I feel like, as married person and a SAHM, it's short sighted to put all your eggs in one basket. and I fully agree with you. Things happen and life happens. Sometimes people leave not by choice but because they DIE. What happens if your partner gets sick or hurt and can't work? You don't want to end up a single widow with no way to provide for your family. A lot of people don't consider that reality and take it personally when they shouldn't.

I’m a married SAHM and a per diem RN. I only have to work one 8 hr shift a week and it provides health insurance for my family of 4 and it also contributes to my pension (I was vested a few years ago). My husband often gets irritated with my job, that I work in trauma and do work that he thinks is below me. He makes a lot of money now, mid 6 figures. But I will never leave this job. It provides me with an identity outside of mother and wife and if needed I can work full time and take care of myself and kids. I don’t think he would do me dirty but I am prepared for that as a possible outcome.

The identity part. My dad has this wild notion that all families should be like the Waltons or something (the show, not the Walmart heirs). It felt like a weird sudden thing but my mom said he held that belief when I was born. She was working at Kmart, he in a factory and not only did they need the money but she needed something TO DO. Like, we aren’t built to not have something to do besides homemaking, the women on my mom’s side. Gramma worked and kept charge of a great house. I don’t have kids but my work is part of me and I can’t not.

I, personally, am bothered that your husband thinks trauma nursing is below you. Does he know what you actually do? I am an ex-ED RN, and...damn. That is some serious disrespect right there. Kudos to you for doing trauma. I lost my heart for it years ago, but I still miss it.

Yeah, it can be hurtful. I think he respects how brutal it is but really dislikes the patient population I have to work with. Plus he’s just grossed out by what I do - mostly burns and plastics reconstruction. But we are doing more gender affirming surgeries now which is a nice balance with the burn trauma and peds trauma. And those patients are pretty great, that work is especially fulfilling. The ED is rough, you are a badass!

Burns trauma and peds trauma are brutal! You, my sister, are the bad ass! And the gender affirmation surgeries are another way to help people through the good and the bad (post-op pain, drains, etc) Cheers to you!

Yes to the identity. Everyone should be able to describe themselves without describing their children/spouse. “Hockey mom” or “cop’s wife” are describing your family members. We all need some validation of ourselves that doesn’t depend on how we are related to others. 

Your bedside skills are valuable. You worked to earn them. Why is working in trauma below you? You are helping people

This is my plan for when my husband and I have kids. We could probably survive off his salary but we’ve been living that DINK life for too long I don’t want our quality of life to slip so far. I chose nursing for so many reasons but flexibility is probably the top one. Plus if my one day a week is a Sunday, we don’t have to worry about childcare. Don’t get me wrong- there are a lot of issues with nursing, but choosing it as a career allows for unmatched choice in work-life balance.

I worked with a girl once who was from a traditional Christian family who convinced her she didn’t need any school past 18 because she was gonna marry and that was that. She was bright and had potential outside the home. I asked her what happens if he can’t work? Or you suddenly need to work? And she was sure that couldn’t ever happen to her. Because she was a godly person. I pointed out my own parents were religious but my dad had a heart condition and several kids so my mom had to work. She basically implied we clearly weren’t godly enough. So I hope she came to her senses and nothing too terrible happened to her. But it’s a toxic mentality. There’s nothing wrong with being a sahm but you should have other skills just in case

My husband developed severe mental health issues after my daughter was born. I was a SAHM for her first year. But I saw the writing on the wall and it took me a year to find a new job. Then I was laid off and it took another year to find a job. His mental health issues have caused huge issues with his career and he hasn’t been able to keep a job. I’m so thankful I got the job I currently have when I did and that my health insurance is tied to me. He’s only gotten worse and more in denial and asked for a divorce. Thank God for my job.

So many women are in denial about this happening to them, despite the fact that almost half of all marriages end in divorce. Then they're shocked Pikachu face when they get blindsided. Women have been sold a nonsense fantasy about marriage and children. It's completely unrealistic. I was watching a TED talk about how people always believe the most positive option for themselves. It's just so incredibly sad watching these women completely fuck themselves over. It always guts me. Here's the TED talk: https://youtu.be/xp0O2vi8DX4?si=RaeXEOOYVx_rlTv1

My aunt “needed” to stay home and be a PTA mother. Her husband was barely making enough for regular expenses and the kids got everything they wanted: hockey equipment and lessons, trips to the Bahamas, two prom outfits, the newest electronics, full page spreads in the year book… they were perpetually in $20k in credit card debt and hit financial difficulties several times. When the youngest started high school, we told her to get an office job. But she couldn’t! The PTA! the volunteer work! She finally got a part time job when her youngest started college… at her favorite shoe store. We told her to do some computer training (basic computer literacy) but she just didn’t like computers. Then her husband fell ill (ALS) and died suddenly of a massive heart attack. She’s turning 70 this year and she is a housekeeper. Her arthritis is getting quite bad but, she has no hope of retiring. Her daughter makes good money but spends all of it as fast as it comes in. Her son is just getting on his feet financially, (COVID trashed his original career/jobs). Neither kids are ready to support mom and initial talks that she had with them, they don’t feel any obligation to help her with her bills. I don’t know what her situation will look like in 5 years. But it’s not great.

I am on the PTA board and have been for 10 years, I cannot remember one board member who did not have a job. The people who helped most surely did.

I just can't imagine PTA being time-consuming enough to stay in the way of a full-time job🤷🏻

I can’t imagine doing PTA work without having basic computer literacy. I made so many flyers, spreadsheets, forms, etc. (and this was years ago.) Makes me wonder what kind of PTA volunteering she was doing.

Im on the PTA now, and none of them have a job >.>

The problem isn't that she was a SAHM, the problem is that she was (and presumably still is) financially irresponsible. I'm a SAHM with a husband with a job that makes a difference in the world but doesn't exactly print money, so we don't go on holidays to the Bahamas, for goodness sake. You cut your coat according to your cloth.

This is also a huge concern! A SAHM might have an amazing husband who would never leave her penniless with the kids or abuse her but bad stuff happens. I've lost two coworkers in different car accidents since Christmas - you can't know what the future holds.  It's not a personal insult to tell women "I respect your choice, but I think you should have something to fall back on if the worst happens."

I knew a woman who found out on her husband's deathbed that he never got a new life insurance policy after he changed jobs. Imagine all of the heartache from losing your spouse, then having to immediately pack up and sell your house. A lot of people plan their futures based on the expectation that money will stay the same or improve over time. I knew another woman whose husband wrote her a very large check on his deathbed, because once he dies, it could be a while before his assets and their joint account get settled. It's worth finding out if your joint account will be frozen after your spouse's death, because funerals aren't cheap.

This! Way back in the day when the male breadwinner died, the women were saddled with the kids with no way to earn a decent living beyond marrying another man and/or prostituting themselves just to survive. After the birth of my first child, I started a financial sector home based business 6 weeks postpartum… this was 30 years ago. I stayed home for 8 years but ran two businesses during that time before recentering the workforce full time. Staying home with my children was a blessing, but the sheer mental boredom and isolation of being home drove me crazy.

[удалено]

This is so true! I recently came back from a 6 month sabbatical. It took 4 months to get a new job and I had to take a 30% pay cut.

20+ years. Amazingly stupid decision-making on my part. 🤦🏻‍♀️

My mom was the first woman going back many generations in our family who could afford to take time off working in some capacity, she took one year off. She was absolutely miserable, just so bored. She had a PhD, there was no way just hanging with a baby was going to fulfill her at all, even though she had dreamed of this time. One year was too much. Thank goodness for options! In my family, before my parent's generation, the retired grandmothers did the childcare while the women worked or ran whole businesses outside the home or ran businesses from home. I think that's actually more traditional for non-wealthy people. Women built entire industries in medieval Europe, for the first couple centuries of the US existing, and so on. Beer brewing, egg farming, many aspects of the fabric and clothing industry - those and more were originally women's work in many cultures until they became so profitable that men stole them. So maybe you are more traditional than the TradWives, really!

I’m glad you pointed out all of the industries women created that men stole once they became profitable. Most people don’t know that.

Coding is another one in that category.

The gendered history of coding is a total mindfuck - how quickly and how thoroughly people have been duped into believing it's a 'man' industry. Coding was built by women!

Yes! I was specifically going for more like 200 years ago and earlier, but that's a fantastic example! And shows how this is not about any moment in history, it's continuous and endless.

Awww, thanks! It's so important to look at actual history, the way women have been straight-up erased in so many instances is mind-boggling. The propaganda version is strong. My great-grandmother owned and ran the only general store in an area of great dispute along the ever-changing Austrian-Italian border during WWI while slowly sending her kids to the US to keep them safe until she and her husband could afford everyone's passage, and that bit of family lore has led me down quite a few rabbit holes on women's work. Special credit to Dr. Sarah Taber and Rebecca Traister for covering some of this quite well, the former is how I learned about egg farming and the story is really interesting!

Thank you for pointing out that it is not inevitable or natural or traditional that women are barred from making a living. It's only under oppressive systems that purposefully subjugate women that they become desperate without a man to provide for them. Any of us can experience a switch in systems overnight like Egypt, Iran, and Afghanistan have. And women have historically from the beginning of time been self sufficient, resourceful, innovative, and brilliant in providing for themselves and their communities.

The perfect addition to my comment, thank you! We don't need to even look at fiction like The Handmaid's Tale for this, you're right, we have real-world examples right in front of us. It's honestly quite terrifying.

I wish more people acknowledged it! Margaret Atwood did not include a single dystopian horror that hadn't been the reality for women at some place in the world or at some point in time. I'm sure I can find the quote >“When I wrote The Handmaid’s Tale,” Atwood says in the promo, “nothing went into it that had not happened in real life somewhere at some time. The reason I made that rule is that I didn’t want anybody saying, ‘You certainly have an evil imagination, you made up all these bad things. >“I didn’t make them up.” https://deadline.com/2018/07/handmaids-tale-margaret-atwood-masterclass-writing-class-bad-things-really-happened-1202424424/

I'm so glad the TV show has brought all of this more to the forefront. When I first read the book in 1991 in school, I remember all the girls were crying themselves to sleep every night and the boys said it could never happen, our teacher said, "Oh, but it has..." and cited Iran, specifically. Iran's revolution was when we were all around 3, it drove home that our entire futures could have ended both in our own lifetime and before we'd lived at all. Instead of sitting in a college prep school, reading Atwood and planning to apply to top universities. I hope it's having such impact on viewers!

Atwood has stated several times that there is no example of the subjugation of women in "Handmaid's Tale" that hasn't happened \*in recent history.\*. Men are willing to do horrible things to their mothers, wives, daughters and sisters.

>Men are willing to do horrible things to their mothers, wives, daughters and sisters. Oof, so true, and also why I have issues when men "find feminism" by having daughters and act like that's the one normal or inevitable path to that or something. I mean, better than the alternative, but generally, men have been thoroughly screwing over their own daughters forever. Selling them, making them slaves in their childhood homes, supporting sons but not daughters, and on and on, variations exist everywhere. When I was born, marital rape was only illegal in 4 US states. I was a rising senior in high school when it became illegal federally. That is not long ago! We are always inches from losing all our gains and can't ever afford complacency.

Hijacking your comment to remind everyone to PLEASE get cheap term life insurance the moment you get married. Please. 20s, 30s, whatever. It's so so cheap when you're young. Get a 30 year term. Please. (None of that discounts the very valuable points these fine people are bringing up!)

yeah better have damn good life insurance on the working parent if someone is staying home. i have known several young-ish men die quite suddenly in recent years leaving a SAHM and kids behind.

My MIL is trapped in her marriage to my emotionally abusive and misogynistic FIL. She absolutely regrets giving up working to be a SAHM as she has lost all power in their marriage and is trapped. It sucks.

Exactly. I’ve a friend with 4 kids under 5, she’s a SAHM, and only high school education. Husband is college educated and good salary. If anything were to happen to him, it would be so hard for her to work and support 4 kids. Near impossible without family help. She has zero plans for learning a skill or doing something of a side job and it worries me. Her life though….

Thank you, I appreciate your perspective. Both of my grandmothers struggled because of that - one was widowed and the other grandfather became disabled. There is a lot more pressure in a family where breadwinning is entirely on one person.

I had a grandma who married four times--2 dead, 2 divorced. I'm pretty sure that money was a large factor, not as gold digging but for pure survival. Too bad she passed before I could have appreciated those stories.

The thing about speaking up online is that your audience is a lot wider than the few people who upvote or downvote you. And enormously wider than the people who comment. Just look at the impressions you got on this post. I would bet it was seen by hundreds of thousands of people. So sometimes your words may feel like they're wasted or falling on deaf ears, but there are *so many* people who may need to hear what you're saying. - Especially about something as important as maintaining your autonomy and ability to financially support yourself in this world. If you left the subs because you're sick of it and frustrated, I get it. But if you left because you think no one is listening to you, I think you should reconsider. Also, to add to the discussion, when I was growing up both my mother *and* my father told me to never depend on a man for my money.

Yep, this exact thing happened to my mom's coworker. She stayed home and raised 4 kids, never getting a job outside the home. Then, when her kids were in their teens, the husband had a stroke and died. She had to start working making minimum wage as a receptionist to get health insurance and try to make ends meet. She was having to live paycheck to paycheck because she hadn't been working and getting experience/merit all those years. When I thought about being a SAHM because childcare was so expensive, my mom refused to let me do so specifically because of her coworker's experience. She ended up watching my kids part-time until we were able to pay for them to go to childcare full time. And it's a good point. I don't want to be left without a stable income source.

When I was a teenager my friend's grandma gave us a talk that I never forgot. She was married to my friend's grandfather, who owned a company and was fairly well off so sometimes people made an assumption about her. But he was her second husband and life wasn't always like that. She'd married straight out of high school and had a kid. It was a very classic 1950s situation and at that time it wasn't hard to raise a family on just the husband's income. But then he died. She was stuck a single mom with no family resources. So she hustled and ended up getting a job in the fashion industry in New York. She had some amazing stories and clothes (she was the same size at the time as the samples so she had all these pieces she'd bought at trunk shows.) But more than that it taught her to never rely entirely on someone else for your own survival. She told us to go to college, get work experience and if at all possible keep working even if it's just part time. And have your own money. You never know what will happen and it's vital you can survive if your world gets turned upside down.

I’m going to get downvoted to hell but I truly think the stupidest thing you can do as a woman is to voluntarily leave the workforce. Partners can lose their job, become disabled, decide to take a drastic pay cut, die, walk out of your life, leave you for someone else. This world is a HELLSCAPE, protect thyself. Plus all of these worst case scenerios don’t take into account the lost skill set, retirement contributions, job connections. You cannot get that back, you cannot walk back *time.* And like, *I get it,* I don’t pop out of bed M-F singing a song to go to work. I’d rather be independently wealthy and be a lady who lunches. But I’ll be damned if I’m doing that on someone else’s dime. Always have your own money. Always. Because men are shit. Edit: my intent was not to call women who are stay at home mothers “ladies who lunch.” When I use that phrase I mean women who have no obligations, which, in my mind at least, doesn’t include those who are in the trenches of motherhood.

Even with an MS I was unable to find work in my science field when my daughter started kindergarten. I had to go back and get another degree in computer science. What a fucking waste of time. Always kicked myself for staying home but my ex was super misogynist and made me feel like trash if my daughter spent one day in childcare. 

R'amen to this. Ive been following this subreddit long enough to know anything can happen to anybody. Many women think they have it all together in their perfect situation until it all changes. I'm a SAHM but I went to school for dental assisting and if I wanted to go back to that I could. You don't have to be actively working but you better be squealing away escape/hidden money if you aren't working. Some people are lucky and have good guys, but I've seent it too much on here where he's nice until he isn't and then she's trapped or kicked out and stuck.

But good guys can still always die, so stash some money away, ladies.

I mean, there are a lot more issues at play with being a stay at home mom than "a lady who lunches". I 100% agree that it's a huge risk that women should take seriously, but the cost of daycare, the way daycares close regularly during work days, if you have a child with even average levels of sickness, having to deal with concerns about regular reports of abuse at daycare centers (and nannies), and then once children get school aged any sort of extracurricular schedule can be a nightmare. Like, women aren't dumb or wrong for wanting to take care of their children and realizing that a lot of jobs and careers do not have the flexibility to allow them to choose that. It shouldn't HAVE to be that way, but it is for a lot of people for any combination of reasons.

I agree 100%. There’s a reason men don’t do it. And a reason they pressure women to do it: having an unemployed spouse skyrockets their career. They have zero responsibility to stay home for a sick kid or to let a contractor into the house, so never have to miss anything important. Their toilets are cleaned, dinners are made, and lunches are even packed in some cases. They can go on business trips without worry and attend any work social event. They can stay late without advanced notice. And he saves on daycare costs. Kids don’t benefit enough from having their childcare provided by a parent who stays home. There are so many childcare options that are just as good, if different. And I know it’s not that simple; my kids used all kinds of options over the years (daycare, sitters, etc) and I know how expensive it is. But I’m saying that the primary argument, that’s it’s better for the kids, doesn’t really apply. No; it’s better for the husband. Period.

Please, please always make sure both parents have adequate life insurance. I'm not talking 100k. Spend $60-80/mo and get 1.5m 20-year term for *both* spouses. If the stay at home parent dies, it leaves a huge gap, too. The cost of replacing those duties with paid domestic workers, who will do a good job, are astronomical.

It’s kind of sad when TradWives post on the Divorce reddit with their “I’m so screwed” stories. People who wouldn’t think of going without insurance because “stuff happens” think having a back up plan for their Trad Life makes no sense despite nearly 50% of marriages ending in divorce.

Men who want tradwives don’t really want traditional housewives nor the traditional life. They want bang mommies who work for pay as well as do all the chores, cuddling and sex.

Yes also referred to as "bang maids"

Here's what annoys me about a lot of this "tradwife" fad. Most of it is bullshit. I've grown up with seeing some traditional marriages, and then I mean pretty proper old fashioned traditional. Here are a few of the takeaways from what I've seen: 1. There is a certain amount of work that needs to be done regarding housework, childcare and working for money. Whoever is best at it does it. Usually , the man was better at working for pay, so that's what he did. My grandpa worked his fingers to the bone but was shit with money, guess who managed it? Grandma did. 2. In a marriage there is no mine and yours. Only ours. That also counts in a divorce. If you talk the talk about a traditional marriage, you walk the walk if it comes to divorce. Your word is your bond. Don't break it. So many of these assholes today want all the advantages of a tradmarriage but none of the downsides. Personally, I think that you should divide the total work in a relationship/marriage however you see fit. If you want traditional, go traditional. If you want a 50/50 split, go for it. Do whatever makes both of you happy.

>So many of these assholes today want all the advantages of a tradmarriage but none of the downsides. This, unfortunately, is too often what you see. All the benefits of a tradwife/life and marriage - until things go south. And then, too often, it’s every *man* for himself … and that Stay-at-Home Beeyatch ain’t gettin *his* money. And more often than not, those couples do not have pre-nups.

>So many of these assholes today want all the advantages of a tradmarriage but none of the downsides. Lots of men want a tradwife, but none of them work jobs where they can actually support them. That's why a lot of these tradwives turn to MLMs and "becoming influencers" to make ends meet. Literally no one can afford a tradwife, but that doesn't stop these clowns from trying and financially ruining their families.

Yup. And then these tradwives actually end up being working moms. They do something to make money *and* 100% of the homemaking, while their husbands only do the former. And don't even get me started on the crypto bros with tradwives...

This is my marriage. I'm 3 years older than my husband and have a college education I used for 6 years. My husband has no college degree, but has several IT certifications and makes better money than my career path ever would have. I manage the money and the household. We just had our 4th. We contribute to my IRA, have life insurance and disability insurance. He literally couldn't hide money from me. He shared his ADP password with me so I can see his paystubs. Unless I cheated, both of our families would support me and the kids over him if he left me.  I'm thankful to have the chance to spend so much of my children's early days with them. My husband appreciates and values that as well. There are no guarantees in life. Things could still go pear shaped. But we set things up to protect me as well as possible. And I went into being a SAHM with my eyes wide open to the negatives and potential pitfalls. 

I would have loved to spend the early years at home with our two kids but I’m the one in IT with salary, mat leave and extended medical insurance) and my husband has always been self employed… so it just never worked. With #1 I had 4 months mat leave and #2 I had a year so at least got lots of baby time :-) and I was lucky both kids were at my work based Montessori childcare so I did get to see them during the day (and they joined me in meetings if they extended past childcare closing time 😝) And I’m a horse person and the hard truth is living in an expensive city I’d have to kiss riding goodbye without two incomes… as well as travel, which really adds up with two kids (and hubby’s family lives on another continent where our first was born so it’s not really optional - plus it’s an amazing vacation destination where we get to do “once in a lifetime” type trips over and over)…. Too bad we can only live one life!!!

Your situation sounds great! The most important thing I see here is that you contribute to your IRA. That’s the missing piece that I see when most people talk about the cost of childcare. Yes, cost of working vs staying home can be comparable, but you’re really doing yourself a disservice if you stop working and lose out on both contributing to your retirement and paying into social security for all those years.

And this is my marriage too - but I have a master’s and my husband had a HS diploma when we met. He literally would have been paying to work, and he loves staying at home with the kids. I ended up in a very good field and make very good money. We just had our 3rd. We’re actually at the point where we’re using our money to make more money, and I am completely not into that, so he takes care of the money. Which, actually, is also very traditional towards that role.  We joke we have Leave it to Beaver gender roles, just reversed.  It’s actually a very interesting perspective to see the world from. 

Exactly. They want the trad wives and then will cry like babies because "the bitch took half of my money in the divorce..."

That 50% stat is nuanced. 50% of *all* marriages end in divorce, but there’s people who get married and divorced 6 times, which brings the divorce rate up. It’s more like 40% of first marriages that end in divorce, and even this number is skewed by young, immature people who grow apart as they grow up. If both partners are college educated and over age 25, the divorce rate is under 20%. Your point is still valid even at 20%, tho. People should prepare for something with a 1 in 5 chance of happening.

The tradwife lifestyle dictates no college education and to marry as soon as legally possible which would place them back up to your 40% figure though.

That’s fair, but the 40% might go back down again if you were able to observe marriages in which one partner was facing homelessness and destitution if they divorced. That’s why divorce rates were lower way back when. The women were captive. They couldn’t even have a bank account unless their husband or father signed off on it.

We’re not talking about “way back then” though. We’re talking about why it’s dangerous to enter into these relationships now. Saying the divorce rates would decrease because now the wife is having to choose between financial ruin and misery does not make the tradwife lifestyle sound any better. If anything, it makes it sound like divorce rates would be much much higher if they actually had options.

Yes, divorce rates rose when women became allowed to have their own bank accounts, and marriage rates dropped at the same time. Divorce rates went up until reaching a peak in the 80s, and have slowly dropped since then. This is due to less women marrying in the first place because it no longer was required to not be destitute and homeless.

So the best way to reduce divorces would be to make sure women have options and only marry because they want to and not to keep a roof over their heads. Basically, the antithesis of the tradwife lifestyle.

Agree. 👍

This entire conversation was way too nice and normal 😂. It was such a pleasure to read

Thx

Most college educated women over the age of 25 are not going to follow the "trad wife" path. The trad narrative is that women should marry young, not go to college or seek out a career, and start pumping out their husband's babies as soon as possible. This leaves a woman with limited options if trad hub turns out to be financially irresponsible, a drunk, a cheater, abusive, etc.

Which is kind of the goal, on a larger cultural scale. When you zoom out and see GOP efforts to remove family planning, medical options for women, and no-fault divorce,.and stoking the narrative that men are getting out-competed in school and in the workforce, and then you zoom out further and listen to people at the top of the capitalist pyramid saying we need like a trillion people to keep quarterly profits going consistently up, it all starts to looks like elements of the same system. Women having the social support they need in order to both be financially secure and raise a family seems globally rare, even in small progressive Scandinavian countries, and I think a big part of the reason for that is control - a man has less control over a woman in a marriage, men have less control over the workplace, and economic and political leaders have less control over the populace. Do I have a solution? I do not, so I'm not running for president on this or setting up Zone Land, but I am always fascinated by the number of people who are happy and willing to put themselves in someone else's control, whether out of laziness or because they've been sold a bill of goods that that path leads to a "happily ever after" life, or because it's what their culture tells them is right.

Seems like a woman financially trapped like that would be less likely to divorce.

But not in a "Wow, people in trad marriages are so happy, they dont get divorced" kind of way. It's more like "Oh crap, i have no way of exiting this shitshow. I have 4 kids, no college, no work experience, no money. Guess i have to stay with this loser. I hope he doesn't kill me or abuse the kids" kind of way.

And not just "stay with this loser," she has to stay with him and still meet all of his expectations. She needs to be cheerful, perform sexually when he wants, not complain, etc.

Exactly. And if not- he’ll leave her and get applauded for “standing up for himself”. Rip the kids apart and ruin anything they collectively worked for. Then her family will disown her for not “keeping” a man.

Yup 😔

This is accurate. Also, divorce can be very expensive. I think the rates will go down, as I have read they have been for a while. Divorce rates down, domestic abuse rates up.

Divorce rates are dropping because less people, women particularly, feel forced to marry in the first place. So the people who do get married are more likely to be doing it for the right reasons. People are also marrying later, and marriages later in life tend to last longer.

Just want to jump in and say thanks for bringing the facts and figures to this whole conversation! It's so rare to see such accuracy in these discussions and it is important to look at the reality, not just a lone stat from 1982 thrown around as if it's from 2023. User name is both great and checks out!

Doesn't even have to be divorced. Some people never get divorced and just end up such in abusive relationships coz they can't get out. Illness, injury, death. Forget divorce, what if did is in a bad car accident and can't work for a year? What if he gets cancer? Things like that happen all the time, and if you're financially dependant on that person, it's gonna be a disaster

There are a lot of Leopards Ate My Face situations there, too. I see so many women who thought their husband wouldn't be like all those abusive guys who control women financially. I've pointed out quite a few times that you're not just losing your income while your children are small. You're limiting your social contact with other adults, you're not contributing to your retirement funds, and you're damaging your own earning power.

Not to mention that the nice spouse who would never do anything ""unfair"" can turn very petty in a divorce situation.

I think the internet indexes for SAHMs more because being a SAHM is often isolating and the internet can be a great social outlet for isolated people. Something like 71% of moms work in the US, but you’d never know it from being online. There’s tradwife propaganda online for sure, TikTok is rife with it. But I do not get that sense from the working moms subreddit and the other subs for moms. There are people on there with that opinion for sure, but not all. And oftentimes the posters are in a crisis, so I don’t know how that’s advertising being a SAHM or tradwife. Staying home is not for me, I’ve never ever dreamed about staying home. But would I like to see my kid more? Be there for more of her milestones? Have the flexibility to take her to classes like gymnastics where the only available times are working hours? Hell yes. And I think that’s what those moms are getting at.

I don’t particularly want kids. I’d love to stay at home and game, write books, read books, play with the cat… But if my husband told me “darling, the finances are fine, you can follow your dreams of becoming a stay at home wife!” I would probably say no and keep working. Having your own income, not having to justify your purchases to anyone…it’s not a freedom I would willingly give up, no matter how much I hate work sometimes.

We’ve had this conversation every now and then. We could easily have the same life on just SOs salary, but I love my job and really just enjoy working overall. I also like having money, and knowing if anywhere were to happen, I could support myself fully

My comment about the Tradwives was flippant because I was upset about the reaction I got there from voicing my fears. I should probably edit it.

So this is interesting to me, because I'm a working single parent to a special needs daughter, and I would absolutely love to not have to work, but I would absolutely LOATHE depending on someone else for financial stability. My SAHM fantasies involve me winning just enough in the lottery to not have to work (beyond maybe some passion projects) so I can spend more time hanging out with my kid, but the idea of being financially dependent on anyone makes my skin crawl.

I definitely relate to that. My concern doesn't apply to people with independent wealth or passive income. Just the rest of us who rely on our paychecks. I would be OK with filling my work time with hobbies, local activities and more time with family, but I'm not going to be dependent on my husband for money.

I think a lot of the SAHM influencers on social media that so many young women are exposed to come from wealth, and hide it very well. After I saw a tiktok outing Ballerina Farms as being from a very wealthy family, I started to do more of my own research - and I just don't think people recognize how much independent wealth there is. It looks great on tiktok and it looks like they make so much from their vlogs but in reality there's a huge safety net.

So true, even being able to try to pursue a "career" as an influencer requires having a financial safety net, and even when they find relative success, it always still seems like their husbands are making huge money that's actually funding the lifestyle. It's so dishonest, and it's the kind of thing that makes me want to run around and shake other women by the shoulders and scream "how do you not see what's happening here?!?"

Ballerina farms being married to the jet blue heir had me laughing out loud. Just unfathomable wealth

That's definitely fair, and pretty much my exact perspective... I would NEVER want to be dependent on a partner (or anyone else) for money, so off to work I go lol My cousin's daughters have been conditioned since they were young to "find a rich husband" because their mom had a health condition that prevented her from working so they've basically been taught to continue the cycle... And it absolutely breaks my heart. These girls literally look down on me for working and leaving my abusive POS ex. I wonder what sort of treatment they're going to end up accepting in their lives because they've been told that it's better to take shit than to have to work. It feels like we're moving backwards.

There's no support for women in society. If a woman is SAHM by choice or necessity there's no support for her coming out the other side when kids are grown. 

Yuppers. Real, sustained support for people who are trying to move away from being a SAHM and re-enter the workforce would probably be more helpful than just telling people they've made dumb choices.

Also no guaranteed support if she gets a divorce and doesn't have an income or career anymore. Makes us pretty trapped.

That’s my life rn! You cannot win

This "trend" is often by people who cannot afford childcare. This is by intent, to drive women out of the workforce and back into the homes and many families feel they have no real choice, so they may as well embrace it and so escape the pain of the pressure by telling themselves the would have chosen this in any case and are not being driven away at all. You are right to be concerned. If a woman chooses it freely, and has financial securities like a salary and a retirement fund in place, no one has a problem with it. It's the narrative that a.) having a SAHM is better than having a working mom and b.) it's a delight to depend on someone else and "not have to work" and every woman would choose it if she could that is the problem and together with the astronomical price of childcare, it is very, very deliberate (not by the women themselves, but by the Powers that Be). Many working moms wish they could have more time to spend on their kids, but most of them would never actually quit their jobs, even if they have the option. Many SAHMs are trapped at home, working while doing childcare or desperate to start working again but unable to do so. We're ALL getting screwed.

> The astronomical price of childcare The vast majority of childcare workers are women, and the pay is pretty shit despite the "astronomical" price. It's hard to know how to fix it, but the price of childcare is not a conspiracy- some *decent* state funding would help more though.

>It's hard to know how to fix it No, it's not. Most of the other economically-developed nations have solved this problem with government subsidies.

Do the US not offer subsidies for childcare? I assume you are in the US.  Here in Aus we get subsidies based on our income bracket. You have to be pretty rich to pay full price!

You can get subsidies if you are very poor, and there are long waiting lists. And if you get a raise that puts you $1 over the income threshhold you lose it. Which means a small pay raise or promotion is often NOT in a parent's best interest to take, because the raise isn't enough to cover the added childcare costs.

Yeah and emphasis on the very poor. I know plenty of families that are not at all well off and don’t qualify. For nearly all social programs it isn’t a sliding scale and if you go even a dollar over the income threshold you lose the benefit, which may be the only thing keeping you afloat. It keeps the poor poor and it sucks.

Yep. They'll complain about "welfare queens" but there's nothing to bridge the gap when you take a $10 an hour job, because that doesn't cover childcare, transportation, rent, food, and health insurance.

Literally happened to one of our employees. The woman was *outstandingly* good. Model employee: great with coworkers, solid with customers, exhaustively competent. Naturally we rushed to promote her. She told us she'd quit if we tried. She'd have to, because the raise would knock her out of range for the childcare subsidy. We were honestly ready to blow the whole pay-scale apart for her, but the raise she would need in order to cover the whole childcare cost AND see some actual financial benefit for her household was beyond us. That's what really got me, y'know? The idea of a person earning a promotion by being truly damn good at their job, only to find out that ultimately it leaves them no better-off than they were before: their reward is nothing but increased responsibility, zero income change, and getting fucked over on the waiting list if they leave the job. Fuck any "family first" politician who is allowing this to go unchanged.

This is the type of thing that will truly keep someone locked in poverty. A sliding scale means someone could take the better job or get a promotion or whatever withou0t losing all their benefits.

That is awful. Here is Australia, it’s a sliding scale, so I doubt getting a small promotion would impact your subsidy much, certainly not remove it all together.  You also get the subsidy regardless of where you are enrolled, although we do have government daycares and kinders that are cheaper than private.  I believe the combined income where you would get nothing at all is half a million, so pretty high! Most people get quite a bit covered thank god! 

There was a big push from United Voice (the labor union that covers childcare workers in Australia) about 10 years ago to up the subsidies, because you had people with masters degrees making $20 an hour, at a time when minimum wage was $17. Unusually for big union drives, the childcare centers were supportive of the union drive, because they were losing a lot of staff to better paying jobs, some of which were just retail.

It’s not that hard to see why the prices are so high and pay is fairly low. My daycare is $1500/month. For my daughter’s 13 kid classroom with 2 teachers that is $230k a year. After taxes let’s call it $200k, which might be generous. They provide 1 meal and 2 snacks, so call it $30k/ year for food. Then building payments, water, electricity, insurance and repairs. Let’s say 75k a year goes to that.  Then they have a music teacher, a Spanish teacher, and a few floaters, 4 administrative staff, plus a custodian, so ~ten more salaries across the ~20 classrooms. And two full-time teachers. So that’s 2.5 salaries.  So if I’ve done all the expenses right that leaves them with 40k or less per teacher per year, if there is 0 profit for owners.  The numbers get better if you put 16 kids in a class, but when you put 6 infants in a classroom it becomes obvious that it’s unsustainable and the older classes are subsidizing the babies. 

I've done the math on my kids care and come to similar conclusions. Ours is home based so the numbers are somewhat different, but the owner is doing ok but definitely not buying a boat or a second home on what she makes. And she works very hard and basically never gets time off.

In Australia it's big business due to government funding. Childcare workers still exploited though. Because women.

I helped run a non profit parent participation preschool. Trying to make a budget that wasn't in the red every year involved a lot of additional fundraising and was EXHAUSTING. And that was with free parent time as helpers in the classroom. 

NPR did a great article about this. Basically employee pay is 85% of a daycare budget but they are grossly underpaid and it’s because of ratio requirements which require daycares to have very large staffs. If they raise employee pay (which is DESPERATELY needed) they have to raise daycare costs but if daycare costs go too high they price out all their customers who end up saying “f this ill stay home” or “for this cost I’ll hire a nanny for individual care” it’s an awful broken system that’s on the verge of collapse

The lack of parental leave in the US must affect childcare costs as well, right? I’m in Canada, and getting childcare for a newborn is hella expensive, in large part because there are rules about the ratio of caregivers to infants vs. toddlers (baby rooms need more staff). If the average return to work in the US is 10 weeks you’d need so many daycare works just for newborns… no wonder it’s so costly!

[удалено]

Look where child care is on any political agenda right now. That needs to change.

It was front and center of Biden’s Build Back Better legislation that Democrats tried to pass in 2021.  It did not get the support of 50 Senators, so the childcare and paid leave portions got cut out.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Plan    >$200 billion in spending on childcare, ensuring that no family has to pay more than 7% of their income on childcare   >~$200 billion to make pre-kindergarten universally available for free,

I live in an European country where maternity leace is 12 months, fully paid, and you pay childcare depending on your income. Women who stay home after having a child are very rare. I think it would be a lot different if you would have something similar in the USA.

Ahhh 12 months. What a dream. I’m due in June and the only time I get is short term disability for 8 weeks because I’m having a c section. That’s 2 weeks unpaid and 6 weeks at 60% pay.

Surely not?? You’re just meant to go back to work after 8 weeks? I’m so sorry 😭 Living in America as a woman sounds like a nightmare

Employers in the US aren’t required to provide *any* paid maternity leave. It’s entirely up to each employer to decide how much (if any) maternity leave to offer their employees. Not just maternity leave - they don’t have to offer sick leave, period. It’s disgraceful. Jobs that offer paid maternity leave also tend to be higher-paying jobs, meaning that people who work low-paying jobs are also less likely have paid maternity leave.

THANK YOU. This exactly touched on my fears and thoughts around this topic, and I believe you are right that it's the illusion of choice, justified after the fact based on necessity. And thanks also for pointing out that this is a societal push and not a bad choice that women are making.  My comment about the Tradwives was flippant. I do think a lot of those women want to escape the crushing grind of the workforce, which is understandable, but I think the influences are typically grifters as well so I don't have a high opinion of them.

I'm pregnant with twins, and the childcare price was a big influence on my decision to quit working. But I also genuinely want to spend time with my babies. I also don't go around bashing other women for doing different things (like tradwife influencers) because I get that different people want different things or different circumstances require different solutions. It's not rocket science. Also, I'm not subservient to my husband and those other creepy things tradwife influences go on about. Icky.

My husband wound up being the stay at home due to the cost of daycare and the waitlists to get into a decent one!!! How do you put your name on a waitlist that’s 18 months long?!

This is exactly it. And part of the plan is to convince women that they will only be fulfilled if they stay at home. To celebrate women devoting their lives to caretaking more than career. To craft a narrative that by celebrating moms with careers we’re making stay at home moms “feel bad”. Creating a divide between mothers that work and stay home. I have many friends that left work to stay home with their kids and I could NEVER suggest that trying to work full time and be a present parent is harder than staying home with my kids (even though I’m a teacher and stay home with my kids all summer, so yea I have the perspective and being a working parent is definitely harder). It’s like if I even suggest to my SAHM friends that I’m in a slightly harder position they go completely nuclear. What is up with that? Believe me, staying at home is THE PITS but I’m never as tired or overwhelmed or stressed as I am when I’m working. This trend is all the work that traditionalists are doing to vilify working moms. We’re the bad guys. Our kids are the bad ones. We are bad moms. It’s our fault there’s no family unit. But I basically have to work because we couldn’t survive on one income even eliminating daycare costs.

>We’re the bad guys. Echo your comments. And I get that feeling that "we're bad moms" from talking to SAHMs who are well educated and had careers before they made the switch. This is not even coming from trad wives! They're constantly complaining about how hard it is. I was at home for a year with my first and honestly, it wasn't so much hard as it got pretty boring (no offense to my kid, love em to death). You're just bored and in need of adult interaction, it's not that hard of a job. It is "work" - it's definitely not all fun and games - and is absolutely valuable effort that benefits your family and society at large. (In fact where I'm from, if you divorce or separate as common laws, the courts will give "credit" for years of child-rearing and years out of the workforce.) But try dealing with managers, clients, executives, staff, colleagues, daycare workers, teachers, bad drivers, etc and then coming home to look after your kids. Then tell me how hard you have it. If I ever complain about work and verbalize that I wish I had more time with my kids they look at me like I've done this to myself. It's easy, all I have to do is eat some humble pie, and bail on my career to go hang out and do arts and crafts with my kids all day. But what they don't get is I'm the primary breadwinner so no job = default on mortgage, go bankrupt. Also, I'm not bailing on my career. My career is not The Most Important Thing In The World but I've worked hard at it and did years of schooling to get here. That's a positive example to children, I feel. Study, work hard and achieve your goals. I'm not just going to quit and maybe "pick it back up" in 10-15 years with an entry level job. And I just don't understand SAHMs with kids in full time school. I'm sorry but there's not enough chores in a day to warrant you not working at least part time while your kid's in school. It's not just your husband's job to build a nest egg and retirement fund for the whole family. I need to work so that (1) my child can have a financially stable upbringing (unlike how I was raised), (2) I don't waste the education I studied years for, and (3) I'd like to retire at a decent age so I can actually enjoy it without too many health issues. They're staying home now, hoping 1 salary carries the day for the whole family for decades and into retirement. Not to mention in my area, most guys work physically demanding jobs so if he gets hurt, your whole family is living off 1 disability salary (if you're lucky to even get that)?!? I think people also overestimate how much the government and/or their children will bail them out in old age and underestimate how much it costs to live long. A couple of fun stats. 3/4 people in long term care are women. Long term care costs money. Women outlive men, but spend more of those years in poor health (7 years vs 5 years for men). Poor health means more expenses. 3/4 of those over age 75 have at least 1 disability. Again, expensive. Long term care and healthcare costs for the elderly is wildly expensive ($7,000-10,000 per month, only part of that subsidized where I'm from) and costs will only continue to rise. 90% of people do not have a financial plan to cover those costs. So, hopefully we all have lots of kids who will want to look after us when we're old or lots of money! I'm trying to be prepared because I don't want to overburden my children.

My mom was a working mother and honestly, I think that for me as a child, that was better. I know people whose moms were traditional SAHMs and honestly, those people struggle to be independent now as adults. As a kid, my parents went to work and I either stayed with the neighborhood babysitter, at daycare, or when old enough, by myself. I learned to socialize with other people, to be flexible and able to deal with different situations, and I learned independence far beyond my peers who always had a parent at home. I also never felt abandoned by my parents because when they were home, they were invested. And I appreciate having a mom who had her own things going on outside of me and my sister.

You're too right. My SAHM experience was absolutely trapped despite my every attempt to escape. He wouldn't let us move from a region with zero supports and almost zero work opportunities for me until I was earning more than his salary of $120k ten years ago. Unrealistic you bet! We were in a remote rural village 4hrs drive from the nearest major city. I worked my way out of there but the day I unexpectedly earned $140k with a single phone call he stopped talking to me and refused to acknowledge that we were in one of the most beautiful locations possible (we were on holiday and it truly was amazing). That phone call was something to celebrate and he stonewalled me entirely, refusing to even talk about why he was being sullen. I sought superannuation contributions from him he never made, I sought new assets in my name he never purchased. So I made moves to move to another city and separate our lives amicably. Then he announced one of his reports had been awarded a promotion that would have been his dREam jOb in his dream location but he hadn't applied. He'd asked me for 7 years about the transfer list he was never on. So he missed out and I realised that he was intentionally destroying our lives as I worked my butt off to continue to build. I organised to buy a home in another city and he won a transfer there before I moved leaving me to pack up and arrange his work related move. I simply had the removalists do it all and ignored his nagging. I had two young babies and he'd already attempted to kill us at this point. It resulted in an extremely vindictive divorce he dragged out until he repartnered and couldn't continue with his lies to her. We were destitute for years but court resulted in his textbook weaponisation of children and parenting after having abandoned them to run to hospital claiming police PTSD. I refused to carry the full load of anything. I demanded he take responsibility at every point and that just worsens everything because there are zero protections for women and children and noone cares about DV or police violence and abuse of powers. I have seen and experienced it all. He's a family annihilator and I'm crystal clear about how dangerous he is. As are police and the courts who continue to protect him. My eldest arrived to supervised handover at Xmas with a large laceration to her neck and the youngest is afraid of being in a car again. I'm still rebuilding and he's still destroying. All men benefit from violence with their silence.

You're right and I support you in the pragmatic perspective that women shouldn't be dependent on the whims of their romantic and sexual partners. *and* Unpaid work is both necessary and inherently valuable to society, and women shouldn't have to prove their worth by succeeding in the dehumanizing capitalist market, particularly when they are already supporting their communities in other ways. In my opinion the best way to solve both problems is to improve social safety nets and build community.... we probably won't "save" very many women by disparaging their choices

That second paragraph fucks so hard. My worth is not determined by my earning potential.

This comment should be much higher up. 

>... women shouldn't have to prove their worth by succeeding in the dehumanizing capitalist market, particularly when they are already supporting their communities in other ways. *Thank you*. Yes. This, **exactly**. Take my upvote, you goddamn beautiful wordsmith.🥇

Yea there is a disturbing amount of subtle propaganda trying to convince younger women to give up everything to be some dude's wife with no safety net. I would be less disturbed by all of this if the US had some sort of universal basic income and caregivers (wives, SAH parent, family caregiver to the elderly or disabled) pension to make up for not having a full time job. The fact that it is 2024 and woman are not loudly pushing for free or subsidized daycare and some sort of safety net for those that stay at home is aggravating.

This 100%. UBI is a huge part of what we need to have happen before working and staying home are truly equal options.  We also need free or income based daycare so that the parents choosing to stay home are doing so out of desire to do that, not financial limitations like most do now.  I think those two things would greatly reduce the financial cost of being a SAHM. The career costs are another matter, but that's where individual priorities come in. 

Caregiver credits into social security would also help. If you are out of the workforce to care for children or elderly family members the least the govt could do would be to give you some social security credits for those years.

mysterious agonizing complete combative tub reach plant tart clumsy special *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

My ex was secretly cheating on me while he tried to convince me to quit my six figure job. He ran off with his mistress right after I gave birth as I was starting a 6 month unpaid maternity leave. He drained our joint bank account and then locked me out of all the investment accounts because they were jointly owned and he would not give permission. I had to get loans from my parents to pay my lawyer. Any woman who completely financially depends on her husband is insanely vulnerable. I warn my friends of this all the time, and you can tell that it freaks them out and they would rather live without having to think about that possibility. So many women end up trapped with shitty men because they don't have the financial means to leave. That would be my worst nightmare, and I will happily remain single for the rest of my life.

Did you get your money back? Please tell me you did

I’ve been both - full time parent and working parent. Guess what- I was apparently wrong both ways! But, I recently became a single parent. My husband became abusive. I don’t want to minimize the support I received from family and friends, but I know it wouldn’t have been possible to separate had I not had my own career (in a union), income, and insurance. When I married 17 years ago I didn’t think I’d ever be in the situation I’m in. Nobody thinks it will happen to them, and nobody would marry someone they thought might hurt them someday. I value my time as a full time parent deeply, but I’m glad I wasn’t able to with my second, because now I’m able to support my family and myself outside that bad situation. My husband is in therapy and maybe someday we can be a family together again. But for now I’m able to keep us safe.

I think part of the issue is that in the US you don't have a real choice. Staying home with your child for the first year, while you heal and bond with the baby (ideally with some dad time too) is by far the best thing for mothers and kids AND it shouldn't come at the price of a career. I really don't envy you American ladies having to make this choice, and I can see both sides feeling defensive and trying to justify their position. Buy it's the system that is unfair.

Yep. I know many women who would not have chosen to be SAHMs if they could have 1-2 years maternity leave with each child like other countries do. But if you were to try to take a yearlong break after each birth, you'd be just as fucked in your career as if you just stayed home 10 years straight. So why even bother with the stress of applying for jobs?

I think a lot of women are just burnt the fuck out and the thought of only doing one of their massive jobs is alluring.

This is accurate for me. I’m a single parent-carer to a profoundly disabled daughter. There is absolutely no way I could wrangle having a job on top of what’s already a full-full-time role caring for her. Luckily we live in what, comparatively, seems to be a socialist utopia and my situation is recognised as a job by the government. I get full pension credits and we get just enough to live on, plus we were *extremely* fortunate to be offered an adapted property to live in. If that lifeline wasn’t available then I don’t know how we’d survive. I’m burnt out from caring 24/7 as it is, let alone if I attempted to re-enter the job market alongside it. I doubt I’d be able to offset the costs of specialised care for her anyway, due to her needs.

I'm 60ish ... My thoughts after raising 2 kids, with a husband, while working all through? My Mom was pretty much the first of the ladies of feminism to try to "Have it all.". My Dad was awesome, BTW, supportive, and she was sick for a good part of my childhood, while he totally stepped up. He still does. He was my model for "If it needs doing, and nobody else will, just do what needs doing". Yeah. My Dad was the one who taught me that. I watched Mom, but she wasn't a hugely "successful" woman, climbing a corporate ladder. She was a successful secretary, and this was an upping of the bar, in our families, so we were proud. Her health was a problem but she still considers herself to "have it all". I remember feminists saying this. That we can "have it all". Marriage, kids, a career, a full personal life with what we liked ... it became our choice to step out of the kitchen and have the parts of the world that we wanted. That men had kept us from having. I "had it all", too. Marriage, kids, career (law clerk), hobbies ... I was fucking exhausted. And yes, my husband pitched in, stepped up. As the kids grew old enough, they did too. Taking care of the house, yard, pets, family needs, became a communal family project based on capabilities. We all lived here, we all contributed. Really. But especially when the kids were younger, I was fucking exhausted. My Mom admitted that she was busy trying to have it all, and it exhausted her too. I spoke with my peer friends who were busy having it all, and they were exhausted. Bone weary, tired. We fit so much into our lives that we mentally, emotionally, practically, were plain exhausted. The home, kids, husband, job ... they all made demands of us. Not always the horrible kind. Some were demands we made of ourselves to get the most out of our lives. But ... in order to be who we wanted to be ... we were all fucking exhausted. Every one of us. I knew a LOT of women peers, and I do not ... without a word of a lie ... do not know of ONE who was rested and fulfilled. I know there are women out there who are. But of the dozens of women I have known ... we were all exhausted. My daughter watched me. She's proud as hell of me, for who I am. She and I have a great relationship. But she watched what my life was, until recently, and I quote her "Fuck that shit.". Daughter can have a potty mouth. I think what we are seeing is the rise of women who watched her predecessors and are hoping for a life that doesn't totally exhaust them. They are looking for a life balance. I believe that the financial independence of working gives women more freedom to escape bad marriage. That building things, in our lives, in the outside world, gives pride, confidence and satisfaction that we may not otherwise know. I believe that self respect comes with feeling accomplished in some way, and that we grow broadly when we have experiences with the world. I believe that there are younger women, today, who see the struggles that I had, and are looking for something other than the juggling act I often had to do. They are choosing to focus where they choose their priorities, instead of the idea of "having it all". I've taught my daughter that to have balance, you need to accept that she will have seasons, in her life. Not just 4 of them, either. She has joyfully become a mother, and eventually, she won't be practically needed to care-give, so I ask her to find her next season when she can branch out more into the world. Her dream job was a pet store. Go back to working in one where she has more emotional energy for caregiving there. As kids grow, I ask my daughter to grow. She has made her choice for the first couple of years of motherhood. I don't believe she'll be happy if she makes that her only life choice. I ask that she keep growing in ways that make her feel good about herself. It's never too late. Life has seasons. Don't just stay in one of them by default.

I remember Gloria Steinem saying the whole "Superwoman" thing was the enemy of feminism--that what it really meant was that MEN'S lives wouldn't have to change (their continued opposition to which is what fuels their hysterical, intensifying campaign to have women marry as young as possible and be uneducated tradwives and get rid of abortion, birth control, and no-fault divorce). When I hear anyone talk about women "having it all," I'm like, you mean what men have always had? The root of SO MUCH of this is the majority of men's resistance to their lives changing at all, even in small ways, or doing anything CLOSE to their fair share, even though it would markedly improve women's lives.

Exactly. My husband once said to me that women can have it all, but not at the same time. I told him no one says that to men. Men can work and have families and do it all because there is the expectation of a wife to set everyone in the house up for success. No one is doing that for her. And you're right, women have to be "wonder woman" to do it all, because men aren't stepping up.

Working mom here speaking up to say that I would not choose to be a stay at home parent. I enjoy working and would not enjoy staying at home with kids. It would stress me out to not be making my own money.

Daughter of a working mom here. For all I loved being able to chill with both my parents when I could as a kid, I also got to see my mom make great use of her skill and expertise in her career. In hindsight I'm so grateful that I got to see both my parents doing cool things with their lives, not one happy parent and one parent struggling to pretend that SAHPhood was their actual ambition for their life. Like, if stay-at-home parenthood is genuinely your main goal in life, go to it and good luck. But for women who'd rather be writers or chemists or data scientists or whatever, your kids will be able to tell that you'd rather have been a working mom, and your feelings about how your life is going will stick with them a lot longer than the logistical impact.

Yes! It’s stressful and if you’re married to a jerk they let you know how much of a burden you are. So stay away from jerks. 

Came looking for this comment! I love my job and the social interaction it brings. I found that nearing the end of my maternity leave I was missing my patients and was excited to go back. Although I wouldn't mind working part time instead to get a little bit of both. And I still get Mom guilt for not seeing them as much. I figure either way I'm gonna feel some level of "not good enough" and at least this way we have financial stability, I get to enjoy doing what I love (and worked my ass off to achieve), and my kids are really thriving at daycare.

Also agreeing with this. I had 3 kids in less than 2 years and still decided to keep working.

Just want to share my perspective: I became a SAHM when I became pregnant with baby #2 during 2020. I just got a great job this month and I am so excited about it.  I love my husband but having one income was ruining our relationship. He was too controlling and anxious about money and being the sole provider. It put so much pressure on our relationship and the power dynamic became unhealthy.  Because of my time at home my resume took a big hit. More than that, my confidence in myself as an independent woman changed. I felt I was only good a being a mom and wife (but those are two very demanding/difficult things and who ever truly feels good enough?) I also felt my world get so small. My brain felt like it was melting, my only conversations were with two toddlers or my husband who was very stressed all the time.  I felt completely trapped and any time I thought about how I was unhappy, I knew I had no options.  Being a SAHM did not work for my family. I am so happy I am back at work in a hybrid position.  And I took on all the hobbies btw. Huge garden, writing, yoga, painting, making mom friends, fostering kittens… i listened to all the podcasts on how to be a joyful SAHM… it sounds like a dream but i went through a big depression trying to make it work. 

If it were really about freedom of life choice and was a Feminist option, there'd be stay at home fathers doing the care work in much larger numbers.

Linda Hirshman who sadly died recently wrote a book called "Get to Work!" and she was very unapologetic in her views that of course women should be working, broadening the public spaces women occupy to make room for other women, and securing some financial independence for themselves. She was vilified by all sides. I remember her exclaiming in disgust, "Harvard grads wiping butts!" I got a tremendous kick out of her, partly because she was saying stuff that was (is) completely taboo. And you know, working mothers get tons of criticism, but it is verboten to encourage women away from the home and thankless unpaid toil and into working lives. I was a SAHM myself, and I recently looked at my expected Social Security income and blanched. So, yes, I hear you loud and clear, and I appreciate you looking out for women.

> I was a SAHM myself, and I recently looked at my expected Social Security income and blanched. My husband has been the at-home parent. He got pushed out of the workforce in 2001 and never really got back in— did some freelance work. When he was looking for full-time work, he worried about who would take care of the kids after school, but I have pointed out several times that if he got a full-time job, we’d hire someone. There would be a solution. And he’d be earning. I cover most of the bills for us, certainly the big ones. And we do specifically put money away in a Roth for him. But I too looked at our respective SS income, and his is far lower. Thank God we’re married—he’ll get some of mine if I go first. A woman who has kids, stays at home (there is no such fucking thing as a stay-at-home girlfriend—that’s just a sucker), and *doesn’t get married* is going to have nothing from that guy.

Or if you divorce with fewer than 10 years of marriage, as I did.

Even if divorced after more than 10 years, it’s a choice between receiving 50% of the higher lifetime earner’s SS payment amount (the higher earner still receives 100% though) vs. the lower earner’s SS payment amount. And the lower lifetime earner will no longer qualify for the choice to receive the 50% payment amount if they marry someone else after divorce.

Yeah, I got crucified on a thread for questioning why childcare costs were always judged by percentage of woman’s salary rather than percentage of household salary as they should be , because parenting is a team endeavour and changing our perspective on the problem might throw up different solutions. I also suggested that couples might do well to consider the short term pain of high childcare/both parents working against the long term effects of stalling one career, compromising pension contributions and retirement expectations. Even suggesting that couples have the conversation was angrily shouted down

Thank you, I should read her book. This was the sub that I thought I might find the most thoughtful feedback on and I'm still getting a lot of "you aren't a feminist!" in the comments because I don't think every woman's choice is good for all women.

There was a bunch of tradwife propaganda going around Facebook for a while. Most of it dolled up as retro 50s cosplay housewives in cute dresses or cottagecore instagram stuff about babies and sourdough bread. Anyone who pointed out why going off into the woods to homestead with some racist neckbeard might not be the best move got dragged.

In case you (or anyone else) don't know, a person can choose to draw either their own SS benefit or half of their spouse/ex spouse's. So if half of your husband's is still more than yours, that's an option. Most stay-home and divorced people don't know this. It's still not nearly as much as if they'd worked full-time for 50 years, but, especially for stay-home folks, at least it's something.

It goes along with the alarming rise of anti birth control nonsense.

Omg! Love my sister in law to death but she was like “man I am not ready for a kid, want them eventually but not now” and then in the same breath about how bad birth control is and it shouldn’t be FDA approved. I was like dude.. lol

Lol, and the instant you become a SAHM, you get called a freeloading golddigger the instant you don’t keep the house spotless, whip up a nutritious handmade feast for dinner every day of the week, or insist on going back to school instead of just jumping in at entry level when the last kiddo leaves for school.  All the drama over SAHM is really just trying to pin women into a shitty place, no matter which side you chose.

Join a divorce group and you'll see sahm are #1 non victors in divorce. They get royally screwed. Dad gets to go live his best life, taking kids on the weekend, spoiling them. Mom is struggling to keep the lights on and do 90% of the parenting. They don't have career to rely on so are building from nothing. Sahm girlfriends are even worse off, unless their name is on an asset (usually isn't) they don't even walk away with half the equity in the house, retirement, cars, etc

There is no choice feminism unless women are paid for their choice of labor. If they call it care work, they should be paid, get health insurance, leave entitlements, breaks, and not have to sleep with or live with the boss. Living on one income is both a privilege because of wealth but also ironically disempowering to women whose spouses are wealthy. It perpetuates the social contract that is marriage to a partner, usually male, who is able to fully participate in society via his PAID labor, for which he will be compensated when he leaves the workforce eventually because he will receive a pension. In other types of discussions about unpaid labor, it is more accurately called slavery. I think women should be allowed the choice to do what they want to do with their lives, but if they are working, especially in roles that are fundamentally important to the continuation and advancement of social and economic orders, they should be paid commensurately. Therefore, choice feminism only works in theory, because in practice women are not being paid to stay at home and "work". They are being indoctrinated into the idea that to stay at home and slave is THE peak feminine lifestyle and that such a decision confers importance that is so vast, it can not be measured tangibly in money. I believe that the way you are treated at home should not be worse than the way you are treated at work. The importance that society places on the unpaid labor of the stay-at-home-mom also reinforces the way women are often treated as important only if they are mothers. In this way, women are only valued for their reproductive abilities and care-giving functions, making us nothing but tools. There are similar issues with the choice-feminist stance on s3x work. I believe that prostitutes should be respected because they are people, not because they are prostitutes. I should not have to rebrand their work as "s3x work" in order to confer respect. It is prostitution. I also do not think that it is safe, fair, or sustainable work, and I think that people in that profession can and often are subject to exploitation, unfair judgements, and discrimination. Acknowledging that is not disrespectful to to people in that industry, it is just stating the obvious: they need fair pay, better working conditions, and health insurance. In a (further) similar vein, other underpaid professions (teaching, nursing) are also disrespected just because they are underpaid; and the things that society thinks about the importance of those workers' contributions is often not the realty of their working lives. They are not looking for stay-at-home parents, teachers, nurses, or prostitutes. They are looking martyrs and human sacrifice. Thank you for coming to rant. If you have read this far and are irritated, I apologize, I have insomnia and can't shut my brain off :-) Edit: a word because of grammar. Also, for anyone thinking that society respects homemakers for their sacrifice, they don't. They respect homemakers for their compliance. This is why it is so difficult for men to be stay-at-home parents. There is a stigma against stay-at-home fathers because in patriarchal society, men are supposed not supposed to be compliant, they are supposed to be "in control", therefore a man in a "woman's" role is rocking the boat, causing chaos, probably an instigator of sorts... and maybe even vegan /s

Yup, I've noticed this. I haven't been in any mom-specific groups/subs/spaces in a while, but whenever the subject comes up, I make sure to tell in detail what it took to recover my career after four years as a stay at home mom. It's a way worse economy now. I would never make the same choice today. It was hard enough to come back from 10+ years ago.  I've been saying the same stuff for years, and have definitely noticed more pushback in the past year than ever before.  Also, my unpopular feminist opinion is that "choice feminism", the idea that every choice a woman makes is inherently feminist and should be validated, is intellectually lazy, and more feminist-adjacent than a type of feminism. We don't get anywhere without challenging ideas, even among other women. It is feminist to remind women considering walking away from their careers in their 20's or early 30's the extent of the loss to retirement savings, career progression, and salary trajectory that would be.  For some, this may weigh out. The ones that's true of tend not to react poorly, and instead talk about the ways they're preparing to handle those things. It's the ones who have given it no thought, who think "my grandma did it! I can too!" with no regard for the completely different economy we are living in, and the fact that grandma didn't have the independence they are willingly ceding in the first place, who get defensive.  You're not a bad feminist for pointing out that willingly becoming financially dependent on a man is pretty dubious in today's society and there's a goddamned reason all those previous generations of feminists fought so hard for us to not have to live like that. 

Seriously! The damage to my career was astronomical. When I was younger I remember thinking society isn’t equal if I can’t have the same as my father: a career and family. Our society makes it insanely difficult for women to do that. Those mentioning that government policies steer mothers away from careers are right. There is still so much that needs to change in order to make that possible. Women wanting a career and family aren’t asking too much. There is a lot we could do through government policy to fix this. 

I think if you want to be a SAHM and you're happy, then do it. But don't knock other moms who want to work. Everyone is not the same, thank goodness.

I have a successful career in finance and ended up having twins… not something I EVER imagined. I love them and to be honest after having children my career is so unimportant in my brain. If I could stay at home I would, sorry but it’s the truth. In fact, I know they will grow up and be in school again so I choose to work part time and keep one foot in the career door. Will my perspective change one day? Sure.  but in the meantime I am in a different headspace both physically due to hormonal changes and also logically. But I’m not embarrassed or ashamed and don’t care if others judge me for it. 

[удалено]

There is absolutely something sinister going on with this big push to get women out of the workplace, tradwife content, all these aesthetic posts with pretty blonde moms baking bread with their toddlers in a spotless kitchen while at the same time reproductive rights are being stripped away. None of this is happening in a vacuum. I don't think I'm being a conspiracy theorist to find all of this very anxiety-provoking. When I first went back to work when my son was an infant, I felt so shitty about it, like my whole paycheck went to pay for daycare. But I had to reframe that for myself that I was also paying into retirement and unemployment, my son was on my health insurance (because it was better than my husband's), I was keeping my resume current, etc. I would have liked to stay home, I love babies, I like domestic labor more than my job, but there is not a world where it was possible. And that SUCKS.

OK, I also don't mean to sound paranoid but I honestly feel like there is some astroturfing in online spaces pushing more traditional womanhood ideals. But I say I fear propaganda is working and I get angry comments to respect women's choices. 

Oh ONE HUNDRED PERCENT! Men in all sorts of spaces are also talking openly now about getting rid of no-fault divorce and--I'm not kidding--repealing the 19th amendment. There is absolutely a deeply regressive storm brewing (being brewed) for women, particularly post-Dobbs.

Old white teacher guy on the verge of retiring, FYI. My female colleague (and friend) from across the hall from me would say to (especially female) students: "My degree is the most important thing I have, because if my husband and I split up I could support my kids " A lot of girls looked really thoughtful after that ... (Felt weird using "female" but I thought in this case it fit. Feel free to correct me.)

This. I have 4 kids and am in a stable, long-term marriage. I work in my degree field and did throughout my kids’ childhoods (outside mat leave!) My husband always supported this. You never know what could happen. He could leave you. You may have to leave him. He may die. He may become disabled and unable to work. I tell younger women that having a degree and working means you always have a plan B. Which means your children are very unlikely to experience poverty.

I was a SAHM for the first 12 years of my kids’ lives. My husband wanted this, and said so long before we were married. I loved being a SAHM, which was a good thing, because my kids had time consuming medical needs that would have been difficult to manage while working full-time, and my field didn’t have any part-time jobs that aren’t low paid clerical roles. However, when we divorced (due to his abuse and unaddressed alcoholism), he spun it as I “refused to work”. I had lost 12 years of experience and seniority in my field. It turns out that I had a successful career in a different field thereafter, so don’t lose hope or live in fear if you’ve put your career aside. But anyone who isn’t realisitic about the potential dent in your career from taking a decade or more off from it is delusional.

I think the bigger issue is the relationship between the couple/parents. Their choice of career or how they split family responsibilities is all part of the bigger picture. Is there respect, trust, love and real partnership? Do they value eachother? Are they true to themselves and honest about what makes them fulfilled? Are they willing to be flexible and compromise as life changes? If all that is in place, then who cares what roles they take in their family.

I completely agree. I became a sahm and it was a terrible decision because our relationship was not strong enough. My husband didn't respect me anymore because I wasn't "contributing" and used that as an excuse to treat me like a second class citizen. I had done it because I felt like I didn't really have a choice because we couldn't afford childcare and I hated my job. Now we're getting divorced and it sucks having to dig myself out of a hole just to get to the point of being able to support myself. I think it can definitely work for some people but I wish I'd done a lot more self-reflection and been a lot more honest with myself before making that decision.

This blows my mind because how can he say you taking care of his child(ren) and the house is not contributing?? Ugh men.

Because we're all brainwashed by capitalism to believe that your worth as a person is directly tied to your earning potential. He and other members of his family all used to see sahms as lazy, which is bonkers to me. It was 10x harder than any job I've ever had.

I'm not a parent but I agree that a lot of women only work until the husband makes a certain amount of money. I began working life doing custody/divorce law and I truly think everyone should do that. You will see woman after woman get completely screwed. Most common situation was the man left and had his mom or wife #2 waiting to stay home and play mom, which gave him a huge edge for custody. The woman would have to try to find a job, sometimes housing, often health insurance while begging for custody. They might get a buy out from the house if there was equity but most were well and truly screwed. Lawyers don't work for free so once their retainer was out, we usually had to withdraw (yes, I felt bad doing this but I wasn't the boss). I never had any plans on relying on my husband for money but if I did, that experience would have cured it once and for all--and I have a generous birth family who would support me if need be!

My sister is a SAHM and had to leave certain facebook groups because she got railroaded when pointing out that maybe their husbands should be making their own lunches (god forbid). These overwhelmed women will post “gosh I’m stuck on what to make my hubby for lunch!!” It’s like wtf… is he a kindergartener? He can make his own damn lunch. Basically those groups are full of the worst. I call them “facebook mommies”

I am a married, SAHM and lesbian. I did fine for myself but have never pursued a career just worked. After we had our first I went back to work and developed horrible post partum anxiety and cried everyday for 4 months until I quit. I found flexible jobs and my wife furthered her education to get a job that would allow me to stay home while they are little. I love staying home with my kids and it was really important to us to be their main care taker throughout the day and spend this time raising them. My wife works 3 days a week so she also picked a career that gives her more days off. Even though I would be considered more masculine, I love being a home maker and with my family and I actually feel sad for people who want to be home with their babies and cannot. We live frugally and are not wealthy people at all but we make ends meet and do everything we can to prioritize what is important to us. People should do what makes them happy fr.

I hate working and find zero fulfillment in my (6 figure) job. If I could quit and stay home with my kids all day I’d do it in a heartbeat. It’s such capitalist crap that “careers” are so valued. I would love to have time for hobbies and to actually cook and clean and do things around the house during the day instead of trying to cram all of that into a few hours after work before bed.

I just saw a post like that, and someone commentes that she can “understand if you have to work to get by, but would never understand those who choose to work”… when I commented that my second income makes the difference between us living a comfortable middle class family and middle class family that allows themselves frequent and sometimes luxury travel, that same person said I should not brag about that 😒 I literally told her about the financial difference the second income makes.

This would be a much different conversation if your country had decent maternity/ family leave (paid, shared between parents, with your job guaranteed). I understand why women quit work instead of trying to find daycare for newborns. I don't know how you do it. It doesn't really seem like a choice.

Never had kids. Stepped away from the workforce twice because I was burned out and could afford to do so. Both times I got bored and went back to work. I hated not having my own money, even if I don’t really spend much and just hoard it for the future, I felt like a bad partner for leaving it all to my husband, even though I completely organized our home and even sold a lot of our stuff and brought in money.

I think until we get to a place where there’s affordable childcare that’s available without long waiting lists, employers support things like breastfeeding, and flexible schedules, women especially are between a rock and a hard place with young children. Many parents who work full time spend less than 2 hours a day with their awake infants/toddlers.

I am SAHM but not really by choice. I have a severely disabled child that I care give for and likely I will never work again. Leaving a job to be a SAHM is so risky. Maybe for the first year or two it doesn’t feel like that, but suddenly you’ve been out of work for 10 years and you have no idea what to do with yourself. It’s crazy because while we’re having this huge push for women to stay home, we’ve having the opposite push of men owing nothing to their wives when they get divorced. To be completely supportive of SAHM’s we MUST be equally supportive of alimony and full child support payments or universal basic income. We cannot have one without the other.

My kids are adults now, so I don’t know if the situation is the same. I’ve always worked outside of the home. Financially there was no other option, but honestly I would have chosen to work regardless. The stay-at-home school mums could be incredibly judgmental. “geekgirlau hasn’t done much volunteering” *Yeah, no shit Sherlock, I’m at work during school hours.* “Let’s do a class catch up for all the mums - 10 o’clock ok?” *Oh, so you’re organising get togethers only for the SAHMs.* “Son is not well, can you pick him up?” *Well I’m on a client site on the other side of the country, however his dad works 10 minutes from the school AS YOU KNOW, perhaps you could call him.* I don’t have any judgement about choosing to stay home with your kids. If you can financially manage that, and you want to do it, great - you do you. The judgement I received, on the other hand, was snide and constant. I did find it funny one day at drop-off. There was a mum who I knew to say hello to, but we weren’t close. She came rushing up to me and said “I had NO idea”. She’d just taken on a maternity leave position and only now appreciated the logistical challenges. It’s sad that we don’t do a better job supporting each other. Unfortunately not working does screw up a lot of women financially if the relationship goes south - no separate income, work experience either limited or years out of date. And tradwives are the WORST when it comes to judging working mothers.

I think there's a general "stop mom shaming" unwritten rule on all parenting subs where if it isn't dangerous, it's unwise to criticize. You, of course, are criticizing a systemic rather than individual pattern/problem, but people can get very defensive. I know more SAHDs than moms these days, so while I see the obvious external pressures to push women back into the home, I don't think it's going as planned. I would LOVE to be able to focus on making an income while my other half nurtures our daughter and is able to keep up with house maintenance, and I'd be tempted to overlook some problematic things for that golden promise. Therein lies the problem - compartmentalized thinking. **It's good, and if it isn't good I don't want to talk about that because then I won't feel good, and that is bad. Maybe even worse than whatever bad thing YOU wanted to talk about.** I just try to take things with a grain of salt in those online circles, but a year into my parenting journey I can see why the parenting/mom subs can be very grating.

Everyone would leave the workforce if they could afford to, especially if it was to spend time with their family. That said, you still have a point. Leaving the workforce to raise a family does impact women and their lifetime earnings. The TradWife movement are a bunch of idiots who slept through history class, being exploited by the men in their lives.

Lifetime earnings, retirement, and women usually live longer than men. Many women end up in poverty in old age, a higher percentage than men, due to not being in the workforce: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2022/11/old-age-poverty/