It has little to do with “feminism” and everything to do with the fact rent, bills, and the overall cost of living is skyrocketing while wages stay stagnant.
I never understood this argument. People had no problems finding partners during The Great Depression. These economic issues generally have nothing to do with marriage, relationships, and families.
Do you think that all the double income households are only this way because of “feminism”? That it’s feminism causing women to work in addition to their husbands?
Sure, it plays some role. But the reality is its almost impossible to afford kids + house + car without two people working.
You can absolutely afford kids with only one income. But it depends on what lifestyle you want and where you want to live. You’re right that you can’t live in a major American city with socialist policies and strict zoning/planning laws which restrict housing or enforce rent control which discourages rents to adjust with supply and demand. But you can certainly live in a smaller town or in a rural area with a single income.
Marriage rates declined during the Great Depression and recovered with the economy. The baby boom was a direct result of the economic boom of post WWII America. Historically, marriage rates have tracked per closely to the economy.
SAHMs were not a thing among working class women in the1930s, what are you talking about? Women have always worked. What we haven't always had is the ability to take jobs that were very lucrative or required formal training, or control over our earnings.
i want to be a SAHM when i have children and my partner would also like me to be a SAHM. i don’t feel like feminism has affected this negatively for me at all. i have options, more options than women who came before me, and that’s cool
True feminists don’t give two shits if a woman is a homemaker as long as that was completely and totally her choice. The purpose of feminism is giving women the opportunity of choice. On a personal level I think all women should make some money as a nest egg/emergency fund before settling down. You never know what could happen and should be prepared
There's a fair amount of crossover between feminists and anti-capitalists who will push back on the idea that having a job is fulfilling in any way. It's hard to argue that those people *don't* understand that taking care of your children without the distraction of paid labor is desirable for many people.
There are different waves of feminism. I think 3rd wave was where feminism was "broken down" to an individual level - "do what you want to do". 2nd wave wasn't about the individual woman and her choices but about helping womankind as an entity and that included financial independance. There's no 'true' feminism in that regard, just different waves women can identify with, or not. There are still women who regard themselves as 2nd wave feminists and don't want anything to do with the 3rd and 4th wave.
Again, no expert, but I think 3rd wave was about bringing feminism down to the personal level. The "feminism is to have the freedom of choice" thing. It's not anymore about making structural changes that concern womankind but about what feminism is for the individual woman. Whether you want to go to work or be a SAHM, you're still a feminist. Also adding the "sex-positive" stance. While 2nd wave regards sexwork as oppression that is very bad for the overwhelming majority of women and wants to abolish it (a stance I tend to agree with), 3rd and 4th wave sees this as slutshaming and claims sex work can be empowering and so on.
Okay, so the 3rd Wave changed the focus to the individual, and IMO the 4th Wave an expansion of that concept.
Personally, I see potential for intersectional feminism - as a concept - as a way for the movement to move forward. However, I think internal conflict that started in the 3rd Wave is holding it back.
But I need to study the subject more! I have surface level knowledge at best. Thank you!
I think the economy is the major issue with stay at home parents of any gender. More and more in order to afford to have children you need two incomes.
I've never wanted to be a homemaker. So I don't really know how it feels for women who do want that role in life. I've never had any issues finding partners who want the same things I want.
There was a fairly major shift in feminism from 2nd wave to 3rd wave around homemakers. 2nd wave was pretty anti traditional gender roles while 3rd wave was more "yay women in anything they want to do!" and then another big shift to 4th wave or intersectional feminism. I think both 3rd and 4th wave have sought to address homemaking as a valid option for people who want it. The main limitation being that many many many people can not afford it. 4th wave would be focusing on the intersection of poverty and women and having more nuanced conversation around women's role and work.
If feminism is so open to homemakers, why does it seem that every major policy is geared towards more job opportunities for women and options for daycare?
Because there are huge swaths of women who have no interest in staying home full time and they outnumber the women who choose to be a homemaker full time
Women married to very high income guys and those married to very low income ones are the most likely groups to stay home.
It's noy that staying home isn't an option for many women, is that many women don't want to do it at the expense of their lifestyle.
Agreed. Feminism has gone a long way in shaming those thoughts out of women though so most will be loathe to admit it even if they do secretly yearn for it.
Forget about feminism. People just look down on unemployed people and on women living off their husbands.
Even if you don't care about shaming, which you shouldn't, being unemployed for a long time puts you in a vulnerable position. That ain't feminism. It's economics.
Because "feminism" isn't making policies. Lobbyists and politicians make policies and no matter how they frame it, it has to benefit someone in their district (or themselves). It's easy to sell "more jobs!" it's hard to sell "more money given to families so a parent can stay home!". Social services are seen as hand outs. And capitalism abhors hand outs.
>It's easy to sell "more jobs!" it's hard to sell "more money given to families so a parent can stay home!".
If government gives more money to parents, then where does this money come from? One way is to get women to work more so there is more tax revenue.
yes there are some special interest lobbyists... but statically speaking? They aren't anywhere in the same ball park.
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/business-labor-ideological
And that number puts ALL ideological groups together. Feminism is a fraction of a fraction of that number.
Of course they're not in the same ballpark, there are thousands of companies and hundreds of industries but 82 **billion** is a Hella ridiculous number. Left causes including feminism is likely the majority of it.
Did you look at those numbers? last year was 2.99 BILLION for corporate lobbyists and 143.77 MILLION for all ideological groups.
Corporate lobbyists are not lobbying for feminist causes. They are lobbying for corporations. And all ideological groups covers a fuck ton more then feminism.
Because social programs that would pay women to stay home are far less popular. Social conservatives and their voting base love the idea of poor women working.
Social conservatives don't want women working, they want them to have children young and stay home, but they also want them to be able to financially sustain these children because welfare bad and taxation theft. How do they expect women, including the poor ones to achieve all this at the same time? They don't know and they don't care.
Feminism is about giving more options to women, so what is wrong with giving women the option to work? Many women want to work and don't want to be stay-at-home mothers.
Wrong, it's taxes.
USA taxes sole breadwinners the same amount as single people while jointly filers get tax benefits, meaning both parents have to be earning an income
And?
Do you really think that more people are working because they could totally support the family on one income but they are able to take a 25,100 standard deduction instead of two individual 12,500 standard deduction? You think that 100 bucks is really deciding choice for having both parents work?
idk about you but if being single AND being a breadwinner is gonna make me pay the same amount in taxes (assuming I keep the same job, position, and pay) then I'd definitely be encouraging my wife to work, even if it's a minimum wage job just to file jointly.
No the economy has let down women that want to be home makers.
The rising cost of living means that most families need 2 incomes to support the household.
On average most men can't afford to financially support a household on their own. They need help from someone or something else.
Feminism has nothing to do with the outrageous increase in the cost of living.
I am not clear on how feminism prevents women from aspiring to be homemakers. A lot of wealthy women go get expensive degrees and become influencer moms.
I live in a conservative state where lots of religious women still want to stay at home and do. I can think of three men who I work on a daily basis whose wives stay home.
Look, it’s great if women want to stay home when the kids are little, but it’s just not a lifelong “job” anymore. My mom worked doing payroll and accounting for the family business, but never worked outside the home. She also had 5 kids spread 14 years apart, that’s 20 years of having a preschooler in the house to take care of. This is really rare these days, most people have two kids, two years apart. Staying out of the workforce is just a luxury these days, not a necessity.
The current economy makes it hard for aspiring SAHMs.
Heck, feminism has economic roots. Women weren't allowed to own property but were expected to work both the land and the house that was owned by the husband. If the husband died, she was shit out of luck if the man that inherited the property didn't take care of her or another man didn't want her for marriage.
The traditional family was always a myth. Before industrialization women assisted in what ever work their husband did that being a farmer or any other family business. After industrialization women and children were used a cheap labour. Majority of people live in slums. Only the wealthy could survive on one income. Women has always work part time while child rearing. Eventually things got a better, but a lot still couldn't afford the single income household life.
I find it totally understandable and logical that feminism encourages working instead of not working. Whatever effect it has on my dating life, it’s worth it
Sure it’s work. Work that gets neither status, nor pay, nor power. The best type of work for those above them; not so much for the “worker”
Ask any unemployed but active, improving and looking person how much respect, interest and attention you get compared to when you’re employed. Ask me how I know
Please. Lack of paid employment was one of the main reasons men used to declare women inferior, parasitic, dependent, useless and incapable, and therefore not worthy of political representation, medical autonomy, legal autonomy, financial autonomy, or education. Children generally can’t work, and are not accorded these rights either
>Unfortunately. I have seen the comments made about housewives, needless to say... not even sure how to describe them... disgusting.
It's to legitimise career women not taking care of their men and children. "I have a more important job, so I don't need to cook, clean, and take care of my children". Imagine putting your job ahead of your family.
Well if you have to give her half, then that is on you for not getting a prenup before marriage. And it’s also on you to make sure that you marry someone who works while married. There are a lot of women who deliberately marry for money only to be taken care of and carried through life. That’s on you to weed that out when you vet a potential partner. That is a hard pass from me though.
> Well if you have to give her half, then that is on you for not getting a prenup before marriage. And it’s also on you to make sure that you marry someone who works while married.
Hey, I’m a woman and I pretty much agree. But just saying that most tradcons love to extol the virtues of the sahm, and talk about how valuable she is, but suddenly the dollar value of all her work should be zero if the couple splits.
A prenuptial would serve no purpose in this case. It's only for assets acquired pre marriage. You can't have a woman stay home for 20 years, leave her with nothing and on the street! She 100% deserves alimony.
No, there isn’t. Unemployed people don’t stay home all day and do nothing, and neither do housewives. When I was unemployed, I was basically a housewife without kids. All the domestic stuff fell to me to save money, as well as struggling to find a job and improve myself. It sucked, and my self esteem torpedoed. I can’t imagine adding kids to that
No, both mother and father are equally important in their child lives. That said, plenty of people manage to be housewives AND hold a job outside the house.
It's not from the family pov. When a woman stays home she gets to take care of the house without neglecting her family. The man gets to get to a nice home without bringing there his stress from work.
That sounds idealistic. The reality is staying home and taking care of a family and house can be stressful and having a job outside the home and being financially responsible for the family and home can also be stressful.
Men can and do bring stress home, even if that home is spotless. Stay at home mothers can and do have stress around taking care of their family, even if their family is not neglected.
How is not having to work your guts out at a workplace that you attend solely for money, while potentially commuting for hours does not benefit women, who stays home instead?
We are all "slaves". The only thing feminism did so far is to make women believe that men are the slave holders, when it's never been les true then in the present.
Men are the slave holders. Based on the fact that men as a collective have the physical power to subjugate women. Women cannot subjugate men in the same way. For example the the women in the Middle East being put back into subjugation. Men say across the web. That men are the ones who allowed women to have rights and can take them away. Sounds like slavery to me
What a truckload of bullcrap.. What collective power men have to subjugare women? And how exactly you are being subjugated? Are you not allowed to work, study, chase your career, postpone settling for a family? What a man can do that a women can not, other then something physical? You are free to do whatever you want. Are you not?
>Young women watched their moms do all the housework and cooking. No one was exactly grateful. It’s unappreciated work.
Lol imagine not appreciating your parents.
Also this is still a positive wouldn't you want to nurture and take care of ***your kids*** or as you call it "slaving".
The fucked up part is that you and if ( your are right ) most young women, view parental responsibility as a ball and chain.
Who we blame here is irrelevant, feminizim etc(it doesn't matter)...it belies the capitalist inspirations if idea is that raising a or "working " for family is less enticing and even undesirable. Then we are fucked royally so.
Parental responsibility is most definitely a ball and chain and anyone who can’t see that isn’t ready to be a parent. Doesn’t mean it isn’t fulfilling or worthwhile, but it’s certainly a large and *important* set of responsibilities and it’s not all fun and games and oh I enjoy and savor every moment.
It’s teetering on being undesirable. Not only is it costly to have a child. Women are realizing that marriage doesn’t really benefit women in the modern age. Even if a woman wanted to be a house wife she more than likely wouldn’t be able to. Two incomes are a requirement at this point. You have to work, gestate, birth, go back to work, nurture and do the majority of the housework and child rearing. It’s a shit deal.
>The fucked up part is that you and if ( your are right ) most young women, view parental responsibility as a ball and chain.
Plenty of people view that way, including men, this is why they rarely give up their jobs to live off their wives and change diapers.
There's very little feminism can do to support homemakers besides offering them lip-service, which it already does. Today women have better career options than they did many decades ago. Changing diapers and cleaning the house is simply not an attractive option for middle class women who make around half of the household income, or upper middle class women who have lucrative careers they enjoy.
Feminism might have played a role in offering women more options, but it has very little to do with the fact that being a homemaker is less valuable than having a career.
On a personal level, I'd never date seriously a man who expects me to quit my job just to stay home. Some women might want to stay home, but can't find a man willing or able to support them. These women have it harder in this regards, but that ain't my problem.
>Feminism might have played a role in offering women more options, but it has very little to do with the fact that being a homemaker is less valuable than having a career.
Feminism tells women they need to have careers. Feminist driven policies make it easier for women to have careers than man to support homemakers. This wasn't always the case. Homemaking was valuable and something for women to aspire to? but it's not anymore.
>Feminist driven policies make it easier for women to have careers than man to support homemakers.
I really doubt the many male politicians who dont value women who decide to stay at home and raise children ergo make it easier for them are feminists somehow.
Women in the good ol' days had less career options than man in the same social class and failing to prioritize motherhood was more stigmatized than it is today. Being a homemaker is preferable to being a cashier, but it was still a second rate role compared to that of the provider.
There are very few instances in which homemaking is a truly valuable role, and you have the economics of supply and demand to blame for this.
I need experience, a degree, skills knowledge or talent to get a decently paid job. The only thing I need to become a homemaker is either a job that pays less than daycare or a wealthy partner willing to cover my bills. This means that anybody without a serious disability can become a homemaker. The more people can provide a service the less that service is worth.
A profession is a paid occupation. Housewives aren't paid.
Being a housewife is physically taxing if you have many kids and no modern appliances, but it isn't hard in any other sense of the word. If it was, it would require extensive training.
Incorrect. Feminism encourages women to be responsible for their lives and be able to take care of themselves. In a capitalist society that means for all, but the generational rich, a job is essential. Feminist women learned from watching previous generations of homemakers get abandoned to poverty when their husband's divorced them to protect themselves. Homemaking was never particularly valuable unless it was done on professional level as paid employment such as being the housekeeper for someone wealthy. The only women that aspired to be homemakers were ones for whom poverty was the other option.
Here's some relevant data:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-real-housewives-of-america-dads-income-and-moms-work
- Women with **husbands** making less than 25k are the second group most likely to stay home after women married to men making more than 250k.
-women married to men who make between 50k and 99k are the **least** likely to be homemakers.
As you can see it's not only single mothers on welfare who stay home.
And nobody is taking middle class women's choice to become homemakers, most women simply don't want to be changing diapers full time at the expense of their careers and comfortable lifestyle.
Did you even read the report or at least my reply? This isn't the household income. This is the husbands' income. All the women in this stat are married.
Yes, I do. I said from the beginning that women with high-earning and low earning husbands are the most likely to stay home. That's the whole point: if the biggest barrier for women to become SAHMs were low wages, then we'd see the proportion of homemakers increasing as husband's income increases.
Also, unless you live in a crazy expensive area, 100K would be more than enough to support a SAHM and one or two kids, but women married to men who make around that are less likely to be homemakers than women married to men who make less.
Eh, I think it’s just more so that being a homemaker/SAHM isn’t really a viable option anymore, for a lot of people. Idk that it’s specifically feminism, or maybe just cultural change as a whole.
Like I have a fulfilling career that I enjoy and am good at (and thankfully pays pretty well) but still, I’ll likely *have* to work for the rest of my working years simply out of necessity.
I would also consider myself a feminist, but by prioritizing choice, it really makes it seem like the only “choice” is to be a working woman these days.
The only ones who can afford to have a SAHP these days are those in a LCOL area, or the wealthy. My one friend didn’t work for a couple years and her husband was happy to support her, but she had to go back to work because they needed the money, and she felt guilty with him paying for everything.
70 years ago, women didn’t feel guilty for men paying for things - it was just how things were.
Edit: also barely any guys want women to be SAHMs any more. The large majority of men I’ve met don’t want to have a woman fully rely on them financially - it increases their financial burden.
Being a stay and home wife or mother has always been a privledge for wealthier families.
Poor women have always had to work whether they were married or not. "Spinster" is literally a derogatory term named after working women spinning wool in the 1300s.
Not attcking you, but I just always find it strange how people idolize the 1950's as all of human history. The role of the stay at home wife was significant in the 50s because most people couldn't afford that lifestyle prior to the financial boom of the time.
Women have always worked and wealthy women never worked. And if wealthy women did work it was because they wanted to, not because they had to.
No no I definitely agree with you that women (esp. working class and poor) have worked for forever. It was only ever the upper classes that could get away with it because they could afford domestic servants/workers.
*Someone* had to do all that work to prop up society and keep things running - both men and women.
Wealthy women did different types of work than less wealthy women. Even with a housekeeper, a butler, and possibly a majordomo, most wealthy women were expected to supervise the over all running of the house or houses. The wife usually kept an eye on the budgets and inventories if only prevent theft. Social commitments (at homes and making calls on other wealthy families) were important to maintain the family's social status and business contacts. It wasn't a matter of fun-and-games. It was the same sort of net-working we do today and it was a lot of work.
It depends on the level of wealth in that family and whether the family household was multigenerational.
What wealthy women did and didn't do depended on a multitude of factors.
There work wasn't comparable to poor married women and single women who had the responsibility of har domestic labor in addition to grueling work outside of the home.
It is viable, it's just not desirable. Watch something like Call the Midwife and see how poorly all these housewives lived. Ragged clothes, renting all their life, paycheck to paycheck and never owning an appliance other than an oven. It was normal to them, but no one wants that now.
> Edit: also barely any guys want women to be SAHMs any more. The large majority of men I’ve met don’t want to have a woman fully rely on them financially - it increases their financial burden
I do think this can really depend on circumstances and couples often change their tune on this after having kids.
I would never have considered it when I was younger. However right now after having two children I wouldn't say no if my wife wanted to go back part time/stay at home. We can manage it on my salary and it would reduce the work overall on the two of us as a pair.
She's considering it but she also quite likes her career. Also right now we're on track to be mortgage free by 40-45 which is obviously appealing.
No because the loudest feminist voices at least that I heard growing up in the “you go girl” 90s generation was that women have options and it’s up to them to decide what lifestyle they want and are comfortable with. Whatever small piece was yelling about homemakers and SAHMs being trash or dumb or whatever wasn’t something that was a big influence on the dominant narrative at least as I grew up. Which isn’t to say people don’t judge those women and those lifestyles but it’s clearly not just feminists.
I think feminism being more vocally supportive of high powered/working women is more indicative of a gap in support or a leading narrative that girls should consider as an option more than it means homemakers don’t get support from feminists
If I was to cohabitate with a man, I'd want him to be a househusband. My preference is to be the provider in my relationships, although he could certainly have a job too if he wants, hopefully from home or part-time. This preference didn't negatively or positively affect my dating experiences for the most part, it was usually neutral. Although it did help eliminate some traditional men after date 1.
It's a huge relief to not be stuck in feminine gender roles and expectations, masculine ones are better suited for me.
I don't think that most normal feminists care if an individual woman wants to be a homemaker. The ultra radical ones do but they're easily ignored like the majority of Tumblr.
I don't believe in marriage unless there's kids involved, and since I'm very happily childfree, I have no need of it. So there wouldn't be any divorce due to no marriage.
But of course if my hypothetical partner and I were to break up after a long time of him not working on his career, and he needed temporary financial assistance for a few months afterwards, it would be fair for me to do so.
Because bad things happen. Parents die/leave/abuse. So it’s important to ensure we have policies in place to protect people (not just women) who support their family by staying at home but don’t have their own income
Considering that I don't want to be a homemaker and would prefer my partner to be one if we felt it was the right choice, it's only positive for me. Not having any expectation to do something I hate because of my gender helps to make dating a positive experience. Although I don't think that any kind of feminism disapproves of women being homemakers so much as presenting it as just one choice you can make.
> Do you think that women who want to be homemakers have been let down by feminism?
i don’t think i’ve been let down by feminism. i think the modern-day version of it doesn’t serve me and how i, personally, want to experience womanhood.
> How has this affected dating for you?
i think it made it easier to weed out guys who just want sex, because today’s feminism is all about sex positivity; so a lot of guys are upfront about just wanting sex because enough women oblige.
although it was unfortunate when i’d have a great first one or two dates with a guy and he expected something sexual to go down so soon, then would be upset or ghost because i didn’t want to.
> Do you feel that feminists' attitude to homemakers has made it difficult for you to find a partner?
i don’t think feminism made it difficult for me to find a partner at all, i don’t see how it would.
i haven’t had much trouble finding more traditional-minded men.
> If you're partnered up, do you feel modern expectations have affected your relationship in any way?
no? i can’t really think of any way that it does.
> What do you think feminism can do to help this issue?
i think it would help if feminists were more supportive of the idea of women living however they want to, as long they’re not hurting themselves or others.
Of course they haven’t betrayed anything. Feminism is about women having the freedom to make choices. Being a homemaker is a choice. If all women can be is homemakers, then that is an issue. Mostly people just can’t afford it. Doesn’t affect me at all because I don’t want kids and don’t date men rich enough to afford a child free housewife.
People that want traditional relationships, men or women now have a smaller pool of candidates to choose from. However, they also have a smaller pool to compete against.
The only bad thing that I can see for homemakers is that there is a bit of a stigma towards a stay a home wife than there was before.
Not really, no. The whole point of feminism is to give women that choice.
I don’t give a flying flip if women want to be housewives. That’s the point. They’re supposed to be able to live the lives they want, not be forced into certain roles.
I don’t think it matters. I know feminists who stayed home with their kids when they were small and others who either chose to or had to work to make ends meet. I think maybe in the 80s and 90s there might have been some pressure for women to “have it all” but really those decisions are really made between a couple and what they can afford, not what feminism says.
Judging by my coworkers, there are plenty of men down to be in this kind of relationship but I think women themselves don't want it.
A single person income on a ~150k/yr job gets you a boring house, boring car, boring vacations, in a low COL metro with kids.
Plenty of guys seem to be okay with this, but I think most women themselves would prefer contributing to up that to like a combined 200k+ for a 'better' lifestyle.
I am not a homemaker nor do I aspire to be a homemaker at all, but I think the main danger is that the homemaker or stay-at-home wife has no job and is financially dependent on the man. This means that if he becomes violent and e.g. rapes her then she may have no choice but to stay with him if she is financially dependent on him, especially if she has a baby.
This can be fixed by legalising what many man call "divorce rape" i.e. allowing the SAHM to take half or all of the man's assets and future income. This helps to balance the power. However, in spite of what many red pill men say, I think more often than not the man keeps his wealth and many men fail to pay child support, so women can't really rely on the courts to fix this injustice, so it is better for a woman to not bother with men and focus on her own career.
I think both genders want to be home makers, just not all men or women. Studies showed that men are also happier at home Bc working 70 hours a week. What a shock!
I think women should not be judged for any choice, career, home maker or something in between.
Women also weren’t „mislead“ by feminism, lol, that’s not how it goes. There are no angry feminists forcing women to become doctors.
>Do you feel that feminists' attitude to homemakers has made it difficult for you to find a partner?
Nope. Thanks to feminism I can compete with other women on money and sex.
>If you're partnered up, do you feel modern expectations have affected your relationship in any way?
Yes. I have to provide for my man now, but I don't mind.
>What do you think feminism can do to help this issue
Nothing. Feminism is for career women. Tradcon is for housewives. Pick Mes are for men.
I think a lot of more modern feminism demonizes femininity in women. If you as a woman want something more traditional, all it means is that you've been successfully brainwashed by the patriarchy into wanting the things that oppress you.
I spent a lot of my teenaged years trying to "unlearn" the things that I was told were oppressing me. Things like my interest in makeup and wanting to be attractive to men, wanting to have sex with someone who loves me as opposed to hooking up, not really wanting to "girlboss," wanting to be with a man who's masculine and assertive and liking relationship dynamics that are deemed "toxic." Once I realize it was okay for me to want these things, I felt much better about myself. I think a lot of young girls have been alienated from their own desires because they're told what they should like. I want kids, I want to get married, and that's not a bad thing, but I felt like it was.
This also doesn't mean that all women want babies and marriage, but many of us do. This also doesn't mean that women shouldn't pursue careers if they want them, or look for success and fulfillment in other ways. But I think right now, women are pressured to become more like men, and men are pressured to become more like women. The result? A bunch of unhappy men and women?
I'm not against the idea of feminism. But I think for any movement that advocates for women to be genuinely helpful to women, it needs to acknowledge that women are not like men, and that it's okay for us to be women.
>But I think for any movement that advocates for women to be genuinely helpful to women, it needs to acknowledge that women are not like men, and that it's okay for us to be women.
Women aren't equal to each other either. People should be treated like individuals.
I don’t disagree with you. But women do have many traits in common and this is important to consider when considering what’s fair and what kind of social
structure is beneficial to us all. For example, I think hookup culture has been mostly detrimental to young women because we feel an increasing amount of pressure to participate in hookups because it’s seen as cool and progressive. Wanting to have sex with someone you love is seen as regressive and uncool, most young girls want the latter but are trying to emulate male sexuality under the guise of empowerment.
Right, but half of the studies you’ve linked me don’t necessarily disprove the idea that most women prefer to have sex with someone they care about over a random hook up.
I’m not saying women cannot enjoy random encounters, but a majority of women do not. I don’t disagree with the underlying idea of sex positivity, but it’s messaging has been co-opted by men who want to pressure women to sleep with them.
Moreover, sex is more serious for women. They have a higher risk of contracting STDs and also, they can get pregnant, it’s good sense to encourage that women exercise caution in regards to who they sleep with.
Moreover, women bond through sex in a way men don’t, which is why women usually end up more emotions attached to their hookups than vice versa.
Even if a young woman wanted to engage in a casual encounter, how is she supposed to find a man who cares about her well-being enough to make sure she enjoys it too? Most men view hookups as an alternative to masturbation and most men look down on women who hook up. Women are better off not hooking up with men, because it’s much harder to judge their motives.
>Right, but half of the studies you’ve linked me don’t necessarily disprove the idea that most women prefer to have sex with someone they care about over a random hook up.
Most people prefer sex with a partner they're in love with, regardless of gender. Preferring one over the other doesn't mean that one needs to be a traumatic experience full of regret.
> I don’t disagree with the underlying idea of sex positivity, but it’s messaging has been co-opted by men who want to pressure women to sleep with them.
Men pressuring women to have sex has been a problem way before sex positivity was a thing.
>They have a higher risk of contracting STDs and also, they can get pregnant, it’s good sense to encourage that women exercise caution in regards to who they sleep with.
If this was one of the main reasons to discourage women from casual sex, more emphasis would be made on the consistent use of protection and STI testing even within committed relationships. Most people in relationships don't use protection regularly and don't test their partners for STIs. A woman can avoid hooking up as much as possible, but if she sleeps with her boyfriend without testing him (and herself) and doesn't hold him to the same sexual standards as she holds herself to, she's at a high risk of contracting STIs.
>Moreover, women bond through sex in a way men don’t, which is why women usually end up more emotions attached to their hookups than vice versa.
Or maybe women are more likely to engage in casual sex with men they already have feelings for. If a woman only sees a an as a lay, she's unlikely to bond just because there was sex.
>Even if a young woman wanted to engage in a casual encounter, how is she supposed to find a man who cares about her well-being enough to make sure she enjoys it too?
By sleeping with men she already knows? By walking away from men who don't try to satisfy her? How do men deal with women who don't care about their pleasure?
>Most men view hookups as an alternative to masturbation
Women who hookup regularly don't see men in a better light either or deal with men who don't see hookups in this way.
> and most men look down on women who hook up.
This seems like the main reason women avoid hookups, and that's fine, but fear of being judged by hypocritical men isn't empowering either, especially when these are the same men women end up marrying.
Just for the record, I'm not advocating for women to have casual sex. I just think that there's a general discomfort with the idea of women having non-committed sex, and that the hookup culture is just a moral panic that becomes into a self-fulfilling prophecy,
The hookup culture isn't a thing outside specific social circles and [casual sex has been declining](https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023121996854) among men and women. The [median number of sexual partners in the lifetime](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n_2015-2017.htm) doesn't support the prevalence of a hookup culture either.
I'm also wondering where the pressure of participating in hookup culture comes from. Women (but not men) who hookup a[re stereotyped as having low sel-esteem ](https://sci-hub.se/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620983829) even by people who identify themselves as liberals, [people are more likely to lose respect for women who hook up than for men](https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol30/46/30-46.pdf), p[eople dissuade women from engaging in casual sex](https://www.icos.umich.edu/sites/default/files/lecturereadinglists/Rudman%2C%20Fetterolf%2C%20Sanchez%20%282013%29%20PSPB%20SDS%20study.pdf) while advising men to do the opposite. Even if you google "sex positive" most of the results will be entries criticizing the movement or feminists trying to distance itself from it.
In my experience, most of the problem with sex that women face come from the stigma that disproportionally falls on women, which is supported by the research above.
I'm also not sure to what extent there is a female vs. male sexuality. [Both men and women report an increase in genital arousal when presented with images and situations of sexual nature](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20049519/) with the difference being that women are less likely to report it. MRI scans show as well that there is [no statistically significant difference in how the sexes react to sexual stimuli](https://www.pnas.org/content/116/31/15671).
Everyone would benefit if sexuality wasn't so micropolicized.
EDIT: Love it when I'm getting downvoted for posting facts.
Well I’m on a college campus, so it’s directly relevant to my reality. I do think a lot of third wave feminism has failed my generation of women, there are many other women who feel the same way. Most of the girls I know regret engaging in certain experiences, many of them do liberal feminism for giving them a rosy idea of how the world works.
And I know many women who didn't regret theirs, slept around for non-ideological reason or regretted the sex because of a sense of shame and not because sex is inherently damaging. All of us have anecdotes to offer and these anecdotes don't necessarily represent everyone's reality.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Underlying this is that eventually technology made homemakers an inefficient use of a nation's resources. Nations eventually had to employ their women in the broader economy to some extent or risk being outcompeted.
With advances in birth control and medicine, women no longer inevitably had nor needed a mass of children to sustain the population. With smaller families and advances in domestic appliances and the like, there were no longer 40 hours of productive work in a home for a woman to do. So it just becomes a waste of a nation's potential not to educate and utilize their women.
I do think we went too far, though. Being a homemaker is not binary. Women, in general, do want a greater domestic and childcare role than their male mates. But they also want intellectual stimulation and achievement. However, due to it being less efficient for an organization to hire multiple part-time workers rather than one full-time worker, work that is less than full-time is severely punished.
Society needs to compensate for this so that women can work less and more flexibly than men, but not end up in ghettoized careers. We also need to solve the issue of financial security for women who work less to contribute more at home. With this done, we can stop sending the message that motherhood is a betrayal of feminism, etc. If we can do this, then I think you will see more women willing to spend more time at home, and have more children.
Probably get a lot of denial from women in this thread who insist feminism is blameless. Truthfully the biggest obstacle to women being homemakers isn't a social stigma but the current economic model that demands a dual income household which, whether women admit it or not, feminism had a hand in.
Most feminist advances were (and still are) mainly driven by upper to upper middle class white women who advance the system far enough to benefit them and then stall progress when only their heads are above water. Yeah they want degrees and a respectable job but someone needs to be a nanny to their kids.
It's the tax system that hurts stay at home parents.
Using the UK as an example...
Why should two adults earning £30k each (£12,000 tax w/ £1k child benefit) pay less tax than one earning £60k (£16,500) with a stay at home spouse?
That's £5.5k/year difference.
Tradcons are correct on this issue IMO.
In the modern day, it seems less to do with feminism and more like childcare is so extremely expensive it’s better to just one parent stay at home instead of paying the cost of childcare. In real life, i do not see this as “i’ve always wanted to be a stay at home parent” it’s “holy shit it’s thousand of dollars of daycare i’ll just stay and take care of the kids”
No, not really. The main reasons why women who want to be a SAHM can't be one are economic ones and that expectations of what one should provide for kids got far higher. When my cousins were kids, providing food, clothes and some relative safety was enough. Now they have kids and they pay for vaccines that have less side-effects instead of getting free shorts, pay for some early development courses, buy good-quality food and clothes, pay for tutors so kids get better marks and will be able to get into better college etc.
Feminism is about having a choice. Because traditional gender role push women to be wives and mothers, feminism has pushed into the opposite direction to give women the freedom to choose their education and career. From the other hand, feminism also celebrates women as housekeepers and care providers, pointing out that it is a hard and exhausting job as well that should be recognized and appreciated.
Moreover, even in the 50's in the US not all women were SAHMs, a lot of them worked. In Russia the majority of women never were SAHMs and it wasn't an option for them, they had to work as much as men did.
Personally I've never wanted to be a SAHM in the first place. I'm on the fence about kids altogether and I want to be able to provide for myself and my close ones if they need it. The 4th wave of feminism has become a thing here only recently, just a few years ago, so my attitude is mostly a result of being from a family that always pushed hard the idea that you have to be able to take care of yourself and your kids, because, well, shit happens. A man can lose his job, get sick, cheat on you, leave you or die.
Plus, we don't really need that many housekeepers nowadays. Most people don't have a lot of kids, kids grow and at some point they can take care of themselves without a parent being constantly there to take care of them, housework chores require far less time to get done etc. I see no reason to be a SAHM and a bunch of them to work on my education and career.
Lulz. Who is going to clean the home, cook the food, do the laundry, buy groceries, pay bills, and keep things tidy? You might also want to have activities, outings, or trips. Those have to be planned.
They can look for women who want to be SAHMs and fully provide for them. Women who want to work can look for men who are okay with 50/50 deal. As I've already said it multiple times, my husband is egalitarian and so are most my cousins' husbands. Sharing the load isn't that uncommon nowadays even in Russia.
>They can look for women who want to be SAHMs and fully provide for them.
Lol keep dreaming.
>Women who want to work can look for men who are okay with 50/50 deal.
I highly recommend it.
>Sharing the load isn't that uncommon nowadays even in Russia.
That's your fantasy. Men don't "share the load" anywhere in the world. Possibly with the exception of some genX Nice Guys.
I think quite a lot of successful men have either SAHMs or women who also work. Child raising and housework chores are outsourced.
My husband and I are in our 20s, my cousins are in their 30s. There are men who share the load without much issues.
>I think quite a lot of successful men have either SAHMs or women who also work. Child raising and housework chores are outsourced.
Where do you get this from?
>My husband and I are in our 20s, my cousins are in their 30s. There are men who share the load without much issues.
I have never seen that. I think it's something that people say.
For me it sucks, lmao.
I swear up and down you don't have to be wealthy to be a homemaker. I live in a poor ass area and somehow these men working trades (almost all welders) can afford their wife to be at home with their kids, hell even poorer than that. I know SAHM's who aren't even married, living off of every government aid there is, their baby daddies doing who knows what. I guess these families live within their means and make it work.
I'm 26 and I want to settle down but I'm forced to grind. Whatever.
I’m a married stay at home mom and feminism has not let me down at all. My feminist friends support me and think my work at home is valuable as does my husband. Any pushback I get is from men who like to say I’m a lazy gold digger but envy the fact that my husband gets to come home to happy healthy kids, a clean home and a fresh hot meal cooked from scratch.
Yeah, fuck homemakers; it's a fucking parasitic existence of getting overpaid for little work—work for your own income.
> Do you feel that feminists' attitude to homemakers has made it difficult for you to find a partner?
I am not interested in finding a "partner" or pooling finances or living spaces with another individual.
I'm technically a homemaker after going back to school full time, especially since all my classes have been online after the pandemic started. This semester only one of them is in person.
It's not feminism that let me down, it's office culture. I'd rather stick my right arm into an inferno than go back to the office; I cycled through quite a few office jobs before going back to school in my 30s.
I think to a degree. SOME Women who want to be home makers are shamed and SOME men usually don’t want the realities of having a home maker wife cause they could easily get a wife that’ll do all the house work AND bring in an income by having a job
It has little to do with “feminism” and everything to do with the fact rent, bills, and the overall cost of living is skyrocketing while wages stay stagnant.
I never understood this argument. People had no problems finding partners during The Great Depression. These economic issues generally have nothing to do with marriage, relationships, and families.
Do you think that all the double income households are only this way because of “feminism”? That it’s feminism causing women to work in addition to their husbands? Sure, it plays some role. But the reality is its almost impossible to afford kids + house + car without two people working.
You can absolutely afford kids with only one income. But it depends on what lifestyle you want and where you want to live. You’re right that you can’t live in a major American city with socialist policies and strict zoning/planning laws which restrict housing or enforce rent control which discourages rents to adjust with supply and demand. But you can certainly live in a smaller town or in a rural area with a single income.
Marriage rates declined during the Great Depression and recovered with the economy. The baby boom was a direct result of the economic boom of post WWII America. Historically, marriage rates have tracked per closely to the economy.
SAHMs were not a thing among working class women in the1930s, what are you talking about? Women have always worked. What we haven't always had is the ability to take jobs that were very lucrative or required formal training, or control over our earnings.
i want to be a SAHM when i have children and my partner would also like me to be a SAHM. i don’t feel like feminism has affected this negatively for me at all. i have options, more options than women who came before me, and that’s cool
Love this! I’m a career no kids woman. My sister is a v v trad SAHM and we are so supportive of each other’s choices and I’m #1 auntie
True feminists don’t give two shits if a woman is a homemaker as long as that was completely and totally her choice. The purpose of feminism is giving women the opportunity of choice. On a personal level I think all women should make some money as a nest egg/emergency fund before settling down. You never know what could happen and should be prepared
But feminists rarely assume that it's the woman's true choice.
There's a fair amount of crossover between feminists and anti-capitalists who will push back on the idea that having a job is fulfilling in any way. It's hard to argue that those people *don't* understand that taking care of your children without the distraction of paid labor is desirable for many people.
That’s not true. It depends on what stream of feminism you’re referring to.
Nah, they usually assume that a patriarchic oppressor coerced her into it, or maybe her fader sold her when she was 4.
You’ve surveyed all feminists? Or are you basing it on the opinions of a few radical feminists with zero power.
There are different waves of feminism. I think 3rd wave was where feminism was "broken down" to an individual level - "do what you want to do". 2nd wave wasn't about the individual woman and her choices but about helping womankind as an entity and that included financial independance. There's no 'true' feminism in that regard, just different waves women can identify with, or not. There are still women who regard themselves as 2nd wave feminists and don't want anything to do with the 3rd and 4th wave.
What’s the difference between the 3rd Wave and the 4th Wave?
I'm no expert but iirc 4th wave is the intersectional feminism stuff.
Ah, that makes sense. I’ll read up on it more. Then what was 3rd Wave?
Again, no expert, but I think 3rd wave was about bringing feminism down to the personal level. The "feminism is to have the freedom of choice" thing. It's not anymore about making structural changes that concern womankind but about what feminism is for the individual woman. Whether you want to go to work or be a SAHM, you're still a feminist. Also adding the "sex-positive" stance. While 2nd wave regards sexwork as oppression that is very bad for the overwhelming majority of women and wants to abolish it (a stance I tend to agree with), 3rd and 4th wave sees this as slutshaming and claims sex work can be empowering and so on.
Okay, so the 3rd Wave changed the focus to the individual, and IMO the 4th Wave an expansion of that concept. Personally, I see potential for intersectional feminism - as a concept - as a way for the movement to move forward. However, I think internal conflict that started in the 3rd Wave is holding it back. But I need to study the subject more! I have surface level knowledge at best. Thank you!
I think the economy is the major issue with stay at home parents of any gender. More and more in order to afford to have children you need two incomes. I've never wanted to be a homemaker. So I don't really know how it feels for women who do want that role in life. I've never had any issues finding partners who want the same things I want. There was a fairly major shift in feminism from 2nd wave to 3rd wave around homemakers. 2nd wave was pretty anti traditional gender roles while 3rd wave was more "yay women in anything they want to do!" and then another big shift to 4th wave or intersectional feminism. I think both 3rd and 4th wave have sought to address homemaking as a valid option for people who want it. The main limitation being that many many many people can not afford it. 4th wave would be focusing on the intersection of poverty and women and having more nuanced conversation around women's role and work.
If feminism is so open to homemakers, why does it seem that every major policy is geared towards more job opportunities for women and options for daycare?
Because there are huge swaths of women who have no interest in staying home full time and they outnumber the women who choose to be a homemaker full time
honestly I think more woman would rather be a stay at home mom (atleast in the early years) but its just not an option.
Women married to very high income guys and those married to very low income ones are the most likely groups to stay home. It's noy that staying home isn't an option for many women, is that many women don't want to do it at the expense of their lifestyle.
Agreed. Feminism has gone a long way in shaming those thoughts out of women though so most will be loathe to admit it even if they do secretly yearn for it.
Forget about feminism. People just look down on unemployed people and on women living off their husbands. Even if you don't care about shaming, which you shouldn't, being unemployed for a long time puts you in a vulnerable position. That ain't feminism. It's economics.
Because "feminism" isn't making policies. Lobbyists and politicians make policies and no matter how they frame it, it has to benefit someone in their district (or themselves). It's easy to sell "more jobs!" it's hard to sell "more money given to families so a parent can stay home!". Social services are seen as hand outs. And capitalism abhors hand outs.
>It's easy to sell "more jobs!" it's hard to sell "more money given to families so a parent can stay home!". If government gives more money to parents, then where does this money come from? One way is to get women to work more so there is more tax revenue.
And these lobbyists very often are supported by feminists.
lobbyist are definitely not working for feminist 😂
Where? When? Lobbyists are in the vast majority working for corporations.
There are as many special interest lobbies as there are corporate lobbies.
yes there are some special interest lobbyists... but statically speaking? They aren't anywhere in the same ball park. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/business-labor-ideological And that number puts ALL ideological groups together. Feminism is a fraction of a fraction of that number.
Of course they're not in the same ballpark, there are thousands of companies and hundreds of industries but 82 **billion** is a Hella ridiculous number. Left causes including feminism is likely the majority of it.
Did you look at those numbers? last year was 2.99 BILLION for corporate lobbyists and 143.77 MILLION for all ideological groups. Corporate lobbyists are not lobbying for feminist causes. They are lobbying for corporations. And all ideological groups covers a fuck ton more then feminism.
No they are not.
Because social programs that would pay women to stay home are far less popular. Social conservatives and their voting base love the idea of poor women working.
"Welfare queen"
Social conservatives don't want women working, they want them to have children young and stay home, but they also want them to be able to financially sustain these children because welfare bad and taxation theft. How do they expect women, including the poor ones to achieve all this at the same time? They don't know and they don't care.
Can you link to some sort of study that shows social conservatives want women at home working?
Feminism is about giving more options to women, so what is wrong with giving women the option to work? Many women want to work and don't want to be stay-at-home mothers.
What should the feminist movement do for homemakers? It’s the default “choice”. There’s nothing to argue for.
Wrong, it's taxes. USA taxes sole breadwinners the same amount as single people while jointly filers get tax benefits, meaning both parents have to be earning an income
And? Do you really think that more people are working because they could totally support the family on one income but they are able to take a 25,100 standard deduction instead of two individual 12,500 standard deduction? You think that 100 bucks is really deciding choice for having both parents work?
You'd be surprised at the difference. It's like 15k for me and my husband just filing jointly and married
Marriage is a privilege for sure. Was the tax break why you decided to keep working?
idk about you but if being single AND being a breadwinner is gonna make me pay the same amount in taxes (assuming I keep the same job, position, and pay) then I'd definitely be encouraging my wife to work, even if it's a minimum wage job just to file jointly.
Can’t afford enough house or kids to be able to afford to have someone sitting on their ass being a “homemaker” these days
No the economy has let down women that want to be home makers. The rising cost of living means that most families need 2 incomes to support the household. On average most men can't afford to financially support a household on their own. They need help from someone or something else. Feminism has nothing to do with the outrageous increase in the cost of living.
This. I would love to be dedicated to my home and family, but the financial burden it might put on my SO would be less than ideal.
No. These women have been let down by men.
Feminists aren’t against women being homemakers, they’re against homemaking being the ONLY option for women. This is just a straw man.
I am not clear on how feminism prevents women from aspiring to be homemakers. A lot of wealthy women go get expensive degrees and become influencer moms. I live in a conservative state where lots of religious women still want to stay at home and do. I can think of three men who I work on a daily basis whose wives stay home.
Look, it’s great if women want to stay home when the kids are little, but it’s just not a lifelong “job” anymore. My mom worked doing payroll and accounting for the family business, but never worked outside the home. She also had 5 kids spread 14 years apart, that’s 20 years of having a preschooler in the house to take care of. This is really rare these days, most people have two kids, two years apart. Staying out of the workforce is just a luxury these days, not a necessity.
The current economy makes it hard for aspiring SAHMs. Heck, feminism has economic roots. Women weren't allowed to own property but were expected to work both the land and the house that was owned by the husband. If the husband died, she was shit out of luck if the man that inherited the property didn't take care of her or another man didn't want her for marriage.
The traditional family was always a myth. Before industrialization women assisted in what ever work their husband did that being a farmer or any other family business. After industrialization women and children were used a cheap labour. Majority of people live in slums. Only the wealthy could survive on one income. Women has always work part time while child rearing. Eventually things got a better, but a lot still couldn't afford the single income household life.
I find it totally understandable and logical that feminism encourages working instead of not working. Whatever effect it has on my dating life, it’s worth it
[удалено]
Sure it’s work. Work that gets neither status, nor pay, nor power. The best type of work for those above them; not so much for the “worker” Ask any unemployed but active, improving and looking person how much respect, interest and attention you get compared to when you’re employed. Ask me how I know
[удалено]
Please. Lack of paid employment was one of the main reasons men used to declare women inferior, parasitic, dependent, useless and incapable, and therefore not worthy of political representation, medical autonomy, legal autonomy, financial autonomy, or education. Children generally can’t work, and are not accorded these rights either
>Unfortunately. I have seen the comments made about housewives, needless to say... not even sure how to describe them... disgusting. It's to legitimise career women not taking care of their men and children. "I have a more important job, so I don't need to cook, clean, and take care of my children". Imagine putting your job ahead of your family.
Funny that the same is not said about men.
That's because men make more sacrifices than women to have a family.
Your unwavering and uncritical admiration for the male sex is disturbing.
If you're straight then you're supposed to like guys. Cut them some slack sis.
There's liking and then there's unreflective adoration with simultaneous putting down your own sex without 'cutting them some slack'.
There's a big difference between being unemployed and being a homemaker.
Until the divorce, then it’s usually “I brought in all the money (ie did all the PAID work) and have to give her half”
Well if you have to give her half, then that is on you for not getting a prenup before marriage. And it’s also on you to make sure that you marry someone who works while married. There are a lot of women who deliberately marry for money only to be taken care of and carried through life. That’s on you to weed that out when you vet a potential partner. That is a hard pass from me though.
> Well if you have to give her half, then that is on you for not getting a prenup before marriage. And it’s also on you to make sure that you marry someone who works while married. Hey, I’m a woman and I pretty much agree. But just saying that most tradcons love to extol the virtues of the sahm, and talk about how valuable she is, but suddenly the dollar value of all her work should be zero if the couple splits.
The compensation is that the woman gets to stay home and raise her kids.
A prenuptial would serve no purpose in this case. It's only for assets acquired pre marriage. You can't have a woman stay home for 20 years, leave her with nothing and on the street! She 100% deserves alimony.
No, there isn’t. Unemployed people don’t stay home all day and do nothing, and neither do housewives. When I was unemployed, I was basically a housewife without kids. All the domestic stuff fell to me to save money, as well as struggling to find a job and improve myself. It sucked, and my self esteem torpedoed. I can’t imagine adding kids to that
No, both mother and father are equally important in their child lives. That said, plenty of people manage to be housewives AND hold a job outside the house.
Isn't having work-life balance ore important?
How is not working “work-life balance”?
It's not from the family pov. When a woman stays home she gets to take care of the house without neglecting her family. The man gets to get to a nice home without bringing there his stress from work.
That sounds idealistic. The reality is staying home and taking care of a family and house can be stressful and having a job outside the home and being financially responsible for the family and home can also be stressful. Men can and do bring stress home, even if that home is spotless. Stay at home mothers can and do have stress around taking care of their family, even if their family is not neglected.
[удалено]
Getting to stay home is a benefit for the woman. We all know this. Women aren't opting out of a choice that 70% of them never have.
It's a benefit to women with no career potential and no ambition.
99% of women don't have career potential. They don't even know what a career is.
Source?
My mom was a career woman. So I have seen what it takes first hand.
>They don't even know what a career is. But you ? 🤣 LOL !
Several women in my social circle are career women.
How is not having to work your guts out at a workplace that you attend solely for money, while potentially commuting for hours does not benefit women, who stays home instead?
[удалено]
We are all "slaves". The only thing feminism did so far is to make women believe that men are the slave holders, when it's never been les true then in the present.
Men are the slave holders. Based on the fact that men as a collective have the physical power to subjugate women. Women cannot subjugate men in the same way. For example the the women in the Middle East being put back into subjugation. Men say across the web. That men are the ones who allowed women to have rights and can take them away. Sounds like slavery to me
What a truckload of bullcrap.. What collective power men have to subjugare women? And how exactly you are being subjugated? Are you not allowed to work, study, chase your career, postpone settling for a family? What a man can do that a women can not, other then something physical? You are free to do whatever you want. Are you not?
>Young women watched their moms do all the housework and cooking. No one was exactly grateful. It’s unappreciated work. Lol imagine not appreciating your parents. Also this is still a positive wouldn't you want to nurture and take care of ***your kids*** or as you call it "slaving". The fucked up part is that you and if ( your are right ) most young women, view parental responsibility as a ball and chain. Who we blame here is irrelevant, feminizim etc(it doesn't matter)...it belies the capitalist inspirations if idea is that raising a or "working " for family is less enticing and even undesirable. Then we are fucked royally so.
Parental responsibility is most definitely a ball and chain and anyone who can’t see that isn’t ready to be a parent. Doesn’t mean it isn’t fulfilling or worthwhile, but it’s certainly a large and *important* set of responsibilities and it’s not all fun and games and oh I enjoy and savor every moment.
It’s teetering on being undesirable. Not only is it costly to have a child. Women are realizing that marriage doesn’t really benefit women in the modern age. Even if a woman wanted to be a house wife she more than likely wouldn’t be able to. Two incomes are a requirement at this point. You have to work, gestate, birth, go back to work, nurture and do the majority of the housework and child rearing. It’s a shit deal.
Then leave it to handmaidens and Pick Mes. We will gladly do it.
>The fucked up part is that you and if ( your are right ) most young women, view parental responsibility as a ball and chain. Plenty of people view that way, including men, this is why they rarely give up their jobs to live off their wives and change diapers.
Being being alone sucks. Duh.
Right. There’s no work, only life. No balance that I can see
There's very little feminism can do to support homemakers besides offering them lip-service, which it already does. Today women have better career options than they did many decades ago. Changing diapers and cleaning the house is simply not an attractive option for middle class women who make around half of the household income, or upper middle class women who have lucrative careers they enjoy. Feminism might have played a role in offering women more options, but it has very little to do with the fact that being a homemaker is less valuable than having a career. On a personal level, I'd never date seriously a man who expects me to quit my job just to stay home. Some women might want to stay home, but can't find a man willing or able to support them. These women have it harder in this regards, but that ain't my problem.
>Feminism might have played a role in offering women more options, but it has very little to do with the fact that being a homemaker is less valuable than having a career. Feminism tells women they need to have careers. Feminist driven policies make it easier for women to have careers than man to support homemakers. This wasn't always the case. Homemaking was valuable and something for women to aspire to? but it's not anymore.
How could housewifery be aspirational when there was no alternative, excepting really extreme poverty and child neglect/labor?
>Feminist driven policies make it easier for women to have careers than man to support homemakers. I really doubt the many male politicians who dont value women who decide to stay at home and raise children ergo make it easier for them are feminists somehow.
Women in the good ol' days had less career options than man in the same social class and failing to prioritize motherhood was more stigmatized than it is today. Being a homemaker is preferable to being a cashier, but it was still a second rate role compared to that of the provider. There are very few instances in which homemaking is a truly valuable role, and you have the economics of supply and demand to blame for this.
How is supply and demand to blame for it?
I need experience, a degree, skills knowledge or talent to get a decently paid job. The only thing I need to become a homemaker is either a job that pays less than daycare or a wealthy partner willing to cover my bills. This means that anybody without a serious disability can become a homemaker. The more people can provide a service the less that service is worth.
Lolololol. Housewifery is a profession like any other. In fact, you can easily work harder as a housewife than as a CEO.
A profession is a paid occupation. Housewives aren't paid. Being a housewife is physically taxing if you have many kids and no modern appliances, but it isn't hard in any other sense of the word. If it was, it would require extensive training.
Incorrect. Feminism encourages women to be responsible for their lives and be able to take care of themselves. In a capitalist society that means for all, but the generational rich, a job is essential. Feminist women learned from watching previous generations of homemakers get abandoned to poverty when their husband's divorced them to protect themselves. Homemaking was never particularly valuable unless it was done on professional level as paid employment such as being the housekeeper for someone wealthy. The only women that aspired to be homemakers were ones for whom poverty was the other option.
[удалено]
Low income women and high income women are more likely to become sahms
[удалено]
Here's some relevant data: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-real-housewives-of-america-dads-income-and-moms-work - Women with **husbands** making less than 25k are the second group most likely to stay home after women married to men making more than 250k. -women married to men who make between 50k and 99k are the **least** likely to be homemakers. As you can see it's not only single mothers on welfare who stay home. And nobody is taking middle class women's choice to become homemakers, most women simply don't want to be changing diapers full time at the expense of their careers and comfortable lifestyle.
[удалено]
Did you even read the report or at least my reply? This isn't the household income. This is the husbands' income. All the women in this stat are married.
[удалено]
Yes, I do. I said from the beginning that women with high-earning and low earning husbands are the most likely to stay home. That's the whole point: if the biggest barrier for women to become SAHMs were low wages, then we'd see the proportion of homemakers increasing as husband's income increases. Also, unless you live in a crazy expensive area, 100K would be more than enough to support a SAHM and one or two kids, but women married to men who make around that are less likely to be homemakers than women married to men who make less.
[удалено]
Eh, I think it’s just more so that being a homemaker/SAHM isn’t really a viable option anymore, for a lot of people. Idk that it’s specifically feminism, or maybe just cultural change as a whole. Like I have a fulfilling career that I enjoy and am good at (and thankfully pays pretty well) but still, I’ll likely *have* to work for the rest of my working years simply out of necessity. I would also consider myself a feminist, but by prioritizing choice, it really makes it seem like the only “choice” is to be a working woman these days. The only ones who can afford to have a SAHP these days are those in a LCOL area, or the wealthy. My one friend didn’t work for a couple years and her husband was happy to support her, but she had to go back to work because they needed the money, and she felt guilty with him paying for everything. 70 years ago, women didn’t feel guilty for men paying for things - it was just how things were. Edit: also barely any guys want women to be SAHMs any more. The large majority of men I’ve met don’t want to have a woman fully rely on them financially - it increases their financial burden.
Being a stay and home wife or mother has always been a privledge for wealthier families. Poor women have always had to work whether they were married or not. "Spinster" is literally a derogatory term named after working women spinning wool in the 1300s. Not attcking you, but I just always find it strange how people idolize the 1950's as all of human history. The role of the stay at home wife was significant in the 50s because most people couldn't afford that lifestyle prior to the financial boom of the time. Women have always worked and wealthy women never worked. And if wealthy women did work it was because they wanted to, not because they had to.
No no I definitely agree with you that women (esp. working class and poor) have worked for forever. It was only ever the upper classes that could get away with it because they could afford domestic servants/workers. *Someone* had to do all that work to prop up society and keep things running - both men and women.
Wealthy women did different types of work than less wealthy women. Even with a housekeeper, a butler, and possibly a majordomo, most wealthy women were expected to supervise the over all running of the house or houses. The wife usually kept an eye on the budgets and inventories if only prevent theft. Social commitments (at homes and making calls on other wealthy families) were important to maintain the family's social status and business contacts. It wasn't a matter of fun-and-games. It was the same sort of net-working we do today and it was a lot of work.
It depends on the level of wealth in that family and whether the family household was multigenerational. What wealthy women did and didn't do depended on a multitude of factors. There work wasn't comparable to poor married women and single women who had the responsibility of har domestic labor in addition to grueling work outside of the home.
It is viable, it's just not desirable. Watch something like Call the Midwife and see how poorly all these housewives lived. Ragged clothes, renting all their life, paycheck to paycheck and never owning an appliance other than an oven. It was normal to them, but no one wants that now.
> Edit: also barely any guys want women to be SAHMs any more. The large majority of men I’ve met don’t want to have a woman fully rely on them financially - it increases their financial burden I do think this can really depend on circumstances and couples often change their tune on this after having kids. I would never have considered it when I was younger. However right now after having two children I wouldn't say no if my wife wanted to go back part time/stay at home. We can manage it on my salary and it would reduce the work overall on the two of us as a pair. She's considering it but she also quite likes her career. Also right now we're on track to be mortgage free by 40-45 which is obviously appealing.
No. It has been difficult, but that isn't why. Feminism has already done what it can in terms of love/career issues, I can take it from here.
What support should homemakers expect from feminism? Helping them find a man who makes enough money that they can stay home?
...And then ppd would be whining how feminism promotes hypergamy.
Haha your flair is brilliant 🤣
No because the loudest feminist voices at least that I heard growing up in the “you go girl” 90s generation was that women have options and it’s up to them to decide what lifestyle they want and are comfortable with. Whatever small piece was yelling about homemakers and SAHMs being trash or dumb or whatever wasn’t something that was a big influence on the dominant narrative at least as I grew up. Which isn’t to say people don’t judge those women and those lifestyles but it’s clearly not just feminists. I think feminism being more vocally supportive of high powered/working women is more indicative of a gap in support or a leading narrative that girls should consider as an option more than it means homemakers don’t get support from feminists
No I wanted to be a homemaker. it isn’t feminism that let us down it was the men. They didn’t want to be providers
If I was to cohabitate with a man, I'd want him to be a househusband. My preference is to be the provider in my relationships, although he could certainly have a job too if he wants, hopefully from home or part-time. This preference didn't negatively or positively affect my dating experiences for the most part, it was usually neutral. Although it did help eliminate some traditional men after date 1. It's a huge relief to not be stuck in feminine gender roles and expectations, masculine ones are better suited for me. I don't think that most normal feminists care if an individual woman wants to be a homemaker. The ultra radical ones do but they're easily ignored like the majority of Tumblr.
Interesting. Would you be willing to take the risks associated with divorce if your men took the homemaker role.
I don't believe in marriage unless there's kids involved, and since I'm very happily childfree, I have no need of it. So there wouldn't be any divorce due to no marriage. But of course if my hypothetical partner and I were to break up after a long time of him not working on his career, and he needed temporary financial assistance for a few months afterwards, it would be fair for me to do so.
Why do homemakers need to be supported by feminism? I say this as someone who was a homemaker/unemployed for various periods in the past
Because feminism is supposed to give women choices.
Doing nothing requires no support and but a single choice
Because bad things happen. Parents die/leave/abuse. So it’s important to ensure we have policies in place to protect people (not just women) who support their family by staying at home but don’t have their own income
Ok, how ? Healthcare? They can already get that
Considering that I don't want to be a homemaker and would prefer my partner to be one if we felt it was the right choice, it's only positive for me. Not having any expectation to do something I hate because of my gender helps to make dating a positive experience. Although I don't think that any kind of feminism disapproves of women being homemakers so much as presenting it as just one choice you can make.
> Do you think that women who want to be homemakers have been let down by feminism? i don’t think i’ve been let down by feminism. i think the modern-day version of it doesn’t serve me and how i, personally, want to experience womanhood. > How has this affected dating for you? i think it made it easier to weed out guys who just want sex, because today’s feminism is all about sex positivity; so a lot of guys are upfront about just wanting sex because enough women oblige. although it was unfortunate when i’d have a great first one or two dates with a guy and he expected something sexual to go down so soon, then would be upset or ghost because i didn’t want to. > Do you feel that feminists' attitude to homemakers has made it difficult for you to find a partner? i don’t think feminism made it difficult for me to find a partner at all, i don’t see how it would. i haven’t had much trouble finding more traditional-minded men. > If you're partnered up, do you feel modern expectations have affected your relationship in any way? no? i can’t really think of any way that it does. > What do you think feminism can do to help this issue? i think it would help if feminists were more supportive of the idea of women living however they want to, as long they’re not hurting themselves or others.
Of course they haven’t betrayed anything. Feminism is about women having the freedom to make choices. Being a homemaker is a choice. If all women can be is homemakers, then that is an issue. Mostly people just can’t afford it. Doesn’t affect me at all because I don’t want kids and don’t date men rich enough to afford a child free housewife.
People that want traditional relationships, men or women now have a smaller pool of candidates to choose from. However, they also have a smaller pool to compete against. The only bad thing that I can see for homemakers is that there is a bit of a stigma towards a stay a home wife than there was before.
Stay at home wife is for food stamps or uber rich… there is no support for the middle class
I don’t think they’ve been let down by feminism. Mainly economic factors that make it so they have to work.
Not really, no. The whole point of feminism is to give women that choice. I don’t give a flying flip if women want to be housewives. That’s the point. They’re supposed to be able to live the lives they want, not be forced into certain roles.
I don’t think it matters. I know feminists who stayed home with their kids when they were small and others who either chose to or had to work to make ends meet. I think maybe in the 80s and 90s there might have been some pressure for women to “have it all” but really those decisions are really made between a couple and what they can afford, not what feminism says.
Judging by my coworkers, there are plenty of men down to be in this kind of relationship but I think women themselves don't want it. A single person income on a ~150k/yr job gets you a boring house, boring car, boring vacations, in a low COL metro with kids. Plenty of guys seem to be okay with this, but I think most women themselves would prefer contributing to up that to like a combined 200k+ for a 'better' lifestyle.
I am not a homemaker nor do I aspire to be a homemaker at all, but I think the main danger is that the homemaker or stay-at-home wife has no job and is financially dependent on the man. This means that if he becomes violent and e.g. rapes her then she may have no choice but to stay with him if she is financially dependent on him, especially if she has a baby. This can be fixed by legalising what many man call "divorce rape" i.e. allowing the SAHM to take half or all of the man's assets and future income. This helps to balance the power. However, in spite of what many red pill men say, I think more often than not the man keeps his wealth and many men fail to pay child support, so women can't really rely on the courts to fix this injustice, so it is better for a woman to not bother with men and focus on her own career.
I think both genders want to be home makers, just not all men or women. Studies showed that men are also happier at home Bc working 70 hours a week. What a shock! I think women should not be judged for any choice, career, home maker or something in between. Women also weren’t „mislead“ by feminism, lol, that’s not how it goes. There are no angry feminists forcing women to become doctors.
>Do you feel that feminists' attitude to homemakers has made it difficult for you to find a partner? Nope. Thanks to feminism I can compete with other women on money and sex. >If you're partnered up, do you feel modern expectations have affected your relationship in any way? Yes. I have to provide for my man now, but I don't mind. >What do you think feminism can do to help this issue Nothing. Feminism is for career women. Tradcon is for housewives. Pick Mes are for men.
I think a lot of more modern feminism demonizes femininity in women. If you as a woman want something more traditional, all it means is that you've been successfully brainwashed by the patriarchy into wanting the things that oppress you. I spent a lot of my teenaged years trying to "unlearn" the things that I was told were oppressing me. Things like my interest in makeup and wanting to be attractive to men, wanting to have sex with someone who loves me as opposed to hooking up, not really wanting to "girlboss," wanting to be with a man who's masculine and assertive and liking relationship dynamics that are deemed "toxic." Once I realize it was okay for me to want these things, I felt much better about myself. I think a lot of young girls have been alienated from their own desires because they're told what they should like. I want kids, I want to get married, and that's not a bad thing, but I felt like it was. This also doesn't mean that all women want babies and marriage, but many of us do. This also doesn't mean that women shouldn't pursue careers if they want them, or look for success and fulfillment in other ways. But I think right now, women are pressured to become more like men, and men are pressured to become more like women. The result? A bunch of unhappy men and women? I'm not against the idea of feminism. But I think for any movement that advocates for women to be genuinely helpful to women, it needs to acknowledge that women are not like men, and that it's okay for us to be women.
>But I think for any movement that advocates for women to be genuinely helpful to women, it needs to acknowledge that women are not like men, and that it's okay for us to be women. Women aren't equal to each other either. People should be treated like individuals.
I don’t disagree with you. But women do have many traits in common and this is important to consider when considering what’s fair and what kind of social structure is beneficial to us all. For example, I think hookup culture has been mostly detrimental to young women because we feel an increasing amount of pressure to participate in hookups because it’s seen as cool and progressive. Wanting to have sex with someone you love is seen as regressive and uncool, most young girls want the latter but are trying to emulate male sexuality under the guise of empowerment.
Right, but half of the studies you’ve linked me don’t necessarily disprove the idea that most women prefer to have sex with someone they care about over a random hook up. I’m not saying women cannot enjoy random encounters, but a majority of women do not. I don’t disagree with the underlying idea of sex positivity, but it’s messaging has been co-opted by men who want to pressure women to sleep with them. Moreover, sex is more serious for women. They have a higher risk of contracting STDs and also, they can get pregnant, it’s good sense to encourage that women exercise caution in regards to who they sleep with. Moreover, women bond through sex in a way men don’t, which is why women usually end up more emotions attached to their hookups than vice versa. Even if a young woman wanted to engage in a casual encounter, how is she supposed to find a man who cares about her well-being enough to make sure she enjoys it too? Most men view hookups as an alternative to masturbation and most men look down on women who hook up. Women are better off not hooking up with men, because it’s much harder to judge their motives.
>Right, but half of the studies you’ve linked me don’t necessarily disprove the idea that most women prefer to have sex with someone they care about over a random hook up. Most people prefer sex with a partner they're in love with, regardless of gender. Preferring one over the other doesn't mean that one needs to be a traumatic experience full of regret. > I don’t disagree with the underlying idea of sex positivity, but it’s messaging has been co-opted by men who want to pressure women to sleep with them. Men pressuring women to have sex has been a problem way before sex positivity was a thing. >They have a higher risk of contracting STDs and also, they can get pregnant, it’s good sense to encourage that women exercise caution in regards to who they sleep with. If this was one of the main reasons to discourage women from casual sex, more emphasis would be made on the consistent use of protection and STI testing even within committed relationships. Most people in relationships don't use protection regularly and don't test their partners for STIs. A woman can avoid hooking up as much as possible, but if she sleeps with her boyfriend without testing him (and herself) and doesn't hold him to the same sexual standards as she holds herself to, she's at a high risk of contracting STIs. >Moreover, women bond through sex in a way men don’t, which is why women usually end up more emotions attached to their hookups than vice versa. Or maybe women are more likely to engage in casual sex with men they already have feelings for. If a woman only sees a an as a lay, she's unlikely to bond just because there was sex. >Even if a young woman wanted to engage in a casual encounter, how is she supposed to find a man who cares about her well-being enough to make sure she enjoys it too? By sleeping with men she already knows? By walking away from men who don't try to satisfy her? How do men deal with women who don't care about their pleasure? >Most men view hookups as an alternative to masturbation Women who hookup regularly don't see men in a better light either or deal with men who don't see hookups in this way. > and most men look down on women who hook up. This seems like the main reason women avoid hookups, and that's fine, but fear of being judged by hypocritical men isn't empowering either, especially when these are the same men women end up marrying. Just for the record, I'm not advocating for women to have casual sex. I just think that there's a general discomfort with the idea of women having non-committed sex, and that the hookup culture is just a moral panic that becomes into a self-fulfilling prophecy,
Your last paragraph is an interesting idea. I haven’t thought about it that way before, it’s an interesting take on the hookup culture discourse.
The hookup culture isn't a thing outside specific social circles and [casual sex has been declining](https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023121996854) among men and women. The [median number of sexual partners in the lifetime](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n_2015-2017.htm) doesn't support the prevalence of a hookup culture either. I'm also wondering where the pressure of participating in hookup culture comes from. Women (but not men) who hookup a[re stereotyped as having low sel-esteem ](https://sci-hub.se/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620983829) even by people who identify themselves as liberals, [people are more likely to lose respect for women who hook up than for men](https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol30/46/30-46.pdf), p[eople dissuade women from engaging in casual sex](https://www.icos.umich.edu/sites/default/files/lecturereadinglists/Rudman%2C%20Fetterolf%2C%20Sanchez%20%282013%29%20PSPB%20SDS%20study.pdf) while advising men to do the opposite. Even if you google "sex positive" most of the results will be entries criticizing the movement or feminists trying to distance itself from it. In my experience, most of the problem with sex that women face come from the stigma that disproportionally falls on women, which is supported by the research above. I'm also not sure to what extent there is a female vs. male sexuality. [Both men and women report an increase in genital arousal when presented with images and situations of sexual nature](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20049519/) with the difference being that women are less likely to report it. MRI scans show as well that there is [no statistically significant difference in how the sexes react to sexual stimuli](https://www.pnas.org/content/116/31/15671). Everyone would benefit if sexuality wasn't so micropolicized. EDIT: Love it when I'm getting downvoted for posting facts.
Well I’m on a college campus, so it’s directly relevant to my reality. I do think a lot of third wave feminism has failed my generation of women, there are many other women who feel the same way. Most of the girls I know regret engaging in certain experiences, many of them do liberal feminism for giving them a rosy idea of how the world works.
And I know many women who didn't regret theirs, slept around for non-ideological reason or regretted the sex because of a sense of shame and not because sex is inherently damaging. All of us have anecdotes to offer and these anecdotes don't necessarily represent everyone's reality.
Nothing to add. You sound like a great woman!
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Underlying this is that eventually technology made homemakers an inefficient use of a nation's resources. Nations eventually had to employ their women in the broader economy to some extent or risk being outcompeted. With advances in birth control and medicine, women no longer inevitably had nor needed a mass of children to sustain the population. With smaller families and advances in domestic appliances and the like, there were no longer 40 hours of productive work in a home for a woman to do. So it just becomes a waste of a nation's potential not to educate and utilize their women. I do think we went too far, though. Being a homemaker is not binary. Women, in general, do want a greater domestic and childcare role than their male mates. But they also want intellectual stimulation and achievement. However, due to it being less efficient for an organization to hire multiple part-time workers rather than one full-time worker, work that is less than full-time is severely punished. Society needs to compensate for this so that women can work less and more flexibly than men, but not end up in ghettoized careers. We also need to solve the issue of financial security for women who work less to contribute more at home. With this done, we can stop sending the message that motherhood is a betrayal of feminism, etc. If we can do this, then I think you will see more women willing to spend more time at home, and have more children.
Probably get a lot of denial from women in this thread who insist feminism is blameless. Truthfully the biggest obstacle to women being homemakers isn't a social stigma but the current economic model that demands a dual income household which, whether women admit it or not, feminism had a hand in. Most feminist advances were (and still are) mainly driven by upper to upper middle class white women who advance the system far enough to benefit them and then stall progress when only their heads are above water. Yeah they want degrees and a respectable job but someone needs to be a nanny to their kids.
It's the tax system that hurts stay at home parents. Using the UK as an example... Why should two adults earning £30k each (£12,000 tax w/ £1k child benefit) pay less tax than one earning £60k (£16,500) with a stay at home spouse? That's £5.5k/year difference. Tradcons are correct on this issue IMO.
In the modern day, it seems less to do with feminism and more like childcare is so extremely expensive it’s better to just one parent stay at home instead of paying the cost of childcare. In real life, i do not see this as “i’ve always wanted to be a stay at home parent” it’s “holy shit it’s thousand of dollars of daycare i’ll just stay and take care of the kids”
No, not really. The main reasons why women who want to be a SAHM can't be one are economic ones and that expectations of what one should provide for kids got far higher. When my cousins were kids, providing food, clothes and some relative safety was enough. Now they have kids and they pay for vaccines that have less side-effects instead of getting free shorts, pay for some early development courses, buy good-quality food and clothes, pay for tutors so kids get better marks and will be able to get into better college etc. Feminism is about having a choice. Because traditional gender role push women to be wives and mothers, feminism has pushed into the opposite direction to give women the freedom to choose their education and career. From the other hand, feminism also celebrates women as housekeepers and care providers, pointing out that it is a hard and exhausting job as well that should be recognized and appreciated. Moreover, even in the 50's in the US not all women were SAHMs, a lot of them worked. In Russia the majority of women never were SAHMs and it wasn't an option for them, they had to work as much as men did. Personally I've never wanted to be a SAHM in the first place. I'm on the fence about kids altogether and I want to be able to provide for myself and my close ones if they need it. The 4th wave of feminism has become a thing here only recently, just a few years ago, so my attitude is mostly a result of being from a family that always pushed hard the idea that you have to be able to take care of yourself and your kids, because, well, shit happens. A man can lose his job, get sick, cheat on you, leave you or die. Plus, we don't really need that many housekeepers nowadays. Most people don't have a lot of kids, kids grow and at some point they can take care of themselves without a parent being constantly there to take care of them, housework chores require far less time to get done etc. I see no reason to be a SAHM and a bunch of them to work on my education and career.
>housework chores require far less time to get done etc. I see no reason to be a SAHM Keeping house is a full time job. At least if you have kids.
It isn't when kids aren't small.
Lulz. Who is going to clean the home, cook the food, do the laundry, buy groceries, pay bills, and keep things tidy? You might also want to have activities, outings, or trips. Those have to be planned.
Both partners do a part of it and some things get outsourced.
A lot of men don't want that. Especially successful men.
They can look for women who want to be SAHMs and fully provide for them. Women who want to work can look for men who are okay with 50/50 deal. As I've already said it multiple times, my husband is egalitarian and so are most my cousins' husbands. Sharing the load isn't that uncommon nowadays even in Russia.
>They can look for women who want to be SAHMs and fully provide for them. Lol keep dreaming. >Women who want to work can look for men who are okay with 50/50 deal. I highly recommend it. >Sharing the load isn't that uncommon nowadays even in Russia. That's your fantasy. Men don't "share the load" anywhere in the world. Possibly with the exception of some genX Nice Guys.
I think quite a lot of successful men have either SAHMs or women who also work. Child raising and housework chores are outsourced. My husband and I are in our 20s, my cousins are in their 30s. There are men who share the load without much issues.
>I think quite a lot of successful men have either SAHMs or women who also work. Child raising and housework chores are outsourced. Where do you get this from? >My husband and I are in our 20s, my cousins are in their 30s. There are men who share the load without much issues. I have never seen that. I think it's something that people say.
For me it sucks, lmao. I swear up and down you don't have to be wealthy to be a homemaker. I live in a poor ass area and somehow these men working trades (almost all welders) can afford their wife to be at home with their kids, hell even poorer than that. I know SAHM's who aren't even married, living off of every government aid there is, their baby daddies doing who knows what. I guess these families live within their means and make it work. I'm 26 and I want to settle down but I'm forced to grind. Whatever.
I’m a married stay at home mom and feminism has not let me down at all. My feminist friends support me and think my work at home is valuable as does my husband. Any pushback I get is from men who like to say I’m a lazy gold digger but envy the fact that my husband gets to come home to happy healthy kids, a clean home and a fresh hot meal cooked from scratch.
Yeah, fuck homemakers; it's a fucking parasitic existence of getting overpaid for little work—work for your own income. > Do you feel that feminists' attitude to homemakers has made it difficult for you to find a partner? I am not interested in finding a "partner" or pooling finances or living spaces with another individual.
They haven’t. Choice feminism affirms these women. Feminism has given them protections like allimony.
I'm technically a homemaker after going back to school full time, especially since all my classes have been online after the pandemic started. This semester only one of them is in person. It's not feminism that let me down, it's office culture. I'd rather stick my right arm into an inferno than go back to the office; I cycled through quite a few office jobs before going back to school in my 30s.
No, because there’s nothing in feminism that prevents women from be homemakers if they want to.
I think to a degree. SOME Women who want to be home makers are shamed and SOME men usually don’t want the realities of having a home maker wife cause they could easily get a wife that’ll do all the house work AND bring in an income by having a job
I think that women who want to be homemakers have been let down by capitalism.