILIES. Many of my male colleagues crave the same flexibility that women do but they are pushed back by the "driven" ones.

Not just that, in the main, women are not going to be attracted to and respect SAHD types. It is what it is.

Just like ambitious men, ambitious women can see the value of a content and supportive spouse who can help them focus on their goals.

https://news.ubc.ca/2016/10/28/marrying-up-despite-more-education-women-still-choose-husbands-with-higher-incomes/

Women aren't as comfortable carrying around a "free-loading" man.

First, caring for your family isn’t free loading so stop the condescending nonsense. Second, they know that men aren’t likely to hold fort to support them so what’s the point?

Slow down, Patsy. I put free-loading in quotes for a reason. That is the attitude many women have toward men performing those functions, regardless of whether they are "holding the fort" or not.

There are many ways to express your point without having to call names or use quotes to soften the blow.

So you can't admit you were wrong? Go tone police elsewhere.

Have a good day! Stay rude if it helps you feel better.

That’s how media has conditioned society, people feel their worth and right to exist is tied to their career.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of support? Like UBI? Universal healthcare? Tax breaks?

Just similar rights as others? For starters long due respect and acknowledgment of their historic contributions to this country.

This^.

Feminists and corporate careerist women are often the ones denigrating SAHM's and shaming other women for their choices.

Need a change in narrative, from talking about women and SAHM to talking about the needs of FAMILIES. Many of my male colleagues crave the same flexibility that women do but they are pushed back by the "driven" ones.

Not just that, in the main, women are not going to be attracted to and respect SAHD types. It is what it is.

Just like ambitious men, ambitious women can see the value of a content and supportive spouse who can help them focus on their goals.

https://news.ubc.ca/2016/10/28/marrying-up-despite-more-education-women-still-choose-husbands-with-higher-incomes/

Women aren't as comfortable carrying around a "free-loading" man.

First, caring for your family isn’t free loading so stop the condescending nonsense. Second, they know that men aren’t likely to hold fort to support them so what’s the point?

Slow down, Patsy. I put free-loading in quotes for a reason. That is the attitude many women have toward men performing those functions, regardless of whether they are "holding the fort" or not.

There are many ways to express your point without having to call names or use quotes to soften the blow.

So you can't admit you were wrong? Go tone police elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its astounding how important people think they are and how condescending they can be towards other humans based on self perception of their own importance.

+1

No idea what this post is supposed to mean. Is this talking about women who look down on other women because they have an office with a nice view and a corporate expense account?

I guess but even one’s with a chair behind reception desk and view of water dispenser seems to have same delusion of grandeur.