~ archived since 2018 ~

Women are expected to do so much these days

February 27, 2019

Me and 2 older women I work with had this conversation today..

I have never been lucky enough to stay home with my kids. But I wish I would have tried harder to stay home. I think my life and my children would be totally different.

As modern day women, we are expected to work the same hours as a man, yet raise a family, rear children, feed our families healthy meals, get kids to appointments, school, activities, keep the house up, help with bills.. and so much more.

It's sad that a modern day man's salary can't support a woman staying home (at least) until kids are school aged. It would theoretically be so much easier to be a good partner, good parent, & better person not having to stress about being a good employee, being on time, daycare, sick kids (because this happens more with daycare), etc.

Stay at home mom's are called lazy, and people act like they have it so easy. What is so wrong with a woman doing what she was biologically put on this earth to do... mother & be a woman? Why is this no longer enough? & why did this change?

My coworkers (who have both been in the workforce a very longtime) agreed. Women overcome. We are resilient, but the amount of burden we endure while working, with kids, is tenfold of what men endure (at least in my experiences). I naturally know that I am responsible for the kids, getting them to and from school & daycare, getting them ready, etc. This makes it really hard for a woman to be her best because we are excepted to do so much. Be so extra, work, school & be a good mom, and balance it all with grace.

If you're on the fence about staying home with kids, I encourage you to do it. I truly regret not trying harder to stay with my babies.

If I am ever graced with another baby I will honestly do whatever it takes to stay home. Raising young children, and working, and schooling and LIFE will only make you a stressed out mess and your family will eventually bear your burdens.

Edit: miffed up some of my tenses. Should be fixed :)

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/RedPillWomen.

/r/RedPillWomen archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Women are expected to do so much these days
Author ChuckUFarlie95
Upvotes 108
Comments 90
Date February 27, 2019 4:28 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit /r/RedPillWomen
Archive Link
Original Link

[–]englishgirlamerican74 points75 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

women are expected to work like the don't have kids, and raise kids like they don't have to work

[–]sonder_one1 Star21 points22 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Who set this expectations? Hint: It wasn't men. It was feminists.

[–]MissNietzsche9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the part that most upsets me when feminists talk to me.

[–]englishgirlamerican1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

yes!!!!! i don't want it all

[–]Theendisnearornot40 points41 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

We made a ton of sacrifices for me to stay at home with the kids. I now work out of the home just a couple days a week (like tonight I have to give a massage at 5pm - I’ll be home by 7:30). That gives us some “play” money. Personally I think we make it seem like we need two incomes. My grandparents had only one car, no cable or internet bills, smaller house...

Our home prior to this one (that after 12 years of marriage we were finally able to get!) was 700 sq feet... with 4 kids. We have two paid off (10 year plus) vehicles and no other debt than our mortgage. It was important for us that our children be raised by us - not daycare.

[–]Hannelore0101 Star18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, the standard of living is different. People ask us all the time if we will upgrade to a bigger home, because our family is big and the layout is old fashioned, not open, but separated rooms. (Almost 2k square feet, all brick, beautiful woodwork.) Um, no.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I think you are onto something.

We don't really need all these extra amenities. I believe time is more important to a four year old, than having a 70 inch tv.

[–]rowrza4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

On the other hand, food was far far more expensive as were clothes. I would be curious to see what the average amount of discretionary income was for a single income home.

[–]thatmom3974 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Don’t get me started on daycare. When my husband started working for himself, we needed my income until he got going. I worked full time at night so our kids could stay out of daycare. It was exhausting, but it worked out well.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I pay 800-1000 a month for 2 kids, and one only goes to daycare for 3 hours a day.

[–]melonmagellan 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

was 700 sq feet... with 4 kids

No offense but this sounds like an awful experience for the kids.

[–]Theendisnearornot3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They didn’t mind in the least. We had room outdoors. They didn’t have any issues with it. They were actually really upset when we moved. We kept explaining we would have more space and they said hey didn’t care. They wanted their home :(. My mom grew up in a one ROOM house that her father built (they weren’t there a very long time, but she remembers it).

I’d rather be in a tiny condo and be able to stay home than live anywhere else but have to put my kids in daycare. I got to be a part of their first everything - I wouldn’t give that up for a mansion.

[–]Dancersep3831 points32 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm a SAHM and my husband freely admits he could never do what I do and that my job is WAY harder (and he has a pretty demanding career.) I watched my mother "have it all" and noped right the fuck out of that. Most women would be perfectly content to stay home. We've been lied to and sold a false bag of goods for decades. The best thing we can do is be honest with our children moving forward.

Some families will always need (or want) the second income, but so few women are told the harsh truths of being a working mom. It's more than just a little difficult to leave a baby in daycare. There's virtually no such thing as work/life balance; something is going to suffer.

Hugs to you! I believe a lot of people are waking up to this and trying to provide alternative employment and childcare situations. I don't know what would help your family the most, but I hope you find solutions!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, unfortunately someone will suffer. Took me so long to admit that I could not do it all.

[–]MoDuReddit8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I watched my mother "have it all" and noped right the fuck out of that.

It's very likely that your mother watched your grandmother be a SAM and thought "Nope, I'm gonna have it all".

Hope the cycle doesn't continue if you have daughters :)

[–]Dancersep3812 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

No, kinda the opposite. My grandmother truly had to work as they were poor. My mother was NEVER going to be poor again. To be fair, she never was.

[–]MoDuReddit2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Ah, not the same then.

[–]Dancersep387 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, but you raise a valid point. Each generation tends to rebel against the previous generational norms. I'm hoping to at least have my daughter understand the choice she truly faces, even if she makes different choices. Fingers crossed!

[–]MoDuReddit7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would start by explaining that this was YOUR CHOICE with your circumstances. Sometimes, the daughter of a SAM just needs to hear that her mom's lifestyle was actually a choice, not an outside imposition she failed to reject.

[–]goldensurrender3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link


[–]rpmc8340 points41 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'd never expect a woman to raise my kids and work full time when all I was doing was working the same hours as her. If we're working the same hours, it follows that we share the load equally and provide the yin and yang (masculine and feminine) balance needed for children to grow up in a balanced and healthy environment. I work with guys who altered their schedule to take their kids to school in the morning and who sometimes have to stop by the office with them to get something in the afternoon. Whatever you're describing isn't universally accepted by men.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's about a healthy balance.

I realize a lot of that in hindsight, but both need to be on the same page.

I don't know what I was trying to prove by paying half the bills, yet taking on all the responsibilities of children, and work, and school and everything else. I naturally was really good with the kids and enjoy my kids, so I just sort of fell into that role.

Instead of building up each other's natural qualities and using them we focused so heavily on being equal in finances, and work loads. We never seemed to split the kid load, appointments, school, daycare cancellations equally. It caused a lot of resentment.

I have since realized that penny for penny, task for task, it's not important to be exactly equal but both should give their all and use their talents and natural ability to contribute to a family.

[–]Dancersep3816 points17 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My husband and I always say things should be split fairly, but fairly does not usually mean equally.

[–]livefreeofdie4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So true

[–]WishIWasAMuppet5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

THANK YOU. If your husband is just standing by and watching as you do it all the work then you need to speak up. It’s Captain and First Mate, not First Housemaid.

[–]goldensurrender17 points18 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

AMEN. I realized this when I turned about 26 and looked ahead at a potential life of finding my man, having kids, raising them in a healthy and fulfilling way, and still working the way I was, and said NOPE.

I looked around and didn't see a ton of guys who would be really on board with supporting a SAHM and made the decision that I wouldn't have children unless I can be a SAHM. I got to the point of accepting that I won't have children, which made me kind of sad.

So then I made it my goal that I would change up my dating game and make it VERY apparent that this was my life goal--to be a wonderfully dynamic SAHM and wife. I figured hey why not just let them know on date #1. Worked out pretty well because I met my fiancé who is SO on board with this and really sees this modern dilemma for women as us getting the short end of the stick.

If you are young and you feel this way, be convicted and make it known that this is how you want to live your life. There's no shame in embracing it. I hope more women wake up to this and realize we've been sold this life-style mostly by corporations who want to profit off of two-income families. Take back your feminine power and say F no.

[–]Dancersep3814 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This! I tell younger women all the time that date #1 you should let him know you want marriage and a family and any intentions you have with those things. It will scare him off? GOOD. I made no compunction about this and I'm now happily married, staying at home with my first, and an agreed to 3 child minimum. I'm not a terribly assertive person, but some things are too important. Congratulations on your engagement!

[–]goldensurrender3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you!! I love your story! You took your life by the reigns and created an awesome situation by following your heart and being yourself.

[–]PinkNinjaKitty2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Congratulations on your engagement :) Yes, one guy I talked to for a few weeks on a dating site said he wasn’t interested in the end because he wanted someone “with more ambition than to be a housewife.” He knew from the beginning, though, as the desire to be a SAHM was on my dating profile and we had talked on the phone about it. I cried after his phone call breaking it off because I’m a baby. 😅 But only a month later I met my current boyfriend, who from the first has been supportive of my desire to stay home with the children for as long as possible.

[–]goldensurrender3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's awesome!!! And because you stayed true to yourself and knew that being a SAHM has LOTS of value, you are with someone who values that too now :)

[–]situations_1311 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree, I wish I could stay home. I was too focused on independence early in life and I out earn my husband significantly. It would be a huge financial burden for me to stay home. I am going to do what I can for baby number 2. I will take the 6-8 paid maternity leave and use the unpaid 12 weeks FMLA. I will get around 5 months at home which is way better than my first child where I only had 8 weeks. Thankfully my husband stayed at home with her for 3 years but I really wish I could be the one to stay. After swallowing the red pill, I realize how important being a SAHM is for children.

[–]Hannelore0101 Star2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This sounds like a great plan!

[–]MissNietzsche9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I want this, but I don't know if it's really feasible for me and my partner :/ :(

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe part time work? Is that a possibility for you?

[–]MissNietzsche2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link's still wayyyyy too early to tell, but working part-time until my future children can attend school at the least is definitely the compromise I am striving for in my future.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's lovely.

[–]littleshroom9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As a European, it's also a byproduct of the lacking American maternity leave. I get goosebumps thinking about going back to work at 8 weeks post partum. It seems inhumane to the parents and the child, and especially for the woman who has been through so much physically and emotionally. Let's not even talk about lack of sleep and having to be in your top shape for doing your work well. It's insane.

I'm a sahm for 3 years now and about to have a second baby. I'll be honest, some days I'd rather have gone to work. Dealing with tantrums, illnesses, pregnancy and household is a lot. It's mentally exhausting because it's non stop and it's rather isolating.

Obviously, though, I'm privileged to be able to do this. We were lucky that my husband has a good job and can provide for a family. We do what we can to sometimes make ends meet, but this arrangement makes it less stressful for both of us. I deal with the house, he deals with work. In the evening we parent equally. He has taken on night duty with toddler,so I'll get more sleep with the baby, and everything else imaginable to let me rest. I do the same for him.

Honestly, another big thing has been letting go of control as well. I've stopped trying to do everything on my own and be perfect. Oftentimes I admit that I'm stretched out and he takes the reigns. I've learned to forget about tiny things and just ignore the unimportant stuff, even though, being a type a person, I have a difficult time. We both prefer calmness and stress free environment at home, than being extremely productive. Right now, in the midst of having small kids, it's best.

Overall, though, choose partners who are appreciative of your work and actually know how much you do. No matter what, if you work, or you stay home. My husband has never once criticised my household care skills. Not once has he asked me to do more. Same for me. I have never criticised his efforts at work. I have never criticised him not doing enough at home. We both know, that the best long term strategy is being the best partners for each other thst we can be and uplifting each other, rather than criticise. It's been a tough ride and we're in it for another year at least, with the baby coming and everything. But I'm glad to be doing this insane thing with someone like my husband.

Weirdly enough, I've gotten so much crap from other women when I have appreciated my husbands efforts. Many of them think of me as some sort of unable and weak idiot, who my sad husband needs to save every day, even though they have no idea how much I do and how much I've gone through these past few years with chronic pain in both pregnancies and all the health emergencies. Oftentimes it's straight on 'I'd be a better wife than you" sentiment. I hate it and have stopped openly complimenting my husband in front of my female acquintances because of this attitude. It's made me even more of a hermit than before.

[–]idontcareabouthaving3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I’m 38 and never had a child because of this reason. I feel sad sometimes that I will never be a mother but I can’t imagine leaving my baby at 6 weeks old in day care all day while I have to work. My husband makes 50k a year and that is just not enough to support a family.

[–]Hannelore0101 Star2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What area of the country do you live? Does your husband want children? (Questions you don’t have to answer)

If you’re not living in SF or NYC or LA or other such impossible place to afford a family, I would start living on just his income, save yours, go off the BC and see what happens. One infant and two adults can live on 50k for a few years in most areas of the country (perhaps renting and not owning, perhaps by going on vacays for 5 years or so, maybe selling a car, shopping only second hand and generic groceries, never going out to eat..)

Maybe you’ve started menopause and/or can’t get pg. Or maybe you’ll have 1-3 kids and in 4-7 years return to work full time. Either way I think it’s doable, again if you’re husband also would like kids, and you live someplace without an impossible standard of living

If you can, pregancies are easier in your 20s, but lots of women have babies in their late 30s/early 40s, and without medical assistance conceiving (which I think can contribute to complications). Just see what happens. If you end of up not conceiving you’ll have a lot of $ in savings and maybe learned some cool frugal self-discipline. Living frugally can become a fun game for a couple, as long as both are on board and no one is hating it

[–]catsuramen1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

ugh, I've gotten so much crap from other women when I have appreciated my husbands efforts. Many of them think of me as some sort of unable and weak idiot, who my sad husband needs to save every day, even though they have no idea how much I do and how much I've gone through these past few years with chronic pain in both pregnancies and all the health emergencies. Oftentimes it's straight on 'I'd be a better wife than you" sentiment. I hate it and have stopped openly complimenting my husband in front of my female acquintances because of this attitude. It's made me even more of a hermit than before.

Hi there. I am in a similar situation as you....or rather, I see myself in the future. I am 28 years old and my boyfriend makes 40k a year. Since that is not enough to support a family, I would most likely have to work since I make significantly more. I would LIKE to have children, but would never have children unless I get to stay home until they are at least school-aged. That is clearly not possible, so I would have to forgo having children.

So all in all, I am wondering, will I regret of not having children because my husband is unable to support a SAHM? If I do ended my working full-time and having kids, will I resent my husband for not contributing more? Have you ever wished things turned out differently for you?

[–]entropychange4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There are ways to increase your income, maybe if your SO will hear of these fears and despair he may try to improve his skill set.

You can also move to a less expensive town/state. Maybe somewhere where he will be paid more.

Don't give up..

[–]MissNietzsche0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link



I'm only 20, so I'm nowhere close to bearing children yet, but with my current SO, I doubt being a SAHM could be a reality for me because of finances (at least, not during the time I bear children). That being said, I chose a somewhat flexible career path on purpose, and am going to do everything in my power to explore more options, possibly even working online. Not that most people in my career work from home, but so many things are possible if you start early and work desperately hard to achieve a goal.

Ffs, start a blog online. It takes like years to make it profitable, if it ever does happen, but at least try something.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

While there are many benefits to staying at home with your kids, there are also many downsides to that lifestyle as well. I stay at home with my baby and I love it but also hate it.

While I think the benefits to being a SAHM outweighs the disadvantages, I do understand why many women these days pursue careers instead

[–]Hannelore0101 Star3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, it’s hard. I think the housewives know that more than anyone

[–]eatavacado4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Can you be specific on the pros and cons of being a SAHM, based on your experience? Id love to hear it

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Pros: -not having to deal with all the stress that comes with a job outside the home

  • spend more time with your children

  • not having to throw your kids in daycare (ties into the above ⬆️)

  • can homeschool your kids if that’s something you want to do

  • have more time for yourself

-not have to worry much about expenses because your husband controls most/all of the finances

(Might be more I’m not thinking of rn)

CONS: -remember how I said husband controls the finances? That can be a double edged sword. If you want practically anything, you’ll have to ask your husband and since he controls it, he’ll always have the final say! Want more clothes? Too bad, your husband won’t buy it for you

-your relationship doesn’t work and your husband is a massive douche? He’ll be able to kick you out on a whim and since he controls the finances, any property, money any literally anything else in the home besides maybe your clothes belongs to him so you’ll be left with nothing (I know this isn’t always the case with couples who are legally married, but if you’re common law this is usually how it plays out)

  • basically your entire livelihood relies on another person

  • the work you do around he house is often under appreciated

[–]Meeseeksyourtits9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think it’s important to note that staying home doesn’t always involve the same dynamics between couples. You can set things up however you guys want to. For example, my husband and I have a joint account. I have free access to our finances for anything I need to purchase for the household, and I buy whatever I want on a discretionary basis unless it exceed a certain dollar value we’ve agreed on. We generally have an idea of what we can spend on ourselves each month and stay within that budget so it’s not an issue. Your second point truly speaks to the importance of marriage not just as a union of love, but as a security. Not that everyone needs to get married legally, but it’s something to heavily consider if planning on taking on the role of a SAHM for the long term.

I don’t mean this to imply that there’s anything wrong with what you and your husband do and agree on, just that the cons might be different depending on the couples.

[–]Hannelore0101 Star3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Right. I know housewives who do all the finances, even though they don’t make the $, I have 0 fear of my husband leaving me and I know he feels the same, so that insecurity is not present

[–]Hannelore0101 Star3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Those weren’t the cons I was thinking, except maybe for unappreciated work, which isn’t as big of a deal for me as it used to be

cons: isolation (most women work outside the home in my neighborhood), perceived “low value” (housewife isn’t really valued in our culture—can’t do anything about that), not having external pressure to do my job and needing a lot of self-discipline, the house constantly being lived in

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I forgot to mention low value, there was some stuff I was forgetting about since I tried to write that quickly lol. But our job being low value really gets to me, and the reason it’s perceived that way is ironically because of women

[–]Hammocknapping8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It irritates me to no end that you believe women were staying at home en mass to raise their children prior to the “modern” era (I’m assuming you’re referring to pre-WWII), because it is simply not true. In reality, this idyllic picture you have in your head of the simple life was limited to securely middle class, white women.

Women in the lower classes were already working outside of the homes. Heck, children in the lower classes were working outside of the homes. In fact, this has never been the case for the vast majority of African American, Latina or immigrant women.

Additionally, women who were in the upper classes were not spending their time at home attending to and caring for their children. These children were cared for by lower class women, like I mentioned above, while their mothers kept a full social calendar.

So, just an FYI, the “good old days” you’re wishing for were not like that for most families.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

People give second wave feminism credit for women being allowed into the workforce. There is then an assumption that women didn't work prior to second wave feminism. We've lost our grasp on history.

[–]Hammocknapping4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel like we’ve mirrored this pattern on a couple of posts. I’m glad someone else gets it!

[–]Hannelore0101 Star5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

For the middle class and poor, that was mostly in cities, and the majority of people—at least in the US—lived on farms. Others even in the city ran small businesses and shops, and lived above or behind it. So, yes, the women worked, but not exactly as a “working woman” does now. They were able to be the primary caretakers of their babies, or older daughters or cousins or the girl—who needed a little income to help her own family—next door helped. I believe that’s the desire of the OP: to be present and the primary caretaker of her children, not necessarily keep home like June Cleaver, although that’s a nice job if you can get it

Just to nurse the mom had to be in the vicinity of the baby, unless they could afford a wet nurse (which crosses more into the upper class area, as you said). Biology dictated yet again how far a woman could be from her baby. Nursing, or even having kids at all, is a choice now, a lifestyle, not what just happens

So I agree that housewife 100-200 years ago meant something different than it does now. But “working woman” also was different. Unless you were in a factory, you helped your husband run the economy (origin, Greek for “household.” Economy starts at home and works outward). So you or an older daughter of yours were caring for the babies, even as you did chores and kept the store’s books in order or wiped off tables or canned all the tomatoes and apples for a year

And a housewife even wasn’t as idyllic in the 1940s-60s as we think now. I mean, most lived on less and worked more than we do now. Middle class necessities are different than they used to be (no judgment, standards change and it’s hard to buck those standards). Maybe my own ancestors on all sides of the family were poorer than other people, I don’t know, but the housewives worked hard, and it wasn’t just mopping floors and going to the deli.

Also, many (most) housewives I know work 1-2 days a week (usually 3rd shift and/weekends as a nurse or other medical field profession like X-ray tech; others work from home copy editing or writing—not blogs, for publications—a few days a week; I tutor). So even today the housewives aren’t strictly not bringing in no income at all. What they give up is a career with an upward trajectory, just like the pre-1900 working women you describe (who never had that chance).

The feminists “entering the workforce” was about autonomy and recognition.

Other modern problems: Social standards like looking down on people who make their kids after age 15-16 bring in some income to help the family, free range kids, a lot of services and goods that could be had by walking to a corner shop or just at school (vaccinations used to be given at school, music lessons, etc) now mean a separate trip in the car. It adds up to a lot of time that wasn’t needed before, which is very hard on a woman working full time

Finally, full-time in the 70s meant 9-5 (ala Dolly Parton) Hahaha, not anymore, at least for white collar workers

Tl;dr I agree with you that the current image of “housewife” is flawed and a fantasy, historically, but that doesn’t mean the double-income-family-members-going-separate-ways model currently assumed is good for women (or their children)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

>The feminists “entering the workforce” was about autonomy and recognition.

Well said, one model I have seen among some people that married young is for the wife to be a SAHM first and then go on to pursue education and career once the kids are older... not a bad model...

Not that I have kids but I'm impressed at how double income families handle the logistics of kids, though, when school ends at three, the dentist and post office close at five etc... well, not too long ago the supermarket was closing at five as well, although going to the shops whenever you need to is also a modern concept.

But not sugarcoating the past and remembering that others lived on less and did more is probably the key to being able to forego that second income.

[–]rp_lili2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for this comment ! My Portuguese grandmother had 8 children and almost all of them started working by 13-14yo or at least helped with the agriculture/animals when they got home from school. And they sure as hell didn't go to college.
Privileged people will be privileged and complain about it...

I do agree that modern women try somewhat to "have it all" and I think they have their reasons. But very much like with money, I apply the same principle that Paula Pant taught me... hers is "you can afford anything, but not everything" and I think you can apply it more broadly and say "you can have anything, but not everything"

[–]handklap0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Post of the year nominee

[–]ZegiknieEndorsed Contributor1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a housewife and my husband helps out with the kids and shopping and I have at times hired help and I have still literally passed out from exhaustion several times.

Nobody can have it all at the same time.

[–]actually67 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree. I am very fortunate and blessed that my husband earns enough for me to stay home with our children and homeschool them. And he always shows a lot of appreciation for what I do. I see many of the mothers in my life who have no choice but to work and they lament not being able to stay home with their children. They seem exhausted. I really do empathise with them.

[–]catsuramen1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Once upon a time, men had the privilege of dominance in the workforce, which compelled responsibility for maintaining the nation's economy and being productive in their careers. When that privilege was taken away and shared with women (the "rightness" of which I'm intentionally not commenting on here), men stopped having any motivation to bear the responsibility of maintaining the workforce. So, we see a lot of guys abandoning profitable careers to content themselves with dead end positions.

Where do you find yourself a man like that? All I experienced for man-child who wants a mommy 2.0 now a days. I am not trying to be negative or rhetorical, but it is extremely difficult to find a high-earning husband (even though I make a lot myself) who also respects SAHM lifestyle and willing to provide for anyone other than himself.

[–]Hannelore0101 Star0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes! Me too

[–]tannamel2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

There is a reason that women today are more stressed than ever before in history. And what you just said is that exact reason.

keep fighting the good fight.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Being a SAHM in this sense of the word was only a historical blip in the post-war boom, mothers in all centuries before that were definitely working, just on a homestead or farm or some sort of subsistence living. That being said the difference between then and now isn't the workload but the time far away from children.

[–]Hannelore0101 Star2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I left a huge comment making this point and I see you have made it much more succinctly. Hope you get lots and lots of upvotes so people see it!

[–]rp_lili1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a source for that ? I'm not sure "stress" was a concept back then but I'm pretty sure women always had very much shit to deal with

[–]Lemminger 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

is tenfold of what men endure (at least in my experiences)


[–]Hannelore0101 Star5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I kind of agree with this. Men supporting their families 100% shoulder a huge amount of responsibility we housewives can’t imagine

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I shouldn't have said it that way. Just my personal experience. I apologize.

[–]Lemminger 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

No worries. I shouldn't have said it that way either. My bad :)

[–]eatavacado1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the dislikes were because of the harsh negativity- your point is valid.

[–]Hannelore0101 Star2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I know many women who didn’t realize they wanted to stay home with their children until after the debt had accumulated. There are a lot of families who really need two incomes to pay student loans, past mistakes,etc (there are a lot who don’t, either, but think they do...). I always assume the two incomes is really necessary

Everyone working hard and pitching in, whether home or not, and being realistic about what they can afford is the key.

I’ve had resentment toward the women who flood job markets (and suppress wages, because usually they are the secondary earner in the family and will accept $40-50k with poor benefits, when before the position paid more) when my husband was unemployed, but it was a petulant attitude and I tried not to nurse it.

My parents sacrificed a lot to have my mom stay home, and we knew from the start I would, at least until our youngest was in high school. It’s considered a “lifestyle,” not the norm, and we sacrifice some things to have that lifestyle

Complaining about the short stick single income families got when everyone thought all adults in a household should work outside the home is like complaining my grandpa drew a good pension for 30 years after faithfully working as an accountant right out of high school for 50 years, and he was loyal to his employer and his employer was loyal to him

Neither of those scenarios are returning any time soon. It’s not fair, but so many factors have to change—and so many things were different post-war and can’t be replicated—that pining and whining about it is useless

Work hard and take pride in what you do, whatever that is—who cares about anyone but your husband’s approval. If you’re younger and value being a stay at home parent someday, don’t accumulate debt, save all the income from one earner, etc

My husband works extremely long hours; my father and father-in-law, other male friends and relatives who are fathers especially work incredibly hard, sometimes moonlighting on the side. I’m not sure even if I had to go back to work I could say I’m doing more than they are—everyone’s just working hard! Which is good

[–]Hannelore0101 Star2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

“Everyone’s working hard”

I’ll add, unless they’re not! There are certainly men (or women!) who let their spouse do all the home stuff, even when both work. And there are lazy housewives (it’s a true cliche I’ve been (am?)guilty of) Sometimes imposing discipline on oneself is difficult and it’s easier to be employed outside the home for that external pressure and praise. I get that.

[–]Dolliesimpson0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I’m the bread winner in my relationship so no kids for me. But if I did, the dad would stay home. Is that bad?

[–]catsuramen1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I am in the same boat. But sometimes I wonder, would I resent my SO/husband for being unable to provide in the future years? How about you?

[–]Dolliesimpson0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I think I might. But instead I guess I try and focus on the fact that I am independent and successful. I can appreciate everything my partner brings to the relationship that isn’t about money. I actually have never dated anyone who made more money than me. Not sure why. I guess I am not attracted to workaholics? I like my men to have compatible work schedules so they can spend quality time with me. I think this has everything to do with the fact that I was raised by a single father.

[–]handklap0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Stay at home mom's are called lazy

No one thinks they're lazy, especially with young children. This might apply once the kids are teenagers, but otherwise this isn't a thing.

[–]MsScamander0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Housing Prices are going through the roof here. Most People rent but still. Rent might even eat up 50 -60% of the whole income.

[–]melonmagellan0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't really address how hard it is to get back into the workforce after you have an eight-year gap on your resume from being a SAHM.

[–]pr3me0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Modern fathers are expected to all of those things too. Also, it was the feminist movement who got you jobs and voting rights, that's why you're expected to work and not stay home with kids

[–]NoCharism0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you know, that if you throw all the women out of the workforce, that the salary for men will rise?

Companies will pay more, if the workers are rare.

But even then, i think the problem will not be solved, because of inflation..

Its truly sad, men are discouraged to start anything, because everything is so expensive..

Ive heard from people, that back in the 50's even somebody like a cashier could afford a house..

Nowadays you need to study, get a bachelors degree and then you need to find somebody who needs you and pays you good..

What a sad time to grow up in

[–]Red-Curious0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This all stems from the balance of privilege and responsibility.

Once upon a time, men had the privilege of dominance in the workforce, which compelled responsibility for maintaining the nation's economy and being productive in their careers. When that privilege was taken away and shared with women (the "rightness" of which I'm intentionally not commenting on here), men stopped having any motivation to bear the responsibility of maintaining the workforce. So, we see a lot of guys abandoning profitable careers to content themselves with dead end positions.

Men also used to have the privilege of headship in the home. This came with the responsibility of leading the home and providing for it. When that privilege was taken away and given to women to run the show, the men stopped taking the responsibility for being leaders or providing for the home either.

Men used to have the privilege of authority over the children. This came with the responsibility of staying informed about their needs, making decisions regarding their care, and setting up a plan within the household for how to meet their needs. When that privilege was taken away and given to women with modern custody laws, men stopped bearing the responsibility.

I know it's a lot more complicated than the simplicity I'm trying to lay out right here, and there's value in nuance and the way that women had privileges and responsibilities in the past too. My point is simply to say: women wanted all the same privileges men had in past societies, but this also means bearing a greater burden of responsibilities as well.

Today, virtually all societal privileges are either shared equally with women or are given overtly to women over men. And then many women are upset by the fact that men aren't stepping up to bear the responsibilities to earn the privileges that they couldn't get back if they wanted to. This is why there are so many man-children who treat their wives like mommy 2.0. If they're not going to get recognized and rewarded for all of their hard work, and in the event of a divorce she's still going to get all the custody rights, all the spousal support, half of all the assets that she didn't work to earn, etc. ... why bother putting in the hard work? While most men don't think this consciously, they still instinctually recognize that they have more to gain and less to lose if they shift all the burden on women, since those women are going to end up getting the privileges either way.

Again, I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of any of this - just that this is what happened, explaining quite clearly why women are expected to do so much today. This is not how I run my home, but I also have a wife who is readily submissive and supportive of my leadership, which simply doesn't exist in most marriages today.

[–]S1ayer-5 points-4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is because everyone is rushing to start a family. Have a small marriage ceremony and put that money away. Then spend a good 5 to 10 years enjoying each other and saving. Also has the side effect of putting your marriage through the tests before you have a kid, so that kid doesn't grow up with divorced parents.

Have your 2 kids at 35 and 37. They will be 18 when you're 55. Then you have 10 years to save for retirement.

Obviously, there's exceptions and bumps in the road if you can't find the one, but I feel this roadmap would fit a large portion of people who get married right out of school.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm 35 and pregnant with my first. I wouldn't recommend waiting to anyone. There are so many reasons that it's better, easier, healthier to do younger. Science doesn't back up this opinion. And why would you presuppose that people want two kids? Is that the limit on children now? :-P

I'm also a financial advisor. Delaying retirement planning is not the best decision. Among other things, you can put away much smaller amounts each month if you start at 25 than if you start at 55. Math doesn't back you up on this opinion.

I think maybe you don't have very much life experience yet based on this comment.

[–]Hannelore0101 Star1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is assuming a lot goes exactly as planned. It doesn’t. And I’m not sure about saving for only 10 years (!?)

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter